I'm afraid I don't know very much at all about philosophy, so I find your comment very educational! Yes, while there are some parts of stoicism (from the basic articles I read) that overlap, there are some significant differences. In particular, I think from the one article I read they talked about how emotions come about as a result of our judgements, and we can change our judgements to eliminate negative emotion, which as you said - very different from radical acceptance.
The first part that stuck out to me though was recognizing the differences between what can be controlled by the individual and what can't. That being said, I lean much more towards using dialectics to make my way through life - I don't think stoicism is something I'd be very good at.
Well, just the fact that Marsha Lineham adopted the term "dialectical" to describe her methodology kind of proves to me that the old girl was reading or at least familiar with some philosophy so that's just an interesting aside.
The reason I connect Nietzsche with radical acceptance really boils down to this quote from him -
I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.
You don't get much more radically accept-y than that you know? And if you break down the quote even more there's a massive tension between this massive "pessimism" (I don't think it's very pessimistic at all, but many probably would) when he discusses the necessity of things. If you read the rest of Nietzsche's philosophy there was definitely a side of him that highly doubted how much control people have outside of external, social, biological, chemical and physical factors, so in a profound way we really don't run our own lives. The other side of this is a truly radical optimism and positive notion in Amor Fati (Latin- Love of Fate). That even what is ugly, painful, hurtful and miserable is still beautiful for no other reason than it is necessary.
It's one of the most life-affirming things I've ever read. Not in the "you are awesome go out and conquer the world!" life affirming that's so in vogue, but actually life affirming as in "Life is fucking beautiful in all its facets, even the painful ones" affirming.
I may or may not have spent way too much time thinking about this before...
You know, when I read your first comment I had a good feeling, which is why I thought I should follow you. You've certainly affirmed it! I absolutely hear what you're saying, minus having any understanding of Nietzsche (except what you've shared, of course). You inspired me to pull out my DBT binder to find the section on radical acceptance, and sure enough, I found the part that really resonated with me:
"Everything should be as it is." I remember this really offending some people the first time they heard it, because to them it said that they deserved what they got. But what it meant was that there was no point in saying, "it shouldn't be this way! This shouldn't have happened!" because every action and choice and coincidence led to the current state in which they found themselves - every aspect of their current state had a cause. There weren't any moral implications or value judgements to the statement, and once that was understood, they could accept what was happening to them.
Of course, key to this is that radical acceptance does not equal passive resignation - as with all things DBT, it was just one tool with which to deal with life.
I'm afraid I don't know very much at all about philosophy, so I find your comment very educational! Yes, while there are some parts of stoicism (from the basic articles I read) that overlap, there are some significant differences. In particular, I think from the one article I read they talked about how emotions come about as a result of our judgements, and we can change our judgements to eliminate negative emotion, which as you said - very different from radical acceptance.
The first part that stuck out to me though was recognizing the differences between what can be controlled by the individual and what can't. That being said, I lean much more towards using dialectics to make my way through life - I don't think stoicism is something I'd be very good at.
Well, just the fact that Marsha Lineham adopted the term "dialectical" to describe her methodology kind of proves to me that the old girl was reading or at least familiar with some philosophy so that's just an interesting aside.
The reason I connect Nietzsche with radical acceptance really boils down to this quote from him -
You don't get much more radically accept-y than that you know? And if you break down the quote even more there's a massive tension between this massive "pessimism" (I don't think it's very pessimistic at all, but many probably would) when he discusses the necessity of things. If you read the rest of Nietzsche's philosophy there was definitely a side of him that highly doubted how much control people have outside of external, social, biological, chemical and physical factors, so in a profound way we really don't run our own lives. The other side of this is a truly radical optimism and positive notion in Amor Fati (Latin- Love of Fate). That even what is ugly, painful, hurtful and miserable is still beautiful for no other reason than it is necessary.
It's one of the most life-affirming things I've ever read. Not in the "you are awesome go out and conquer the world!" life affirming that's so in vogue, but actually life affirming as in "Life is fucking beautiful in all its facets, even the painful ones" affirming.
I may or may not have spent way too much time thinking about this before...
You know, when I read your first comment I had a good feeling, which is why I thought I should follow you. You've certainly affirmed it! I absolutely hear what you're saying, minus having any understanding of Nietzsche (except what you've shared, of course). You inspired me to pull out my DBT binder to find the section on radical acceptance, and sure enough, I found the part that really resonated with me:
"Everything should be as it is." I remember this really offending some people the first time they heard it, because to them it said that they deserved what they got. But what it meant was that there was no point in saying, "it shouldn't be this way! This shouldn't have happened!" because every action and choice and coincidence led to the current state in which they found themselves - every aspect of their current state had a cause. There weren't any moral implications or value judgements to the statement, and once that was understood, they could accept what was happening to them.
Of course, key to this is that radical acceptance does not equal passive resignation - as with all things DBT, it was just one tool with which to deal with life.