No, I don’t think my philosophy is true

I’m personally a big fan of stoicism. Applied correctly (a blog post in itself), it’s a very useful philosophy. One of my favorite stoic concepts is that of Amor Fati. To love fate, regardless of what it is. We can’t control what happens to us, what people do to us, or whether our house burns down. If it happens, it happens. Amor Fati then, is both a surrender to circumstances, and a positive outlook on things. I can’t control what happens, but I can control how I react to it.

I don’t “believe” in stoicism. I think their view of the world is too deterministic. Determinism is a core aspect of what builds up stoicism, and yet I wouldn’t flinch if someone would call me a stoic. Why? Because, even if I don’t find truth in the metaphysics of stoicism, I find it useful to practice.

Nihilism can be useful. If we go into the context of typology, socionics, MBTI, and Keirsey, can all be useful. Two ideas, systems, or ideologies, that clearly contradict each other on fundamental points, can be useful.

There is a difference in searching for a philosophy or a system in how to approach things that is true, and one that is useful. Take stoicism. It’s been a while since I actively engaged in the theory of it, but I would say that I, more or less, practice stoicism. But that is because I find the philosophy and approach to life useful, and not because I find it to be true. And, more importantly, it doesn’t stop me from searching for the truth. I apply stoicism to make life better, while looking for a philosophy that explains life.

Something, such as stoicism, can be useful without being true. And that doesn’t make it “less”. It’s less true, yes. But it shouldn’t be dismissed because of that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *