The Obstacle is the Way (Dave Kelly)
According to Ryan Holiday in his forthcoming book, The Obstacle is the
Way, "The Stoic philosophy - that what is in the way, is the way - can
be applied to any problem..."
"We give up too easily. With a simple change of attitude, what seem
like insurmountable obstacles become once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.
Ryan Holiday, who dropped out of college at 19 to serve as an
apprentice to bestselling 'modern machiavelli' Robert Greene and is
now a media consultant for billion-dollar brands, draws on the
philosophy of the Stoics to show you how in every situation, that
which blocks our path actually opens one that is new and better.If the
competition threatens you, it's time to be fearless, to display your
courage. An impossible deadline becomes a chance to showcase how
dedicated you are.And as Ryan discovered as marketing director of
American Apparel, if your brand is generating controversy - it's also
potentially generating publicity.The Stoic philosophy - that what is
in the way, is the way- can be applied to any problem: it's a formula
invented more than two thousand years ago, whose effectiveness has
been proven in battles and board rooms ever since. From Barack Obama's
ability to overcome obstacles in his election races, to the design of
the iPhone, the stoic philosophy has helped its users become
world-beaters" - Google Books.
Goals vs systens (Dave Kelly)
Scott Adams is the creator of the comic strip, _Dilbert_. He has
written a blog on the superiority of using systems over having goals.
"In my new book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big:
Kind of the Story of My Life, I talk about using systems instead of
goals. For example, losing ten pounds is a goal (that most people
can't maintain), whereas learning to eat right is a system that
substitutes knowledge for willpower."
Some may find interesting the following essay, "Stoic Productivity System."
"2. Morning and Evening Contemplation
"If you read my article Ten Insanely Useful Stoic Exercises then you
know all about this already. It’s exactly what is says on the box.
Contemplate, both in the morning and in the evening.
"The question is, about what?
"Well, I recommend that in the morning you think about the day ahead,
see any possible problem areas and plan your reactions accordingly.
Remember to think about your plans like an archer preparing to let go
of an arrow. You practice, you prepare, but once you let go of that
arrow anything could happen. So at the beginning of each day tell
yourself: I want to accomplish my goals, fate allowing.
"In the evening you can look at the day just gone and perhaps partly
plan for the next day. You can continue the planning the next morning.
"The most important use for these two contemplation sessions is to
analyse your own behaviour to see if you have acted in accordance to
your ethical checklist."
Uma nova sensibilidade, bom presente de natal, apud Marcuse, an essay on liberation: (Imaculada Kangussu - pinaxus)
“This would be the sensibility of men and women who do not have to be ashamed of themselves anymore because they have overcome their sense of guilt: they have learned not to identify with the false fathers who have built and tolerated and and forgotten the Auschwitzs and Vietnams of history, the torture chambers of all the secular and ecclesiastical inquisitions and interrogations, the ghettos and the monumental temples of corporations, and who have worshiped the higher culture of this reality. If and when men and women act and think free from this identification, they will have broken the chain which linked the fathers and sons from generation to generation. They will not have redeemed the crimes against humanity, but they will have become free to stop them and to prevent their recommencement.”
SOCIEDADE DOS AMIGOS DE CÍCERO
Escrito por vivavoxsergipe às 16h22
[ link ]
Prefácio do novo livro de Don Robertson a ser lançado em breve: Teach_Yourself_Stoicism
“Cicero, one of the most important ancient commentators on Stoicism,
described the question of what is the supreme “good” in life, the
central topic of Stoic Ethics, as the foundation of their whole
philosophy. He says the “most important” Stoic doctrine was that “the
only good is virtue” and calls this “the veritable head of the Stoic
household” (De Finibus, 4.14; 4.44). Epictetus apparently warned his
students that excessive concern with Stoic Physics risks becoming a
diversion from the central task of living virtuously (Fragments, 1).
However, as we shall see there is inevitably some overlap between
Stoic Logic, Ethics and Physics and so our discussion will bring in
some elements of the other topics where it seems necessary or helpful
to do so. In particular, we’ll be looking at the lived practice of
Stoicism in terms of three practical “disciplines”, which scholars
have correlated with the three topics of the theoretical curriculum.”
CITAÇÕES EM EPICTETO CONTENDO O TERMO KOINONIKON:
I then looked up these references in an English edition, and I've put the references I could find below. Hopefully I've got them right, but it's not easy for me to identify line numbers. I've tried to capitalize the words I think are translated from "koinonikon".
Even Epicurus is sensible that we are by nature SOCIABLE beings; but having once placed our good in the mere outward shell, he can say nothing afterwards inconsistent with that; for again, he strenuously maintains that we ought not to admire or accept anything separated from the nature of good, and he is in the right to maintain it.
If, instead of a man, - a gentle, SOCIAL creature, - you have become a wild beast, mischievous, insidious, biting, have you lost nothing?
Let any of you show me a human soul desiring to be in unity with God; not to accuse either God or man; not to be disappointed of its desire, nor incur its aversion; not to be angry; not to be envious; not to be jealous; in a word, desiring from a man to become a god; and, in this poor mortal body, aiming to have FELLOWSHIP with Zeus
Thus also, when Epicurus would destroy the NATURAL TIE between mankind, he makes use of the very thing he is destroying. For what says he? "Be not deceived; be not seduced and mistaken. There is no NATURAL TIE between reasonable beings. Believe me. Those who say otherwise mislead and impose upon you." Why are you concerned for us then? Let us be deceived. You will fare never the worse, if all the rest of us are persuaded that there is a NATURAL TIE between mankind, and that it is by all means to be preserved. Nay, it will be much safer and better. Why do you give yourself any trouble about us, sir? Why do you break your rest for us? Why do you light your lamp? Why do you rise early? Why do you compose so many volumes? Is it that none of us should be deceived concerning the gods, as if they took any care of men; or that we may not suppose the essence of good consists in anything but in pleasure? For if these things be so, lie down and sleep, and lead the life of which you judge yourself worthy, - that of a mere worm. Eat, drink, debauch, snore. What is it to you, whether others think rightly or wrongly about these things? For what have you to do with us? You take care of sheep, because they afford their milk, their wool, and at last their flesh. And would it not be a desirable thing that men might be so lulled and enchanted by the Stoics as to give themselves up to be milked and fleeced by you, and such as you? Should not these doctrines be taught to your brother Epicureans only, and concealed from the rest of the world; who should by all means, above all things, be persuaded that we have a NATURAL TIE with each other, and that self-command is a good thing, in order that all may be kept safe for you? Or is this TIE to be preserved towards some and not towards others? Towards whom, then, is it to be preserved,--towards such as mutually preserve, or such as violate it? And who violate it more than you, who teach such doctrines?
But different people have different motives, and in general, whatever they imagine to be base, they do not absolutely confess. Fear and compassion they imagine to belong to a well-meaning disposition; but stupidity, to a slave. Offences against SOCIETY they do not own; but in most faults they are brought to a confession chiefly from imagining that there is something involuntary in them, as in fear and compassion.
Zeus may be said to be solitary at the great conflagration,1 and bewail himself that he hath neither Here, nor Athene, nor Apollo, nor brother, nor son, nor descendant, nor relation. This, some indeed say, he doth when he is alone at the conflagration. Such as these, moved by some natural principle, some natural desire of SOCIETY and mutual love, and by the pleasure of conversation, do not rightly consider the state of a person who is alone.
For when did he ever learn, or from whom, that he is a gentle, that he is a SOCIAL, animal; that the very injury itself is a great mischief to him who inflicts it?
How then shall he keep up SOCIETY?
For Heaven's sake, do they confer a greater benefit upon the world who leave two or three brats in their stead, than those who, so far as possible, oversee all mankind,- what they do, how they live; what they attend to, what they neglect, in spite of their duty? Did all those who left children to the Thebans do them more good than Epaminondas, who died childless? And did Priam, who was the father of fifty profligates, or Danaus, or Aeolus, conduce more to the advantage of SOCIETY than Homer?
Why, therefore, in the case of man alone, do you take a different view? But further, it is no paradox to say that by nature man is gentle and SOCIAL and faithful.
But swine, and dirty geese, and worms, and spiders, which are banished to the greatest distance from human SOCIETY
[Not sure about this one, I might have picked the wrong word here]
Some doubt whether the love of SOCIETY be comprehended in the nature of man; and yet these very persons do not seem to me to doubt but that purity is
by all means comprehended in it; and that by this, if by anything, it is distinguished from brute animals
Escrito por vivavoxsergipe às 16h22
[ link ]