Based
Also Hedonism is pretty sick
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
48 points (94.4% liked)
Ask Lemmy
34367 readers
1198 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Stoicism is stupid. Absurdism is where it's at.
Life has no inherent meaning. So you give it oje your own damn self.
I think they both have a time and a place.
I like my philosophy flexible
Meta-utilitarianism? Apply the most useful philosophy to each problem separately?
For me, I have a mental knapsack full of philosophical approaches.
A situations scope, impact, and effect may demand a different philosophical framework to meet my or the groups goals.
There are some ideologies I won't touch or entertain. There are some I can only accept under very specific terms and timelines. I have my favorites and more that I'm friendly with.
So ya, a sort of meta-utlitarianism!
I'll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I'd be curious how you'd respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I've found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach.
I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess
syncretism is my default. The only reason to choose one at the exclusion of another is if conclusions are based on fundamentally different assumptions. For example, ancient stoics would borrow from Epicureans when they made a good point. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson borrowed from both John Locke and others when drafting the Declaration of Independence. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15f6pl/comment/c7m1fpn/
I appreciate this. Why do we have to align only with one approach/perspective? Being versatile is more alluring
Stoicism has gotten me through my incredibly hard life (wife died less than three months ago and I was a full time caregiver for her for a lot time before that).
I am sorry about your loss.
<3
Sending love your way.
Whatever doesn't kill me makes me contemplate my meaningless place in the irrational universe.
Stoicism, properly understood, is in my opinion the only possibility humanity has for survival.
Unfortunately, stoicism is rarely properly understood.
Virtually every institutionalized societal evil exists at base because some number of people are stubbornly clinging to the delusion of control over others.
As but one example, while the wave of trans bigotry exists because some number pf people believe that they should have the authority to control other people's gender identifications, at heart it exists because those people believe that they can do so. That's the foundation upon which their ever-more aggressive attempts are built. It's really not a matter of whether they should or not - they literally can't.
Stoicism would've already informed them of that fact, and would've informed them of the harm that's done - not merely to others but to themselves - by ignoring that fact.
I went down a stoicism rabbit hole for a while, but got a little disillusioned with it because it doesn't really leave room for joy, excitement, passion, because these can all be taken from you. While this is true, I think it is harmful to focus too much on that, and it is better for mental health to leave room for joy and hope. Stoicism is a little bit too cynical for me. My theory is that this is why it died out. People are meant to be hopeful, even more hopeful than they should be.
There's also stoic bros now. Their brains have managed to connect alpha masculinity to stoicism. They're like the viking bros where they gain security from people seeing them as enduring, dependable, and tough. They obviously have no idea of the philosophy in detail.
I was just pondering something similar -- a lot of the current weirdness seems to come from a refusal to face mortality head on. They start reaching for straws, hoping that there is some magic elixir that will save them, then getting angry when there isn't one.
Yes - that's another good example.
Even on a very simple level, that's harmful to oneself, because all time and energy spent vainly trying to control things one cannot control is necessarily time and energy not spent on the things one can control.
CMV:
99% of self-identifying stoics are just dudes who watched a video on Marcus Aurelius and took away that holding in your feelings is a virtue actually.
My entire opinion of absurdism is formed by cartoon-Camus from Existential Comics.
My understanding is that life is absurd, but we must rebel against the absurd and create meaning in our lives despite it. And we do this by being sexy and sleeping with lots of babes.
Solid philosophy.
I'm unfamiliar with Absurdism.
When I first encountered Stoicism, I realized that I already was a Stoic, I just didn't know the name. I continue to be one, but don't feel bound to follow the dictates of the ancient Stoics, who often showed their own biases especially with regards to gender. I will take wisdom and virtue where I find it, though.
One thing that frustrates me about a lot of contemporary Stoic discourse is the predominance of Dualism, especially body / mind dualism, which is philosophically bankrupt. I am not my brain and have no more control over it than any other part of my body.
Another is the tendency to treat Stoicism like it's a kind of Rationalism; I'm deep in the Virtue Ethics groove and distrustful of all Consequentialists, including Rationalists: Wishful thinking has no place in Stoicism.
So to say "I am a Stoic" remains fraught, as so many take a different meaning from it then I do, and indeed different from each other. But a Stoic I remain, unable to change that about the world and so adapting to it instead.
Absurdism is cool, stoicism is something that can get unhealthy pretty quickly. From a pure self-help perspective existentialism is a better philosophy imo
When it comes to philosophies there are so many interpretations that drift over space, time, and individuals. Almost all have interpretations or ideas that aren't bad and ones that are.
Such a beautiful way to say nothing
I'm a stoic.
The universe doesn't care, and you can't change anything.
Stoicism is frequently misunderstood and generally the concept of equanimity is a positive one, which is why it transcends stoicism. upekkha as one of the four divine attitudes in Buddhism, the abrahamic religions generally push the whole “god did it so trust in the plan” angle (Christian forbearance and I forget the Jewish word but Islam comes from aslama, peace from surrender), etc. Even Epicureanism had ataraxia
Absurdism makes sense in a post religious world (depending on audience, obviously) and is more hopeful than nihilism. Existentialism is interesting in comparison: can we create meaning? Is meaning that we create transient? I don’t know.
Both absurdism and stoicism make the important acknowledgement that reality is indifferent to your plight
Can we go with absurd stoicism or stoic absurdism? Seems to me, it might be more fun that way 🙂
I have integrated a lot of stoicism into my life. Its Philosophie is one of my core once.
Its usefull especially now since my grandma and mother figure has thyroid cancer...
It is trendy as youtube topic but pop analysis is kinda wack...
read the source literature for yourself.
Pretty cool
I like them both. For stoicism, I like Massimo Pigliucci's work. For absurdism, Camus. Are there any modern day Camus'?
p.s. I created a community for discussing topics like these in more depth: https://yall.theatl.social/c/philosophy_of_life
It's crazy but I can deal with it.