5 Reasons Founders, CEOs & Leaders Should Follow the Example of Tyler Durden From ‘Fight Club’

Warning: If you are reading this then this warning is for you. Every word you read of this useless fine print is another second off your life. Don’t you have other things to do? Is your life so empty that you honestly can’t think of a better way to spend these moments? Or are you so impressed with authority that you give respect and credence to all that claim it? Do you read everything you’re supposed to read? Do you think everything you’re supposed to think? Buy what you’re told to want? Get out of your apartment. Meet a member of the opposite sex. Stop the excessive shopping and masturbation. Quit your job. Start a fight. Prove you’re alive. If you don’t claim your humanity you will become a statistic. You have been warned. — Tyler (from the Fight Club DVD)

There is a serious void in charismatic, passionate, badass leaders in the startup scene (go ahead, argue the point or provide some examples in the comments section below). I’m talking about people who aren’t afraid to speak their minds, fight for what they believe in and lead from the trenches (as Gene Hammett likes to say).

When Fight Club came out in 1999, I was 16 years old. All of my friends could quote every single scene. Every dude on the planet wanted to be Tyler Durden. My buddies and I even started a boxing club in my garage, and Fight Club became more than a movie. It literally and physically transcended our realities and manifested itself into our daily lives. Talk about making an impact.

Sixteen years later, the quotes still remain. How many times have you seen that CrossFit meme with Tyler Durden and the Fight Club crew that reads, “First Rule of CrossFit, Always Talk About CrossFit”?

Obviously, take my writing with a grain of salt, as I’m going to be discussing the nth degree of what made Tyler Durden so effective as a leader. I’m not saying let’s all break laws and become anarchists like Tyler Durden either (I feel like I need to reinforce this point in today’s day and age).

However, imagine if as startup entrepreneurs we could lead so effectively, that we could create an almost cult-like following as Tyler Durden did in Fight Club, enroll people in our big visions, lead by example and accomplish improbable feats by getting everyone fired up about our missions. Imagine th

What would it take to lead so effectively? Let’s break down some ideas.

1. Fight for your crazy huge vision.

“In the world I see — you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You’ll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you’ll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.”

Granted, Tyler Durden’s vision was bat-poop crazy, but he fought for what he believed in. He saw the world as it was and didn’t like it. He had different plans, and went to extreme degrees to accomplish his new-world vision.

Elon Musk immediately comes to mind as I write this. Nobody can argue that Musk doesn’t have gigantic vision. Already, he’s changed the way we as society make online purchases, he’s changed the way we use transportation, he’s disrupted the entire space exploration space and a million other things. When building his different companies, he’s spoken about couch surfing and taking showers at the YMCA.

Musk is arguable the most impactful visionary of our time who has created multiple billion-dollar companies that have altered history. He stands up for and fights for his big visions.

Fight Club started in the parking lot of a bar, worked its way to a basement and eventually became a world-wide movement. To be an impactful, forward-thinking visionaries, we must have a huge vision, and be willing to fight for it.

2. Lead by example.

“Hit me.”

What was the eighth and final rule? “If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.”

Rarely did we see a fight scene where Tyler wasn’t fighting. I believe too many leaders sit back and delegate when they need to be pushing the team forward to extreme boundaries, passed their perceived limits. The most effective leaders are the ones that have rose through the ranks themselves, that put in the work, that aren’t afraid to roll up their sleeves and show their teams what it takes to accomplish that huge vision.

e impact we could have, imagine the good we could accomplish, imagine the worlds we could create.

3. Take unmitigated risks.

“Hitting bottom isn’t a weekend retreat. It’s not a goddamn seminar. Stop trying to control everything and just let go! Let go!”

Tyler Durden did what he wanted. He didn’t listen to anyone, not even his own feeble, weak alter ego (played by Edward Norton).

This is obviously an arguable point, but I say take the full risk. We’re all so used to “playing it safe,” “hedging our bets” and “covering our asses.” You know what that does? It stifles our passion.

If I’m mitigating all of my risk, all of the time, I’m going to be lukewarm about everything I do. I’ll lose my passion. If I’m all in, I’m all in.

You know that feeling you get when you feel like you can walk on water, like you understand everything about everything? It’s that feeling of being “limitless.” I guarantee that by taking more unmitigated risk you’re going to feel more alive than ever before. You’ll have less fear, more clarity and more passion about the things you do because they will matter more to you.

4. Progress, not perfection.

“F**k off with your sofa units and strine green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let’s evolve. Let the chips fall where they may.”

Everything can’t be perfect all of the time. Startups are volatile. “Perfect timing” is a myth. There’s no such thing, there’s just “timing,” for better or worse. I live by the rule of progress, not perfection.

Jason Fried talks about this in his book ReWork. In the startup world, one day equals one week in the normal people world. Everything moves so quickly with startups. That’s why I live by progress, not perfection. If we’re always trying to perfect, we’ll get slowed down and lose the competitive advantage of being agile. Evolution is about progression, not perfection.

5. Be the person you want to be.

“People do it everyday, they talk to themselves. They see themselves as they’d like to be. They don’t have the courage you have, to just run with it.”

Tyler Durden was a figment of an imagination. A vision that Edward Norton’s character had of himself.

Too many of us are afraid to be who we truly are. We care too much about what people think, or the labels society will give us. The irony in this situation is we never learned what Edward Norton’s character’s name was, we only knew the name he gave the alter ego he created for himself. That person became his reality.

We all have a vision of what we want to be in our minds. In Fight Club, the Narrator (Edward Norton), let that vision become his reality.

Just as Marianne Williamson has stated, I believe this to be true:

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world.”

We all have the opportunity to claim our greatness. We all can fight for our crazy huge visions, lead by example, take unmitigated risk, focus on progress not perfection and be the people we want to be, all we have to do is watch Fight Club a few more times. Let’s just pray we’re not all maniacal, homicidal, suicidal, anarchist-lunatics, or I’ll regret writing this column.

By:

ANDREW MEDAL

FIGHT CLUB, KELLY CLARKSON, AND A THOUSAND OTHER WAYS TO GET NIETZSCHE TOTALLY WRONG

Written by:

Mindless Philosopher

@mindlessphilo

:  Mindless Philosopher

You know something, if a lifetime spent as a pop culture connoisseur has taught me anything, I have learned this one thing: it’s amazing what one sees watching late night television.

A few years ago, comedian Dave Chappelle’s comedy show, the Chappelle’s Show, aired a segment called “Ask a Black Dude”. The general idea of the sketch was that average people would ask a black dude (comedian Paul Mooney) questions about black people. One person asked the black dude why black people like to smoke marijuana so much. Another guy asked can black guys jump high? Really, there wasn’t anything worth noting about the questions asked to the black dude, until one question, posed by horror writer Stephen King, was not only quite startling, but also opened the door for a moment of philosophical contemplation. The question Stephen King asked the black dude was this: do black people prefer to be buried by black undertakers and prefer to go to black dentists?

I’m not making this up. Watch Chappelle’s Show, season 1, episode 7.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/g25b0b/chappelle-s-show-ask-a-black-dude—dentists—uncensored

 

Now, I’m not a person who is easily startled, but Stephen King’s question was without doubt the most WTF-inducing query ever asked on basic cable television. Although one could spend hours probing the possible philosophical subtext of Stephen King’s easily-construed-as-quasi-racist question, however, Stephen King’s question wasn’t as philosophically interesting as Paul Mooney’s response. Paul Mooney’s answer was this: “What’s the difference when you’re dead? They don’t care who buries you… if they can fix the teeth, cool. If they can’t, that’s cool, too.”

Whoa, did you get that?

If you didn’t, put on your philosopher’s thinking caps and read it again.

If someone asked me to describe Paul Mooney’s response to Stephen King’s question on only one word the word I would say is “indifference”. That is, Paul Mooney appears to be indifferent to the race of his dentist so long as his dentist is skilled enough to fix one’s teeth. For those of you who are familiar with philosopher’s jargon, the word “indifference” should be setting off fireworks in your heads right now. And as I watched the Chappelle’s Show sketch, I thought there’s one type of philosopher for whom indifference is a way of life.

So naturally, my immediate question was Is Paul Mooney a stoic philosopher?

The answer to my question is “possibly”.

Generally when we think of stoics, the first image that often comes to mind is the popular iconic image of the stoic as the strong, silent type; the unflappable hero with the Easter Island statue façade. We’re all familiar with this type of guy: he (and it almost always is a he) is a movie gunslinger like John Wayne, Gary Cooper in High Noon, or Clint Eastwood’s famous “man with no name”.

THE UNEMOTIONAL, STEEL-JAWED STOICISM OF EASTER ISLAND HEADS

 

THE UNEMOTIONAL, STEEL-JAWED STOICISM OF GARY COOPER

THE UNEMOTIONAL, STEEL-JAWED STOICISM OF GARY COOPER

In literature, the stoic is embodied by characters like Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch, Shakespeare’s Brutus in Julius Caesar, or hard-boiled detectives like Dashiell Hammett’s Sam Spade and Raymond Chandler’s Phillip Marlowe.

 

THE UNEMOTIONAL, STEEL-JAWED STOICISM OF HUMPHREY BOGART AS SAM SPADE

THE UNEMOTIONAL, STEEL-JAWED STOICISM OF HUMPHREY BOGART AS SAM SPADE

 

On stage, you’ll find stoical characters like Willy Loman in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman. And if you’ve watched enough TV, you’re more than well acquainted with Star Trek’s resident stoic, the U.S.S. Enterprise’s Vulcan First Officer, Mr. Spock, played by the late Leonard Nimoy.

 

n' prosper

Although it is quite possible to learn the basics of stoicism from watching an all-day marathon of Star Trek, but as I was reminded by a Facebook friend, one should never watch Star Trek as a substitute for reading the real thing.

Thank you, Jean-Louis.

 

AS THE EXPRESSION ON THIS CAT’S FACE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES, WATCHING STAR TREK IS NEARLY AS FUN AS ACTUALLY READING STOIC PHILOSOPHY

AS THE EXPRESSION ON THIS CAT’S FACE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES, WATCHING STAR TREK IS NEARLY AS FUN AS ACTUALLY READING STOIC PHILOSOPHY

How about a little about what stoicism really is:

Ask a philosopher, and he’ll tell you that stoicism originated in ancient Greece about 300 B.C.E. courtesy of the philosopher Zeno of Citium (Fun Fact: Stoicism derives its name from the Greek word stoa meaning “porch” where Zeno taught in ancient Greece).

 

 THIS IS ZENO OF CITUIM (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH ZENO OF ELEA)

THIS IS ZENO OF CITUIM (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH ZENO OF ELEA)

 

Zeno’s question, like all other philosophers, was how do we live a good life? The stoics believed that there is an order to the universe and that our lives are better when we act in harmony with nature. Zeno wrote,

All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature.

Here’s the thing: the stoics not only believed that our lives are better when we act according to Nature, but that our lives are, in actuality, controlled by an indifferent universe.

 

THE HUMAN REPRESENTATION OF AN INDIFFERENT UNIVERSE

THE HUMAN REPRESENTATION OF AN INDIFFERENT UNIVERSE

What this means is that we can’t control what happens to us. The stoic says that the unpleasant reality about life is that sometimes good things happen to us (and that’s great), but sometimes bad things happen and that is, as the say, the way the cookie crumbles. In the end, we have as much control over what happens to us as we would if we were to stand on a shoreline and attempt to control the waves in the sea.

Did you know stoicism has its own emblem?

 

THIS IS THE EMBLEM FOR STOICISM... PRETTY NEAT, HUH?

THIS IS THE EMBLEM FOR STOICISM… PRETTY NEAT, HUH?

 

The stoics believed we can’t control what happens to us in the physical world, but we can control what happens internally – how we think and react towards what happens to us. The stoics believed that stoicism helps us to deal with the things we can’t control.

In a nutshell, stoicism is what we might call a philosophical coping mechanism.**

Stoics claim that the greatest impediment to living a good life is that we tend to get all wrapped up in all sorts of emotions that make us angry and very unhappy. Epictetus said,

There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things
which are beyond the power of our will.

According to the stoic, we have more important obligations and duties to attend to than fret over things that we cannot control or ultimately do not matter. Instead of living a life of emotional turmoil, troubling ourselves with our inability to cope with life’s situations, we’re to be indifferent and unbiased; to learn to cope with whatever comes. Once we learn to rid ourselves of our inappropriate emotional responses we can be happy. The Roman emperor and stoic, Marcus Aurelius (121-180 A.D.), wrote in Meditations,

 

When thou has been compelled by circumstances to be disturbed in a manner, quickly return to thyself and do not continue out of tune longer than the compulsion lasts; for thou wilt have more mastery over the harmony by continually recurring to it.

If you want a contemporary example of a mastery of stoicism, one need only to watch Fight Club’s Tyler Durden. Tyler Durden does not care if Jack’s apartment is blown up, or if he hurts the feelings of Jack’s would-be girlfriend, Marla Singer, or if civilization is destroyed for the sake of Project Mayhem. The reason why Tyler Durden acts the way that he does is because these things, in the grand scale of things, do not matter. Jack describes Tyler Durden as someone who “lets those things that do not matter truly slide.”

 

You-Do-Not-Talk-About-Fight-Club
Oops. Sorry Sir.

The stoics believed practicing stoicism leads to a virtuous character. According to the stoics, the man who has developed a virtuous character and mastered the ability to control his emotions and be free of his passions is a stoic sage.

 

…p.s. If you’re thinking that the main goal of stoicism sounds a lot like Aristotle’s idea of eudemonia, you’ve earned ten extra points. Good job!

 

good job

 

Remember how I mentioned watching Star Trek awhile back?

 

 

Although there are many famous fictional stoics to choose from (ok, there are a few) , undoubtedly the first name that comes to mind is Mr. Spock. It goes without saying that Mr. Spock is popular culture’s most famous fictional stoic.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the origins of Mr. Spock’s emotionless demeanor, here’s a quick lesson in the origin of Vulcan stoicism:

Long before the Vulcans adopted the tradition of ritualistically purging their emotions ( a process called “Kolinahr”), Vulcans were once emotional as humans (and their cousins the Romulans), however, unlike humans, who can occasionally exert control over emotions, ancient Vulcans were ruled by their emotions. Vulcans were quick to anger, paranoid, and violent. The Vulcan race was on the brink of self-destruction until the great Vulcan philosopher Surak observed that Vulcans were sure to destroy themselves if they maintained an emotion-dominated existence.

Surak’s philosophy urged Vulcans to purge themselves of their emotions and devote their lives to logic. Like the stoics of ancient Greece, Surak convinced the inhabitants of the planet Vulcan that life is best lived when one’s actions are ruled by reason or logic.

 

If you’re curious to know what kind of philosophizing Surak did, an example of the philosophical teachings of Surak, is something like this: “Cast out fear. There is no room for anything else until you cast out fear”. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock warns the Enterprise’s resident hot headed sawbones and occasional adversary, Dr. “Bones” McCoy (played by DeForest Kelley), “You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing.” That sounds a little like stoicism, doesn’t it?

If you’re curious to know what kind of philosophizing Surak did, an example of the philosophical teachings of Surak, is something like this: “Cast out fear. There is no room for anything else until you cast out fear”. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock warns the Enterprise’s resident hot headed sawbones and occasional adversary, Dr. “Bones” McCoy (played by DeForest Kelley), “You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing.” That sounds a little like stoicism, doesn’t it?

 

Vulcan stoicism adheres to the philosophy that once a Vulcan has purged his or her emotions and lives according to logic, a Vulcan possesses clear judgment and behaves correctly. The Vulcan statement on Logic is: “Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos, using reason as our guide.” Vulcans believe,

The highest objective of a traditional Vulcan life is to either control or suppress all emotion, thus rendering a purely logical being.

 

It sounds like Surak’s Vulcan stoicism has hit the stoic philosophy of Zeno on the head.
Vulcans accurately capture Zeno’s sentiment that using one’s reason is preferable to relying on one’s emotions, and that uncontrolled emotions can be very destructive not only to individuals, but to society as well. It’s not surprising, then, that for many fans of pop culture, the answer to the question Where would I find a stoic character on TV? , the answer is “Go watch Mr. Spock”.

 

spock approves

 

Ok, now we have our example of a stoic, let’s all take a break, grab some popcorn, and watch a couple of episodes of Star Trek, shall we?
eating MJ's popcorn

 

Hold on a moment; let’s not jump the gun too fast, there. We shouldn’t declare the Vulcans stoics just yet. A stoic and a Vulcan might agree that emotions are our problem but Surak and Zeno would disagree on one major philosophical point: namely, the stoics did not argue that the emotions needed to be extinguished, as Surak’s Vulcan philosophy dictates, but that we should accept what happens to us without letting our emotions control us and interfere with our ability to reason.

For the stoic, the solution to the matter is not the denial of emotions but indifference to circumstances we cannot control. The fact that a Vulcan lacks emotions does not make Mr. Spock a stoic.
Although being emotionless makes a Vulcan a bit of a weirdo.

 

SPOCK IS TOTALLY WEIRD, MAN

SPOCK IS TOTALLY WEIRD, MAN

 FUN FACT: Another famous sci-fi stoic is the Star Wars saga’s Jedi Master Yoda. Yoda is a prime example of a stoic sage: Yoda has emotions but is not ruled by them. He possesses wisdom and virtue. Yoda also warns young Anakin Skywalker (In Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace) to keep control over his emotions. Yoda’s oft quoted admonition to young Skywalker is a prime example of Yoda‘s stoic philosophy, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. And hate leads to suffering.”

 

YEAH. I WENT THERE

YEAH. I WENT THERE

 

We’ve already established that the stoic says that the purpose of his philosophy is to help him to deal with the things that he can’t control and that life is better when we live in harmony with the universe. Furthermore, the stoic tells us if we let our emotions control what we do we are disturbing that balance and cannot be at peace. But if the Vulcans are getting stoicism all wrong, just how is a stoic supposed act?

 

fake stoic

 

We shouldn’t think that the fact that the stoic lives according to the will of the cosmos necessarily means that a stoic does nothing when something bad happens. It’s just when something bad does happen, a stoic does not allow his emotions dictate his actions. A stoic acts when he can act. Yielding our fates to the will of the heavens does not negate our responsibility to act when the situation requires our involvement. Ultimately, the goal for a stoic is peace, happiness, and acting in harmony with nature. That means if getting involved is required, that’s ok. But if our action is not required, that’s ok, too.

 

SPOCK COULD HAVE ACCEPTED THIS PUNK’S LOUD MUSIC AND DONE NOTHING TO STOP IT JUST AS EASILY AS HE COULD DO SOMETHING TO BRING PEACE AND QUIET TO THE BUS AND ITS PASSENGERS

SPOCK COULD HAVE ACCEPTED THIS PUNK’S LOUD MUSIC AND DONE NOTHING TO STOP IT JUST AS EASILY AS HE COULD DO SOMETHING TO BRING PEACE AND QUIET TO THE BUS AND ITS PASSENGERS

 

Although Spock may not be a “real” stoic, it still sounds like stoicism ain’t so bad, right?

But, before you start your Kolinahr training, there are just a couple of small caveats to mention…

 

EVEN SPOCK DIDN’T FINISH HIS KOLINAHAR TRAINING

EVEN SPOCK DIDN’T FINISH HIS KOLINAHAR TRAINING

 

Although one can claim that stoicism sets us onto the path of life-long, philosophical happiness via the path of indifference, it’s almost guaranteed that if one goes around telling everybody not to worry about things and to just accept whatever happens, one is bound to be accused, not only of preaching a kind of out-of-touch version of Pollyanna-ism, but of preaching that the best kind of happiness is a state of apathy.

 

 THE HUMAN REPRESENTATION OF AN APATHETIC PHILOSOPHY

THE HUMAN REPRESENTATION OF AN APATHETIC PHILOSOPHY

 

This accusation isn’t too far-fetched. Stoicism does seem to suggest that a stoic is at peace because he simply could not care less about what happens to either himself or to anyone else.

Famous stoics, even TV stoics like Mr. Spock, don’t do much to debunk the belief that stoics are cold, callous, and unsympathetic. Given the fact that stoics believe that our lives are controlled by the cosmic forces of fate, it’s easy to criticize the stoic’s “whatever happens, happens” attitude for coming off as emotionally apathetic and more than somewhat fatalistic.

And fans of fatalism are absolutely no fun to be around.

 

debbie downer GIF

 

We may be inclined to give a stoically-inclined friend a pass on his stoic attitude if he’s a fan of The Big Lebowski, and committed to simply “abide” like The Dude, but the fact that one sees more than a hint of fatalism in stoic philosophy suggests that there may be a big something wrong with stoicism – it’s almost impossible to be an actual stoic.

Friedrich Nietzsche called stoicism a “fraud of words!”.

A word about apathy: You don’t have to be a fan or a friend of a fan of The Big Lebowski to come to the conclusion that practitioners of stoic lifestyle can come off as a little apathetic. Dr. “Bones” Mc Coy isn’t the only person who has ever accused a stoic of being an unfeeling hobgoblin. Certainly Jeff Lebowski and Mr. Spock do come off as if they really don’t care (Spock’s feelings towards his crewmates and Lebowski’s about his life in general). But before we officially tag all stoics as apathetic, it would do us some good to understand what apathy is — you see, apathy has both a philosophical and colloquial meaning. Our modern usage of the word “apathy” means an individual who is disengaged from the world and does not care about anything. To be apathetic is to be inactive, unresponsive, a philosophical nihilist. Stoic apathy (apatheia) which was practiced by the ancient stoics is defined as freedom from the passions. Apatheia is tranquility, peace of mind; eudemonia. A man who practices apatheia is indifferent to life’s circumstances, not apathetic. The difference between a stoic and man who is apathetic is a stoic changes what he can change and accepts what he cannot; a man who is apathetic doesn’t do a thing about anything.

Think about it; a stoic has to maintain his indifference-based stoicism in the face of a very emotional world.

Even Mr. Spock got emotional from time to time.

 

spock amok time GIF

 

When the Roman stoic philosopher Seneca was implicated in a plot to kill the Emperor Nero, Seneca was ordered to execute himself by slitting his own wrists. Facing a death sentence is hard enough, but having to perform one’s own execution might prove difficult. Most people, if ordered to commit suicide, would feel emotionally compelled to disobey the Emperor’s command. A stoic like Seneca, on the other hand, has to ignore the innate desire for self preservation, since, according to stoic philosophy, whether one lives or dies is unimportant.

You know what happened? Seneca actually slit his own wrists.

 

Honestly, you’ve got to be one hardcore mofo to maintain that kind of lifestyle.

 

Historical tidbit: Seneca did not die by slitting his wrists. Because the philosopher was old and in poor health, he failed to bleed out as expected. Seneca attempted to poison himself, but that failed as well. Finally, Seneca’s servants were ordered to fix him a warm salt bath (in hopes that the warm water would stimulate blood flow). The stoic philosopher was overcome by the bath’s fumes and asphyxiated. Seneca most likely complied with the order not just because he had to, but because his stoic beliefs Seneca held no philosophical (or psychological) qualms against committing suicide.

Historical tidbit: Seneca did not die by slitting his wrists. Because the philosopher was old and in poor health, he failed to bleed out as expected. Seneca attempted to poison himself, but that failed as well. Finally, Seneca’s servants were ordered to fix him a warm salt bath (in hopes that the warm water would stimulate blood flow). The stoic philosopher was overcome by the bath’s fumes and asphyxiated. Seneca most likely complied with the order not just because he had to, but because his stoic beliefs Seneca held no philosophical (or psychological) qualms against committing suicide.

 

Because it doesn’t matter to a stoic whether he lives or dies or for what reason he lives or dies, one can imagine Seneca telling his Roman accusers, “If I have to kill myself, that’s fine. If I live a long life and die later, cool. Either way works for me.” I suspect that since Seneca knew that there was nothing he could do to save himself, he must have told himself why not just go with the flow; as Bobby Mc Ferrin sang, “don‘t worry, be happy”. After all, we can’t prevent ourselves from dying. If our fate is decided by nature and a part of nature is to die, to go against nature will only make us unhappy. A stoic would tell us that if we must to choose between a death that we cannot prevent and a lifetime of unhappiness, the logical choice is to choose to be not-unhappy.

 

IN STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN, A DYING SPOCK TELLS CAPTAIN KIRK NOT TO GRIEVE FOR HIS DEATH. BECAUSE SPOCK WAS GOING TO DIE AND THERE WAS NOTHING ANYONE COULD DO ABOUT IT. FRETTING ABOUT THE ENEVITABLE IS JUST WASTING ONE’S TIME AND ENERGY….. PLUS, SPOCK PROBABLY KNEW HE’D BE BACK IN THE NEXT SEQUEL

IN STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN, A DYING SPOCK TELLS CAPTAIN KIRK NOT TO GRIEVE FOR HIS DEATH. BECAUSE SPOCK WAS GOING TO DIE AND THERE WAS NOTHING ANYONE COULD DO ABOUT IT. FRETTING ABOUT THE ENEVITABLE IS JUST WASTING ONE’S TIME AND ENERGY….. PLUS, SPOCK PROBABLY KNEW HE’D BE BACK IN THE NEXT SEQUEL

 

It’s worth noting that Seneca was likely not involved with the plot to kill Emperor Nero.
I suppose, now that I’ve thought about what Paul Mooney said about dentists and undertakers, is that Paul Mooney’s ambivalence towards the race of his dentist was in fact a stoic response to Stephen King’s (somewhat bizarre) question. Paul Mooney is right, at least stoically so, to say that it makes no difference what the race our dentist or undertaker is. Whatever factors determine a person’s qualifications to bury people or to fix teeth is beyond our control. A stoic would tell us that we shouldn’t get hung up over whether our dentist or undertaker is black, white, or Andorian. But rather we should focus on our own ability to discern a good dentist or undertaker from a bad one – since that is something we can control.

MAYBE IT DOES MATTER THAT MY DENTIST IS ANDORIAN. THEY’RE NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

MAYBE IT DOES MATTER THAT MY DENTIST IS ANDORIAN. THEY’RE NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

When Paul Mooney said, “If they [a dentist] can fix teeth cool, if they can’t that’s cool, too”, he wasn’t just talking about his indifference to a potential dentist’s skin color, but really, what Paul Mooney was laying down is a philosophy of life. That’s precisely what the stoics were up to when they sat around on the stoa and figured out that life is better when we devote our lives to reason and let what does not matter slide.

 

penguin slide
One need not be a Vulcan to figure that one out.

If you were going to ask a black dude it would have to be a black dude like this:
tuvok

 

‘Cause he’s a Vulcan.  And, well, you know…..

SOURCES:

http://www.winwisdom.com/quotes/author/zeno-of-citium.aspx.

Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. 2003 [Originally published 1909]. Trans. George Long, M.A. NY: Barnes and Noble Publishing, Inc. p. 44.

William O. Stephens. “Stoicism in the Stars: Yoda, the Emperor, and the Force”. Star Wars and Philosophy: More Powerful Than You Can Possibly Imagine. 2005. Eds. Kevin S. Decker & Jason T. Eberl. Chicago: Open Court Press. p. 20-1.

Quote on Vulcan philosophy: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Vulcan_philosophy.

Info on Vulcans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_ (Star_Trek).

Vulcan philosophy quotes: http://www.stogeek.com/wiki/Philosophy_and_Teachings_of_Surak.

Apatheia quote: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheia.

* In real life, former POW and 1992 Reform Party VP nominee, Admiral James Stockdale (1923-2005), used the stoic philosophy of Epictetus during his imprisonment and torture in Vietnam.
**A bit about stoic virtue: The stoics believed that happiness should be based on reason, not pleasure. A wise man does not devote his life to the pursuit of physical pleasure, but should prefer a life devoted to virtue and reason (like Aristotle, the stoics believed that virtue is important) because we are guaranteed happiness when we rely on our own virtue. And when we act virtuously, we always do the right thing. Zeno wrote, “It is in virtue that happiness consists, for virtue is the state of mind which tends to make the whole of life harmonious.” This is why the stoics thought they’d found the key to Happiness and a good life. No matter what happens around us, nothing that happens in the physical world can make us unhappy. So, the stoics say when an individual is virtuous, uses his reason, and is in harmony with nature, that individual is at peace. In other words, it’s all good.
*** You may have noticed that I have used the term “indifference” several times without defining what indifference means. The common definition of indifference is “a lack of interest or concern; unimportance”.

Fight Club, Kelly Clarkson, and a thousand other ways to get Nietzsche totally wrong

Sometimes I hate Chuck Palahniuk. It’s not because of anything personal — I don’t personally know the man. I’m certain that he’s probably a pleasure to be with. I hate Chuck Palahniuk because of these two words: Fight Club.

Yeah, I know. I’m playing with fire here. I know by even daring to utter a remotely negative word about either Chuck Palahniuk or Tyler Durden I’m inviting the wrath of Project Mayhem.

Right now I’m certain that I’ve just booked myself a Raymond K. Hessel moment.

Let me get to brass tacks here. Even though the movie Fight Club is older than most of its current fanbase, every so often the authorities bust up some group of high school kids who, after watching the movie, decide that beating the shit out of each other is a fine way to pass time after school.

This is what every Fight Club fan wants to do for a living

Anyone who has either spent a little bit of time in an intro philosophy class or watched television any knows that the Chuck Palahniuk novel Fight Club is an example of nihilism in literature. Philosophically speaking, Nihilism is defined as:

  • total rejection of social mores: the general rejection of established social conventions and beliefs, especially of morality and religion
  • belief that nothing is worthwhile: a belief that life is pointless and human values are worthless
  • disbelief in objective truth: the belief that there is no objective basis for truth

Although the history of nihilism can be traced back to the ancient Greek skeptics, the philosopher most associated with nihilism is the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900).

A lot of Fight Club fans also claim to like Friedrich Nietzsche.

This is where the trouble begins.

Even if you’ve never personally read a single word Nietzsche wrote, if you have eyes or ears, you’ve certainly been exposed to the words of Friedrich Nietzsche. Our cluture is saturated with Nietzsche’s philosophy. See if any of this sounds familiar to you:

  • There are no facts, only interpretations.
  • What does not kill me makes me stronger (This should ring a bell with Kelly Clarkson fans)
  • Master-slave morality
  • Ubermensch
  • God is dead

All of these ideas appeal to Fight Club fans. They believe that they are the unwanted “middle children of history”, and that God has not only abandoned them, but in all likelihood, he probably hates them. Fight Club fans believe that Fight Club makes them stronger, society needs to be torn down and rebulit with a whole new set of values, and that beating each other to kingdom come will release their inner ubermensches.

If anyone knows how to do that umlaut thing let me know.

His name is Friedrich Nietzsche.

Ok… Uh… there’s really no way to say this delicately… but… well, if any Fight Club-oholic tells you that he’s fulfilling Nietzsche’s nihilistic vision of a transvaluation of values, that Fight Club fan is an idiot. Ok, not an idiot. Calling someone an idiot is a pretty strong accusation. What I will say is this: If you watched (or read) Fight Club and you thought that Tyler Durden and his Project Mayhem are what happens when men realize their inner Nietzschean superman, you’ve got Nietzsche all wrong.

I know, I know, how can I say that Tyler Durden isn’t exactly what Nietzsche was talking about?

Nietzsche wanted society to throw off the old non-life affirming  values that force otherwise strong men into lives of lifeless submission and I know that’s exactly what Tyler Durden was up to. Like Friedrich Nietzsche’s criticism of Europe’s decadent and nihilistic culture, Tyler Durden wanted his space monkeys to throw off our soul corrupting popular culture; to be not what society tells them to be (Calvin Klein pretty boy-looking, Ikea catalogue browsing consumer drones), but to be who they are supposed to be. Like Nietzsche, Tyler Durden wants a (what Nietzsche would call) a transvaluation of values and to bring back the long lost ancient strongmen like Caesar, Napoleon, and the Sophists. Friedrich Nietzsche envisions a world where the masters rise above the slavish herd morality; a world that Tyler Durden says men will stalk elk in the ruins of Rockefeller Center and climb the vines that circle the Sears Tower.

So you say, if Tyler and Fred seem to be in complete agreement, how is it that thinking that they are is getting Nietzsche “all wrong”?

The answer is this: Nietzsche wants to transvalue society, but guys like Tyler Durden aren’t the ones who are supposed to do the transvaluating. In the movie Fight Club, Tyler Durden says this:

The people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us.

That sentiment is all fine and dandy, and I’m pretty sure that statements like that are what makes Tyler Durden so appealing. The problem with Tyler Durden’s sentiment and why he’s totally off his Nietzsche is because Tyler Durden’s Project Mayhem is exactly the kind of slave morality that Nietzsche is talking about! Tyler’s space monkeys are busboys, cooks, waiters, garage mechanics, garbage men, and office drones — exactly the kind of low hanging fruit that Nietzsche says is filled with resentment and create “slave” moralities (like Christianity) to overthrow and oppress the master class.

You see, even though Tyler Durden feels very much oppressed by a culture that tells him that the ideal man is one who looks like he just stepped out of a Calvin Klein ad, Tyler Durden is precisely where he is supposed to be. Tyler Durden and his fellow low paid, wage earning pals are not the masters who must reclaim the reins of society but the inferior classes who are to be dominated and exploited by the Ubermensch.

This is why Project Mayhem is enevitably doomed to fail.

We know this because Tyler Knows this.

Now how ’bout some Kelly Clarkson?

Submit a comment

Please wait...

Subscribe to our newsletter

Want to be notified when our article is published? Enter your email address and name below to be the first to know.