Ryan, I don’t normally comment on your videos, or really at all on social media, but people (particularly young men) are gravitating towards ill-conceived notions of stoicism. Addressing this directly, might be a good idea for a book in the future.
Absolutely. I had to read a lot of other books before I have now started to realize what stoicism is really about. Particularly books that challenges one another.
100% its important to tell people (young adults specifically) that its okay to have emotions and feelings. Its how you navigate them and react to them, thats part of what stoicism teaches. As well as being comfortable pushing yourself mentally, physically and emotionally.
The Subtle Art of not GaF is a different book. There’s certainly times that’s warranted. Also I was just in Ryan’s bookstore and he sells that book, I got the feel that every book in there is curated.
It is very important that he made this video. I am glad he rose to the occasion and addressed this. But then, I would expect nothing less from this man.
“You are not worthless. You are not a piece of shit. Society is not discarding you. You have value. You can make a positive difference. In fact, society needs you and it needs you to do those things.” It felt good to hear that and gave a sense of purpose.
Yes, as a 73-year-old woman, I will listen again to the part about negotiating in business. I am stumped at how to hire a plumber or a handyman. I believe they take advantage. I have to be tougher, but always remember to be kind in my toughness. Thank you, Ryan.
I totally agree, well said. Would like to see more videos or books from you directing people on the right Path. A few months ago, when I searched for philosophical channels, I found out that many creators created "dating, and how lay with women.. etc." videos in the name of "Stoicism". At first, I felt anger and disappointment. I can not stand misinformation and misguidance. I accepted my anger and started to think, what can I do against this? I'm still in the process to finding it out properly, but I'm happy that someone whose voice is much stronger represents true value.
Thx you for this channel. I came across stoicism when I needed it the most and its helped me so much to master my emotions and deal with the people BS among other qualities.
In this Ryan I hear your own voice, your own stoicism, and not just the echos of Zeno, Aurilius, Senica and the others. In expressing your values you may be attacked by some, but even that elevates the sincerity and relatability of your message. Its also asperational, which is sorely needed. Keep up the good work, man. Own your own space and voice on the things that you know you can speak on, with sincerity and with confidence.
I agree. I had a friend who recently broke down over his work and even current life situation. Man was telling me he tries hard to be a good person and tries to be "stoic". Right there I had to correct what being a stoic really meant. He thought Stoicism is about not having emotion, being tough. I told him it's not about being hard but about working on yourself now to become a better version of yourself in the future. Setting yourself up now to be in a better place in the future. What does that look like? Living morally and with the nature of a human. Taking care of yourself and others. Working with others as much as you do yourself. Your emotions are indicators of something your soul is telling you. To neglect this would lead to the breakdown my friend had... and I had a few years before him. I seen even online some think to be Stoic you need to be emotionless. That is really not the case. Humility and emotion is part of human nature. You need to learn what your emotions are telling you so you can further analyze the situation. On Andrew Tate, I do see a few things he says as being good for some people to learn. Thing is, he has a lot more ideas that really are not the case. I had a friend once tell me something Andrew said that he agreed with is not letting your girlfriend go to clubs unless I believe you are with her. The reason was you don't want her to get hit on by guys and people need to know she is yours. My friend and I looked at that and questioned the whole thought behind that. I find out there is another reason he believed it. I have friends complain too how they cannot find one honest woman to date and how they are all crazy. My first thought was, "maybe you are looking for the wrong things then?" The last two women I was involved with it didn't work out. I noticed a pattern and realize I wasn't going after the right person for me. Not saying they are the problem we just both have different ideas and that is fine. I don't think focusing on Andrew Tate too much though is good for anyone I believe just focusing on your own ideas and sharing them in ways that will be relatable to a younger audience would be better. Andrew Tate has clearly found out how to do this so there is something with him that does this well. I don't know it's really the flashy cars or body since there are other people who have that.
You have to take what works and apply it, discard the rest. Andrew Tate getting guys to work out. Good. Andrew Tate being a pig. Bad. Even the Stoics looked at the Epicureans.
@@stefanmaddock5516 Yeah exactly. One thing I liked was him emphasizing on speech and communication. It ended up becoming something where I looked up a bit on sales and talking as I knew I was lacking in this field and I started working on it. I ended up going to other resources for that as well. I don't think it's wrong to get ideas from someone who you may not see eye to eye with but make sure the idea itself or the action you will perform with the idea isn't going to cause suffering to another and even yourself.
Do as Seneca says. Study other philosophy too. Don't just stick with the first worldview you find on your path. Read about Socrates, the Cynics, Nietzsche, eco philosophy, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Zen Buddhism, Taoism... the list is endless. The goal is to see a bigger picture. Many philosophies have a lot of similarities, but just seen from a different angle. A lot is of course debatable, but knowing that keeps you humble.
The main point that stands true to a fair amount of philosophy is simply: harmony. From the Stoics to the Taoists, even most faiths around the world, they all found their special way of harmony with themselves and the world around them. It doesn't matter if it's from the Logos or a fellow named God. So long as man has something to look towards when they are down on their luck. Harmony is always the end goal.
Dear God, grant me the strength to endure life's trials with grace, the wisdom to remain calm in the face of adversity, and the courage to live by my principles. All Say Amen.
It's hard for young men because so much is expected of men, and they get the least support. As men we do have to be strong, but that's not the same as being isolated: it's developing independent thought, developing your own values, and becoming a model person you would look up to yourself.
I just came across a well meaning short today from Nat Eliason (comments off, of course) that purports to have read a couple stoic books and it was frustrating because it exemplifies so much. One passage taken out of context, perhaps to get a few more clicks, is so damaging to helping people understand how amazing a mature stoic life is.
Funny how some think one side of our politics is better than the other…not realizing that they’re wings of the same corrupt bird. Neither party has ever had our young men’s best interests at heart. This is where parents really need to step up and truly guide their son’s.
That isn't true. There is a 13 year old who has an 8 month old baby right now because she did not have access to an aborti0n to get rid of her r@pe baby because of nobody else but right wing oppressive males. That isn't two wings of a bird. That is one side. That is only one side trying to force their ideals on other people and trying to subjugate women and girls. Pretending that there is an equivalence is lazy and tired and shows what you value and more importantly what you don't value. Being a lazy libertarian doesn't make you a stoic.
This is fact. Especially in the USA. I mean, back in the 1800’s democrats and republicans were part of the same party. People chose sides and now it’s like sports entertainment
I personally think that the way our representatives are elected needs to change to a system where proportional representation is granted based on the proportion of votes for a party rather than “First Past the Gate” elections. That way everyone gets to have their political views represented in government even if they are in a third party or other political minority. That would more fairly represent the views of our nation.
I know how it feels when some people get Stoicism so wrong as a philosophy. They just don't know anything about it and yell whatever BS comes in their mind.
My neighbor is 53, single and living at home, while renting out a house to tenants with his cousin for income. He’a been working the same dead end job for like 30+ years, and now he’s working in a lower income area and got passed up on promotion when a black guy got it instead and he was pissed. All he does after work is smoke cigars, talk on the phone and listen to FOX news ALL DAY. He is the epitome of what these grifters look for. Lonely. Uneducated (his own admission, not my opinion). Loud and don’t gaf who he offends. “I’m just italian” he’ll say. Idk what that’s supposed to mean, but ok… I’m italian too soo. I asked my mom about him, and then I understood why he’s so angry and full of hate… it’s 100% his fault, but now I just feel sad that he has to live such a miserable existence.
Yeah this is one thing I hope I can help influence my friends away from when we get older. Have a friend who I think now might be in a spot not to end up like this where he blamed the companies he applied to for him not finding work. He is trying to be a game designer. I twice shared feedback on how he could potentially find work and once even had proof of it from some people in the industry who found work. I shared how some would modify existing games, make something new and original based on the game and just offer it for free to people. These people end up with two outcomes most of the time. One, they end up making a standalone game since there is enough support from the fans of the game to make their own standalone version. These modders for the game Skyrim managed to do this. The other outcome, they get hired by the company who made the team. The company Valve has done this and in fact I looked it up and the original creator of Counter Strike made this mod in order to find work in the industry. Value not only bought the rights to the game but offered him and his co creator a job at Value. My friend told me after I mentioned that it was hard work... Hopefully now though I hope he sticks with this new gig.
4:14 Marcus was the emperor - of course his world view would be around being active in political life and to act for "the common good". Epictetus was a teacher, but before that I heavily doubt he ever even considered being for the common good or even thinking about being in the public life. He did what was prescribed by him by nature - to be a "good" slave. And Seneca was... well, he tried to be a good stoic in his position in politics. But his circumstances and riches did not allow for him to be completely virtuous in his position. Why should we, as common people, even try to engage in politics - where virtue has no place in a grand scheme? Anyone got some insights or their own opinions?
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are doomed to be ruled over by those who are dumber than them. I personally won’t involve myself in politics, but like Epictetus I will go into teaching and influence the next generation. I would argue that virtue and integrity have a limited place in politics. It won’t necessarily win you power, or let you keep your seat because the masses are not virtuous and the popular vote is not about what’s right, but what’s popular. However, there needs to be an infusion of sanity in today’s politics, and that won’t happen if someone doesn’t try to make that infusion. Be there change you want to see in the world.
I'm not gonna say that we shouldn't have empathy for the plight of other human beings, I have deep conviction for the impoverished among us that are suffering but at the same time, my life is my own and no one possesses a higher claim over my body, my time or my resources than I do. If I must be compelled, coerced or threatened to "serve" the greater good, then I'm no longer free. The needs of other human beings do not empower a virtuous claim against my life for working hard to make my own life better. For anyone to demand my servitude to their circumstance or cause it's morally unjust because if I cannot live my life for myself then that means I must serve as a slave to the needs of others. Some folks care for the wellbeing of animals, while others children, while others for the environment so on and so forth. Our empathy is codependent to both my principles and my values. I would not give a drunk a drink no matter how cold he claims to be. If he is cold, I should be able to help him as I see fit, for if I give him a blanket but someone else declares I must build him a house or do anything other than what my conscious dictates, they would be infringing upon my own agency. Justice does not give anyone the right to use political force against me or anyone to pay for things I do not believe in. If it matters to you, then I stand behind you proudly for the right to address your concerns with your own time, resources, and body.
We get it. You feel entitled to our acceptance of your bigotry and think that being verbose will change the crux of what you're saying. Believe what you want. Leave everyone else out of it. Nobody is taking anything away from you.
I see a slippery slope fallacy being employed by the op. Just because this philosophy says you should be internally motivated by doing good for others, it doesn’t dictate what that good is or how you should serve the public in your area. Ryan, for example, is not a politician, he’s an inspirational speaker. I won’t go into politics, but I will go into teaching. I won’t give a drunk an alcoholic drink to keep him warm (that doesn’t make any sense anyway), as you say, but I do give the homeless hand warmers and cans of spam; I refuse to give money to someone because I won’t feed an addiction. That’s just an example, I’m not saying everyone should do exactly as I do, and to make that claim would be putting words in my mouth. The point is, do good for others and all else shall follow. The point is NOT “here’s an exact list of nit picky rules about how you are expected to do good for others.” This isn’t the five pillars of Islam where the religion tells you how much you’re supposed to give to charity. Do good for others as it occurs to you to do good for them. How do you know what is good? That’s where the virtue of wisdom comes into play. Wisdom it’s a combination of knowledge and understanding that leads to sound judgment. Don’t just assume that you know what is good based on what feels good because our feelings can be wrong. Feelings have no requirement to be right or true. Pursue knowledge and understanding. Study how, as Marcus Aurelius said, “what’s good for the beehive is good for the bee.” One possible topic of study, but not the only one, is Positive Sum Game Capitalism, or Positive Sum Game Economics. You’re not losing anything and nothing is being taken from you. In fact you get more because there’s more to have: and so does everyone else.
@OpenBiolabsGuy there is no slippery slope fallacy. I made a distinct allegory of giving a drink to a drunk to stay warm because the use of alcohol to get the feeling of being warned up when you are cold is well documented but it does not actually keep a person warm. In my example, I gave several "solutions" to help someone who is cold, the first is alcohol which will make a person seem like they are warmer, the second a blanket and the third a house. When it comes to solving the world's problems, people offer many different solutions. Who gets to declare which solution is right? Why gets to declare what problem should be fixed first. My point against Ryan here is that he said you should do the right thing even if it's against your own interest. Who is the arbitrator of what is "the right thing" because a drunk will tell you the right thing is to give him whiskey to stay warm, for me the right thing would be to give him a blanket and to Jimmy Carter the right thing would be to build him a house. I do not disagree with you or Ryan that we should do good but you can only be charitable if it's voluntary. I propose that you are more capable of helping others if it aligns with your self interests, with your principles and with your values. If I do something good for the wrong reasons such as to get reelected to a political office to increase my power and wealth over others for example, that's not charity either. This is not the right forum for a debate however if my needs demand a claim against your life that you must fulfill from a position of duty and service instead of your own voluntary desire to want to do good then how does that not make you or I a slave. There are many folks who advocate for the redistribution of resources more because they are not necessarily charitable or have empathy but because they will benefit directly from the redistribution...
@OpenBiolabsGuy and I don't want to speak on Ryan's position on this matter too deep either because I have not read his book on Justice yet. This was merely my hot take on what he said regarding doing good against your own self interests. I like where you said that we must use Wisdom to know the right thing. And to be honest, I may be commenting off topic too because I know Ryan's point was to rebuke guys like Andrew Tate and I honestly don't really know much about him but I wouldn't consider Tate a person of virtue anyways...
@@WOCassity2 I may have misunderstood your point as well. We only see what others say. What we intend is often harder to divine. As to Tate, what little I've seen of Andrew Tate is honestly ludicrous. Other than being arrested in Romania for pedophilia he's so paranoid about being gay that he's afraid that being kind to your spouse or girlfriend, or even kissing a woman who might possibly have had oral sex with a man at any point in the past, makes you gay. It honestly reminds me of little boys who are afraid of touching girls in case they get cooties. As to working against your own self-interests for the sake of a greater good, I cannot speak to Ryan's take, but I can tell you my personal understanding of the subject. It will not always be that you have to sacrifice your own benefit for others' sake, but there are situations in which the right thing to do may be to perform an action for the benefit of another or others even if it is detrimental to yourself personally. In the case of kin selection this may involve acting to preserve the life and safety of your child or one of your sibling's children even at the risk of personal harm (for example snatching a toddler out of the street). In beehives, individual worker bees who get sick have been known to remove themselves from the hive to avoid spreading their disease to the rest of the colony. Although humans don't have to go to those extremes because of medical care, it is an example of kin selection in a non-human species and can be used as an allegorical example. What I mentioned about Positive Sum Game Economics goes back to the philosophy of Utilitarianism, which states that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. While this does not always have to be sacrificial (and indeed can be beneficial to you and everyone else), it can take the form of personal sacrifice such as in the case of a soldier throwing himself on top of a grenade so that others around him could live. In that situation he was going to die anyway, but had the opportunity to make sure that multiple people could survive the explosion even if he could not. It's not a question of what other people think is good for them. It's a question of what you think you need to do given the context of any given situation you're in based upon what you know and understand of the situation and how to achieve the outcome you think is best. It is a question for each of us personally: what is required in a given situation to do what is good for another or others, putting aside the fear of punishment or the hope of reward? Whatever an individual's motivation, that is altruism. It would, however, be too simple to say that acting in your own interest is conversely evil. That would be a black and white fallacy. It can be evil if doing so requires you to victimize another person (do unto others as you would have done unto yourself). However, people tend to be self-interested. This is not an absolute, but it is a statistical norm. Even eating is an act of self-interest. This is not to say that all self-interest is rational (see Ayn Rand's reaction to her boyfriend cheating on her versus how she rationalized it being okay for her to cheat on him), or good (look at the Guilded Age, or cult leaders, or dictators). Only that it is normal. It can be indifferent, which is to say neither good nor evil, such as when you buy a new TV for yourself. It can also be good, such as caring for your own mental and emotional health. Goodness is no always about other people. Sometimes charity starts at home. You cannot help other people, after all, if you do not get your own feet underneath you. As the saying goes "A blind man cannot lead a blind man out of a ditch."
I like stoicism and I also like the philosophy Andrew preaches, but sometimes I really get lost in it. I agree that he explains stoicism many times wrongly, but you were talking that if he uses stoicism as not feeling emotions for what he’s doing to women, then that’s wrong, well obviously that is wrong, but the thing is that the case made on him is most likely just made up, I know I will get hate for this, but Andrew isn’t a bad person, but he often gets stoicism wrong Thank you for this video very much, because you explained something that needed to be explained
You're familiar with his pedophile charges in Romania right? You're also familiar with how he and his groupies advocate that you shouldn't live with your wife and kids, but should leave them and go live in a house with other men and focus on making money while only occasionally visiting to have sex with your wife, thus leaving her as an obligate housekeeper and child rearer while you are absent from her and your children's lives? That's not just, it is unjust. Everything he preaches about women is about treating them as objects, or breeding stock, not people. Worse, he's become so childishly paranoid about being perceived as gay that even touching a woman who has touched a man is gay in his mind. You can look it up. "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." Would you be okay with an abusive partner keeping you in the house, jobless, and forced to bear and rear their children? On a male level, what if you were forced to pay child support and alimony even though the woman was a gold digger and an abuser? Tate's philosophy towards women is the equivalent of that. Tate is like a modern day "Peter Pan". He's grown up physically, but he hasn't matured mentally. He teaches men to be obsessed with success while running and hiding from their wives and children like cowards. It's like Seneca said: "You remember, of course, what joy you felt when you laid aside the garments of boyhood and donned the man's toga, and were escorted to the forum; nevertheless, you may look for a still greater joy when you have laid aside the mind of boyhood and when wisdom has enrolled you among men. For it is not boyhood that still stays with us, but something worse, - boyishness. And this condition is all the more serious because we possess the authority of old age, together with the follies of boyhood, yea, even the follies of infancy. Boys fear trifles, children fear shadows, we fear both."
I was attracted to stoicism because it fit so well with my Christian beliefs. All I know is that the early stoics were on the right track, they just didn't know that the Logos (word) was God and made flesh as Jesus Christ. Granted I don't know when stoicism started exactly so Jesus may not have been around yet.
Stoicism started a few hundred years before Jesus, so not long. As a secular Stoic I like the idea that the philosophy can cross religious boundaries. The early Stoics were Helenists who worshipped the gods of Olympus. It then made the jump to Christianity where its cardinal virtues were added to faith, hope, and love to make the seven heavenly virtues of Christian moral philosophy. It is practiced by Jains, Muslims, Buddhists, and others around the world today. While I am a non-believer, my wife is Christian and we both adhere to Stoic principles. It gives us a common moral currency to work with and a common intellectual framework outside of religion vs atheism.
@@OpenBiolabsGuy 'Why do Western Christians always assume that 'all relegions are the same' what basis for this claim do you have? Why is aristotle rejected in Islam with the rejection of Ibn Rushd/Averroes. Or why does al-Ghazali only identify 4 common cardinal values in Islam. Maybe read up on other perspectives in stead of embracing a naive cosmopolitan view of other cultures?
One thing stoicism has taught me is that all this woke, anti woke far left, far right nonsense in todays politics is a construct out of my control and designed by both sides to divide us.. I can’t control what happens in the political landscape but I can control what I let influence me.. neither side is a good influence.
@@BangkokHound yeah bro these people always say about why Andrew tate is wrong I mean common nobody's views is 100℅ correct about everything but I think people should see what percentage of net positives he is giving to society
@@CentroSelenium It's not about playing victim card just look at the dynamics of dating market in today's world and tate uses stoicism in the context of dealing with today's hard life of man
Everything I watch Ryan he pushes his leftist ideology and political opinion. He is mad at grifters but literally every episode, every email, every podcast is either a commercial for a product he is selling or it's pushing his agenda. Sometimes both. Don't throw stones in a glass house Ryan
If you write books for a living, you need people to know about them to spread your message. Do you do what you do for a living in the dark? Did you not feel the need to spread your own message to other people today?
Ryan, tear apart Nat Ellison on his take on Stoicism, where again he is quite literal, and probably also on the spectrum with his black and white thinking.
For someone who is meant to be teaching wisdom you speak like the common fool, reiterating what the mainstream media is saying about Andrew tate which isn't even true about exploiting women. Now if you just focused on how what he says is stoicism is incorrect that would be different.
Pretty extreme miss characterization of Andrew Tate... Not very fair, nor stoic, to talk about other people in this way. As they say, "You look at the pimples of others, while you yourself are covered". Not saying Ryan is, but looking at Andrew's pimples achieves nothing.
