And this is actually very well-studied scientifically. Resilience building and being successful in very stressful environments does require a certain personality type that mixes elements of Stoicism with mindfulness and meditation. That's why these are all practised in the army, for SEALs, and other special forces - as well as by high powered individuals.

And, your claim that I ought to conform to your way as a better way to deal with my anxiety, as if conforming to your way would raise my quality of life. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I think your way is inherently dysfunctional, and while it may work within a limited set of circumstances, if you go out of that set, you will see it fail.

You're no different from Agustino, insisting that these normal thought patterns (rumination preoccupation, and obsession), forms of thinking which are practised by many highly functional human beings, is somehow inferior, unhealthy, leading to a lower quality of life, and therefore ought to be controlled. — Metaphysician Undercover

What highly functional human beings practice rumination, preoccupation and obsession? I see none of them - these traits usually lead to dysfunctionality. Seneca, Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, George Soros, etc. are all highly functioning (or were) and that was largely because they could focus their minds and not be controlled by their monkey mind.

I don't really see the relevance of all this. — Metaphysician Undercover

The relevance is that you should not say "I only talk about normal anxiety". You need to talk and understand both to understand each one individually - it is only by understanding the extremes that you understand the normal kind.

So you give me a long lecture above, about how any illness is nothing more than a doctor's opinion, and this doesn't mean that there is any real illness there. Then you go and contradict all that here. I really can't understand what you're trying to say. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, fundamentally every particular case of mental health issue that does NOT involve hallucinations or memory issues (Alzheimer's) is pretty much the opinion of the mental health community of doctors.

In my case, the anxiety was pathological because it lowered my quality of life and disrupted my day-to-day activities. I would, for example, have to return home to check if I closed the door multiple times, and you can imagine that generated a lot of tension, anxiety, and wasted time. I wouldn't necessarily call it an illness - it was just a symptom that I wanted to get rid of since it disturbed me. I don't think the illness categorisation is useful.

I disagree, and see no self-evidence. As we agreed, the monkey-mind allows one to increase one's activity. How is that in anyway restrictive? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because being always active is restrictive - it means that you don't have control over when you rest and relax. Here are the benefits of conquering your monkey mind through meditation:

TimeLine may be engaged in self-deception, that's what I was trying to draw attention to. All this blabber about going over the past, communicating it, etc. - may in truth nothing but self-deception. If that's the case, she has deceived herself that she really has overcome the problem, and the deception is very strong. And this isn't uncommon for anxious personalities to be faced by such deceptions, and to be incapable to achieve a meta-cognitive awareness of themselves. The temptation is to see themselves as invincible because only that can keep the anxiety at bay. That works, while outward circumstances are good.

The point though is that in such dire situations, everyone would be anxious and afraid. Even the Buddha would experience anxiety in his mind - he may not react to it fully, and internally may maintain some sort of equilibrium, but the mind will keep on doing its thing, which is being anxious in that situation. So anxiety (and the negative emotions) cannot be eliminated, but one can gain cognitive distance from them.

To be ill is to be sick, unhealthy. A physician may diagnose a person as having a particular form of illness, unhealthiness. So an "illness" is a particular, diagnosable form of unhealthiness. I agree that doctors are sometimes wrong in their diagnosis. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're not thinking very deeply about this. To be ill is to be sick, unhealthy - that's a tautology. My point is just that a doctor - meaning a person - just decides that these symptoms/behaviour correspond to an illness. The illness doesn't exist out there, the doctor calls it an illness. So take anxiety - a bunch of medical professionals have decided that these symptoms should classify as a mental health illness. So what? It doesn't necessarily mean that it is an illness. It's just what the doctors have decided to call it.

These classifications are man-made - they don't exist in reality. A doctor once classified me as having a pilonidal cyst - that thing is usually only treated by surgery. But I thought practically about it - I said, what is a pilonidal cyst really? It's just an infection located around the buttocks. How do you treat a bacterial infection? Antibiotics. So I went and found a doctor, and I told him, I want you to give me antibiotics for this, not surgery, otherwise I will go look for another doctor until I find one willing to treat me as I want to be treated.

So just because something is a "diagnosable" form of unhealthiness - that really means nothing. So we should treat conditions of health and conditions of unhealth the same way - if you're willing to speak about the one, you should also speak about the other. It's just a matter of categorising them - this one goes in that box, this other in the other box - but doctors could also decide to categorise them differently in the future. The categorisation is irrelevant.

I agree that a person with a decreased quality of life does not necessarily have an illness, nor would we say that this person is ill, because to say someone is ill is to imply that the person has a form of illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are talking nonsense, and you don't agree with what I said at all. I said on the contrary, having decreased quality of life in this circumstance is all that having an illness means. Otherwise having an illness is just a bloody stupid categorisation, that doesn't mean anything. Why do I care if someone says this is an illness and this isn't an illness?! If my doctor tells me that I laugh too much, and he thinks that's an illness, and I should take a pill for it, I'll tell him to go talk to the hand. He can show me all the medical textbooks in existence, and even if all of them say that laughing too much is an illness, I will refuse to acknowledge it as such.

Instead, we assume that if the person has an identifiable form of illness, then that person is ill. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's a silly assumption.

So for instance, if a person such as yourself has been misdiagnosed with anxiety disorder, but then medicated to the point of eliminating that person's anxiety, this would be a decrease in the quality of life for that person. The person really had normal anxiety, which is a good and fundamental aspect of living as a human being, and the medication removes this anxiety thereby lowering the person's quality of life. Therefore I belief that anxiety is necessary to enhance one's quality of life. — Metaphysician Undercover

I actually had pathological anxiety. There was no doubt about that.

The person really had normal anxiety, which is a good and fundamental aspect of living as a human being, and the medication removes this anxiety thereby lowering the person's quality of life. Therefore I belief that anxiety is necessary to enhance one's quality of life. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, if you mean that some level of anxiety is good and useful, no doubt.

You seemed to be intent on proving me "wrong", in my claim that anxiety may be good, with a positive contribution to one's quality of life, so you moved to define "anxiety" as an illness, proving me wrong through a restrictive definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

:s

You are working off the premise that the "monkey mind" is bad. Until you prove this premise, that the monkey mind is misbehaving, your insistence that I ought to tame this monkey mind, bringing it under some form of control, is just meaningless babble to my monkey mind. Sorry if this disappoints you, but that's just reality. All you are doing is insistently claiming that my way of thinking is inferior to yours, and I ought to conform mine to yours, but that's ridiculous. Who is really being childish here? — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O - wow wow wow, so until now you did not recognise even the possibility of "taming your mind", and now you finally recognize it. Well done, that is progress.

But to say more about this, it is self-evident. Having a monkey-mind is restrictive, and lowers your quality of life. You have to tire yourself out before you can sleep. I can just jump in bed even if I'm not tired, and I will sleep. I think it's clear that one is superior to the other.

Again, baseless assertions. Doubting is a condition of unknowing, so clearly one can doubt without having any knowledge, therefore without having any belief structure in place. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, having doubts isn't the same as not knowing.

This is what you've been doing all thread, taking a condition which is described as a lack of belief concerning something, then interpreting it as a belief that one has a lack of belief. It is simply my expression to you, in words, which allows you to do this. When I describe to you, in words, a condition of doubt, lack of belief, it is necessarily expressed as a belief in this, through the words. But in the real condition, not the representation of the condition, there is no such belief. — Metaphysician Undercover

LOL - what obfuscation! You would make even the Sophists blush!

Language merely reflects in words the underlying condition. Only creatures capable of belief can doubt, and not all of them can do it. It's a function that is built and predicated upon the possibility of belief. And that's precisely because there is a relationship between belief and doubt, which is what I was pointing to when I referenced Wittgenstein, which you didn't really like.

As I said, it's certainty "about" where they are. I didn't say it is certainty as to exactly where they are. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is what you said:

I am doubtful about where my keys are when I remember where I put them but I am unsure if my memory is correct. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is contradictory nonsense. You are NOT sure where they are - "I don't know where they are" isn't a place where they could be. — Agustino

There was no mention of certainty above.

Are you someone who takes the blue pill? — TimeLine

Like this?

The alienation from any relatedness both to our own being as well as to the external world largely causes this anxious experience, because something autonomous or individual within us is telling us - without language but with physical responses and emotions - that something is wrong with an experience in the external world. We are just unable to articulate it. — TimeLine

:s I don't think anxiety actually manifests like that - this seems like an embellishment. I get that everyone's mind tries to find rationalisations, and you must explain the anxiety in terms of your past, etc. etc. To me that is nonsense. You are giving in to the anxiety when you're doing that, and fueling the same ruminative behaviour that is at the basis of anxiety. The mind may be diseased, but there is a place beyond mind, and that is where you can find healing.

There are numerous ways one can overcome this. One of these - which most often occurs - is through conforming, by allowing others to think on our behalf until we reach a point where we silence the anxiety - which is 'our' voice - that we ultimately lose any identification to our own self-hood. Others drown it with drugs and alcohol, or suicide, or even losing their minds. Small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. — TimeLine

You are wrong, those people drown in drugs, alcohol, violence, hatred, sadism, and all the rest as a respite from their mind, which does not leave them alone, but constantly harasses them. If they could get a few moments of peace... But that psychological peace is nowhere to be found. Their mistake is in looking for peace outside of themselves, instead of inside. They look towards the wife, the drug, the violence, etc. etc. But the problem comes from inside, it comes from an unruly mind, which must be brought into submission.

You seem to have gone down the path of trying to untangle the Gordian knot from within, but it cannot be untangled - all you can do is hide it and forget about it for a little while. The knot must be cut off, with the sword. The mind may not be rescued, because old consequences will play on, but that is not relevant.

There is a story of Angulimala and the Buddha. Angulimala was the most blood-thirsty serial killer of Buddha's time - everyone feared him. He killed people in cold blood and not for money, or any other reason, but just for the sake of it. And he would take their index finger, and he strung them on a garland he would wear around his neck, to keep count of all his victims. He had acquired 999 fingers, and was finally looking to acquire the 1000th finger.

And when he heard the Buddha was around, he set his mind that his 1000th victim will be the Buddha. And so he jumped in the Buddha's way, with his sword out, and yelled "STOP!". But the Buddha just kept walking towards him. And he thought "This man must be crazy... Even my own mother doesn't know where to hide from me, everyone is hiding, and this man is coming towards me! And he is completely unarmed!". So he said to the Buddha "You should STOP! Do you not see this sword?! Have you not heard who I am?! Have you not heard that I have vowed to kill 1000 people, and behold you are the 1000th! Turn around!" But the Buddha did not hesitate, and said "Forget it - I have never changed my mind, and as far as stopping is concerned, I have already stopped long ago. It is you who needs to stop. And as for killing me, you can do it, that doesn't concern me. Anything that is born must die"

And behold that Angulimala dropped his sword and fell at the Buddha's feet, finally stopping his mind.

My way is through authenticity, which is to be brutally honest with oneself about their past, the present, interpretations and trying to ascertain the difference between 'my' opinion and conditioned beliefs that have been given to me; it is a process of practice, like recognising that you are thin-skinned. — TimeLine

The past is irrelevant - it doesn't matter if I was thin-skinned or not, all that matters is how I act now.

Wrong. Indeed, I was given the opportunity to work and develop a career in an organisation predominately with women who were very warm and protective of me during those difficult early stages - particularly following the harassment from men I had in my previous job - that I felt safe enough to start healing, so I was fortunate I got such an amazing job. I was also fortunate that I got an opportunity to holiday to Italy purely by luck, which rescued me from that alienation because it reminded me about culture and arts that I dearly love and allowed me to re-connect with myself. — TimeLine

What you call "healing" seems to be nothing but the passage of time, all the while being in a good environment. You have just forgotten the problems, if you just wait until fortune changes her whims, you may rediscover them. What you call authenticity is nothing but a game of the discursive mind - it is a running away from the real problems, which are structural limitations of discursive thought itself.

Sorry, buddy, but this peace is permanent and I know that from experience. — TimeLine

The mind can never be at peace for long.

Your interpretation of what is "quite clear" is very far from mine. I think Posty proposed this as a matter of debate. Although it is clearly indicated that Posty thinks anxiety is something to be avoided, as the root cause of suffering, and says "I assume" that you do too, there is no indication that Posty is using "anxiety" to refer to any condition of illness. Suffering ought not be equated with illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

What does "illness" mean to you? You are aware that doctors classifying something as "illness" is just that - a medical classification and nothing more. It doesn't mean it "really" is an illness, whatever that means. For example, I was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, hypochondria and OCD in my teens. According to the medical proffession, it is not possible to "cure" these illnesses - so according to them, I must still be suffering from them, but I'm not. A doctor would now say that I was misdiagnosed probably. So as you can see, this entire system of classifying mental illness is really meaningless crap - just putting a label on something and then adding a bunch of metaphysical assumptions to it (like it's "uncurable"). It actually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for many - doctor tells them they are depressed, and they stay depressed their entire lives, because it's "incurable" >:O ! So I don't have to think anxiety is an illness to agree with the definition given by doctors.

I also don't like your naive view of saying "oh that's an illness, it's something different, let's not talk about it" - I don't see how these things are "illnesses", except that they are STATES OF MIND - or HABITS OF MIND - that decrease quality of life for those who have them. There is no illness beyond this here. So this attempt of yours to avoid talking about these things (which are actually relevant), is just that - you're avoiding because you know it will become clear that your views are wrong when we investigate these aspects.

I don't know what you could possibly mean by "an unruly mind which doesn't obey your commands". This statement appears completely contradictory and the whole paragraph is nonsense to me.

This description you have provided, whereby a person is a slave to one's own mind is all incoherent nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't really take you seriously when you claim to be so uneducated that you haven't heard phrases like "unruly mind", or being a "slave to one's own mind" before - and even think they are contradictory.

https://www.pocketmindfulness.com/understanding-monkey-mind-live-harmony-mental-companion/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_monkey

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-gallagher/buddha-how-to-tame-your-m_b_945793.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls



So try as hard as you want, but if you really are surprised at the claim that you must tame your mind, then quite frankly, you're not very well read, and you should read more, because it seems that you identify yourself with your mind, which according to many philosophies is wrong.

You are still stuck entirely in the discursive mode, and know of no other kind of existence - completely stuck in your mind, and using all these strategies (tire yourself out, etc.) instead of identifying the problem - you have a monkey mind that you need to bring under control. In Buddhist thought, we say that the mind is like a bull, and you must tame that bull. It seems that you have taken the opposite approach and have allowed the bull to tame you.

Doubts do not need to be grounded, they exist for no apparent reason whatsoever, just like anxiety. Certainty is what needs to be grounded, otherwise your certitude is nothing other than false confidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Anxiety is also grounded in beliefs. Doubts cannot exist "for no apparent reason whatsoever". We cannot doubt until we first learn to believe. How can you doubt something before you have a belief structure in place?

I am doubtful about where my keys are when I remember where I put them but I am unsure if my memory is correct. — Metaphysician Undercover

"I am unsure if my memory is correct" points to a belief that your memory may be wrong. You must believe that statement in order to be able to doubt your memory. Unless you believe "my memory could be wrong", you cannot doubt your memory.

Your false confidence doesn't allow you to experience doubt. — Metaphysician Undercover

Funny you say that to someone who has experienced OCD >:O - so, when you close the door, and then go back to check it 10 times to make sure it's closed, that, according to you, isn't doubt no? >:O >:O >:O

If I believe that I do not remember where I put them, then I am sure about where they, i.e. sure that I don't know where they are — Metaphysician Undercover

This is contradictory nonsense. You are NOT sure where they are - "I don't know where they are" isn't a place where they could be.

It is not a given that the punishment of insubordination is being fired. Nor is it given that insubordination is punished at all. It depends on context. You might not punish me at all over a cup of tea, given that I might resign and I'm worth more to your company than you're willing to lose (over a cup of tea). — Michael

No, insubordination, even in a light matter, is punished, because it teaches others that disobeying is permissible. This is especially so at White House or military level.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." — Michael

Yeah, disobeying the President of the United States, as someone under him, does give comfort to the Enemies of the country.

In order to “corruptly endeavor” to obstruct the due administration of justice, “[t]he action taken
by the accused must be with an intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings.... Some
courts have phrased this showing as a nexus requirement—that the act must have a relationship in
time, causation, or logic with the judicial proceedings. In other words, the endeavor must have the
natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.”

What action taken? There was no action taken :s

Again, the reports are there for you to read. — Michael

The reports are what people declared. What people declared isn't necessarily the truth, or perhaps they didn't word it in the most accurate manner.

Trump asking/telling McCahn to have Mueller fired because he doesn't want to be investigated fits this definition. — Michael

What if Trump asked McCahn to fire Mueller because he thought that the process was a waste of time and resources?

And again, Trump took NO ACTION. There was NO ACTION taken - nothing was done. He asked him to do it, he explained that if he would be ordered to do it he would resign, and Trump decided not to give that order. Hence no action was taken.

You might not be willing to fire me, just as Trump clearly wasn't willing to fire McGahn. — Michael

Yeah, I wouldn't fire you if it wasn't an order, and it was just a suggestion. But if it's an order and you disobey, you'd be fired. It may even be treasonous to disobey an order of the President.

You're playing ridiculous word games here. This is what I mean by you bending over backwards to defend Trump. — Michael

As far as I see, that's what you're doing, since you're refusing to accept and understand what an order commonly means.

You're my boss. You order me to make you a cup of tea. I refuse. I've disobeyed your order. — Michael

Then you'd be fired. Was McGahn fired? :-d

Trump wasn't willing to push the matter. — Michael

Exactly, so he didn't order him. Maybe he suggested it, contemplated it, or expressed his desire to do it. That's not the same as ordering him. I already explained the difference. An order cannot be disobeyed - either he tried to implement it, or he resigned. Neither of these two things happened.

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer. — Michael

So according to you, Trump gave an order and McGahn did what he couldn't do, which is refuse to obey it?

The reports are there for you to read. Again, you're free to call them "fake news", but they have more knowledge - and credibility - than you. — Michael

I didn't call them fake news, and I did read the reports. Through reading them, I deduce that the President didn't give an order - he wanted to give an order. If he had given an order, then McGahn would have resigned.

Legally it's a very simple issue. Order given = either the person resigns or they carry it out.

So why didn't McGahn resign then? He should have resigned if it was an order, not threaten to resign. The fact that he threatened to resign shows us that Trump wanted to order him to do that, and he let Trump now that if he really did order it, then he would resign. If he had resigned, then you could very clearly argue that Trump did in fact order it.

You're making me dizzy with so much spin. — Michael

Well, I don't really understand why leftists don't get this point - in this case, it seems clear as daylight that there was no obstruction of justice. So I'm not trying to spin anything, I think that YOU are trying to spin the actual situation.

It seems to me that you'll always bend over backwards to try to defend Trump. God knows why. — Michael

And this isn't true either, I think that it's clear by now that in certain areas Trump isn't a very moral person - like sexuality for example.

He ordered it. — Michael

Nope, he didn't order it. You don't understand what ordering it means. He would have ordered it if McGahn would have resigned. He wanted to order it, McGahn told him he would resign, so then he didn't order it. You're not allowed to refuse an order from the President, you can resign, but not refuse.

There's no law out there, by the way, saying that the President cannot contemplate doing something against the law.

I did not go to Harvard law school, or to any law school for that matter, but it doesn't take much brain to realise that the bit you quoted shows exactly why Trump is innocent:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer

He did NOT impede Muller's investigation, nor did he influence it for that matter. He did not behave "corruptly" - using means that are outside of what is legally possible for him to do (and by the way, it is legally possible for him to fire Muller). In a court of law you have to prove actual damages - and actually, Trump did not impede anything.

Geez, no wonder you identify with DT so well. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why are you people obsessed about DT in a thread where I didn't even bring it up?

And I suppose you think that's a good side? — Metaphysician Undercover

What's a good side?

Now addressing your previous comments:

OK, I thought we were discussing anxiety as anxiety, not a defined medical disorder entitled "anxiety". — Metaphysician Undercover

I think Posty was quite clear that he was referring to anxiety as an illness...

Maintaining a reasonable amount of activity tires one, and helps one to rest and relax, as well as sleep better. Without an appropriate amount of activity, your efforts to rest and relax may be futile because you have no exertion to rest from. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, that's because you have an unruly mind which doesn't obey your commands. I used to have that as a teenager, and God was it a pain. If you didn't tire yourself during the day, you couldn't sleep at night. Always like a slave on a leash, I had to tire myself out by playing football, etc. Now that doesn't trouble me anymore - because I gained control over that aspect of my mind. I don't care anymore if I don't fall asleep, so it doesn't trouble me. No more switching from one side to the other, getting up, moving around the room, etc. etc. Just stay there, and not care - then you are at peace, even if you don't sleep.

Have you ever had difficulty getting to sleep, and found that the harder you try to get to sleep, the more difficult it is to get to sleep? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, so I don't give a damn, and I just sit in bed not trying to do anything >:O - and sooner or later I do fall asleep. So I changed strategy ever since I was a teenager, and I used to try very hard to fall asleep.

As I said, being active allows me to avoid being troubled by anxiety. So, if as you say, meditation allows one to avoid being troubled by anxiety, I don't see the basis for your claim that meditation is a better approach. As I've explained, I get enjoyment and pleasure from my anxiety, and being active. So not only do I avoid being troubled by anxiety, I also get benefits from it. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, meditation gives you control over your mind, not just avoiding to be troubled by anxiety. Being active gives you no such control - it just keeps you a slave. Control - like this:



Capisci? >:O

I don't like being a slave to my mind and its desires and so on so forth. I like being free. If I can't sleep and my mind is pestering me with thoughts, that is annoying. And I get it to stop by ignoring it and not caring what it does.

Since I've just demonstrated that your claims here are contradictory, your appeal to authority is of the fallacious type. You need to address my demonstration that what you have said is contradictory. I've argued elsewhere that it's very clear Wittgenstein is wrong on this point, due to contradictions such as yours, which arise. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wittgenstein is right. In order to doubt something, I must believe something else, since doubts have to be grounded - you must have a reason for your doubt. Why are you unsure about where the keys are? Is it not because you believe you don't remember where you put them for example? I don't see how your little sophistry avoids this.

For example, he tells McGahn "fire him", McGahn says I can't do that because it's obstruction of justice, so if you insist, I will resign, and Trump backs down. What's wrong with that? That's a normal interaction between two people.

He ordered McGahn, the White House Counsel, to fire him. McGahn refused and threatened to resign, so Trump backed down. — Michael

Yep, what's wrong with that? How is that obstruction of justice?

Thank you, I hope yours is less naive than mine.

What's the big deal if Trump "wanted" to fire him? How is that obstruction of justice? As far as I remember, wanting to do something doesn't constitute doing it. In addition, maybe Trump wasn't aware that it would constitute obstruction - when he found out, he stopped the action.

Mentioning Trump, this was an interesting "debate". I think the Mootch won it

I had in mind more like the current president of the US. — Posty McPostface

But I didn't mention him in this thread?

DT has some good sides and some very bad sides, sure. What's your point?

I don't think I need to point out the hypocrisy in this post — Posty McPostface

Please do point it, because I do not see it :P

despite his narcissistic and egotistical personality towards everything external. — Posty McPostface

You mean Alexander? Alexander certainly had his failings, but in many regards, he was a virtuous person.

One is to focus on the process of building one's self-esteem by accumulating wealth, property, and other material goods. — Posty McPostface

I think you have this the wrong way around. One cannot acquire wealth, property, material goods, etc. if they lack self-esteem and self-confidence. So on the contrary, in order to acquire the external things, you must first acquire the internal ones.

The first option is much easier to deal with because the progress is seen immediately and is more tangible. — Posty McPostface

I don't think it's necessarily much easier, because it already presupposes at least some of the virtues.

If not, then why should the Stoics admire the Cynics? — Posty McPostface

Because they get the internal aspect right. Stoics have what are known as preferred indifferents (wealth, health, etc.). So the virtue is required to gain (or at least maximise your chances of gaining) the preferred indifferents. Remember what Alexander the Great said upon meeting Diogenes - if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes. Because Alexander understood that the internal aspect that Diogenes got right was useful to him, and Diogenes actually did have what it took to be a ruler but chose not to use it.

I'm surprised to hear you say that, because I thought your views are quite similar to Krauss's - must've been wrong.

Thus authenticity precedes eudaimonia. — TimeLine

>:O

It is about ascertaining the correct - or authentic - way in order to reach this harmony and in my opinion the only correct way is this self-reflective communication, by piecing the puzzles by talking about it, writing it, drawing it and not escaping it by other means as already mentioned. — TimeLine

In my opinion, this is a self-created problem - you hold yourself accountable to living an "authentic" life, whatever that is supposed to mean, and then feel bad if you fail to meet that goal. I don't do that - I just don't care if I live an authentic life or not - I don't even know what it means to live authentically.

I have tried to live in a way that maximises my freedom for self-directedness, which is why I'm not in the corporate world and I can work when I want to - if I want to work at 12 at night, then I will do it. If I want to work in my pyjamas, no problem. Etc.

I am a sort of Diogenes - I play the clown and let people think I'm an idiot on purpose. Afterall, I'm looking for people who can see behind the façade anyway - and it's also good training in helping me deal with insults, which I've been working on lately, since I can sometimes be somewhat too thin-skinned.

So you seem to have spent so much time looking for a way out of a labyrinth that was really of your own making. You gave importance to those events, and allowed them to shape you - but I think you could have cast them off at once. Instead of untangling the knot, take the sword as Alexander did and cut it off!

So I don't see the need for authenticity. In my opinion, and I may be wrong, I think the reason why you're feeling much happier now is simply because your external circumstances are much better - ie, due to Lady Fortune, who sometimes gives, and sometimes takes away. It's easy to be happy when things are going well - most people are.

And that's a classic example of why people like you hate it so much, just in case it stops you from making ridiculously unfounded propositions like that one by asking that you actually come up with some empirical evidence to back them up before we all nod sagely in agreement. — Pseudonym

>:O >:O >:O >:O - yeah, ridiculous, unfounded propositions, for which there is no empirical evidence like scientism :> Here's an example:

Without prejudice, it remains a possibility that science is actually investigating all there is to be investigated. — Pseudonym

Are you laughing too? >:O

Heide who? >:O

And I actually agree that Scientism is a grave danger in today's society, especially as it has seeped into popular culture. Most people are not philosophically educated, and cannot even begin to understand the problems with scientism, and scientism is very likely the number one cause of nihilism.

All three, I'm also a Scholastic-Aristotelian in terms of metaphysics.

It's like telling someone "you would not have had sex with a hooker, if your wife was with you" - well of course! But the reason the wife wasn't with that person, was because they wanted to have sex with a hooker.

Those grown-up men would not have behaved like that if there had been a good sprinkling of wives and significant others present, (oh and possibly some powerful women guests) and the auction items would have been different, and the uniforms would have been different, and... — unenlightened

So you're telling me those grown-up men would not have behaved like that, if they did not wish the organizer to set up a party like that? :s That's silly beyond belief - of course not! When they themselves told that organizer, do a party like this, if you want our money, how would it be possible for there to have been a "good sprinkling of wives" etc.?

It was set up to indulge and legitimise foul behaviour, and everyone involved knew it, hence the non-disclosure agreements. — unenlightened

Yeah, they set it up for themselves as they wanted to. If the organizer wouldn't agree, they'd find someone who would, and so on so forth.

the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'. — unenlightened

Yes and no. It produces "who we are" in children and young adults, but not in those who have already formed and crystalised their personality. So those grown-up men, there pretty much is no changing for most of them.

Well that's not true. Fear of breaking the law is a pretty good motivator. — Michael

Don't be naive. Someone is not afraid of the law if they understand the procedures, they have (or can make) connections with the decision makers, and can influence them. The law doesn't implement itself, it needs people to be implemented. Things need to pass through certain procedures, and through multiple hands, in order for the law to do things. These are social matters.

For example, someone may go to their local police station and file an accusation that, for example, you hit them. That accusation then needs to be passed onto a decision-maker who will decide if an investigation needs to be started, or there is no basis for it. If an investigation is started, then that will need to be passed onto the courts as well.

At every step of the way, there is an opportunity for something to go wrong. At the person who takes the accusation first and sends it over to his boss, if there is corruption, the papers will get lost. If the papers pass from that person to his boss, and there is corruption, his boss can find a reason for not starting an investigation into your case. And so on across the entire chain, to the highest levels.

So society is more important than the law - society governs how the law is implemented. If a homeless child from the street gets kidnapped, who is there to start an investigation into his case? If someone from a regular but stable family gets kidnapped, on the other hand, there will be a lot of people to report it, follow up, and make sure that an investigation is started and pursued to the end.

So society is more important than the law. These social structures determine the very possibilities for someone to use the law in the first place.

it's about the structures and institutions that we, men and women, have created and found acceptable. — unenlightened

But society is just man writ large. So we have created those social structures because they represent who we are.

The law is useless actually for such things. If people want to do something in the first place, then they will do it, whether it's legal or not. That's why education is necessary, so they don't want to do it in the first place, and they look down on it and oppose it when they see it happening. But, let me tell you, most men I have met, would have no problem, if they could, to attend such parties, and even worse. The only thing that holds them back is that they lack the power.

So then, the only way to fix the issue, seems to be, that we ourselves become the kind of people that, even if we were made absolute dictators of the whole world, would not engage in such activities. There is no other way.

This isn't a problem just for women, it's a problem for anyone who is in a vulnerable position. There is abuse everywhere where people are vulnerable - for example, homeless children are more likely to become involved in prostitution, child-trafficking, etc. than those who have a family to care for them.

So how can you fix the problem without seeking to make people invulnerable? Because we all know what kind of totalitarianism we end up with when we seek to be invulnerable.

The only means I see is education and loyalty.

The biggest problem for me - and I suspect many others - is this alienation from any self control and awareness and that makes it tremendously difficult to know what to do both you and for others around you. — TimeLine

My secret, as Krishnamurti said, is that "I don't mind what happens" >:O