One of my favorite passages from the Meditations is Marcus' observation that Stoicism has value regardless of one's theology and metaphysics:
Either there is a fatal necessity and invincible order, or a kind Providence, or a confusion without a purpose and without a director. If then there is an invincible necessity, why do you resist? But if there is a Providence that allows itself to be propitiated, make yourself worthy of the help of the divinity. But if there is a confusion without a governor, be content that in such a tempest you have yourself a certain ruling intelligence. (XII.14)
I find Gregory Hay's translation much more readable, here's the same passage:
Fatal necessity, and inescapable order. Or benevolent Providence. Or confusion—random and undirected.
If it’s an inescapable necessity, why resist it?
If it’s Providence, and admits of being worshipped, then try to be worthy of God’s aid.
If it’s confusion and anarchy, then be grateful that on this raging sea you have a mind to guide you. And if the storm should carry you away, let it carry off flesh, breath and all the rest, but not the mind. Which can’t be swept away.
I love seeing multiple translations of this great man's words. My translation by, Martin Hammond:
"Either the compulsion of destiny and an order allowing no deviation, or a providence open to prayer, or a random welter without direction. Now if undeviating compulsion, why resist it? If providence admitting the placation of prayer, make yourself worthy of divine assistance. If an ungoverned welter, be glad that in such a maelstrom you have within yourself a directing mind of your own: if the flood carries you a way, let it take your flesh, your breath, all else - but it will not carry away your mind.
I particularly like Hammond's recurring use of the phrase "directing mind", which is, to me, is very important to Stoicism.
It's important to remember that Marcus Aurelius is the only Stoic who thinks this. For all other Stoics, ethics is grounded in metaphysics and theology, not independent of them.
Not only ecumenical, but more broadly applicable. The thing that strikes me about the three areas is that there are areas in life very much like each: there are some inevitabilities, there are some areas where proper appeal or preparation make for a more graceful outcome, and there's chaotic occurances/domains which you have to ride out or tame some portion of. Be ready for each, and if possible, know which is which.
For anyone who wants an alternate view (by Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism #9):
"Do you want to live "according to nature"? O you noble Stoics, what a verbal swindle! Imagine a being like nature - extravagant without limit, indifferent without limit, without purposes and consideration, without pity and justice, simultaneously fruitful, desolate, and unknown - imagine this indifference itself as a power - how could you live in accordance with this indifference?8 Living - isn't that precisely a will to be something different from what this nature is? Isn't living appraising, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And if your imperative "live according to nature" basically means what amounts to "live according to life"- why can you not just do that? Why make a principle out of what you yourselves are and must be? The truth of the matter is quite different: while you pretend to be in raptures as you read the canon of your law out of nature, you want something which is the reverse of this, you weird actors and self-deceivers! Your pride wants to prescribe to and incorporate into nature, this very nature, your morality, your ideal. You demand that nature be "in accordance with the stoa ," and you'd like to make all existence merely living in accordance with your own image of it - as a huge and eternal glorification and universalizing of stoicism! With all your love of truth, you have forced yourselves for such a long time and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to look at nature falsely, that is, stoically, until you're no long capable of seeing nature as anything else - and some abysmal arrogance finally inspires you with the lunatic hope that, because you know how to tyrannize over yourselves - Stoicism is self-tyranny - nature also allows herself to be tyrannized. Is the Stoic then not a part of nature?.... But this is an ancient eternal story: what happened then with the Stoics is still happening today, as soon as a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates a world in its own image. It cannot do anything different. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the spiritual will to power, to a "creation of the world," to the causa prima [first cause]."
At a quick glance, that passage seems to be almost deliberately obfuscating the difference between living while accounting for nature (the uncontrollable aspects) i.e. in accordance with, versus, living like nature.
No surprise there - the "living like nature" part was the whole schtick of Nietzsche's philosophy. More like an Epicurean with a healthy dose of Cynicism than a Stoic, if we have to make that kind of basic comparison. He would probably conflate Stoicism with the (nowadays prevalent and in many ways successful) "English" approach to values, which he considered a reversal of the "true" values that's driven by resentment, and a philosophical dead-end.
Though Nietzsche did also develop a highly refined statement of "living in accordance with unchangeable nature" through his idea of Amor fati. The fact that he acknowledged this principle so thoroughly despite opposing many other parts of Stoicism must surely be of some significance.
>Though Nietzsche did also develop a highly refined statement of "living in accordance with unchangeable nature" through his idea of Amor fati.
He looked down on any philosophical idea that uplifts your soul like stoicism, buddhism (deliberately making his work and ideas seem scary to them: happened to me when I first got into his ideas) etc
He discouraged philosophical frameworks because he believed that in the end they limit human life. A truly well lived life, according to Nietzsche, is one where the individual breaks free of indoctrination and dogma, and lives life as they want. In the truest sense. This is Nietzsche's goal for humanity, so he spends his time writing philosophy aimed at tearing down religion and systems of moral control. Nietzsche wants to free humanity...
I'm not sure that Nietzche got the Stoic philosophy quite right, but his words address a strain of thinking that absolutely does exist. One which considers the natural world an almost sacred good, a model or standard which humans fail to live up to, instead wallowing in our industrial creations.
One of the best meditations on this view of the world, which is neither unfair to it nor, ultimately, particularly kind, is Annie Dillard's "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek". It is non-fiction, but undoubtedly counts as literature, and won a Pulitzer prize in 1975. It meditates on precisely the fruitfulness, desolation, and transcendence in nature.
Stoicism was an intriguing topic for me in college, but I've since been more drawn towards the works of St.Thomas Aquinas. It's interesting how St. Paul encountered Stoics and Epicureans in Athens (Chapter 17:18+ of Acts). From there, you have Dionysius who followed him and was an author of some influential writings that shaped Christian thought (including Aquinas). It's also interesting exploring Heraclitus' understanding of "Logos", which is very important (and with differences in the Who and What) for both Christianity and Stoicism.
I personally find the Meditations (of which I’m not a fan) to seem almost like a Christian gospel with regard to its tone and teachings. It makes me think that either Aurelius was influenced by Christianity, or Christianity represented a belief system that was common in Rome at the time. From my readings of the origins of Christianity, I understand that Jesus was just one of many messianic type leaders with similar teachings that existed in the Roman Empire at that time. So, makes me believe it’s more toward the latter.
Christianity, especially in the first two centuries AD, was very heavily influenced by Stoic philosophy. (The Stoic influence declined somewhat after Augustine defeated the Pelagian heresy.)
(For reference: Stoicism predated Christianity by around 300 years, and was quite entrenched by the time the Gospels were written.)
And, both Christianity and Stoicism were influenced by Buddhism. (Buddhism was practiced in both the Greek and Roman worlds, and scholars note many similarities between the two.)
This is dubious, but definitely not ridiculous. Buddhism was certainly known in parts of the Greco-Roman world, but there are significant differences between Buddhism and Stoicism, and there's no evidence of any direct intellectual connection.
(Edit: one difference between the two is the Buddhist doctrine of "nonself", which contrasts with the Stoic view of the self as a part of universal Reason and a member of the kosmopolis.)
I am no expert; I only read a lot. But, my understanding is that early Christianity was a reaction away from Judaism. And, that the Old Testament was only added as part of the canon later. In contrast to Judaism, Christianity was must more similar to Buddhism with it’s hippy love message. But, yes, I’m sure that’s very controversial.
Early Christianity is the fulfillment of 1st Century Judaism with Jesus Christ being revealed as the Messiah and King. Modern day Judaism, that is Rabbinic Judaism (which followed some time after the destruction of the 2nd Temple) denies Jesus as that expected Messiah and has an expectation of someone else that is to come.
For Christians, The Old Testament and New Testament are very much coupled together. There's a lot of prophecies and typologies you can read about from the Old Testament that finds its fulfillment in Jesus and the New Testament (such as the suffering Messiah).
I'd suggest C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity" (who was good friends and influenced to convert by J.R.R. Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton) to get a clearer picture of Christianity without the sugar coating we commonly get from the media today. Lewis brings up the Trilemma, which is unique only to the founder of Christianity.
It’s also worth explicitly noting that Christianity-as-a-Jewish movement and Christianity-as-non-Judaism took a couple centuries to shake out. I would also guess that, and there is decent evidence for, christianity at the time would have looked much more similar to a communist movement (natural communism, think potlucks, not marxism) than the religion we know today—it appears you can thank Paul, in part, for that.
Also, if you’re looking to desugar Christianity with empathy, I recommend Kierkegaard’s excellent Fear and Trembling. Lewis’s trilemma falls uncomfortably close to Christianity-through-proof genre of literature—I realize that’s not his intent, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’ve always found his The Weight of Glory to be more compelling.
It's an example of the intermingling of two different schools of thought. In the wiki link there's no determination on the primacy of influence, but it does tell that Greek populations were taking on Buddhist ideas (indeed 'converting' to buddhism) before the birth of stoicism. In that light, the notion that these ideas traveled back to Greece doesn't seem that far-fetched.
My understanding is that despite the massive similarities of core stoic and Buddhist beliefs that there is no evidence of a causal link between the two.
I myself prefer transcendentalism.
I need to be surrounded by more positive emotions. I read this text, "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson - modern translation, at least at once a year: http://www.youmeworks.com/self_reliance_translated.html
I looked up transcendentalism, and found this definition: “an idealistic philosophical and social movement which developed in New England around 1836 in reaction to rationalism.”
I found this origin curious because Emerson’s ideas don’t seem to conflict with rationalism; in fact, a transcendental mindset seems like an entirely rational belief system to adopt if one wants to live well, and there are interpretations that are entirely in line with scientific observation.
Rationalism in philosphy means more than being rational: it is the belief that you can deduce true knowledge about the world by mere thinking ("apriori synthetic" knowledge).
Imagine you are Einstein, and you have derived relativity from a few axiom, if you are still interested in experimental verification of your theory then you are an empiricist. If you say: I know for sure I'm right no need for experiments at all - you are a rationalist.
Modern science is mostly empiricist, maybe hardcore austrian economists are rationalists (for them economy is derived from praxeology, experimental verification is not possible and not needed)
Aurelius is the most approachable, but I find Epictetus more rewarding. Check out A. A. Long on Epictetus to get more deeply into what Epictetus was all about. Stoicism is like a missing manual for how to live a fulfilled life regardless of your station.
I got nothing out of reading meditations after reading Aurelius' quotes. I feel like the whole back can be summarized "Focus on what you can control, don't stress over what you truly can't." Same with ALL of Buddhism.
I agree that the teachings from Stoicism and Buddhism seem simple but I have some difficulty consistently putting them into practice in my daily life. I read about one book a week and out the approximately 50 books a year I read, at least 3 or 4 of those are on Stoicism or Buddhism. (The remainder of my reading allowance is about equal parts of fiction and technology.)
While I am a devoted student of technology and I love learning new programming languages and application domains, I find that I enjoy those "aha" moments from Stoicism and especially from Buddhism. I consider myself very fortunate to have enough time to pursue both tech and philosophy.
I used to get a lot of "aha" moments from books - fiction, non-fiction, bigraphies, whatever. I almost never do anymore. I do feel like there is a point where books become passive entertainment with few exceptions. That's how I felt about Meditations by the time I read it - I knew every idea Aurelius presented. I don't read nearly as much as I used to.
Well, that is kind of the tl;dr of the philosophy, but there is a lot more to it. Stoicism has a lot more depth and was a competing life philosophy in Ancient Greece. I would recommend Longs dive into Epictetus. It is much more academic and should tickle deeper thinking about Stoicism than meditations.
> In your book, you also write about the importance of following your own values — and that Stoicism is a personal choice.
> therapists today are increasingly encouraging clients to identify their true inner values and do things that serve those more fully. The big problem here is that most people don’t know what those values are.
It's important to remember that the Stoics did not encourage us to follow our own individual, personal values, or to look for them as some sort of "inner truth." Rather, they thought that value was objective, and that we should give up our existing values in favor of the correct ones (the ones in accordance with nature).
> It’s something they identify with at a deeper kind of more spiritual level, almost like a substitute for religion.
Well, it effectively was a religion, based on a fairly developed system of theology.
What do horrendous about it? Adopting the stoic approach to tempering your impulses, accepting that which is beyond your control, and seeking happiness from within doesn’t sound horrendous to me at all. There’s plenty of wisdom in Stoicism for people to benefit from.
I love to read the historical stoics. But there is the good old traditional Stoicism and this new "self-help" stoicism trend that isn't the same at all.
It's not horrible, but it's not Stoicism either. The notion of eudaimonia (which is what you talk about) is found throughout the schools of thought of the Western classical world, and similar notions pop up all over the place in ancient philosophy, even in such places as India or China. Calling that "Stoicism" just leads to pointless misconceptions.
> The notion of eudaimonia (which is what you talk about)
That's not what's being talked about. Eudaimonia refers to the benefits of living virtuously, a core part of Stoicism, but not the part that's directly being discussed in this article. The ideas discussed in this article are about self-control, disconnecting your emotional well-being from things that are beyond your control, and seeking happiness from within. Those are quintessential Stoic principles. A lot of the modern pop-stoicism also delves into the benefits of virtue, maintaining the connection to eudaimonia and Socrates' question, albeit in a slightly round about way. The only Stoic principle that's usually left out of these discussions is pantheism.
> similar notions pop up all over the place in ancient philosophy
You're right, they do. That doesn't make them any less Stoic though. Perhaps if this was a Chinese message board, we'd all be talking about Buddhism instead. The two philosophies do have a lot in common.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but there is an unfortunate abundant of rhetoric that flows like this: "we should improve something somewhat" that gets derailed with "no, you should become stoic instead".
Stoicism only became popular in Greek philosophy after they lost to Alexander the Great.
It was not the glorious philosophy of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, that talked about what a society should do. Stoicism only talked about how to cope.
I may be reading your comment incorrectly but when you say “[they] only became popular”, “[they] only talked about [...]” that sounds a bit pejorative. Isn’t it as important to talk about how to cope with a situation than what an ideal society should do? To me they both seem to be things to talk about, one isn’t more important than the other. To be honest I’m not familiar enough to know if that’s something we got from stoicism but that seems to be a great addition to our thinking toolkit.
I think there’s a fundamental human drive to regret - evolutionarily, it makes sense that we’d be optimized to know exactly how we would do better in a bad situation we recently faced.
But in the modern world, this isn’t a matter or life or death, and it affects our mental health significantly. I always think of Stoicism as a sort of patch to override this bug - the you can’t change what you can’t change, whatever happens, happens.
I like this way of thinking about things. Another one I heard recently is that whatever you do you'll regret it. Get married, you'll regret it, don't get married, the same, etc. So regret is a constant, which is comforting in its way
I enjoy studying and considering stoicism but I have to think statements like
>one of the biggest groups of people interested in it seems to be millennials who work in the tech industry
and considering a simplified description of stoicism
>the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.
To be an indictment of our industry. We're not coal-miners. We're not picking out in the fields or roofing in the hot sun. Cafeterias and RSUs aren't hardships.
A rich person will by definition not be struggling financially but there are a lots of other problems a person can have. Maybe their wife divorced them, maybe their father just passed away, maybe their kid has a severe learning disability, maybe they are involved in a protracted court battle over the rights to a book they wrote.
Point is that there are so many problems people can have, and you wont notice unless you know the person well.
Seneca called out fear of losing one's wealth as a particular affliction of the rich, and prescribed a day, every so often, of living as a beggar to remind oneself that life goes on even in those circumstances.
It's just this generations spin on new-age spiritualism. Boomers were there decades ago. The difference: we're now mining Zeno instead of Jung.
Not necessarily a bad thing in some ways. There's lots of anxiety and neuroticism in our generation and we need tools besides benzodiazepines to address them.
I came to the Stoics before it was HN-cool via Salinger (b. 1919) so it's been in US (sort of) pop culture longer than that. Ditto Buddhism. He published in prime (earlyish) Boomer years.
The belief the physical pain is the only kind of pain worth caring about is very misguided and causes a lot of harm in the world. It's think kind of belief that causes mental health issues to become stigmatized so people avoid seeking treatment or discussing it. This leads to breakdowns or suicide.
Just because muscles are not aching and bones are not broken and skin is intact does not mean a person is not suffering or in anguish emotionally or mentally. And especially in higher education and high-pressure tech jobs, the constant drive to succeed can cause significant mental health strains.
I don't know if you were intending to belittle mental health as less important than physical health, but I'd like to point out that there are hardships in this world that don't involve callouses or sunburns.
Nobody is saying physical pain is the only pain worth considering. What people are saying is that if you asked 100 coal miners and 100 tech workers to swap jobs for one year, then asked them one year later whether they would like to switch back, there will be an overwhelming asymmetry towards staying a tech worker.
The problems a tech worker faces is minuscule relative to a coal miner. And the above thought experiment highlights that.
That is not odds with philosophy adoption at all. In fact, nature of these (imagined) miners problems can make it harder to adopt philosophy that would make it harder to seek solutions to very real problems they have. If you endure pain with no display, your pain is taken less seriously after all and at some point, you need that doctor to understand it is real. And at other point you already need to stop working or fight for better conditions. Very real miners were very real dying and passive acceptance of that was not what bought changes.
But in case of tech people, stoically waiting is to your benefit as tech is generally higher status job. Moreover tech workers often time primary use stoicism to put expectations on other people rather then themselves.
Generally, if you are male, no one is going to look on you with much sympathy if you express that you are in pain. Pity and contempt are the more likely outcomes. Stoicism is a tool that helps it to be a little easier to suck it up and drive on and do your job.
You do get a doctor to have a look at your hand or back. You can get pain relief medication. Stoicism is not philosophy for people at breaking point nor thos with real problems that needs to be solved actively. You as tech worker think about how others looks at you and consider social status. Poor miner needs fix for back that is hurting enough to prevent him to fully perform which puts him at risk to be even poorer.
My poit is that civil rights nor security regulations nor anything like that happened because people were stoic.
Moreover, places with those sucky-destroy-you miner jobs tend to, well, not be stoic. They have host of social problems, alcoholism, drugs, physical fights etc. These people are not signing to stoicism as philosophy. They are drawning and reacting to that.
Suffering is the only human constant, and dismissing suffering by comparison to others gets you nowhere. A better thing to do is to use this suffering to connect with others rather than to reject connection.
That's not what stoicism is. The aspect you refer to is the insight that we can only control our thoughts and our actions and not a single other thing. There is also more to it, regarding the ends to which we should order our thoughts and actions.
Also, human suffering and dismay are universal. Wealthy westerners may have escaped material want, but none of us can escape the human condition.
Stoicism isn't about not showing feelings, it's about thinking about the world in different ways so that losses don't matter
A regular Joe might like his coffee mug and be sad if it smashes. A Stoic has already imagined the loss of his mug, knows it belongs to the Universe, and the Universe wanted it back.
Well once it’s smashed no amount of whining sill bring it back, will it? Best buy a new mug and move on.
And imho the reason us millenial tech workers need stoicism is precisely because our lives are cushy. We have too much time to spend emotional energy on shit that doesn’t matter. Stoicism is a good way to fight that and remind yourself that hey this ain’t so bad.
I think this is a great point. Stoicism can be comforting and helpful in becoming mentally stronger. We may be very strong in our intelligence, but our emotional resilience tends to be less strong, because we're not used to hardships.
People who have to work hard physically may be more naturally inclined to understand how to live in a more balanced way: work hard, then relax in your off hours. Us tech folks tend to live in the same "mode" much of the time.
I personally found Stoicism helpful in becoming more self-sufficient and less whiny about things that befall me. Your example of the mug is great and can be generalised: complaining helps nobody and makes you feel worse and you get "stuck" in this emotion. Instead, move on and fix or replace it. And even if it can't be replaced (maybe it was a hand-made mug by a loved one you lost), being sad about it still does not serve your well-being in any way.
Marcus Aurelius is responsible for raising and empowering his son Commodus - the emperor depicted in the movie Gladiator.
It's useful to keep this in mind when reading his meditations. Yes, the message can be nice and joyful to read. Yet the man who wrote them created a tyrant and contributed to untold suffering.
I really don't know if the casual link is as firm as you insist. To what extent are parents are culpable for the crimes of their of-age children? And is there any indication that the philosophy expounded in the Meditations would lead to a maladjusted child? It feels like you're dismissing all of Aurelius' thought on the basis of something that may or may not be his fault, instead of contending with his thought directly.
There is maladjustment as in individual sickness. And then there are value systems, beliefs and philosophies that leads to or enable bad behavior or bad actors.
Dealing with thought only in abstract often ignores real world consequences of that thought system. It makes sense to ask what part of that thought lead to different behavior in real world.
Consider the existence of good people with bad parents. Should those bad parents be credited with the success of their children? It seems perverse to assume parents deserve full 'credit' in either scenario. There are many things other than parents that may influence that child's direction for better or worse.
If historical context is important, then you might want to mention that Rome was a hereditary empire. The 5 good emperors were all adopted by emperors who had no sons. In the historical context of Rome, Marcus didn’t hand Commodus anything, or empower him to become emperor. He rightfully inherited the position.
At the time of Aurelius, I'm not so sure that's an accurate description. The only non-adopted sons given power from Julius through Marcus were those of Vespasian (though a lot of adoptions were of extended family members).
Of course, to not hand power to Commodus would have meant his death. I'm not judging him for his decision, but given his absolute power and obvious clarity of thought, it was a conscious decision to choose his son's life over the good of the empire.
> it was a conscious decision to choose his son's life over the good of the empire.
The generally contrived nature of this argument aside, this is really just revisionism. Commodus was 18 when Aurelius died, and he didn't become a lunatic until a fair bit after his fathers death. If you're looking for flaws in Marcus Aurelius (there's plenty), this isn't one of them.
Commodus did plenty as a child, even if it was overshadowed by later lunacy. My argument was poorly made though. I'll try to restate:
It's easy to get swept up in Meditations, viewing Marcus as the stoic Philosopher King that has profound lessons for us even today.
Parent tried to remind everyone about Commodus, and in my opinion correctly so; if Marcus lived up to the myth surrounding him, he'd have intuited the situation and dealt with it.
But he either didn't see what was coming, or decided to do nothing. Because for all the hype, he was just a man. Keeping this in mind is an antidote to getting carried away by what is a genuinely compelling piece of writing.
I wouldn't make this argument in a vacuum, but I saw OP get downvoted and wanted to jump in because I thought it was a fair enough point.
So if he was as great as people say he was, then he would have intuited the fact that his son would eventually turn out to be a bad emperor, and would have murdered him? Hmmm...
I don't think most people would consider inability to predict events that will occur after your death, and the act of not committing filicide to be very serious character shortcomings.
Commodus renounced Stoicism after his fathers death, and didn't do any of the terrible things he was known for until after then either.
This argument is beyond weak in terms of criticising Stoicism or Marcus.
Even partial credit seems enough to question the wisdom of Marcus Aurelius's philosophy.
He raised Commodus, and co-ruled with him for a time.
- He was was either unaware of his son's (lack) of fitness or
- He was aware but unwilling to take corrective action or
- He was aware but unable to take corrective action
Considering the extreme excesses of Commodus came after his father was no longer in the picture, Marcus Auerelius being unaware of what his son would do in the future seems rather likely.
What was parenthood like in Roman times? Were parents involved in the day to day lives of their children, or was that task generally distributed to teacher-slaves and other staff?
Probably the latter, especially for an emperor. People who Had Money and who Got Shit Done before modern times seem not to have spent a ton of time on their kids compared to (relative) poors, then and now, even if they did like them. See also The Great Gatsby for some people who Have Money but do not bother to Get Shit Done doing the same.
Probably that's still kinda true for most people who have kids but are famous for accomplishing just about anything. And anyway even poors pay for childcare now, what with two-income households, and between that and school end up spending maybe 1/4 of their kids' waking hours even kinda near them, at best, and much of that occupied with meals and morning/night routines (so, a good bit of it the stuff people who can afford it tend to outsource, though also they usually outsource a good deal of cleaning so the time-spent-together may be a wash), so maybe a little instruction by example but little time for anything like serious coursework or major instruction from parents.
FYI; The allegorical tale in the "Tablet of Cebes" is also worth reading and pondering over. A good translation can be found in Keith Seddon's "Epictetus' Handbook and the Tablet of Cebes: Guides to Stoic Living".
What is everyone’s favorite translation of Meditations? I bought a cheap copy and the translation is unsurprisingly hard to read and distracts from the text’s content.
Tangentially related: it's a pity there aren't more websites like this one: [0]
It's nice to compare different translations in-line. The last line of section 3 is an excellent example of how different translations can be: [1]
Enchiridion is well worth a read (I gather Carter has the best translation but I've gleaned this from places like Reddit so pinch of salt!), and I also enjoyed Derren Brown's Happy [0] which draws heavily on stoicism, summarising a lot of famous works on it as he goes.
1) The translation by Gregory Hays is the most accessible. Get the "Modern Library" hardcover edition. Has a nice introduction and notes.
2) The translation by Martin Hammond in "Penguin Classics" is also very good. Has detailed introduction and notes.
3) The translation with detailed notes by A.S.L.Farquharson is considered one of the definitive ones. Get the hardcover published by "Everyman's Library".
4) Finally there is a good translation by Robin Hard in "Oxford World's Classics". Robin Hard has also translated Epictetus "Discourses" and hence you may find his work unifying.
I did a pretty deep survey of the various translations (there are a lot) and landed on Maxwell Staniforth's as the best balance between readability and faithfulness to the original language. It's a fairly straight translation rendered in modern-enough English, unlike some of the older ones which add difficulty due to the age of their language, pointlessly, since it's a translation anyway and they're (obviously) so much more recent than the original that they are in no way contemporary so there's no claim to be made on that merit, as one might for, say, a 19th century translation of Jules Verne.
I think the only hardcover is from Folio Society, so medium-pricey as fine books go, but his translation's also the one used by at least some editions of the work from Penguin Classics, so, cheapish paperbacks. I'm having trouble verifying which editions of theirs are his translation, but it may be all of them.
>one of the biggest groups of people interested in it seems to be millennials who work in the tech industry
I'm not surprised after reflecting for a moment. Stoicism seems like a reasonable answer for people who want to escape the sentimentalism packaged as life skills that's so popular at the moment.
Have you read Seneca's letters? I can't think of anything more straightforward and applicable.
Live simply, don't value external things, have principles and stand behind them, think in term of "long term happiness" not "short term joys", be nice to your fellow humans, being rich in material things is nice but not sufficient while having virtues, knowledge and a strong community is necessary. It really isn't rocket science, especially compared to other/newer philosophical movements.
It's life, no one is going to hold your hand and lead you to your happy place. Educate yourself, read the masters, follow the ones that seems aligned to your beliefs and move on if you find something better.
Of course I did. I even tried to follow some things to the extreme. E.G: one letter advice to have "poverty days" so that you never get afraid of being poor. So I went to sleep in the street from time to time.
But most of the content is not that straight forward. Take for example:
"Therefore, Lucilius, do as you write me that you are doing: hold every hour in your grasp. Lay hold of to-day's task, and you will not need to depend so much upon to-morrow'"
Yeah. How do you do that ?
It's nice to say "carpe diem" or "focus on what's important". "Do the hard things first" and all that.
You can also tell a fat guy to eat less calories. Great. Now what ?
That's why I prefer philosophy when it comes with a method.
Meditation. Wim Hof method. Intermittent fasting. Psilocybin retreat. Whatever. But something to actually help you apply a thereory that otherwise get completely uncorrelated from one's life.
Well these advices are thousands of years old so obviously you can't take it as a step by step guide for the 21st century. The principles behind them are usually simple to understand but hard to practice if you don't self reflect and actively try to better your life.
> Yeah. How do you do that ?
Look at your life, everyone is wasting time, maybe you're fine with it or maybe you feel like shit every evening when you look back at your day and notice that you could have done much more / spend your time doing something better.
Want to start a business but watch 3 hours of netflix a day ? Maybe something is wrong. Spend all your life in a job you don't like because it pays well ? Are you sure you value money that much ? Are you always thinking about the next weekend, vacations, retirement to rationalise doing tasks you don't value ?
Imagine being 60 and looking back at your life, did these X000 hours/year of netflix / video games / whatever bettered my life ? Or did they made my shitty life slightly more tolerable by occupying my mind outside of work ? Did I have a plan or did I just went through whatever life through at me without thinking about it?
> You can also tell a fat guy to eat less calories. Great. Now what ?
Telling him is not enough, it has to come from the fat guy himself. Once he truly want to lose weight he'll find a way (unless he has some medical conditions preventing it). It's the same with life, you can read every single book about how to be happy and successful, if you don't truly want it and invest serious time and efforts in it it's not much better than reading fiction.
> That's why I prefer philosophy when it comes with a method.
That's all good too, but I wouldn't be surprised if you eventually feel the urge to take your life in your own hands and follow less strict regimen at some point. Meditation or psychedelic drugs are a good example, at first you want a very safe and guided thing and once you kind of know what you're doing you experiment. You can spend 10k to spend a week in a monastery or on top of a mountain in underwear, if you come back and fall in the same patterns as before you just blew 10k for vacations.
> that otherwise get completely uncorrelated from one's life.
Or maybe our current way of living is so convoluted and disconnected from our origins that we lost the ability to understand the most basic principles.
Either there is a fatal necessity and invincible order, or a kind Providence, or a confusion without a purpose and without a director. If then there is an invincible necessity, why do you resist? But if there is a Providence that allows itself to be propitiated, make yourself worthy of the help of the divinity. But if there is a confusion without a governor, be content that in such a tempest you have yourself a certain ruling intelligence. (XII.14)
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/gods-or-atoms...
I have found Stoicism an ecumenical movement in part because of the above.