When exactly did relationships between men and women, the care for each other, the ongoing desire to be with each other, ever run on the basis of such exaggerated displays of affection? Never. — TheWillowOfDarkness

My claim is that by and large, men care for women, but not vice-versa. There are individual exceptions to this, but there are men who care for women because they are men and their partners are women, while the reverse is not true. In other words, romantic care and love, from a social standpoint, is heterosexual and unidirectional.

So when a comedian says something like this:



Like all comedy, it's simultaneously a joke and not a joke. This is not to say that women are deficient; it's to say that love isn't what people claim it is.

Relationships themselves are run on a much more mundane sort of care, one which is not about how someone its the greatest treasure, but rather one which sees the well-being of other people as important. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree. The bread and butter of a relationship is ultimately things like paychecks, child rearing, and obedience.

I liked the idea of the socially unsanctioned relationship. Liked it better that there wasn't official approval. — Bitter Crank

I feel the same way, even with outright unknown relationships ('on the DL'), that's even better. There's something liberating about knowing that a relationship doesn't come about because it's socially expected that it should. That's a variable that you simply cannot, ever, remove from a heterosexual relationship, and in a way it cheapens every heterosexual relationship no matter how 'sincere.'

We can survey people to get a data — Soylent

Can we? If we admit that the notion of love is susceptible to empirical observation, we've robbed it of its significance on its own terms. Love survives as a social notion precisely by being unquantifiable. There are no data metrics we can use to record it, precisely because if there were, it wouldn't be love we were studying.

The only way we can empirically study love is not on its own terms, externally as a social mechanism that it claims not to be.

I would guess a biological/evolutionary theory of love would make the mother-child relationship primary and all other "loving relationships" are a by-product of the mother-child attachment. We could probably extrapolate from the mother-child relationship to your theory insofar as the closer the roles of the male and female approach the mother-child relationship (high-status woman, low-status man), the stronger the love claim. — Soylent

That seems possible, but I haven't thought about it. I'm interested in the notion of romantic love specifically, but maybe there's some deeper connection there. Though parental 'love' is weird because as compared to romantic love it's just so obviously self-serving and conditional on certain criteria, in ways that I think even those who buy into love would admit. Romantic love tries to be 'higher,' to be instituted for no reason whatsoever (see coolazice's post above), even though of course this is bogus, but parental love doesn't even pretend to be mysterious in that way, the familial link is totally obvious to everyone.

But it's simply a fact that love does not really play the same role in gay communities that it does in heterosexual ones. It's even a serious question regarding homosexuality whether the notion of 'gay marriage,' for example, makes sense at all, with many gay people advocating against it, since they view it as (rightly) a heterosexual bourgeois institution that historically homosexuality has no connection to (along with 'love,' the application of which to homosexuality is a very recent phenomenon that people are viewing ahistorically as if all kinds of love have always just sprung up magically from nowhere 'equally'). Heterosexuality benefits from stability, since its social purpose is the rearing of children in family units, which homosexuality is not historically to tied to (though it is becoming that way now with the mainstreamization of homosexuality, and perhaps will more radically change soon). To try to lump homosexuality in with heterosexual social practices is to practice a kind of ideological colonization that fails to understand how anything could be different from a certain heterosexual 'order' of things, and in particular an order from a male perspective (again, since heterosexual men are the ones that are supposed to 'love'). And thre's a good case to be made that the homosexuals who are advocating for gay love and marriage in this way are Uncle Toms who want in good with their heterosexual masters.

Likewise for women -- just look at any heterosexual relationship. In answer to the question of whether the man loves the woman, the answer will be maybe, with there being a higher chance the lower status the man is. As to the question of whether the woman loves the man, the answer is likely no. Women simply do not show the same kinds of exaggerated affection for men as the other way around, for the simple reason that they do not need to, and so the institution doesn't apply to them. They are in some sense literally above it, and for them men are fungible as accessories of social status and protectors, whereas it 'benefits' low status men to idolize women and hypostatize their female traits into something like worship. Emotionally, women are generally in a superior relationship over men in romantic dealings for this reason.

Also, the idea that people do something 'for no reason.' Pure ideology -- of course that's what the system wants you to think. There's no reason for this! It's magic, it's eternity! The way things currently are isn't contingent on anything! That's how they always were!

It's okay. I'm so smart and magnanimous that any time someone insults me I immediately intuit the psychological shortcoming that caused them to do so and forgive it.

I'm right too often, and I think that intimidates people.

What a load of rubbish. tgw, it's not arrogant to claim a position is wrong, nor is it arrogant to claim is position is right (stop martyring yourself). This is a philosophy forum for Pete's sake. It's only arrogant, no, silly, to claim a position is wrong without any real arguments. — darthbarracuda

I never said that. I was mocking the post that I quoted, which you would know if you read the thread instead of jumping on things to quote and then respond to.

Except that it is impossible to argue with you. You do not make any claims which can be falsified by reasonable argument — Agustino

Here's an exercise for you: look for one claim in the wall of text you posted that can be falsified by reasonable argument, or even one that says anything other than 'I'm right, you're wrong.' I'll wait.

If you ask what the cause of suffering is, on the one hand you could just list particular things that make people suffer.

But if you want to know why there is suffering to begin with, the question is in a way wrongheaded. Suffering is by nature superfluous, and the notion of causation itself seems to be born out of it, as a response to having to deal with it, in order to attempt some sort of control or power over the way that one suffers.

Insulting someone is the last refuge of a person with no argument. It's worth reflecting on why, when upset that your position is challenged, you have no tools to defend that position, rather than attacking the one who makes those criticisms on grounds besides the argument they've made.

Of course, it's arrogant to claim a position is wrong, but not to claim that it's right (which is, in effect, to claim that another one is wrong). 'Intelligent' people believe whatever you please: it's beneath a philosopher to appeal to authority and/or popularity. I think everyone upset in this thread knows that, but on the other hand has literally no better defense.

I don't feel like it, and given your attitude it'd be a waste of time anyway.

You can't have read through the thread several times, because if you had, you wouldn't ask that question. Why do I have to repeat myself for your benefit?

It's this kind of pretentious bullshit that gets spread around the internet simply because of anonymity. Do you really act like this in real life? Sorry, mate, but honestly do you expect people to respect you when you are implying that their position is outrageously silly, especially when it concerns the evaluation of the value of someone else's own life?! — darthbarracuda

Isn't it better to be right than respected?

since my point was about the likelihood of a given number of people being deluded in a certain respect — Sapientia

which isn't equivalent to your straw man: "because a given number of people believe/disbelieve something, it is therefore true/false (or even likely true/false)". — Sapientia

???

Yes, that's an ideal...

even if unachievable...

So, in that sense, it is a realistic (and worthwhile) means of dealing with such problems as have been mentioned. — Sapientia

Ah, but this is okay, because you are not a Stoic. You are Stoic-like.

not essential to my more moderate, stoic-like position;

I have patiently argued cogently in good faith and good sense in the face of numerous logical fallacies employed by my interlocutors. Alas, I am not perfect, so I cannot immediately convince and satisfy everyone.

Positions that nobody is forcing you to accept. If Stoicism does not work for you, then it does not work for you. Discussing why this is is perfectly fine, but beating everyone over the head repeatedly with the same vague denying drivel is not argument. — darthbarracuda

I never said anyone was forcing me to accept them. I was just pointing out that they're wrong.

Thanks for twisting my words. — Sapientia

I'm not twisting your words; you aren't considering what you're saying.

I do, however, think that it's preposterous to claim that so many people, myself included, are deluded in that respect, given such strong evidence to the contrary. — Sapientia

How many people believe something is irrelevant to its truth.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a realistic, productive means of dealing with such problems, then Stoicism has produced good results - regardless of what you claim, as it happens. — Sapientia

But Stoicism is in no way realistic -- its goal is sagelike perfection and its suggestions involve no practical action. It also produces no worthwhile results, in that reading about Stoicism or trying to practice it will not actually resolve your life's major problems.

You're beating around the bush here. What specific part of Stoicism do you find does not work to solve these problems? Can you explain why Stoicism is not the answer to these problems? Can you even identify these problems to begin with? And can you identify the problems that Stoicism is even concerned with so that you make sure you aren't constructing a straw man? — darthbarracuda

Read the thread.

If you can't answer these questions without appealing to vagueness or attacks on the personal, subjective feelings of others, kindly step off the stage. — darthbarracuda

I have attacked no one's feelings; I have attacked publicly espoused positions.

But I don't criticize people who are Stoics, because for them, it might work just fine. — darthbarracuda

Does it, though? Ibuprofen works, certainly. Stoicism?

Ibuprofen is precisely what Stoicism can't give you.

You'd have to refute strong evidence to the contrary in order to refute this point, namely people's own experience. — Sapientia

I am denying that you have experiences of Stoicism solving life's problems because as a matter of fact it doesn't, regardless of what you claim.

It's highly unlikely (and rather preposterous to claim) that all these people, myself included, are deluded in that respect, and are merely experiencing illusion. — Sapientia

Disagreement is pretentious? (Sorry, I read that wrong, I meant 'preposterous'). I don't know, thinking that it's preposterous that you could be wrong is itself preposterous.

Feeling good, interested, motivated, like life has a purpose, looking forward to things, enjoying other people, etc. It could include joy, flow, intense interest, or just feeling like things are going well.

Of course they don't always go well, so then it's a question of do they go wrong enough to spoil the good feeling about life? Does it become hopeless? Burdensome? Depressing? Then it stops feeling like it's worth it. — Marchesk

I maintain that there is no feeling of 'life being worth living.' That's something you can say, but not feel.

Because you're arguing about the subjective state of other people. You're claiming that life can't be worth living to them, even though they disagree with you. — Marchesk

Again, what does it matter if they disagree? Notice that the above pattern of inference, which you continue to invoke, is invalid.

Fortunately, I never made such an argument. Yeah, life has real problems. We suffer at times. Okay. The question is, does that make life not worth living? The pessimist says yes, but other people disagree. So what makes the pessimist right. Maybe I disagree that problems and suffering necessarily make life not worth living. Who are you to say otherwise for me? — Marchesk

Why are you under the impression that whether you disagree with something has anything to do with whether it's true? Notice that the following is an invalid inference:

I disagree with P.

Therefore, not P.

Yet, that seems to be the pattern you are invoking. If not, then what? How does bringing up your disagreement matter in any way?

So you think there is an objective, universal truth to be had here? That's very odd for someone who values the Cyrenaics. — Marchesk

I am saying that opinions are impotent. If they were omnipotent, as you say, then I could simply have the opinion that my life was perfect, an that would make it so. Yet life has real problems. Does your opinion about whether you are suffering control whether you are Clearly not. And clearly your position that it does is bizarre.

I have said that whether one finds life worth living or not is a feeling. — Marchesk

And what kind of feeling is that? Is it sweet or sour? No. It is as has been stressed here, a value judgment, not a feeling. And those judgments, what are they worth? Are they going to save you, from anything?

Or it could be more complicated than that, where it sometimes feels worth it, but sometimes not. In that case, I don't know what the truth is, if there is such a thing in this case. — Marchesk

Shouldn't it worry you that precisely where the issues matter most, your ability to think about them is the most facile? The solution is to invent a magical realm within your head where your opinions control reality, and everything you say or think is beyond criticism? But then, why do philosophy at all? Isn't that just a solipsistic game? It would only work for someone whose life already has no problems.

But seriously, what's more likely: that the Stoic is wrong in their assessment of their own life (and is somehow actually suffering profoundly from these problems), or you are either misunderstanding their position or blowing these problems out of proportion? — darthbarracuda

I'm not telling you how to do anything. I'm simply informing you of something that would be true, whether I informed you of it or not: that you will continue to suffer, and that Stoicism will not help you with that problem. Stoicism does not, cannot, in fact stop you from suffering, and its impotence will be apparent in your actual suffering regardless of how hard you opine that you are not suffering.

Then what? — Marchesk

Then nothing. Who cares if you agree or not? That means nothing. We are doing philosophy; we care about what is true, not who agrees with it.

I can't see how you can be right for someone else here — Marchesk

'Right for someone else?' In the way that the individual is 'right for themselves?' But then, why is there no mystery about how they can be 'right for themselves?' Or, as you seem to suggest, about how they cannot be 'wrong for themselves?' Wouldn't life be easy if your opinions carried this kind of omnipotence? Why not just opine that my life is great, and make it so? Why does anyone have problems at all?

You can have an opinion about whatever you want, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right or even worth taking seriously. Your opinions do not have any magical powers or authority, and people's espoused beliefs most often have little or nothing to do with their lives, since the sphere of opinion is free to circulate without any grounding or credit whatsoever precisely for the reason that you say, that it permits itself ultimate authority regardless of any inconsistencies or possible evidence to the contrary.

If you dismiss argument, and declare whatever you happen to say at the moment to be the ultimate truth that nothing can overturn about some subject, then why are you arguing? Where is the absurdity now?

The thing is, opinions don't matter precisely because they can go whichever way despite any possible evidence to the contrary, nothing stops anyone from having any opinion at all, certainly no facts, no thought, no concern for any real problems. Yet life is a real problem, that has real issues; and so you see, life is not a matter of opinion, because it matters, while [your] opinion doesn't (as you admit, it literally makes no difference, and nothing makes a difference to it).

The pessimist is arguing that everyone is the same boat here living lives where they would have been better off not existing. But not everyone agrees with that. If a person finds their life worth living, then the pessimistic position simply doesn't apply to them, whether they're stoical about X,Y,Z or whatever. The point is that those problems aren't enough to make life not worth it to that individual. — Marchesk

It doesn't follow from:

I have the opinion that P

that

P.

It seems to me that pessimistic, existential problems (such as death, suffering, the strangle of time, boredom, anxiety, etc) is something that has to be solved by the person in their own way that suits them, and that manner cannot be criticized. — darthbarracuda

Sure it can be criticized -- if the problems in fact don't get solved where they claim to be. And let's be real, Stoicism has never solved any of these problems for anyone. Anyone espousing its virtues in this very thread can reflect on that honestly and see for themselves. 'Yes, but--' no, no buts, just be honest.

I really don't think the position that all psychological pain is self-inflicted deserves serious response. So no, I think a handwave is fine.

But then the question just goes back: why are they constituted such as to behave that way? Surely they didn't also choose that, that was not their fault? If you dig down to what you mean by 'self-infliction' of these pains, you will find you don't know what you're talking about.

Psychological pain is a very real phenomenon, but ultimately it derives from the person, not the environment. — darthbarracuda

I don't see any reason to believe this. Sounds like New Age crap.

Or, you could look at these pains like I do, and realize that they are self-caused — darthbarracuda

But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me.

Additionally, I do not think these kinds of pains are anywhere near as bad as, say, being stabbed in the heart. They may cause a person a bit of angst, anxiety, and some depression, but don't usually give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering. And the times that it does give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering (such as extreme anxiety, something I have experience with), there is medication and therapy that helps tremendously. — darthbarracuda

In principle I don't think any one kind of pain is worse than any other, but in practice I think you're right, extreme physical pain is almost always the worst kind. But there's still the question of whether life would be 'any good' even if we were just left with the less unbearable pains that ate away at us slowly.

Oh boy...

Presumably, however, we could invent technology that could get rid of the aspect of pain that we find uncomfortable and replace it with simply a notification. Evolution did not lead to us having to ability to consciously control our pain receptors, but with the help of technology we might be able to. — darthbarracuda

I don't know how that's possible. If for example you consider boredom, loneliness, hopelessness, embarrassment, and so on pains, then you would have to rewire our bodily structure so fundamentally that our existential structures would be completely revamped, to the extent that we might not be able to even recognize them or from our present perspective even imagine them. That's a far more revisionary task than just, say, blocking some receptors. Is it even possible for a feeling creature not to suffer? And is there any interesting sense in which one is alive (that is, not biologically, but in a way that matters) without feeling?

Oh, I was just saying obviously not all pain is simulation of receptors beneath the skin. People have medical conditions where they can't feel 'pain' in that sense but they still obviously suffer.

Suffering, to the extent that it's detrimental, should be avoided and minimised, should it not? If not, why? And if it's not the right question, then what is? — Sapientia

Asking whether suffering should be minimized is not the same as asking what should be done in the face of it. Usually if you're suffering, it's 'too late.' In the face of suffering, I'm not sure what the question of what one 'can do' about it makes much sense. We can perhaps live through it, embody it in art, and so on, but what happens, what befalls you, for that very reason can't be avoided once it's on you. You can of course minimize future suffering, but that's not the same as doing something 'in the face of it.'

No more insightful, but just as evident: too much grieving can be detrimental. Excessive grieving can mean not just grieving more than normal, as Seneca's answer (as paraphrased by you) implies, but also grieving to an extent whereby it has a detrimental effect on that person's life and the lives of others, such as close family and friends. — Sapientia

I don't know. Maybe the least detrimental thing is just never to grieve over anything. But even if that were so, a lot of people find such a prospect repulsive. I just think didactic instructions about how much to grieve are absurd. It shows a disconnect with reality.

No, they're just not good at it. Bad argument always fails on its own terms, not due to outside influence.

Crude, but yes, that's basically it. Your alternative ultimately amounts to... what? 'That problem you have? Do nothing about it'. If you do answer, it's only fair to answer in the same manner in which you've treated stoicism, so please, no sophistication or charity, and it should consist of a short sentence. — Sapientia

I don't think there is just an answer to what people in general should do in the face of suffering. It's not the right question to be asking.

There is a problem, hence there is an error. The problem, in the example, is excessive grieving, which is detrimental. The error would be to do nothing about it, as the problem would persist; and the solution would be to move on - gradually, and with assistance, if need be - thereby ultimately ceasing to grieve in excess. — Sapientia

What makes the grieving 'excessive?' Seneca's answer is, because animals don't grieve that much. I'm guessing you don't have anything more insightful than that.

That depends on what claims they make. I can't know that from the fact that they're grieving over the death of a loved one.

Again, you are refusing to tell me what that person should do to feel better (assuming the stoic answer isn't the right one)... You are refusing to tell me how he can make his life better. — Agustino

I don't think philosophy should be in the business of giving self-help advice and maxims about how to live. It should be in the business of scrutinizing ideas and exposing errors. Bad 'ethical' positions are, if you like, errors.