A more pertinent question of philosophy would be:

Why do apparently smart people feel the need to proselytize about their political flavor?

I'd wager, is that it has something to do with Cipolla's Five Laws.

Deranged rabble rousing propaganda? Why is this here?

Well, maybe it is a confusion, but if we mention the ideas of, for example, a perfect circle or a perfect equilateral triangle, that is a very clear and exact meaning.

This perfect meaning would also apply to any other geometric form idea - but never to a physical object representing them.

That does not work for something complex like - a perfect car - perfect in what way? What does perfect mean in that context?

Common misuse of the "perfect" adjective applies to:
The perfect woman.
The perfect life.
The perfect marriage.
The perfect [whatever].

In the above, we can substitute "perfect" for "ideal", but even then, that necessitates the definition of qualities or measures that make it ideal - and that is impossible because the judgement of those qualities are are always subjective.

For example: The perfect woman for me has to have nice hips, while for someone else that is irrelevant but she must be a really good cook. Notice that there is no measure of what "nice hips" or "good cook" means.

No, because only unknown things can be taught to a student. If the person (pupil) by nature is a Stoic, there is nothing you can teach him on Stoicism. This is also mentioned in the opening post. Grr-brr, hohem-hohem. — god must be atheist

No I meant, you would formally teach about the subject of stoicism but I guess you are correct and this just semantics - the student would already be a stoic in practice.

This is an example of confusion of meaning, definitions.

Even if you defined in the OP what [Stoicism] means in exactitude in the context of that video and this thread, it does not match what [STOICISM] means to each person reading that word. Furthermore, even being aware of this distinction, I find it difficult to make arguments with concurrent parallel and slightly different definitions of a concept.

Then what happens is that we start discussion past each other in confusion because the definitions and assumptions do not match, but because the words and letters form the same patterns in text, we naturally assume that they carry the same meaning in our mind as the person that wrote them, or even anyone else reading it.

This is proven by the discourse in the thread so far.

I apologize for the confusion I contributed to here.

Using the OP as a source of definitions, I will attempt to reply to your original question:

Stoicism can be taught, conditionally in the learning person already having a nature conducive to its contents.

I was not aware that this "classic" definition exists. I will assume that you are correct in your claim.

Through all material I have seen recently propagating stoicism as a virtuous philosophy, that was never the meaning I understood from it. Maybe I unconsciously made the adjustment when understanding the material.

Would anyone blindly follow the classical definition of stoicism as a virtue without adjusting? That would seem folly as the wisdom advertised would have to be ignored in lieu of strictly following the dogma.

As you, I also think the classical definitions are contradictory and problematic in that it would cause more harm than the null hypothesis.

No, and I will agree that it helps less in the modern world than in an older more agrarian civilization, but perhaps it is a better way to deal with modern challenges than... nothing?

My understanding is that Stoicism is a philosophy that helps people live their lives with greater inner peace - not as means of social change.

I hold the opinion that stoicism helps more than it harms.

Do you have an alternative, better way of dealing with internal thoughts as they pertain to uncontrollable external conditions?

That is a bit disingenuous.

It has helped some people deal with their situations. More than the null situation.

Would you claim that stoicism has harmed society?

But, I would say that this part right here is wrong:

The chief task in life — Brett

How can that be the most important thing to do in life? That doesn't seem like the correct way of prioritizing things.

However,

identify and separate matters so that I can say clearly to myself which are externals not under my control, and which have to do with the choices I actually control — Brett

seems like a sensible proposition.

With an example:
Perhaps there is no benefit in getting worked up about Trump (wasting time and getting angry) since there is nothing a single person can do about that, but there could be great benefit instead spending the time doing something that yields some beneficial return on time invested - maybe talking a walk outside.

The system may or may not be equitable, but trying has a better chance of success than not trying, which has a 0% chance of success. Trying harder increases chances of success.

I do not think that the current system in the western world is equitable.

You gave a situation, but no action. If no action is taking place, then thoughts probably are. In that situation, is it really that unusual that the thoughts were in the ballpark of moping?

I think what God must be aetheist is saying is that the world of the philosophical Stoic is unreal, that they assume all externals are somehow nothing to do with other men, that no one has control over the things others suffer under. — Brett

If this is what philosophical Stoics claim, then I do not agree with it either.

We as human beings can control very few things:
1. How we think about what happens to us.
2. How we act.

What we cannot control:
A. How others act.
B. How others think.
C. How acts of nature happen.

We can however, through 1 and 2, influence A, B and even C in some circumstances. Influence, but never control.

Your strawman argument is that the solution to problems is just discipline.

That is not true, and is also not what I wrote, which was that discipline helps the mind.

When discipline is mentioned, is that it is used to focus on what is, finding ways to change what is into what it could be, and then doing it without despairing all the while.

There have been people that were able to overcome situations worse than what you used as an example, and there have been people that failed to overcome situations qualitatively and quantitatively less bad.

You are correct that it is arrogant to claim others should behave in a certain way without the experience of doing the same in similar circumstances, but that is neither here nor there.

I will give you a couple of solutions to the problem that you mentioned:

hunger, your children don’t eat too well, you have no work, your wife is ill, you have no resources, you have rent to pay, you haven’t recovered from an injury, the kids are skipping school, they’re mixing with the wrong crowd, you know drugs are involved, one of them is arrested, he goes to prison.

Maybe a course of action would be:
1. suicide - giving up.
2. suicide bomb some entity you blame for the situation.
Or it could be:
2. accept that the situation is bad, but focus on what you can do to make the situation better.
2.1- Perhaps an act of violence against the authorities is in order - if you die, at least that is one less mouth to feed or wail about the terrible helplessness you must endure in life.
2.2- Perhaps you can butcher the wrong crowd as a source of food, which can make you stronger and helps your wife heal, and then you move out to a more affordable place- a cardboard box in the street. Then move on from there.

Perhaps any number of actions are available but you did not mention them in your exposition of a bad situation.

Discipline of the mind may help you find a course of action - any course of action - that has a possibility of improving your lot, instead of doing nothing but moping.

It is clearly both.

External, because, as a simple example, there is no food to eat and the stomach hurts. There is no way to avoid this pain.

Self-imposed, because instead of simply accepting that there is no food and engaging the mind in finding a way around the problem, the person instead engages in mind exercises that cause angst and mental suffering in addition to the physical pain, but this can be avoided entirely with discipline.

This, in my understanding, is one of the core tenets of stoicism.

I think it is entirely possible that life today for many people is almost insurmountable and beyond their control AND that they are looking for an east way out because they can't deal with the suffering they have to endure.

Maybe there is a threshold of pain that makes it impossible to live stoically, but I would argue that most people that have bad lives don't really have it that bad - they are just people that see the glass almost empty instead of being glad that it has anything at all.

Excuse me, but it seems you are strawmanning what it means to be Stoic.

My simple understanding is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism):

According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to eudaimonia (happiness) for humans is found in accepting the moment as it presents itself, by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or fear of pain, by using one's mind to understand the world and to do one's part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly.

The theme seems to be:
1. accept events beyond our control and not agonize in wishing that things were a different way.
2. working together and treating others fairly and justly.

How is this in any way impossible? And what does it matter if no one controls externals?

Where then do I look for good and evil? Not to uncontrollable externals, but within myself to the choices that are my own…”
– Epictetus

Point of contention - while it does not make sense to assign good/evil qualities to things that happen by themselves, like rain or sunshine, it does if the things happening beyond out control are the result of someone's decision, like torture for the pleasure of the torturer.

Therefore, if you are the one being tortured and there is nothing you can do to stop it, you may endure it with a stoic attitude, but it does not make the torture act any less evil (or good if you really deserve it).

I watched the video only. I never read a thing on Stoicism. I can't read. — god must be atheist

No, seriously, I get your point. I did not write this question particularly for you or to entertain you. I wrote this quesiton for ALL those philosophers who find it not particularly interesting. — god must be atheist

I wish I could be you, Praxis. If I were, then I could ask all the interesting questions that interest you and not me. — god must be atheist

Oh man, I gotta tell you, this made my day! Thanks for the hearty laughs!

I believe you are a true Cynic - but to your original question:

Becoming a Stoic or a Cynic is process that usually happens naturally as means to cope with frustration. Sure, you can learn about the philosophy, but you will not truly understand it until you experience the frustration of dealing with idiots and other unstoppable forces of nature that one must deal with on a constant basis throughout life.

As such, I do not think it likely for youth to be stoics or cynics until they gain enough life experience to fulfill the conditions posited in the previous paragraph.

My own definition of the same, or similar, terms relate to the domain of human mind and its ontological presuppositions. So they take into consideration:
1) Common meanings/usage in Cognitive Psychology, Metaphysics, and Philosophy of Mind.
2) Etymology.
3) General, or other, definitions (where a word has equivocal usage).

In the following, nested definitions are contained in parentheses and synonyms occur after semi-colons. — Galuchat

I can see that you have spent some time thinking about the definitions, which is demonstrated by the refinement:

Idea: component or product of thinking; thought.
Product: particular (actuality token) which is produced (generated).
Thinking: intuition and/or cogitation. — Galuchat

This will help me better structure my own definitions.

Also, I will borrow from your own clear definitions of belief, attitude and proposition, and expand on proposition as a parallel component of thinking that continuously runs while evaluating perception as a means to maintain and build upon "Reality Prime".

Meaning, depending on owns per-existing attitude towards something being witnessed/perceived in real runtime, it may affect the weight given to a "preposition" and as such the mind assigns a belief state (true or false).

For example: If one has a predisposition to consider anything "Trump" in a negative light, it is very likely the mind will severely negatively weight any "fact" experienced as it relates to "Trump". This would be an inherent bias.

Immanuel Kant - Critic of Pure Reason.

It’s heavy weight stuff, but if you really want to establish the kind of lexicon used in this sort of discussion that is a place to start. Unfortunately it is not something you can ‘read up on’ overnight. Tackling it seriously would take a year, merely reading the words won’t do much as you have to think while reading.

Note: You could easily supplant some of your terms with philosophical perspectives like ‘physicalism’, ‘empiricism’, and ‘idealism’. Good luck :) — I like sushi

I will look into acquiring a physical copy to read it at convenient times and think on it as a running theme (New Year's resolution).

I will also go and learn more about your suggested terms.


Thank you both for the feedback.

Hi, just saw the thread, and I have something of interest to add as it pertains to Platonic Ideals, so please forgive the necro.

I would like to mention that a very good fiction book by Neal Stephenson called Anathem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathem) has platonic ideals as an integral part of reality, or at least, the argument between nominalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism) and platonic realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism) in an interesting story narrative format.

Another major theme is the recurring philosophical debate between characters espousing mathematical Platonic realism (called "Halikaarnians" in the novel and associated with Incanters) and characters espousing nominalism (called "Procians" in the novel and who are the Rhetors).

It was the first time I was personally exposed to these ideas in such a clear and intriguing way (as opposed to introductory high school or college philosophy) that it captivated me and even now, ten years after the fact I still think about these ideas. I must admit that idea of "Ideal forms" existing independent of perceptible reality, or perhaps as emergent features of underlying reality, is an interesting topic of debate. Does the idea of "1" or "2" exist whether we can think of it? I would say that yes - just like trees falling with no-one around creates noise regardless of the availability of witnesses as a consequence of understood and generally accepted laws of physics.

The philosophical topic was so good that I would highly recommend a reading to get a different frame of reference when thinking about this topic:

As an appendix to the novel, Stephenson includes three "Calca", discussions among the avout of purely philosophical or mathematical content. ... The third discusses a "complex" Platonic realism, in which several realms of Platonic ideal forms (called the "Hylaean Theoric Worlds" in the novel) exist independently of the physical world (called the "Arbran Causal Domain" in the novel)

Now, the following is speculation, but consider:
Is it possible that "triangles" and other geometric shapes, as well as numbers and other exact concepts can exist in some sort of higher dimension beyond what is readily perceivable by our senses as base reality? Is is possible that our minds act as conscious antennas that can "receive" these ideas in thought and then apply them to the real world as shaped objects and written/spoken formulas or ideas?

I have heard from non-idiots that it is possible that a higher realm of ideas that contains all that is possible and knowable exists and we access it every time we have an insight.

It may seem like nonsensical woo, but it feels true.

Does anyone have any related material that would be worth diving into?

Thanks,
Diagonal Diogenes.