Stoicism and finding purpose

[Shadow_Walker]

So, I have been studying stoicism for a while and it's making me review my view on the purpose of life.

I always strived to be successful in everything I did. But now, I reflect upon Epictetus's first quote on Enchiridion: "There are things which are within our power and there are things which are beyond our power." And realize that success, as viewed in the modern age means status, money, powerful positions, and other things that are beyond our power.

Then, after reading Marcus Aurelius It's evident that he does not seek anything like that, instead, he seeks to be wise, just, and in summary, a good man. Lastly, I've just read Seneca's On the Shortness of Life, where he criticizes preoccupied people, defending (productive) idleness and the study of philosophy as the most important things to pursue.

It makes me wonder, how to live a good life? As an Atheist, I do not believe in the afterlife. So, the simple answer would be that we should live life to the fullest. But how do we define a meaningful life?

 

[ZenRaiden]

IF in doubt, stop and think.
I don't think there is one perfect way.
I think I will just meditate a lot.
Since there is really no end goal to life anyhow.
All this hyped up productivity and goal setting motivational stuff is way over the top anyhow.

 

[Rook]

Contents may differ. May contain nuts.
Subjective.

Living healthily and being surrounded with positive people seems closer to being biologically meaningful than wealth, power, or some sorta abbreviated title that makes you feel like some sorta modern squire or duke.

then again, some folk get off on having the haves and being able to command human flesh with the enticements of advancement and monetary gain, or in many cases, through the twisted hoops required for mere survival that our species hails as the free and fair millennium of modernity.

So I'd say the question ain't how we define a meaningful life, but rather what meaning you see in life, and what meaning you wish to experience.

This may require self-searching and honest connection with reality(not just screen reality), and can be many things or just a simple philosophy.

C. M. Koseman, a person whose brain I have come to respect within the past few days, wakes up each morning with the goal of staving off entropy, and so he creates art across many mediums, staying sober.

Someone else would wake up for other reasons, or have little will to wake at all. Who's right? Whose meaning is more correct? Such unquantifiable questions are best left unanswered, especially as meaning is something experienced, a drive, rather than a determined formula for biologicals.

 

[Black Rose]

sometimes life is empty, that is why you need as little attachment as possible and control of yourself so as not to suffer negative feelings. meaning cannot be found externally but only from within.

 

[Rook]

sometimes life is empty, that is why you need as little attachment as possible and control of yourself so as not to suffer negative feelings. meaning cannot be found externally but only from within.

I'd say negative feelings are part of life, and meaning can be found externally and internally.

Listening to a song might change your life. Is the meaning, the feeling, inside of you? Yes. Would you have felt it had the song never been recorded? Not in those circumstances, no.
Same goes with books, cults, religions, hobbies --- external things can focus the inner self, or inspire it. To seek meaning only internally is, imo, to sequester oneself from reality and its infinite complexity.

Meaning can be found in wisps of cloud and the whispers of a river. To assume we, who grow as we eat, shed waste, shed matter as skin and hair, are entities apart from the universe from which we sprang... many radical ideologies have flowed from such a conceptualization of reality, many a holy war has been fought.

The human is a marvelous construct, but the universe is its clay, and as it sprang from the atomic expanse, so into it it shall decay.

 

[dr froyd]

I'm in the same boat as you, shadow walker. I've dabbled in stoicism, but in my eyes stoicism is less of a philosophy and more of a collection of principles for how to deal with the harsh reality of life - uncertainty, pain, bad fortune, etc.

my guides for purpose of life pretty much come from Sartre and Nietzsche. Put shortly: existence precedes essence

 

[Shadow_Walker]

IF in doubt, stop and think.
I don't think there is one perfect way.
I think I will just meditate a lot.
Since there is really no end goal to life anyhow.
All this hyped up productivity and goal setting motivational stuff is way over the top anyhow.

It makes sense to approach it like that since our perception of reality evolves with us. Not seeking a conclusion, but an endless development of such concept.

Contents may differ. May contain nuts.
Subjective.

Living healthily and being surrounded with positive people seems closer to being biologically meaningful than wealth, power, or some sorta abbreviated title that makes you feel like some sorta modern squire or duke.

then again, some folk get off on having the haves and being able to command human flesh with the enticements of advancement and monetary gain, or in many cases, through the twisted hoops required for mere survival that our species hails as the free and fair millennium of modernity.

So I'd say the question ain't how we define a meaningful life, but rather what meaning you see in life, and what meaning you wish to experience.

This may require self-searching and honest connection with reality(not just screen reality), and can be many things or just a simple philosophy.

C. M. Koseman, a person whose brain I have come to respect within the past few days, wakes up each morning with the goal of staving off entropy, and so he creates art across many mediums, staying sober.

Someone else would wake up for other reasons, or have little will to wake at all. Who's right? Whose meaning is more correct? Such unquantifiable questions are best left unanswered, especially as meaning is something experienced, a drive, rather than a determined formula for biologicals.

I think existentialism instinctively makes sense to us in the contemporary age. Since the idea of self is overly marketed we develop a tendency of looking at the concept of purpose and meaning as an individuality. While I agree with you, I wonder if there aren't any authors criticizing existentialism.

sometimes life is empty, that is why you need as little attachment as possible and control of yourself so as not to suffer negative feelings. meaning cannot be found externally but only from within.

This seems to be a blend of nihilism and stoicism. In this aspect I agree with Rook's reply to you right below.

sometimes life is empty, that is why you need as little attachment as possible and control of yourself so as not to suffer negative feelings. meaning cannot be found externally but only from within.

I'd say negative feelings are part of life, and meaning can be found externally and internally.

Listening to a song might change your life. Is the meaning, the feeling, inside of you? Yes. Would you have felt it had the song never been recorded? Not in those circumstances, no.
Same goes with books, cults, religions, hobbies --- external things can focus the inner self, or inspire it. To seek meaning only internally is, imo, to sequester oneself from reality and its infinite complexity.

Meaning can be found in wisps of cloud and the whispers of a river. To assume we, who grow as we eat, shed waste, shed matter as skin and hair, are entities apart from the universe from which we sprang... many radical ideologies have flowed from such a conceptualization of reality, many a holy war has been fought.

The human is a marvelous construct, but the universe is its clay, and as it sprang from the atomic expanse, so into it it shall decay.

I'm in the same boat as you, shadow walker. I've dabbled in stoicism, but in my eyes stoicism is less of a philosophy and more of a collection of principles for how to deal with the harsh reality of life - uncertainty, pain, bad fortune, etc.

my guides for purpose of life pretty much come from Sartre and Nietzsche. Put shortly: existence precedes essence

I'm starting to delve deeper into stoicism and I agree with you, makes me question how much of a philosophy it really is. But at the same time, we can reference some eastern philosophers which seemed to take the same principles-driven approach to philosophy.

It seems like many practitioners of stoicism don't have the interest in questioning the ideas of the ancient or looking into other philosophies tho, which makes it sound a bit like a cult. To avoid that, I would happily accept some reading recommendations.

 

[onesteptwostep]

A meaningful life is to care for people and live life with others.

Family, friends and food.

There really is no purpose in life; the age where grand narratives ruled without contention is far gone. There's a lot more self discovery and autonomy that's been allotted because of the march of technology.

And yes stoicism is more about generalities rather than an empirical questioning of reality. Philosophy in general is much more about systems and structures, or their lack of, or their scorn of.

I would recommend Alain de Botton if you're looking for modern stoic literature. Him being a humanist is pretty much up your alley.

 

[ZenRaiden]

A meaningful life is to care for people and live life with others.

How is this news? People only care about other people as far as history.
Only some people care more about particular people more than others.

Grand narratives?

Its like every new generation of people has to rediscover the wheel or something.