Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by darwin8u
How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life by Massimo Pigliucci
3.0
"Men who made these discoveries before us are not our masters, bur our guides. Truth lies open for all; it has not yet been monopolized."
- Seneca quoted in Pigliucci's 'How to Be a Stoic"
For me the book was a bit too superficial on Stoicism and focused too much on the author's personal journey. In some ways, this book reminds me a bit of Robert Wright's [b:Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment|32895535|Why Buddhism is True The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment|Robert Wright|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1500809335l/32895535._SX50_.jpg|53509411] -- EXCEPT I think Wright's analysis and wrting were both better.
It makes me sad because I wanted so much to like this book. My personal philosophy of life seems to swing a bit between the Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius and the Epicureanism of Lucretius. So, perhaps, I'm a Stoic and work and an Epicurean at home. Or, maybe, I'm a Stoic during the day and an Epicurean at night.
Anyway, perhaps the book missed its target with me because I wanted a deeper dive into Stoicism, but paired with a deeper dive into the conflicts between Stocism and Modernity*. My final major critique is, while I enjoyed the major structure/organization of the book. He divides the book into four sections. The first three are the three disciplines of stoicism: 1. Desire, 2. Action, and 3. Assent. In the final and fourth section of the book, Pigliucci gives us a dozen selected spiritual excercises to get the reader started on their way to "becoming a good student of Stoicism" and as "good a person as [the reader] can be." My problem lies in the awkward path Pigliucci uses. He choses Epicetetus to be his Virgil (ok, I'm game), but then literally pretends to be having conversations mid-narrative with Epicetetus..."it was at this point during our conversation that I realized what Epicetetus was telling me had countless applications in my own life." In theory I get what Pigliucci was trying to do, but it came off awkward and a bit forced and kind of silly. At least I'm positive that the three stars aren't going to cause Pigliucci any pain. He's a Stoic. He's got the tools to survive my three-star=slight.
* One fascinating conflict would be Bill Clinton's well-known love of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. While it is certainly possible that Clinton read(s) Meditations yearly. After eight years as President, Clinton is not the President most would pick to exemplify a modern, stoic philosopher king.
- Seneca quoted in Pigliucci's 'How to Be a Stoic"
For me the book was a bit too superficial on Stoicism and focused too much on the author's personal journey. In some ways, this book reminds me a bit of Robert Wright's [b:Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment|32895535|Why Buddhism is True The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment|Robert Wright|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1500809335l/32895535._SX50_.jpg|53509411] -- EXCEPT I think Wright's analysis and wrting were both better.
It makes me sad because I wanted so much to like this book. My personal philosophy of life seems to swing a bit between the Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius and the Epicureanism of Lucretius. So, perhaps, I'm a Stoic and work and an Epicurean at home. Or, maybe, I'm a Stoic during the day and an Epicurean at night.
Anyway, perhaps the book missed its target with me because I wanted a deeper dive into Stoicism, but paired with a deeper dive into the conflicts between Stocism and Modernity*. My final major critique is, while I enjoyed the major structure/organization of the book. He divides the book into four sections. The first three are the three disciplines of stoicism: 1. Desire, 2. Action, and 3. Assent. In the final and fourth section of the book, Pigliucci gives us a dozen selected spiritual excercises to get the reader started on their way to "becoming a good student of Stoicism" and as "good a person as [the reader] can be." My problem lies in the awkward path Pigliucci uses. He choses Epicetetus to be his Virgil (ok, I'm game), but then literally pretends to be having conversations mid-narrative with Epicetetus..."it was at this point during our conversation that I realized what Epicetetus was telling me had countless applications in my own life." In theory I get what Pigliucci was trying to do, but it came off awkward and a bit forced and kind of silly. At least I'm positive that the three stars aren't going to cause Pigliucci any pain. He's a Stoic. He's got the tools to survive my three-star=slight.
* One fascinating conflict would be Bill Clinton's well-known love of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. While it is certainly possible that Clinton read(s) Meditations yearly. After eight years as President, Clinton is not the President most would pick to exemplify a modern, stoic philosopher king.