Less is more

The happiness of staying in cheap hotels amongst other travelers is the subject of David Brooks' recent column The Haimish Line.  Those who spend more on luxury only get luxury, and miss out on the real warmth and congeniality of the simpler lifestyle.  It's one of those examples of less is more.  We have been conditioned to think that nicer & fancier is unquestionably better.  But it doesn't bring any more happiness.  This is the sort of thing that reminds us that Stoicism is not a philosophy of self-denial, it is one of self-fulfillment.

McAfee on possessions

We all know McAfee's virus software.  Evidently the man was quite rich, but lost almost all of it in the recession, according to an ABC news article.  On the way, he learned a Stoic-like attitude.  I especially like the quote at the end of the article:

"I think most people don't sit down and ask, 'What do I need?" not "What do I want?" Because we all want everything," he explained. "But what do we need? We don't need very much. We really don't ... The things we want and the things we need are two different things."

Cyberstoic

I discovered a promising new Stoic blog, Cyber Stoic, through one of my Twitter followers, @NeoStoicism.  I'm looking forward to reading more!

Dwarf Fortress

Normal person: I must win.
Stoic: Winning isn't important.
Dwarf Fortress fan:  Losing is fun!

The recent story in the New York Times about a game called Dwarf Fortress strikes some Stoic chords.  The authors of the game aren't particularly concerned with becoming famous.  They just want to create an interesting game, even if it takes 20 years to finish.  The fans of the game aren't concerned with winning.  They just like creating a world, managing it, and then watching as it all inevitably goes horribly wrong.  It's a different approach to gaming.

I still don't think it's a great idea to spend much time playing games, but reading about this game seems refreshing.  I hope the ideas here catch on.

Personality

Sometimes I wonder if Stoicism, as a philosophy, can be taught to anyone.  I know several people that are decidedly non-Stoic. Not bad people at all, just people that are natural worriers and pessimists. They fret over things that they have no control over, repeatedly bashing their heads against the walls of their problems.

That's just their personality. And I don't believe you can change personality to any great extent.

Could these people be taught Stoicism? I haven't attempted it.

I wonder what the success rates were in the days of Epictetus?

Stoicism and sexual desire

Interesting article I found today via Reddit: The Spirit is Willing, And So Is the Flesh, about the philosophy of Viagra.  It explicitly mentions some of Seneca's thoughts about impotence.

Would Seneca really have advised against taking Viagra?  Impotence is really a medical issue.  If you want to have sex, and you can't, but there's a way to make it better, then why not make it better?  Seneca wasn't the equivalent of a Christian Scientist, so he doesn't have any issue with medical treatment in general.

Seneca's point is that the lack of desire for sex is not a problem, and in fact may be a good thing.  If there is no desire, and there is no ability, then there is also no problem.  I think Seneca would say that taking Viagra is fine, as long as you really have sexual desire.  But don't take it because you want to have sexual desire.

The whole desire thing gets even more complicated when other people enter the equation.  If you are a wife, but have lost all sexual desire due to medication (it is a common side effect to some drugs), then is that OK or not?  Based on my reading of Seneca, as I stated above, the lack of desire is not a problem.  But let's assume that you are young, married and this lack of desire is medically abnormal.  This lack of desire affects not only you but your husband.  To solve it would be helpful to him, even if it shouldn't matter to you.  Is Seneca's advice really applicable?

Seneca didn't have these complexities to deal with.  From what I understand about Stoicism, I think the answer is that if sexual desire is gone, and we can't get it back, then we can be thankful that we've rid ourselves of a basic desire.  If we can get it back, we should, but we need to keep that desire under our control, and only use it in morally correct ways.

This articles makes me think about the positive effects of desire.  Stoicism sometimes seems anti-desire, but I think that's an oversimplification.  I think it's more about channeling our desires in a constructive direction.  I should probably write more about this in a future post.

Vacation

That long silence wasn't just me being lazy, it was me being lazy in a pre-planned manner.  In other words, vacation!

It's not very Stoical to take a vacation.  Epictetus writes:

But you take a journey to Olympia to see the work of Phidias, and all of you think it is a misfortune to die without having seen such things.  But when there is no need to take a journey, and where a man is, there he has the works before him, will you not desire to see and understand them?  Will you not perceive either what you are, and what you were born for, or what this is for which you have received the faculty of sight?  But you may say, there are some things disagreeable and troublesome in life.  And are there none at Olympia?  Are you not scorched?  Are you not pressed by a crowd?  Are you not without comfortable means of bathing?  Are you not wet when it rains?  Have you not abundance of noise, clamor, and other disagreeable things?  But I suppose that setting all the things off against the magnificence of the spectacle, you bear and endure.

On the other hand, research into happiness shows that vacations are rated as happy times by those recalling them, even if at the time they were experienced they were no happier than normal (maybe even less).

To take a vacation is to leave our normal routine, and if only for that, it is valuable, for in leaving our routine we can examine it from afar, and thus change it.  In Stoic theory, vacations may not be necessary, but we're never as perfect as the Stoics would hope we are.  They remain worthwhile, and that's not a bad thing.