On The Stoicism Of Henry Rollins

Henry Rollins does not dodge responsibility for his choices. When he says something he means it. He risks. I admire that.

Take for example his 2014 rant against suicide, in which he paints people who kill themselves as selfish. He took a lot of heat for that. He considered the criticism, agreed, and published a full apology. He writes: "To those I offended, I believe you and I apologize. If what I wrote causes you to toss me out of your boat, it is to my great regret, but I understand and thank you for your thoughts."

In the minds of people I don't want to be like this could be seen as weakness, but of course it's strength*. It's Stoic. 

I have always been very impressed with Henry Rollins. If you aren't familiar with his work he began his public life as the lead singer of a punk band called "Black Flag." He went on to form his own band and from there branched out into print, screen and stage. He's a sort of rennaisance man of the 21st century.

He is a charismatic figure to be sure; he has an intensity about him that you don't find very often. He's also eccentric for a man in his position. He lifts weights as a philosophical exercise (there's no hint of vanity about him) and he refuses to drink, smoke or take drugs. That must make him something of an oddball in the entertainment industry.

He spends his life traveling the world and bringing stories of other lands back to the West. He tells us these stories at "spoken word" shows. His performances have a lot in common with standup comedy but comedy is not the goal; comedy is the vehicle he uses to transmit his message.

And what is his message? He wants us to open our eyes to the rest of the world and love our fellow human beings.

If you take in enough of Rollins' work you will begin to notice something; he's never ironic. He is the anti-hipster. He is aboslutely, completely sincere. Watch this interview and you'll see what I mean:

Nardwar is a character. Rollins clearly thinks that playing such a character is at the least a waste of time, but he contains himself. To each his own.

Compare this to an earlier interview with Nardwar:

What we see here is a man who has learned to step outside of himself and evaluate his own thoughts. Does this make him a Stoic? No, I don't think so, but he certainly has found some Stoic techniques. He feels intensely; he values emotion. He sees anger as a tramsformational force. If we all get angry enough we'll change the world. Maybe he's right. It's not the Stoic way, but I like it. I prefer my way, but it's interesting.

Here is an encounter between Rollins and some New York hipsters which illustrates his sincerity:

Is his response Stoic? I'd say it is in the sense that he doesn't fear his antagonists and in that he stands up for what he believes. There is an aggressiveness there, though, that probably isn't Stoic. On the other hand Zeno is recorded as having launched some verbal barbs at the young and beautiful of his day. Here's a famous one from Diogenes:

"A young man was talking a great deal of nonsense, and he said to him, 'This is the reason why we have two ears and only one mouth, that we may hear more and speak less."

So I would argue that Rollins is not a natural Stoic, but that he embodies certain Stoic ideals, and that emulating him might be useful to a Stoic. As Seneca says of Epicurus, the founder of a rival philosophy: "Epicurus is worth listening to, and his wise sayings should be regarded not as Epicurus' alone but as common and public property."

* * *

*If you write for an audience you are going to get feedback, and sometimes that will lead you to change your mind. Sometimes it won't. Admitting the fact when it does is strength. Apologizing simply because people complain is not. Rollins shows strength in his apology.

Best Of Enemies

Best Of Enemies, available on Netflix, is a fascinating look at the debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. during the 1968 Republican Convention.

I'll leave you to it. Let me just say that for me the most interesting bit is the end. Buckley, the patrician libertarian, regrets something unnamed and says that he is tired of life. The film implies that what he regrets is losing his temper on national television and calling Vidal a "queer" after Vidal called him a "crypto-fascist." Mr. Buckley died in 2008.

Before Vidal, the patrician progressive, died in 2012 he told the ghost of William F. Buckley to "RIP... in Hell." An associate of Vidal's tells us that he loved the fact that he got the last word.

I really like Vidal's work, and in terms of both cognitive ability and talent for writing he eclipses me (as does Buckley, by a wide margin). His Julian is fantastic. Still, if I have my choice I'd rather go out like Buckley. I'd rather know that I should have done better than glory in the fact that I died last.

Either way both men were brilliant and both were principled. I admire Buckley's belief in personal responsibility and I admire Vidal's willingness question received wisdom.

The moral of the film, though, is that our toxic modern politics originates with these two.

Maybe...

Shame-based Ethical Enforcement

In this brave new world we seem to be working out a new system of morality, and that system seems to be shame-based. Stoicism might be a good response to that. A personal example:

I recently stuck to an opinion in the face of adversity.

I respect the other side very much; they're some of my best friends, but we had a genuine disagreement. It was a very minor thing that blew up into a very big thing.  I'm responsible for a good part of that... I wasn't very Stoic. My words were measured but my tone wasn't. I didn't resort to ad hominem and I didn't say anything offensive, but when they got loud so did I. Or maybe I got loud first? I can't remember.

They asserted that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with them. They ascribed personal motives to my position. They questioned my character.

I did not apologize and I didn't act shamed and it seems to have immediately died down into nothing.

"SHAME ON YOU!"

"No thanks."

"Oh, OK then... could you pass the coffee?"

It was bizarre.

This happened once before. There was shame, I didn't act shamed, then there was reasoned discussion and I changed my mind. They seemed surprised, because I didn't hold a grudge. I treated them exactly as I had before.

Well, a Stoic looks at criticism and assents or not. That time I assented. This time I did not.

Be the purple thread.

The Good Men Project

Some of the bloggers I've read view The Good Men Project as a genuine exploration of what it means to be masculine in the 21st century (that's certainly how TGMP sees itself). Others consider it to be a propaganda arm of the feminist movement, a sort of Pravda to be consumed by the non-ovarian set.

I've never actually read it... until now!

What follows are my impressions, recorded as I read. It's this sort of investigative journalism that has earned me more than 2 cents in ad revenue, folks.

1. First off, in the "About" section the publishers tell us that:

"Guys today are neither the mindless, sex-obsessed buffoons nor the stoic automatons our culture so often makes them out to be. Our community is smart, compassionate, curious, and open-minded; they strive to be good fathers and husbands, citizens and friends, to lead by example at home and in the workplace, and to understand their role in a changing world. The Good Men Project is a place where that happens. We’re glad to have you along for the ride."

Here "stoic" is used with the lower case "s," which seems to mean "without emotion." We Stoics would say that acceptable emotions include joy, wishing and caution, emotions which contribute to the admirable state of mind which follows "Our community" in the above paragraph. In fact the ideal discussed in this paragraph would seem to describe, at least in part, the ideal Stoic sage.

2. Moving on to the front page, the following headlines catch my eye:

"How To Harness And Heal The Pain Of A Breakup"
"Task 50 of 52: Good Men Mind Their P's And Q's"
"The Limitless Joy Of Never Fully Knowing Your Significant Other"
"Why Passion Is Overrated"
"They Don't Have To Be Your Out-laws"
"Men Need Healthy Role Models-Make Your Voice Heard"
"See Yourself As She Sees You-Real Is Sexy"
"Co-Parenting: It Doesn't Have To Be Difficult"
"Why Women Are Smarter Than Men"
"In Appreciation: An Open Letter To All The Good Men In The World"

These really are the headlines that jumped out at me, though you don't know that for certain. As far as you know I cherry picked them. So with that in mind, TGMP is marketed to this guy (let's call him Ted):

Ted has known some pain in his life. He's divorced and has had a hard time getting over his ex. He has a new relationship, though, and he's eager to maintain some mystery with her/him. He needs to! He's a little confused about how to be "sexy" for her/him, if we're being honest. 

Ted has anxiety. He doesn't get along with his in-laws but he wants to. The ex has proven difficult to co-parent his 2.3 children with, but he's willing to work with her/him. 

Ted is not content. He's searching for something, for a way forward in the 21st century. He wants men to look up to, men who can show him the way. He wants to be a good man, and good men are a rare commodity these days. What defines "good," though? He's here to learn the answer to that question.

I KNOW Ted. I know lots of Teds. I don't think that I am Ted, but maybe I used to be.

For your reading pleasure I'll delve more deeply into the headlines and deliver to you my "take-away." Any reactions I have will be listed in blue. Keep in mind that these are only one man's impressions. I've been wrong before.

3. "How To Harness And Heal The Pain Of A Breakup"

Use stress hormones to motivate you to exercise, take up new hobbies and launch new creative endeavors. Then be honest with yourself as to why you broke up. Love yourself, feel your emotions fully, forgive the other party and be grateful that the relationship happened at all.

As a Stoic I'd probably tell myself that relationships often end. I'd do a review of my own actions, change what needs to be changed, deny assent to the idea that anything tragic has happened and move on.


4. "Task 50 of 52: Good Men Mind Their P's And Q's"

Standard traditional American manners... your great grandfather would agree with this.

Follow these rules or don't. There's some good stuff here. One thing stands out, though: "don't ogle the women." If by "ogle" the author means barking like a dog in a Looney Toons cartoon, fair enough. If he means "don't notice that women are physically attractive" then I wonder how guys would get girlfriends at all. I hope he doesn't mean that we should be ashamed of our sexuality...



5. "The Limitless Joy Of Never Fully Knowing Your Significant Other"

The author finds familiarity stultifying. When a relationship becomes routine it ends. To prevent this we must enter an ego-less state which in my view strongly resembles Zen Buddhism. As a dispassionate observer we will realize the limitless otherness in our partner and never be bored again.

Stoics find joy in virtue, not in an endless feeling of mystery centered around one person. According to the author he's felt endless mystery for his partner for three and a half years, though, so what do I know? Good luck, pal.


6. "Why Passion Is Overrated"

The author begins with a poker analogy and defines "passion" as shoving all your chips in and hoping for the best. He's a fair poker player, and it was curiosity rather than passion which led him to that pursuit and which helps him to beat "passionate" players. In his regular life he bet his future on naval aviation and a wife and neither worked out, leaving him miserable. He then worked for a phone company an enjoyed it but got laid off. He started a business but it failed. Finally curiosity about a distant couple dancing in a gazebo drew him to the tango. He started a non-profit to promote tango and achieved happiness. Passion flames out but curiosity lasts.

This sounds pretty Stoic in that he avoids passions, but not very Stoic in that his happiness depends on his external circumstances. I admire how this guy keeps bouncing back. And he's found a way to make a living off of the tango. That's impressive. The tango!


7. "They Don't Have To Be Your Out-laws"

Play your cards close to your chest. Don't play family politics and don't say things that people will disagree with. You can pull it together for a couple of days per year, can't you?

Solid advice. In my experience there is no hill I'm willing to die on at a family reunion. I like to find one or two very interesting, open people, people who don't mind a polite disagreement should one arise but who aren't looking for one, and spend most of my time with them.


8. "Men Need Healthy Role Models-Make Your Voice Heard"

Please submit pieces to us about how you overcame health problems.

If I ever overcome one I'll do that! I'm serious; this thing isn't half bad.


9. "See Yourself As She Sees You-Real Is Sexy"

This one vanished as I read other articles... or it didn't and I just have attention problems. I can't find it, though. So let's do "Don't Let Gender Expectations Ruin Your Marriage."

John Gray, of "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" fame, exaggerates gender differences and it has made him very popular, but he's wrong. Society pushes men into traditonal, harmful masculinity. Women participating in casual male-bashing doesn't help. Society should let men be vulnerable. It is frustrating that many women seem to want the old, masculine man and not the vulnerable new man. Women are still judged by the old feminine standard even though they have been encouraged to abandon it. All of this produces power struggles. The key to resolve these is a mix of patience, negotiation, and assuming the best of the other party.

There's a lot more to this article... a lot to digest. My immediate reaction is that, according to the author, women find bad boys sexy but they shouldn't. Attraction can be negotiated. I'm skeptical.



10. "Co-Parenting: It Doesn't Have To Be Difficult!"

Communicate, negotiate, and keep the kid's best interests in mind. If that fails get a mediator.

My aunt does this. She's brilliant at it; best step-mom in the world. Solid advice.


11. "Why Women Are Smarter Than Men"

Women score higher in emotional intelligence (EQ) than men, and EQ is critical in suceeding in the work place. To raise your EQ don't drink caffiene and do get more sleep. Don't be too hard on yourself and be grateful for what you have.

On the other hand caffeine is a cognitive booster, so if you want to be slightly more abrasive but have slightly better ideas visit Starbucks. Are women better at relationships? I'll have to look around and see if I can find evidence of that in my daily life. Maybe they are!


12. "In Appreciation: An Open Letter To All The Good Men In The World"

The author is grateful to the men who taught her lessons and brought her to her current high level of relationship happiness. A good man, in her view, is one who:

Will take care of his partner. Will smile, hug, give a back rub, share in the house work. Will call in the middle of the day just to say Hi. Will empower his partner to be all that he/she can be. Will be there for his children, and nurture them to help them be all that they can be. Will be proud if his partner makes more money than he does. He knows the job does not define the man. Will occasionally surprise his partner, in a good way. Will make plans for the future, both long and short term. Will listen, hear and understands with his heart. Will protect his partner, and family. Will serenade his partner. Will sit and let his partner cry it out, or stamp his/her feet until it is all out. Will have done some of his work, and will be there for his partner while they work through their own stuff. Will build things, fix things, invent things. Will have his own life, his own hobbies, his own sense of worth. Will not depend on his partner for his financial life or his emotional life, now [sic] will he want his partner to be his reason for living.

Source

Here's where I fall short, according to the author: making plans for the future, listening, serenading, and sitting and letting her cry it out. She lists twenty-six standards, and I meet twenty-two of them. Not bad! I wonder of my partner would give me 22/26? Perhaps I've just deluded myself.

I'd like to see a list of characteristics of the ideal woman from this author. She must be pretty spectacular to land this sort of guy. 


So there you have it! I agreed with some things and disagreed with others. As Seneca says, all good ideas are public property, so I'll take the good and leave the bad.

All in all I was pleasantly surprised. This is an interesting site. I'll be back.

Stoic Or Glutton, But Not Both

What if they invented a pill that mitigated every negative effect of overeating? What if, after taking the pill, you could eat Twinkies all day long and still look like Brad Pitt circa Fight Club?

It would still be worth it to eat fruits and vegetables, and just barely enough of them.

You can't be both a Stoic and a glutton, friend. So take your own advice. Are you stronger than a Twinkie? No, but you could be...

Opinion and Shame

I've stated here that I'm a cultural libertarian. I've been viewing sites that support this belief. I worry that I might be getting carried away, though. I worry that I might be entering an echo chamber.

I've been trapped in an echo chamber before. I've lacked all perspective, but to people on the outside it was obvious.

Both sides, the authoritarians pushing PC culture and the cultural libertarians, snipe at each other. I'm not above the fray myself, at least not in my mind. I try to be very careful of what I publish here (for the consideration of my ten regular readers) but in private I seem to take great pleasure in the other side's missteps. 

That's not Stoic. Probably a better view would be to treat the other side with kindness and do what I can to bring them around, because ultimately I think that liberty brings more happiness than dogma. 

Well then, isn't my duty to bring this insight to the general public? A Stoic serves his* city, right?

If I were to become more vocal, and if (against all odds) I gained a wide audience, I would risk saying the wrong thing and incurring public shame. These days that's not an inconsiderable thing. 

I'm lucky, I suppose, that my opinion means very little. I'm one in a chorus of millions. Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and especially Cato led very public lives and their decisions are still discussed. Aurelius paid for the security of his empire with his health. Seneca and Cato killed themselves. Cato (who was unwilling to live in a world ruled by a tyrant) met an especially difficult end (source):

"Cato did not immediately die of the wound; but struggling, fell off the bed, and throwing down a little mathematical table that stood by, made such a noise that the servants, hearing it, cried out. And immediately his son and all his friends came into the chamber, where, seeing him lie weltering in his own blood, great part of his bowels out of his body, but himself still alive and able to look at them, they all stood in horror. The physician went to him, and would have put in his bowels, which were not pierced, and sewed up the wound; but Cato, recovering himself, and understanding the intention, thrust away the physician, plucked out his own bowels, and tearing open the wound, immediately expired."

That's a heavy price to pay for a political opinion, self-imposed though it was. I certainly wouldn't have to do that. 

I do censor myself online for fear of retribution, though, and I bet you do too.

If I ever do incur the wrath of an online which hunt I plan to use Jon Ronson's advice. He's written a book called "So You've Been Publicly Shamed."  He recently did an interview with GQ in which he discusses the public shaming phenomenon, and I think it's worth a read. My favorite quote neatly sums up the dangers of our new shame culture:

"It’s very destructive to society and I think it’s created a conformist, conservative, fearful surveillance society, like the Stasi, and nobody wants to live in a Stasi state, and that’s the world we’re quite literally living in. I really don’t think I’m overreaching when I say that."

I agree.


*I wince as I type this. Do I go with the classical "his?" Do I use the clumsy and grammatically aberrant "their?" How about the limp, insipid "his or her?" Or I could go postmodern with "his/her?" Perhaps the Swedish gender neutral "hen?" Maybe "xe?"

Cultural Libertarianism

I've been enjoying Dave Rubin's "Rubin Report."  Check out his guiding rules; if the media in general adopted these we would all have a much clearer picture of the world around us. Anyway, he has a theory that the next great political movement will be cultural libertarianism.

I hope so. For me the old "conservative" and "liberal" labels don't apply. I'm a mix of those. The idea that there are authoritarian forces brewing and that those forces should be opposed, though... that I can get on board with.

So I'm a cultural libertarian.

Here is Christina Hoff Sommers on the subject:

My favorite quotes:

"What unites us as Americans, maybe Westerners too, is a love of freedom."

"Right now sort of the bullies have the upper hand, so it's going to be a battle to take the power away from them and give it to where it belongs, to people who are nice, respectful of other people, and who realize that people have different opinions and that's OK, and not to be policing. I don't want these authoritarians here who say they can make the rules... your arguments for censorship and doing away with due process are not going to work. They have been tried before, with unhappy results, so read some history."