I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer's words: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills" accompany me in all situations throughout my life.
I don’t think that is the point of Aurelius. It’s not about changing your will, but about realising what is in your control, and taking responsibility where you have control.
> How can you have responsibility if you don't have free will?
Responsibility, and its sister concept blame, are distractions from solving problems. Responsibility and blame put the focus on finding who was responsible for the problem and blaming them, which then leads to the logical conclusion of punishing them. But this so rarely actually solves the problem. When someone makes a mistake, it's usually not intentional, and often it's a failure of training. Sure, there are extremes: maybe the person shows up drunk to work and needs to be fired--but that's still not about responsibility and blame, it's just recognizing that people who show up drunk to work can't make good decisions. It's a matter of facts and mechanics, not of responsibility and blame.
> And how can you have control if you don't have free will?
This is a question without implications. Consider the possibilities:
1. Let's say free will exists. We go along our merry way, exerting our control in everyday situations.
2. Let's say free will doesn't exist. We go along our merry way, exerting no control on any situation, but we perceive ourselves as exerting control over everyday situations.
Just try your best, maybe that won't have any effect because you don't have free will, but maybe it will.
I actually tend with Einstein on this: every system I've been able to gain a firm understanding of has had deterministic causality, and the systems where free will could be hiding (i.e. quantum mechanics) don't appear to actually have any connection to the systems that determine human action--that is to say, I don't think free will exists. But so what? It's sort of an irrelevant conclusion.
> Responsibility, and its sister concept blame, are distractions from solving problems. Responsibility and blame put the focus on finding who was responsible for the problem and blaming them, which then leads to the logical conclusion of punishing them. But this so rarely actually solves the problem. When someone makes a mistake, it's usually not intentional, and often it's a failure of training.
Responsibility and punishment are good because people make better decisions inside frameworks that recognize these things.
Though, he or someone else with Aurelius in their name wrote a guide telling self to suicide if you lose control over your mind and was rather obsessive about it.
I think quotes should be without mentioning the person. If the quote is a valid assertion then it will prove itself otherwise it tends to rely on the 'who' for its validity which lacks context and is decisive in nature.
the techcrunch article claims the quote was "not about liberty but taxes" and even links to the Franklin quote, which is , oddly , about liberty:
> "In fine, we have the most sensible concern for the poor distressed inhabitants of the frontiers. We have taken every step in our power, consistent with the just rights of the freemen of Pennsylvania, for their relief, and we have reason to believe, that in the midst of their distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase arms and ammunition have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, ...
Oh didn't see that but my point was simply to avoid labelling quote with the person.
HN and many other places use that quote to push pro privacy debate in a really different dynamics and world than author of that quote lived in. He couldn't have seen such malicious software taking over the world. While the quote on its may be a good ideal.
You can't imply author would take similar stance to software and privacy in drastic different settings where organization argue that to protect the liberty of state and freedom of its people, they require trampling on privacy of others or its own citizens.
Humans by nature are hypocritical and contextual. Assuming that is important in validating the position one might take. In the absence of evidence, just rely on the essence of words.
in this case the `who` is Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher King, and his name is well known after 2 thousands years because he was who he was (probably the best king Rome has ever had).
There's an equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill in Rome and it's been there since 175 A.C. it must mean something.
(actually it's not on public display anymore, it's been moved in the Capitoline Museums to preserve it, but it's still on the Capitoline Hill)
Sometimes the quote has value attached because of the 'who'.
For example: if a man that died on 17 March 180 had knowledge of our mind that predates studies on it, it means that 2 thousands year ago there were exceptionally intelligent people and 2 thousands year later they still are above average.
If Marcus Aurelius already knew it it must be something humans struggle to understand or that humans are wired to blame the outside.
BTW Marcus Aurelius was a he, I'm sure he want get upset if you call him 'he'.
I agree with Aurelius that we should focus on that which is in our control, but I disagree with where to draw that line: anyone who meditates runs quickly into the limitations of our power over our minds.
I'd say that what we have is power over our actions, and some of our thoughts and feelings.
But Aurelius' larger point, that we should focus on that which we have power over, is key to effective focus and emotional stability.
Sadly, such an obvious concept but weirdly ignored by a lot of executives. I remember being at a company with "Don't be a jerk" as one of the top culture lines but one of the most senior executives was probably the craziest jerk you've ever met.
There's probably a reason they have to tout that, right. I think one of the most reliable lines I've encountered like that is "I don't like drama". People who say that tend to always be involved in drama, which is why they have to verbalise that they don't like it in the first place. I also do not like drama, but I don't verbalise this, but rather I just avoid it.
If you have to say "dont be a jerk", rather than just do it, what does that really say?
I think in psychology it's called mirroring, if I'm not mistaken. A lot of the times those who lecture others (especially when nobody asked them to) are lecturing themselves without realizing it.
Someone once explained to me that group slogans and mottos are often aspirational rather than descriptive or even prescriptive.
I wish I could say I’ve never forgotten that lesson, but the fact is I forget it quite often. I feel a little bit dumber every time mistake a value statement for actual values.
I worked at a company with the same slogan and the same situation. In that case, the team that made the culture code did not have actual buy in from anybody, they just put up a bunch of signs, partially as a passive aggressive rebuke to the perceived jerk. Always felt like culture is the behavior we tolerate, not the virtues we post in culture guides, and tolerance of bad behavior was a weak point of that management team.
All that said, there is often more happening than we know, so I try to keep my own judgmental feelings in check.
This is a hard lesson that I could only learn after transitioning from employee to business owner. By being the latter, you face the hard truth that nothing, zero, is going to happen until to take the steps and do it. This year I'm back as an employee and I think I'm carrying the experience and lessons learned that if I don't do it, it won't happen (let alone expect somebody else to do it for me).
The obvious difference being that when you're a business owner, you have the mandate to make those changes, and rightfully you can reap the rewards afterwards. The same problem when you're an employee is much more complex. You may lack the mandate to perform the change, you may have inefficient or hostile management involved, there may be adverse incentives at play, and so much more.
I think it's a disservice to everyone to compare the experience of being an entrepreneur to that of being an employee. Sure, most employees could probably use some more initiative, but a lot of the time the amount of initiative you get out of employees is directly correlated to the possibility that someone will listen and take action on that initiative. In many, many companies, that possibility is almost zero.
I don't see it as a disservice. Many good employees seek to develop an "entrepreneurial" attitude at their jobs. That translates into more attention to detail, focus on the customer, accountability and care for the overall profitability of the company; all that regardless of having the mandate to things or not. Experienced managers can quickly identify individuals with those characteristics, some of them got a fancy title of "high potentials" in some companies. Some other companies understand that employees without entrepreneurial attitude are more inclined to just do their jobs, which is fine, but really just fine.
> I am accountable for myself and that if I want my circumstances to change, it starts with me.
Anyone with a minimum of intellectual honesty will accept that this is only partly true. Any circumstance that you find yourself in is a combination of many factors, it can never be naively boiled down to the single factor of "you". There are many variables that go into putting you, the reader, and myself, in the exact situations we are in now. That our actions have influenced it is beyond discussion, but that it has the potential to uniquely shape it, regardless of external factors, is absurd.
So, you may say: "Sure, external factors will affect you, but where you go from here is completely up to you" -- but this apparent truism does not hold up to scrutiny. If your life so far could not have been shaped exclusively and purely by your own initiative, how can the rest of your life?
The church of individual performance and the cult of myself is so intimately tied into our current zeitgeist or hegemony that nobody even seems to question it. I really wish more people did, if nothing else it would make for more interesting philosophy, possibly something that felt a little less like "The Secret".
One example might be the growing homeless population in California. Many of these individuals are responsible and hard working, but without an advocate they're trapped in a downward spiral with zero chance of reentry to society.
External factors always have a huge influence on outcomes, but they are also often not under your control. Focusing on the things you do have control over is vastly better than using uncontrollable things as an excuse not to bother at all. This means that if a person needs to pretend it's all about themselves, in order to be motivated enough to try and control the controllable, then that's the best strategy.
> if a person needs to pretend it's all about themselves, in order to be motivated enough to try and control the controllable, then that's the best strategy.
It might be the best strategy for your own individual performance, but I question how it affects your view of other peoples' struggles.
It's not about disregarding that external factors can and do significantly interfere with anyone's life. It's about recognizing that the most significant contribution to your well being is in fact your own actions in the vast majority of cases and especially on longer time scales. It makes no sense to worry about the external factors that affect an individuals life since there is no way to affect those to a significant degree.
A few days ago on HN the letter-to-shareholders by Howard Marks was posted, where he says investing is like Blackjack or Backgammon (it involves luck and skill) and how a good decision doesn't necessarily bring a good result and vice versa. I think this applies to life itself. Everything you do is a bet where only part of the information is available, and all you can do is to have a good decision process, which can still lead to unfavourable outcomes.
I don't known it good or not. But if i do a lot, but nothing changes? I knew that we need to pass some failure before we success. But when you go in the long way , tressure sometimes want to kill me. Sorry my bad English
We are at all times subconsciously holding ourselves down: "I can't. I'll try and fail. I'm not enough. I'm afraid". Life is all about Experimentation, Experience, Discovery and Self-Discovery so that you ultimately transcend who you thought you was and discover who you really are.
47 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] thread- Marcus Aurelius
- Albert Einstein
- myself
- Frederic Lohard
This quote is substantiated.
- myself
And how can you have control if you don't have free will?
Could you be so kind to teach me?
p.s.: I have a master degree in philosophy.
Responsibility, and its sister concept blame, are distractions from solving problems. Responsibility and blame put the focus on finding who was responsible for the problem and blaming them, which then leads to the logical conclusion of punishing them. But this so rarely actually solves the problem. When someone makes a mistake, it's usually not intentional, and often it's a failure of training. Sure, there are extremes: maybe the person shows up drunk to work and needs to be fired--but that's still not about responsibility and blame, it's just recognizing that people who show up drunk to work can't make good decisions. It's a matter of facts and mechanics, not of responsibility and blame.
> And how can you have control if you don't have free will?
This is a question without implications. Consider the possibilities:
1. Let's say free will exists. We go along our merry way, exerting our control in everyday situations.
2. Let's say free will doesn't exist. We go along our merry way, exerting no control on any situation, but we perceive ourselves as exerting control over everyday situations.
Just try your best, maybe that won't have any effect because you don't have free will, but maybe it will.
I actually tend with Einstein on this: every system I've been able to gain a firm understanding of has had deterministic causality, and the systems where free will could be hiding (i.e. quantum mechanics) don't appear to actually have any connection to the systems that determine human action--that is to say, I don't think free will exists. But so what? It's sort of an irrelevant conclusion.
Responsibility and punishment are good because people make better decisions inside frameworks that recognize these things.
If you're a dog, yes.
If you are a human of the year 2020 of the Gregorian calendar living in a developed country, there are better options.
You wrote Rouchefoucald, which is wrong.
I think quotes should be without mentioning the person. If the quote is a valid assertion then it will prove itself otherwise it tends to rely on the 'who' for its validity which lacks context and is decisive in nature.
0] https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...
> "In fine, we have the most sensible concern for the poor distressed inhabitants of the frontiers. We have taken every step in our power, consistent with the just rights of the freemen of Pennsylvania, for their relief, and we have reason to believe, that in the midst of their distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase arms and ammunition have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, ...
https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=HptPAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA9...
HN and many other places use that quote to push pro privacy debate in a really different dynamics and world than author of that quote lived in. He couldn't have seen such malicious software taking over the world. While the quote on its may be a good ideal. You can't imply author would take similar stance to software and privacy in drastic different settings where organization argue that to protect the liberty of state and freedom of its people, they require trampling on privacy of others or its own citizens.
Humans by nature are hypocritical and contextual. Assuming that is important in validating the position one might take. In the absence of evidence, just rely on the essence of words.
in this case the `who` is Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher King, and his name is well known after 2 thousands years because he was who he was (probably the best king Rome has ever had).
There's an equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill in Rome and it's been there since 175 A.C. it must mean something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius#/media/File:St...
(actually it's not on public display anymore, it's been moved in the Capitoline Museums to preserve it, but it's still on the Capitoline Hill)
Sometimes the quote has value attached because of the 'who'.
For example: if a man that died on 17 March 180 had knowledge of our mind that predates studies on it, it means that 2 thousands year ago there were exceptionally intelligent people and 2 thousands year later they still are above average.
If Marcus Aurelius already knew it it must be something humans struggle to understand or that humans are wired to blame the outside.
BTW Marcus Aurelius was a he, I'm sure he want get upset if you call him 'he'.
I'd say that what we have is power over our actions, and some of our thoughts and feelings.
But Aurelius' larger point, that we should focus on that which we have power over, is key to effective focus and emotional stability.
- Reinhold Niebuhr
If you have to say "dont be a jerk", rather than just do it, what does that really say?
I wish I could say I’ve never forgotten that lesson, but the fact is I forget it quite often. I feel a little bit dumber every time mistake a value statement for actual values.
All that said, there is often more happening than we know, so I try to keep my own judgmental feelings in check.
I think it's a disservice to everyone to compare the experience of being an entrepreneur to that of being an employee. Sure, most employees could probably use some more initiative, but a lot of the time the amount of initiative you get out of employees is directly correlated to the possibility that someone will listen and take action on that initiative. In many, many companies, that possibility is almost zero.
Anyone with a minimum of intellectual honesty will accept that this is only partly true. Any circumstance that you find yourself in is a combination of many factors, it can never be naively boiled down to the single factor of "you". There are many variables that go into putting you, the reader, and myself, in the exact situations we are in now. That our actions have influenced it is beyond discussion, but that it has the potential to uniquely shape it, regardless of external factors, is absurd.
So, you may say: "Sure, external factors will affect you, but where you go from here is completely up to you" -- but this apparent truism does not hold up to scrutiny. If your life so far could not have been shaped exclusively and purely by your own initiative, how can the rest of your life?
The church of individual performance and the cult of myself is so intimately tied into our current zeitgeist or hegemony that nobody even seems to question it. I really wish more people did, if nothing else it would make for more interesting philosophy, possibly something that felt a little less like "The Secret".
It might be the best strategy for your own individual performance, but I question how it affects your view of other peoples' struggles.