I find the cover image and the whole concept a bit disturbing. Do we really want to associate Stoicism with capitalism, and encourage a system that has exploited millions and resulted in the most unequal society since the Roman Empire?
It’s worth considering, for sure. The only one I can think of is the sort practiced in most European countries, that is a capitalism tamed and regulated by a social democratic system.
With respect, Massimo, why would you judge a book by its cover? I suggest reading the book, then commenting. Also, you surrender your objectivity by showing your bias away from Capitalism as a system, yet the theme of the article is to stop surrendering yourself to the antagonism of "the system" and work with the system. How else do you reform a system that, in your mind, is perverse? One option would be to maintain the status quo of reducing the conversation to this-ism versus that-ism.
Daniel, with respect, I said pretty much nothing about the book, precisely because I haven’t read it. I said that the general idea, and the specific imagery, disturb me. I think I am entitled to such opinions, no?
Second, there are many ways to reform a system, both from the inside and from the outside. Some would say that working “with the system,” in this case, is problematic. Again, a perfectly respectable idea, grounded in longstanding factual and philosophical analyses.
Lastly, again with respect, in your opinion being a critic of an idea, in this case capitalism, is the same as surrendering one’s objectivity? That’s news to me.
Sorry but that’s not what I meant at all. Of course you can argue with an opinion. About what else would you argue? And it’s not a matter of “playing” anything.
If you are interested in an actual discussion, could we start with perhaps you telling me what you think Stoicism has to do with capitalism in the first place? Since money and wealth are indifferents for a Stoic, why even bring the topic up in the first place?
I'm not quite sure how we get from Stoicism to capitalism either, though non-laissez-faire capitalism does look to me like the best system anyone has ever devised for lifting billions out of poverty. Still, the aphorisms here are haunting and great and valuable, and they make me want to read the book.
Well, on one hand, Zeno reputedly went from being a successful merchant to positing a utopia in which currency is abolished and property is held in common. On the other hand, two thousand years later, Adam Smith was influenced by Stoicism. I don't know how it would turn out but I think someone might plausibly make an attempt to argue for a Stoic conception of ethical capitalism based on Smith's writings.
I did not know that about Adam Smith but I'm glad to know it now! Sigh...there's not enough time in the world to follow all these interesting leads!
Luca Grillo at Notre Dame published a book in the PUP Ancient Wisdom series called How to Make Money. It's not about Stoicism, but it's very good and he might have some insights to share.
Smith believed that capitalism would only work if the government intervened to prevent corruption and maintained social institutions that fostered moral virtue through education, etc.
I could swear I heard recently that the maxim "Trust, but verify" has a Stoic origin. Obviously I associate it with Ronald Reagan, though I believe he got it from a Soviet source. It seems to good to be true that it would have anything to do with Stoicism, but if it does, that would fit well with what you write about Smith here.
Indeed, I learned that lesson as a kid by playing Monopoly. Many years later I discovered that that's the very lesson the game's inventor wanted to teach - who knew?
I find the cover image and the whole concept a bit disturbing. Do we really want to associate Stoicism with capitalism, and encourage a system that has exploited millions and resulted in the most unequal society since the Roman Empire?
That's a valid concern, IMO, but I think it's also worth considering whether there can be ethical forms of capitalism.
It’s worth considering, for sure. The only one I can think of is the sort practiced in most European countries, that is a capitalism tamed and regulated by a social democratic system.
With respect, Massimo, why would you judge a book by its cover? I suggest reading the book, then commenting. Also, you surrender your objectivity by showing your bias away from Capitalism as a system, yet the theme of the article is to stop surrendering yourself to the antagonism of "the system" and work with the system. How else do you reform a system that, in your mind, is perverse? One option would be to maintain the status quo of reducing the conversation to this-ism versus that-ism.
Daniel, with respect, I said pretty much nothing about the book, precisely because I haven’t read it. I said that the general idea, and the specific imagery, disturb me. I think I am entitled to such opinions, no?
Second, there are many ways to reform a system, both from the inside and from the outside. Some would say that working “with the system,” in this case, is problematic. Again, a perfectly respectable idea, grounded in longstanding factual and philosophical analyses.
Lastly, again with respect, in your opinion being a critic of an idea, in this case capitalism, is the same as surrendering one’s objectivity? That’s news to me.
I can't argue with an opinion. Well played.
Sorry but that’s not what I meant at all. Of course you can argue with an opinion. About what else would you argue? And it’s not a matter of “playing” anything.
If you are interested in an actual discussion, could we start with perhaps you telling me what you think Stoicism has to do with capitalism in the first place? Since money and wealth are indifferents for a Stoic, why even bring the topic up in the first place?
I'm not quite sure how we get from Stoicism to capitalism either, though non-laissez-faire capitalism does look to me like the best system anyone has ever devised for lifting billions out of poverty. Still, the aphorisms here are haunting and great and valuable, and they make me want to read the book.
Well, on one hand, Zeno reputedly went from being a successful merchant to positing a utopia in which currency is abolished and property is held in common. On the other hand, two thousand years later, Adam Smith was influenced by Stoicism. I don't know how it would turn out but I think someone might plausibly make an attempt to argue for a Stoic conception of ethical capitalism based on Smith's writings.
I did not know that about Adam Smith but I'm glad to know it now! Sigh...there's not enough time in the world to follow all these interesting leads!
Luca Grillo at Notre Dame published a book in the PUP Ancient Wisdom series called How to Make Money. It's not about Stoicism, but it's very good and he might have some insights to share.
Smith believed that capitalism would only work if the government intervened to prevent corruption and maintained social institutions that fostered moral virtue through education, etc.
I could swear I heard recently that the maxim "Trust, but verify" has a Stoic origin. Obviously I associate it with Ronald Reagan, though I believe he got it from a Soviet source. It seems to good to be true that it would have anything to do with Stoicism, but if it does, that would fit well with what you write about Smith here.
The trick is in that “non” you put in front of “laissez-faire”…
Indeed, I learned that lesson as a kid by playing Monopoly. Many years later I discovered that that's the very lesson the game's inventor wanted to teach - who knew?
Very few people know about the intentions behind Monopoly. Many think it’s a celebration of capitalism…