Stoicism, acceptance and happiness

I have a negative bent, a tendency to see the bad in life more clearly than the good. I get very affected by bad news – and there’s a lot of it: worsening inequality, dismantling of the welfare state, another financial crisis potentially around the corner while we’re still in debt from the last one, climate change, antibiotic resistance, global conflict / power struggles, refugees living in squalid camps…

Thanks to media such as Twitter and Facebook, I find it easier than ever to learn about all these things, and to access really stimulating viewpoints and analysis that is constantly helping my own understanding and awareness to develop. I would much rather have that access than not; however, there are times when I just have to scroll past it all and look for some cute puppy video instead. I get exhausted with concern.

And I have difficulty with Sunday Assembly’s ethos of “celebrating life” because, when it comes down to it, I’m not convinced human existence is a good thing. The rest of the planet would be better off without us, for sure. It’s hard to feel joyful about being alive while keenly aware of how spectacularly the human race is fucking up at the general aim of not doing harm to ourselves or each other. And even if we were doing much better, nature alone can be cruel enough to us. What’s there to celebrate?

On the other hand, what good does it do to feel so negatively?

I’m reading a book about Stoicism just now. According to the Stoics, the only thing needed for deep happiness and well-being (eudaimonia), is to be the best human being one can be. This means perfecting the rationality and practical wisdom that humans alone can develop. This in turn entails acceptance of things outside of one’s control; it doesn’t make sense to worry or get upset about things you can’t do anything about.

I’m really wrestling with this! I find myself wanting to protest: that there is no clean division between what is and isn’t under your control; that it’s unrealistic to expect your happiness to not be affected by your circumstances (and has the potential to trigger shame); that even if it were possible to be that detached, it would surely lead to amorality – that there wouldn’t be any point in justice or making anyone’s circumstances better because their happiness can only come from within.

But I do wonder if I’m missing the point on that last part; Stoicism, after all, does promote justice and compassion and there is a sense of some outcomes being ‘preferred’ (even though they are ultimately indifferent with regard to eudaimonia). It’s confusing. It reminds me of similar confusion I’ve had with Buddhism in the past.

Maybe the answer is that eudaimonia, although important (and heavily emphasised in Stoicism), isn’t the only thing that matters?

Perhaps the problem I’m having lies in the English language and the fact that words like ‘happiness’ and ‘joy’ are just too broad-brush. One example of this comes to mind from the Pixar film Inside Out, in which the main characters are anthropomorphised emotions inside a human character’s head. In the film, Joy has to learn that there is a place for Sadness; that Sadness is able to help their human host come to terms with an unwanted change in circumstances, and connect with the love and care of others, in a way that Joy cannot. Joy does not represent all positive experiences – she merely represents an upbeat, cheerful mood. I think we lack a clear word in English for the positive experience Sadness was able to bring about – in the film, we see the creation of a core memory that is a mixture of sad and happy.



And I think there are probably many distinct emotional and mental states that we lack distinct words for and that get muddied together under words like ‘happiness’.

So, maybe this is partly why I have difficulty seeing how a positive emotional state can coexist with concern about problems. Maybe it’s possible to really want things to improve while at the same time being able to really accept that things are as they are. This seems like a contradiction to me but I have moments where I can see these as two separate processes.

I think Buddhism and Stoicism really come into their own in situations of extreme suffering that cannot be averted – where the only way forward is to be ‘philosophical’. Their emphasis on eudaimonia and its possible independence of circumstances is perhaps an over-emphasis for the context of my everyday life of relative comfort. I keep having difficulty with them because I have the exact opposite approach: can’t feel OK about life until all the problems are solved. But that is also why I keep being drawn to them.

This entry was posted in absolute goodness, meditation, morality, personal reflection, philosophy, Stoicism, suffering, Sunday Assembly and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Stoicism, acceptance and happiness

  1. jannaruusuvuori says:

    I feel the Finnish language is very balanced and rooted in nature. The people in Finland have a foundation similar to stoicism: close to the Earth. You may find some new insight through the language and culture…and of course the land 🙂 Tervetuloa Suomeen.

  2. ~ Kelly says:

    The Stoic philosopher Seneca, compares human beings to dogs on a leash, being led by the necessities of life in a range of different directions. The more one pulls by what we feel is “necessary”, the more one is strangled. Senecas solution to this constant tugging, is to strive to understand simply, “the way things are” and then change direction accordingly so as not to be strangled. ~ Spinoza (a Dutch Philosopher) proposes that “the best way to know God, is to understand how life and the universe works. We should understand what God wants, by studying everything that is”. He proposed that there are 2 viewpoints in which to look at life 1) We can see it from our limited point of view (under the aspect of time). or 2) we can view it under the aspect of eternity (because what is time really, but a man made concept). ~ He says, “God has his own projects and its our task to understand, rather than to tug against these. The wise man, who understands the way things are, possesses true eternal complacency of spirit”. ~Spinoza was raised Jewish, but of course he was excommunicated and cursed due to the fact that as he began to search for truth outside of the traditional belief system of his youth. He concluded that God is personal, God is in nature, that animating force in everything that is and can be. He said “Whatever in God and nothing can exist or be conceived without God.” ~ Augustine proposed that the flaw of humanity is the “desire to dominate”. The human aspects of power and greed are very simply, the core ruling aspects that lead to the sufferings we see in the world today in all of its complexity…and we see these principles in play in the uprising and downfalls of civilizations throughout history. Recognizing this flawed aspect of the human race, answers many questions as to why the world is the way it is. We strangle ourselves when we tug against this nature that we see in others (who we have no power to change). Maybe it would do us well to turn our focus from tugging on the leash of the things we can’t change & instead, recognize that this “desire to dominate” is within ourselves as well, to one degree or another. If we recognize this in our own nature and do the work to eliminate it, what type of change would that make in our lives? Would we acquire a “peace that passes understanding”? And would this peace emanate from us and somehow effect those around us?? ~ I guess what we have here is the stoic “Serenity prayer” in a nutshell!! :}
    ~ Just a little rambling from me…I’m on the same path as you… I have unquenchable questions about what the hell this thing called “life” is…and what are we here to learn or do? ~ Kelly ❤

  3. Pingback: Responsibility and Stoicism | Meaning and Truth

  4. Agnkgd says:

    Please leave Stoicism alone. As you are just another retarded SJW Stoicism has nothing to offer for you. Stop trying to pervert, distort and misuse it only for your own disgusting SJW-y ends.
    Everything a SJW cares for is outside our control, so in truth you should stop giving a **** about it. Plus, SJWs are never motivated by the right passions, always by anger and hatred towards imagined enemies. Anger is the most urgent passion Stoics must root out of their soul.

    • topher says:

      That seems unnecessary. It’s true, she has a very shallow and incorrect view of Stoicism, but your response was entirely rude and unhelpful. It’s possible to correct and educate someone without being an asshole.

  5. topher says:

    I know this post is from a few years ago, but I encourage you to continue reading and researching Stoicism. Your post suggests you have only scratched the surface and haven’t yet grasped Stoicism. It can take a bit of effort to “get it”, but it is very much worth it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s