I can recommend _The Happiness Hypothesis - Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom_, by Jonathan Haidt, as relevant here.
The book was suggested to me by a CBT practitioner. It languished on my shelf for several years because it sat adjacent to a bit of new age fluff, and I thought the subtitle sounded like it was another bunch of lost-wisdom-of-the-ancients drivel. I thought wrong: one should not judge a book by its cover.
The book is serious -- Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU Stern School -- yet eminently readable. It pulls in relevant aspects of the "ancient wisdom," evaluates them in the context of contemporary research, and shows where they can help us today and where they are outright plain wrong.
I can't say it has changed my life yet, but it has helped settle the inchoate bits that I have taken from the Enchiridon, Meditations, etc., into a useful way of thinking about the world and my place in it.
Ah, Jonathan Haidt haven't heard of him in a long while. I second this. If you like stuff like this, then you also might like:
- Search Inside Yourself by Chade Meng-Tan
- The Luck Factor by Richard Wiseman
I read the Happiness Hypothesis quite late in my development regarding "how to be come happier?" I already knew a lot of the ideas in there, but it presented its ideas a bit more clearly than whatever I read from Martin Seligman (many books) and Suzanne Segerstrom (Optimism).
This is why I'd still recommend that book.
I also recommend to read the concept on self-learned helplessness (Seligman researched it) if you haven't already.
One book that I actively disrecommend nowadays is Man's Search for Meaning. I didn't look too deep into it, but there's a lot of controversy on the truth of his claims (e.g. some claim he was in the concentration camps for a few days, not months or years like he implicitly depicts).
Disclaimer: it's these types of books that motivated me to do an entire undergraduate degree in psychology back 6 years ago. Only to realize most of it is nonsense. Yet, at the same time, not all of it is nonsense. Plus it gave me the skills to see what was and what wasn't nonsense.
Since we're mentioning Jonathan Haidt I just wanna chime in with an additional recommendation: _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion_. In this book Haidt digs into the roots of human morality; it changed my perception of the world. Haidt has a TED talk [0] which is basically a tl;dr of The Righteous Mind and it's only ~18.5 minutes long.
The problems with Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism is that they don't really adhear to the notion of 'everything in moderation'. The logical extremes either can lead to some genuinely useless approaches to life.
If one should never worry about things that they cannot possibly control, even if it directly affects one's life, because we are just going to cease to exist at some point anyway, how would one now whether or not they could alter it, if they never began worrying? This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
Perhaps if they had concerned themselves with things that on the surface seemed outside of their reach, they might have realised that some things are approachable, even if the solution is not obvious.
The idea that one should avoid worry about things outside one's control is not a bad suggestion in general, it just should not be taken as an extreme. I mean, there is probably a reason why philosophers went back to Aristotle and Plato after those other four Schools saw prominence.
Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophers weren't trying to make their religions compatible with Zeno's or Epicurus' teachings, but rather Plato's and later Aristotle's.
> This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
Reading list above, another aspect is that it has absolutely no answer for when you actually have problems. It starts with assumption that everything is perfect and issues are purely invented out of boredom. That sort of thinking does not help deal with actual stresses nor minimize harm, nothing like that.
Just look at dealing with people part and now imagine dealing with bully, narcisstic or abusive partner. This typical victim response does not make things better, but instead leads to cycle of abuse:
> One of the best way to respond to insult is with humor, especially self-deprecating jokes. Another way is with no response.
Likewise, I went through periods of self-denial of pleasure. I tended to decide that I wont waste time anymore and cut fun things out of my like. Depression and low productivity followed each time. It turns out that humans need some pleasure in their lives.
> It turns out that humans need some pleasure in their lives
Yes, don't cut out pleasure. You might want to borrow a leaf from A.A. Long (the preeminent expert on Stoicism):
I was sometimes asked which one of the three schools I fancied for myself. Please don’t be shocked at my flippant reply: "I am a stoic (lower case!) in the morning when I write, a Sceptic in the afternoon when I teach, and an Epicurean in the evening when I have fun."
I think it's true that none of these philosophies will be a "one size fits all" type thing. Personally, worry and anxiety just makes me useless. When I'm drawn into worries and fears about external factors, it saps me entirely of the energy to deal with just about anything, which is why I find stoicism helpful.
I'm sure there are other people who find the stress and anxiety about external factors as motivating and bearable, and would not find stoicism useful.
ETA: I don't find everything in stoicism to be useful. I kind of use my own personal "buffet" style approach, where I pick and choose what pieces from different philosophies work best for me.
I should have mentioned, that later after they got tired with reading Plato and Aristotle again, Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism all saw new light, but usually they were more combined into general useful advice on living a good life.
Cynicism's rejection of social norms, when it re-appeared in the late 18th century, morphed into a disapproval of society in general, and the modern usage of 'cynic' was meant to be someone who rejected social structures, and thus someone's who is negative, rather than someone trying to live a virtuous life without being 'chained' by society.
I think you've misunderstood what "worry" means to a Stoic. If you don't understand something or you cannot Co trol it completely or you don't know if you can control it, then concentrating on that isn't worry. It's only worry if and when it is totally beyond your control.
Also, I'd be interested to hear how many stoics committed suicide because they ran out of things to control!? I can think of only one person, and his suicide was forced and the only way to save his family I belive?
Bertrand Russel noted that stoicism came after Greece fell to Alexander. Stoicism was a philosophy of a defeated Greek culture; it's golden age of discussing democracy over.
While Stoicism was indeed founded by Zeno[0] shortly after Alexander's death[1], the essential philosophy (Cynicism) was older, having been granted to Zeno by Crates, who had learned it from Diogenes[2].
Which is why we find in Epictetus[3]:
Furthermore, the Cynic ought to possess great natural charm and readiness of wit—otherwise he becomes mere snivel, and nothing else—so as to be able to meet readily and aptly whatever befalls; as Diogenes answered the man who said: "Are you the Diogenes who does not believe in the existence of the gods?" by saying, "And how can that be? You I regard as hated by the gods!" Or again, when Alexander stood over him as he was sleeping and said,
Sleeping the whole night through beseems not the giver of counsel,
he replied, still half asleep,
Who hath charge of the folk, and for many a thing must he watchful.
A lot of christian philosophy is handed down stoic ideas, I would say more so than any other philosophy.
Also ancient Islamic philosophers mostly copied down Aristotle and hardly any Plato because the platoists taught it such that Aristotle was entry level and Plato was advanced, most of the scholars didn't stay and study long enough to have access to Plato's work and/or thought it less important since it wasn't studied by as many people and so most of that philosophy's writings were lost since most of our modern day copies of ancient philosophy came through Islamic sources.
> This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
Can you please cite a few of these prominent Stoics? Notwithstanding exceptional circumstances, suicide in general was not held in particularly high regard by the Stoics. As Epictetus has it[0]:
The following is another way in which the minds of those are affected who hear these precepts amiss. For example, a friend of mine for no reason at all made up his mind to starve himself to death. I learned about it when he was already in the third day of his fasting, and went and asked what had happened.—I have decided, he answered.—Very well, but still what was it that induced you to make up your mind? For if your judgement was good, see, we are at your side and ready to help you to make your exit from this life; but if your judgement was irrational, change it.—I must abide by my decisions.—Why, man, what are you about? You mean not all your decisions, but only the right ones. For example, if you are convinced at this moment that it is night, do not change your opinion, if that seems best to you, but abide by it and say that you ought to abide by your decisions! Do you not wish to make your beginning and your foundation firm, that is, to consider whether your decision is sound or unsound, and only after you have done that proceed to rear thereon the structure of your determination and your firm resolve? But if you lay a rotten and crumbling foundation, you cannot rear thereon even a small building, but the bigger and the stronger your superstructure is the more quickly it will fall down. Without any reason you are taking out of this life, to our detriment, a human being who is a familiar friend, a citizen of the same state, both the large state and the small; and then, though in the act of murder, and while engaged in the destruction of a human being that has done no wrong, you say that you "must abide by your decisions"! But if the idea ever entered your head to kill me, would you have to abide by your decisions?
> This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
To put a name to what you speak of, Seneca was forced to commit suicide by the emperor Nero. In letter 58 (titled 'A conversation about Plato'), he posits this view on whether it is appropriate to reject extreme old age (I'm not fully on-board with what he's saying; still forming my views):
"It's the next thing to cowardice when one merely waits in idleness for death to come, just as one must be excessively devoted to wine if he drains every drop from the vat and guzzles even the lees. The question, though is this: is the last part of life really the lees, or is it the finest, purest part? That is, provided the mind is without impairment, the sense intact and of use to the mind, and provided the body is not crippled and moribund before it's time. For it matters a great deal whether one is prolonging life or prolonging death. Yet if the body can no longer perform any service, why should it not be appropriate to release the suffering mind?"
That said, I see where you're coming from; we should indeed not take any of the school's thoughts to senseless extremes. We're lucky in that we can sensibly cherry-pick. But I wouldn't talk in super generalized terms as "The Problem" with X or Y school of thought. Of course they are riddled with their share of problems; we need to adapt them to our present conditions—after all, they were written more than 2000 years ago!
Calling it an extreme connotates it as "wrong" to a degree, when other philosophers might counter that there is just the right way and wrong way i.e. Kant's Categorical Imperative and its Universal Moral Law. I do not totally agree, or even understand, the implications of Kant's pov. especially the example of a Nazi knocking on one's door, one is universally morally compelled to say you are hiding people. However the intention of these "extreme ideologies" is not to create useful/practical approaches to life or thrive in society or even be happy, but to uphold values which may be greater than life itself.
I agree that if taken to the extreme this is the case; but I don't believe Stoicism suggests one should take it to the extreme.
Personally, I interpret "don't worry about it" more as "don't get hung up on it", or "don't take it personally". I agree entirely that this should not mean dismiss everything as an unapproachable problem; for me, looking at things to understand whether they are inside or outside my control has largely helped me realise that even for many of the things outside of my control, there are elements I can affect, and I can focus my efforts on those.
I get no benefit from being angry that my pizza delivery ended up one street over, nor from stressing that I was already between jobs before COVID made a mess of the job market. These are things I can't control.
What I can control is my reaction.
I could call the pizza place and complain, demand a refund, and tell everyone I know about their crappy service; I could leave bad reviews online, and hurt their business. I could blame COVID for everything, and sit inside watching Netflix for three months, wallowing. I could sit on my hands and wonder why people won't hire me, when I think I'm more than qualified for a position.
Or, I can thank the person my pizza was delivered to for letting me know it had ended up at their door, and develop a new friendship with a neighbour. I can let the pizza shop know about what happened so they can avoid it in the future, so that their business improves and succeeds, helping them and their employees. I can take the time I have on my hands and learn a new skill to be more employable, and make contacts in a new industry. I can make efforts to reduce the overall impact of COVID and protect my loved ones by adhering to social distancing.
I have chosen to try and make things better through my interactions with others, in large part because I know that some day I will die, and cease to be. I'm not sure I fully accept that yet, but understanding that I can't control it has led me to look at what I can control, and choose what I would like to do with the time I have. It has led me to actively making fond memories with people I care about, and helped me overcome the loss of loved ones by not being sad they are gone, but glad I got to share as much time with them as I did. It has led me to aim to leave a legacy of positivity and progress, and help lift others onto my shoulders where I can, so that I can be delighted by their successes; because in a long roundabout way, helping others succeed is how I can affect those big things that seem out of my control.
It has helped me see that stuff is just stuff, and in many regards I am but a small part in a large machine. It has helped me make the conscious choice that I would like to leave things better than I found them.
I like Stoicism and have read many books on topic. Stoicism provides me with mental tricks to think more positively and be more resilient. However, there are some presuppositions that underlie the philosophy that must be take on faith. “Lead a virtuous life,” for one. But why? What’s the difference if I do not live virtuously? As an Atheist I suppose I do look for these answers in part because I have not accepted the answers from religion. Perhaps Stoicism never claimed to provide a deeper meaning to life, and if one goes in without that expectation one will likely be less prone to disappointment.
I think couple of things can be observed to support living virtuously without needing to resort to invoking any supernatural cause:
1. Observe a fundamental law of nature: Whatever we give to the nature is what nature grows and gives us back in many times over. We give seed to earth it gives back us a full fledged plant. We genuinely appreciate people and spread happiness in return we receive the same.
2. Observe our conscience: Even though you can denounce religion and God but at least we experience and listen to our conscience, inner voice regularly. Not sure how much modern psychology has done research over this stuff but at least in yogic circles it's been extensively covered as a fact that the more you abide by virtues in your thoughts, speech and conduct, the more calmer, peaceful and contented you will be (lesser inner conflict/clear conscience etc.) And that's fundamental to lasting happiness
To me #1 sounds like an appeal to nature without basis. It sounds a little like “The Secret”—positive actions have positive reactions—which I haven’t seen evidence of sufficiently to make a law of.
I don’t know what “listen to our conscience, inner voice regularly” or “abide by virtues in your thoughts“ mean.
Regarding the conscience, it's blabbering of the mind. while you're busy in some activity you may not notice it, but it's there in your subconscious. To observe it, just sit for few minutes and try to see thoughts originating in mind.
This constant chatter, which may include grudges, guilt, complaints, fear, phobia, jealousy, envy , worries etc. are emotions that spring up when we're too focused on ourselves in our life. The virtuous, kind actions that we do for others help in expanding our consciousness; our prospective toward life changes and consequently the self-obsession decreases resulting in greater inner peace, calm and contentment.
I may have an incorrect take on the virtue concept, vis-a-vis Stoicism, but felt it was more to do with reducing man's conflict with nature, learning to live within his and its means, as 'virtue'...not the 'just be great to one another' type of virtue. While there is a strong current of social interactions in Stoicism, it mainly lies with treating others as equals on this journey, and not manufacturing enemies out of thin air.
I have had a few polite conversations head south in a hurry, with absolutely no malice in my words, that were simply manifestations of the listeners over-reactive imaginations. Hell, I once became someone's enemy, simply by NOT responding at all, or even acknowledging his presence. These were revelatory examples for me, because I had to retrace what could have transpired in my words or tone to evoke such a response, arriving at the conclusion: People can and will manufacture their own barriers and enemies, out of thin air, in order to cope with some dissonance they perceive. Sometimes, the problem is not you.
Back then - 300 BCE - I could imagine that not leading a virtuous life had much higher costs than they do today, where modern cities and technology afford a measure of anonymity, for better or worse.
Still, studies of happiness and well-being seem to show that acts of kindness and generosity lead to higher self-reported happiness. So, there's one answer to "why?".
Why "lead a virtuous life?" To build stable and lasting joy that is not subject to the whims of Fortune or chance events. (I'm assuming you value this kind of joy.)
A few choice quotes below. These two are from the introduction to Seneca's Letters on Ethics (which I mentioned earlier up-thread):
• "In a word, Senecan joy comes from within, from a good person's own character and conduct: it arises from goodness itself and from right actions that one performs. This means that joy will not always be a matter of smiles, and laughter, for good actions may be difficult and unpleasant. A good person does these actions only when they are right, and only for that reason, but the doing itself is a good, and a reason to rejoice."
The above is also phrased as: "The reward for right action is having acted rightly."
• "Realizing that chance events lie beyond your control, the Stoic will find it unnecessary to experience grief, anger, fear, or even hope—all these are characteristics of a mind that waits in suspense, awestruck by things indifferent. We can have a life that truly involves joy (of the right sort) if we appreciate that the most precious thing of all ], and the only truly precious thing. lies within our control at all times."
And to quote from my favorite Stoic, Epictetus (this is from A.A. Long's exegesis on Epictetus):
• "Epictetus diagnoses unhappiness as subservience to persons, happenings, values, and bodily conditions, all of which involve the individual subject in surrendering autonomy and becoming a victim of debilitating emotions. Happiness, by contrast, is unimpededness, doing and experiencing only what you want to do and experience, serenity, absence of any sense that things might be better for you than you find them to be."
But the Stoics put a stake in the ground about what is virtuous. Doing so definitely has utility to society, but it has no more of a claim to being “correct” than a spider’s idea of a virtuous life: “eat flies and sometimes your offspring,” or whatever.
To understand virtue and why it’s important to Stoics, you need to understand its little brother, sacrifice. Sacrifice is the act of doing something, with the expectation of something in return. Sacrifice is therefore transactional, and a form of deferred gratification.
- You study hard to get good grades.
- You show up at work on time to keep your job
Virtue is simply sacrifice without expectation of any reward or gratification. And since a reward (or gratification) is a form of external validation, something a true Stoic tries to avoid at any cost, virtue is the only option left.
- You study hard because being educated is important.
- You show up at work because it is important to be a productive member of society.
In my experience willpower is less like a muscle and more like a habit. Right now I'm in the habit of working on side projects every day, so it's easy. Since habits come naturally, what once required willpower now requires no willpower at all. Surely there are studies that confirm habitual tasks are easier to perform than non-habitual ones?
I've spent the last few years working on my willpower. No improvement.
Recently I've been creating social pressure to keep habits (agree to do something every day) and the willpower required is 0 and the results are amazing.
When I have someone expecting me to do something I just naturally put in a lot more effort.
Recent comment on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920237 "The effect likely isn't too big, or it would be harder to design experiments where it doesn't show up at all."
I don't suspect that willpower will be something people can measure with any degree of usefulness.
You can personally verify that it is like a muscle by attempting to enhance your own willpower. I'm not trying to sell you on anything, this is just what I've observed in myself.
> We are unhappy largely because we’re insatiable. After working hard for what we desire, we quickly get bored, dissatisfied, take things for granted and eventually chase new desire.
This makes me worry about climate change. For people to want to fly less, buy less, eat more sustainably etc. they'll have to become more satiable or change to only wanting things that have a low environmental impact.
Can anyone answer if it is really possible to learn, make it natural to be more relaxed, more happy in everyday, without taking medicine?
I think I am more anxious than I really need, and can be more relaxed and happy. For example, I study part-time and constantly feel self-inflicted pressure to study properly, making study feel like burden than fun. Or I worry too much about minor issues like broken pump in the garden, finding a kindergarten for my baby, etc.
In reality, I am doing fine: I have a good income, great wife and son, no major health issues, I already have a degree and my studies of maths are more for self-growth with room for failure.
I understand it logically that I do not want to treat my studies as obligation and can enjoy the process, that I want to be more relaxed and resilient to small problems. But plain understanding does not turn me into a more relaxed personality, as it does not pierce deep enough into the brain. Is there a way to re-wire our brains for better attitude and happiness?
The advice on how to deal with people completely ignores existence of abusers, bullies and narcissists.
If applied to abusive or potentially abusive relationship, it would go right into the abusive cycle. It is opposite of what you need to do to set boundaries and opposite of what you need to do to recognize first issues as they appear.
That is a great quick read. All of those points land nicely, with one exception from my perspective:
> We must learn to welcome whatever comes to us and trust that it happens is for the best.
I think maybe that was reworked and an extra word for left in, or another got left behind in error...
But aside from that, the idea that even bad things were meant to happen for a reason, that somehow later we will come to understand -- that seems to imply a faith in some God or "universe" watching out for us, which seems counter to the general tenets of Stoicism.
We can choose to rationalize bad things happening in a way that tries to find opportunities for growth and learning. But that is different than trusting that it is all "for the best."
> which seems counter to the general tenets of Stoicism.
Not at all. It is neither against nor required by Stoicism.
Stoicism is broadly compatible with theism, and Neo-Stoicism was a movement specifically about finding common ground between Christianity with Classical Stoicism, rooted in the fact that both developed around the same time and that Seneca's brother had a meaningful interaction with Paul the Apostle described in the Book of Acts.
The Stoics mention Zeus. In The Enchiridion [1], Epictetus says Zeus has fixed his destiny. In this sense Zeus is much like Fate, and the Stoics generally acknowledged fate. There is no implication that what happens to us is "good". Stoicism is about accepting whatever happens and not worrying about it.
For those who wish to truly deep-dive, I strongly suggest to skip the "meta books" on Stoicism, and go straight to the original works. There's the Big Three—Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Be prepared to invest at least ten months (the longer, the better) of active study to get a decent grounding.
From my experience of reading multiple translations of the Big Three, for someone new to Stoicism, I'd suggest not to start with the popular recommendation of Marcus Aurelius.
Start with Seneca's Letters, then Epictetus (an ex-slave, and a profound influence on Marcus Aurelius), and only then Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor. (To quote the foremost Stoic scholar, A.A. Long: "[...] That an ex-slave actually shaped a Roman Emperor's deepest thoughts is one of the most remarkable testimonies to the power and applicability of Epictetus' words.")
The quality of the English translation matters a lot. Here are my recommendations:
• Seneca: Letters on Ethics — translation by Margaret Graver and A. A. Long. This is the most recent translation, reads extremely well, outstanding notes, and wonderfully typeset. It's translated by the current foremost experts; can't get better than this. I've been reading this for four months. (If this is a tad pricey for you, I've also heard good things about Selected Letters; translated by Elaine Fantham.)
• Epictetus: Encheiridion, and Selections from Discourses, by A.A. Long. This is a short book; the value addition here is the great introduction, and the outstanding glossary. (NB: there is no escaping full Discourses of Epictetus—refer below.)
• Epictetus: Discourses, Fragments and Handbook — translation by Robin Hard, intro by Christopher Gill; Oxford University Press. Spend a good four months immersing yourself in it. Epictetus is full of heavy irony, dark humor, histrionic wit, and sarcasm. Absolutely my favourite.
• Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide, by A.A. Long. Important Note: To get maximum value out of this, you must have already read at least one translation of Epictetus' full Discourses! This book orients the reader to Epictetus with an extremely valuable context: how not to misinterpret his unqualified faith in "divine providence" (which can grate on our "modern ears"); the influence of Plato and the "Socratic Elenchus" (colloquially known as "Socratic Method"); deep insights into Epictetus' own inimitable style; and a rich bibliography.
• Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. There are at least six translations. I'd suggest to start with the gentler translation by Gregory Hays. If you like it, then you can research other translations. (A.S.L Farquharson spent a lifetime on his translation of the Meditations; it also has commentary. I sometimes consult this edition.)
• The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, by Pierre Hadot. This needs to be read only after you've read at least one translation of Marcus Aurelius This is a fantastic dissection of Aurelius' work—Hadot studied him for 25 years. Besides fresh translations of the Meditations, it also contains unparalleled summary of Epictetus, and many quotes of Seneca.
- - -
I'll end with one of my favourite Epictetus quotes:
"For sheep, too, don't vomit up their fodder to show the shepherds how much they've eaten, but digest their food inside them, and produce wool and milk on the outside. And so you likewise shouldn't show off your philosophical principles to ordinary people, but rather show them in the actions that result from those principles when they've been properly digested."
I first heard of Marcus Aurelius more than five years ago when I was reading a book called "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience", by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced as Me-High Chick-Sent-Me-High)—itself a book I highly recommend; he spent his entire career devoted to this topic. That made me wanted explore Stoicism to better understand what they said about human well-being and what the Greeks called "Eudaimonia" (flourishing). Although, I only began the deep-dive some two years ago.
How has it changed me? In many positive and enabling ways. It's an ongoing process, but it certainly made me more resilient, tranquil; ability to give better structure to my attention when in solitude; better ways to deal with setbacks; and to learn to "make correct use of mental impressions" (Epictetus' favorite way of describing the Stoic project), among others.
Interesting. I also came across Meditations from M.A. when reading Flow by M.C. I downloaded a license-free ebook of Meditations, but found the translation to be excessively complicated and ended up abandoning it. I really appreciate your recommendations now, and will fore sure give them a try again.
Glad to be useful. A poor translation is definitely a deal-breaker. It is absolutely worth investing in good English translations (taking time to do some research helps). Most of the good translations have a robust introduction that situates the topic in context with helpful notes, references, and bibliography.
Good luck!
PS: I maintain that good old physical copies are superior to e-books for these kinds of studies. Especially when you need to frequently refer to the notes—it makes flipping back-n-forth far more pleasant. Also spatial aspect of a paper-based book, better retention, and other well-known benefits.
A guide to the Good Life by William Irvine
The Daily Stoic by Ryan Holiday
The Art of Living by Epictetus
Meditation by Marcus Aurelius
Although not directly related to Stoicism, there are Stoic lessons in them:
Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl
The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle
The Fifth Agreement by don Miguel Ruiz
Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert
Reading it, I was like "nah, the reasons for my unhappiness were completely different" but then came this:
> Most of us are already living the dream, having a wonderful partner, a dream job, a good car though we take things for granted other than delighting in them
I mean, yeah, this is psychological technique only for people who have it all.
> A person’s virtue depends on their excellence as a human being, how well one performs the function for which humans were designed.
humans weren't designed, they were selected for through a happenstantial process. random mutation is critical to this process, and so any one of us can be deeply at odds with whatever the majority are geared towards.
> “humans weren't designed, they were selected for...”
unless i’m mistaking your intent, “evolved” might be the better phrasing if you’re objecting to the agency implied by “designed”, as “selected for” also implies similar (super-)agency.
I want psychologists to write a solid book on this subject.
So far majority of posts that I have read on this subject have been by software developers, which strikes me bizarre. You can leave your Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance out of this.
Software developers are not qualified to write about this. They are clueless dingbats and don't know it.
I am definitely in favor of looking for diversified opinions, from people with diverse backgrounds, some of them specialized in the field.
Diverse inputs are way more interesting than those of a single group of people with similar or homogenous background.
That being said. First, most people aren't qualified to have and give their opinions on most topics. Most of us are clueless dingbats when it comes to most things, including figuring out what makes someone fit to lead a country. Or a city.
Yet it was decided it was best to give us all a vote. Go figure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Second, opinions of outsiders have shown remarquable results in some fields. Such as Daniel Kahneman's (a psychologist, coincidentally) in economics. His insights lead to behavioral economics.
In that specific case, only someone having had their entire education and career in the field of economics, being indoctrinated by all those before them, could really believe people and organizations behaved even remotely like rational agents.
That this model was enough to make sense of the (economic) world, at any scale (on this topic, his book, "Thinking Fast and Slow", yields some remarquable insights on 'experts')
So, while I share in your desire for an increased quality and diversity in information, knowledge and opinions sources, please do 'put a little water in your wine'.
The intro does say: It should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles, either.
On the other hand, I hope you enjoyed your motorcycle.
Have you looked at the book again? One surprising thing for me is that as I've reread it over the years, it seems different each time.
The book was suggested to me by a CBT practitioner. It languished on my shelf for several years because it sat adjacent to a bit of new age fluff, and I thought the subtitle sounded like it was another bunch of lost-wisdom-of-the-ancients drivel. I thought wrong: one should not judge a book by its cover.
The book is serious -- Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU Stern School -- yet eminently readable. It pulls in relevant aspects of the "ancient wisdom," evaluates them in the context of contemporary research, and shows where they can help us today and where they are outright plain wrong.
I can't say it has changed my life yet, but it has helped settle the inchoate bits that I have taken from the Enchiridon, Meditations, etc., into a useful way of thinking about the world and my place in it.
Now on to William Braxton Irvine...