I would argue that most people are nowhere near the safe equilibrium. There are disturbances of one sort or another, and achieving equilibrium isn't that simple since the self-regulation process requires continuous awareness, at least as far as Perl's Gestalt is concerned. — Kaz

So, is it ideation itself to assert that some state of affairs will lead to complete bliss and nirvana? Buddhism talks about such a state of affairs quite a lot and isn't the easiest philosophy to master despite the simplicity and elegance of its core message.

Let's say my brother is going through difficult times, but he hates me just sitting there and listening to him while making only practical suggestions. He wants me to show some emotions and empathy towards him and his situation. So, for the benefit of my brother, and for my own sake to emotionally connect with my brother, it is reasonable for me to be emotional with him. — Kaz

But, he's there talking with you. Isn't that enough?

This makes me think of Perl's Gestalt, where he mentions that awareness can help facilitate the self-regulation of emotions. — Kaz

Ah, an important concept. Self-regulation. Why do people stray away from some safe equilibrium or state of affairs and risk disturbing themselves? What is this component of human nature called? Risk taking, exploratory behavior, etc.?

Probably. Sometimes being more reasonable means being more emotional. — Kaz

Can you provide an example?

So, despite emotional difficulties, reasoning can be used to not loose sight of the bigger picture. — Kaz

Interesting. So, you would assert that there is some metalogical component to the reasoning process that gives rise to some reciprocal relationship between the emotions and reason?

I don't think we are strictly divided into emotional and rational. Both need to coexist and cooperate in an organic way. In other words, it's not about turning on the reasoning side and or the emotional side. In that sense, "emotional reasoning" may make sense, for all I know. Anyway, my two cents. — Kaz

Well, yet here we are talking about them in some dichotomistic fashion? Is it language that is confusing us here or what?

Now, not to grossly overgeneralize. There are nice customers that show genuine interest in how you are doing.

But, the limiting factor in all this is that there is a greater satisfaction for some poor bastard at work to try and appease the customer. I have noticed this most prominently from elderly women, who feel quite entitled to make sure that you have done everything in your power to satisfy their demands.

Now, the issue with demands is that it never seems to be enough. Customers whine and bitch if a product in unavailable, and even threaten to go to some other store to see if they can get what they want.

This introduces a paradoxical situation, where the customer is not really that interested in the product they are searching; but, the interaction with the manager or employee to apologize and offer a tone of appeasement to remedy the issue.

Now, this is the part I can't stand. When someone comes to a store (gardening in my case) and demands that they have a product delivered that isn't in the store; but, at another branch. The resulting outcome from this butthurt feeling of not getting what she or he wants gives off an unpleasant dissonance over the whole interaction.

Put simply people are needy and meanspirited when they don't get what they want.

I can go on; but, I already laid out the basics of the whole schtick.

Because that's just the way we live now and we don't see any other options. — Baden

You mean by this to assert that there are no more options than (not) participating in spectacle and charade that one must imbue themselves in society. There seems to be a deterrent implicit in all this. Namely, if you don't play the games that people play in acting out displays of confidence, postering, and the so-called "fake it until you make it" motto in the US, then you are limited to either becoming a bum and doing away with all fancies and routines that other people would demand of you, or simply moving to some society less absorbed with the all-important term in all this, being "confidence".

To the person who doesn't want to become a cog in the drama of life, there are few alternatives available. One of which is to show a degree of even greater confidence in banishing the wants and needs of other people (people appeasement) and create your own values. Many people have tried this, notably the American Transcendentalists.

Personally, I've situated myself to not have to deal with these charades at work, which I have experienced, and instead, work from home or try and find a way to not deal with this vacuous appeasement. I've worked for 7 years in customer service, and you come out of the whole experience quite unhappy. I hate this prostitutalization of my moral character. I suspect I will move onto dealing with people online, as that bypasses the need to emphatically show with mannerisms and communication what a stooge you are.

But, that's not the only issue. People use this, knowing that the customer is almost always right (which they aren't, actually, and can create fictitious and mundane complaints about their own personal satisfaction. I envy those who can put up with this character prostitutionalization in front of some Jimbo who just wants to see the other person lick his or her ass.

I guess I laid out the game theoretic undertones in customer satisfaction and their demanding nature enshrined in say to say business.

What to do?

I have this cognitive dissonance in my head. People demand that I act a certain way at work, school, college, and anywhere where you are paid to perform some duty or role. Acting out behaviors seems prelinguistic in terms of children watching some behavior and emulating it.

I understand all this; but, the degree to which this is performed, at least here in the US, is absurd. It's like nobody is comfortable in their own skin and needs to hop around and perform some superficial dance/show/entertainment for other people to feel respected.

@unenlightened, dear Sir, what's your take on this caricature of human behavior that is "acting"?

Doesn't society require us to "act" all the time. — Nils Loc

Well, this depends on where you live. In Europe (Poland specifically), there was no real obsession with actors or movie stars. Here in the States, the obsession is surreal. People are obsessed with tabloids, gossip, and the lives of other people rather than their own.

I've tried to understand this psychologically; and can only surmise that people love escapism, cults of personality, and such. What drives this is the point in question in this thread.

Any thoughts or ideas?

Indeed, I've read my fair share of Schopenhauer. What makes you like him? I find his philosophy reassuring and comforting in how he presents the state of human affairs as in dismal and pathetic. Once someone understands how trivial are our hopes and dreams, insofar that they are never-ending, and the true source of happiness can be found in the pursuit of nirvana, then society becomes a charade or a pathetic show that is put on at one's expense.

Following this logic, one becomes extremely alienated from other people, and a sense of despair arises within the soul as to "run away" or "escape" to some place where peace and solitude can be found. I have entertained this idea many times myself; but, have come to the Stoic conclusion that there can be no place where peace and quiet and be cultivated than from within one's self.

Holy shit, @S. Calm your tits down... Don't pick on @Noah Te Stroete. He be cool.

@tim wood, takes the cake...

Perhaps a good way of putting it is that philosophy is a multi-tool, like religion is, but with philosophy I don't want a refund. I like it and it helps me in ways. — S

How has it helped you?

It has improved my critical thinking skills and my knowledge, which I consider useful and a good thing. Although, as with anything, it has pros and cons. Whatever it is, I'm obsessed with it and addicted to it, and have been for the past ten years. — S

Yes; but, has it made you a more ethical person, who is concerned with the problems of others? I can't say I am a very ethical person. I mean, I do desire the good, whatever that is and I try and put a smile on every new face I meet.

I'm just waiting for the brief and cryptic attempt at conveying wisdom. It usually shows up at some point in a discussion like this. — S

Then you are aiming at being pretentious, are you not? Oh dear...

Philosophy alienated me from friends and family! So it taught me something with regards to that. — Pussycat

Yes, there is a certain amount of alienation present with practicing philosophy. In my Life and death class I took at a local community college, the instructor was very cognizant of making sure that the existential questions raised by the coursework, didn't leave students in a disoriented state.

Anyway, going back to Wittgenstein, I believe that his main point that he tried to pass on to others was that philosophy can cause more confusion than necessary. Hence, I suppose there is an appeal to philosophical quietism.

I don't know if you are fine just the way you go about analyzing things, with your own reference frames or if you think there are other methods. Here I make mention of one. I like the idea that philosophy offers both declarative and procedural content. — Josh Alfred

Can you expand on the declarative and procedural content you are talking about? I'm quite interested.

A question that I don't expect you to answer in public, but what's going on in your life in general? — Terrapin Station

I am managing some matters related to a divorce, which has been dragging on for almost 10 years now. It's not fun; but, the end is near.

Are you living someplace you'd like to live? — Terrapin Station

Yes, I am. I don't see myself being anywhere else.

Doing some kind of work you'd like to do? — Terrapin Station

I'm on disability; but, am looking forward to working from home for a friend and a nootropics company.

How are your personal relationsips--friends, lovers, etc.? — Terrapin Station

Yeah, this is a tough one. I don't socialize at all, have only one good friend, and am not interested in any relationships.

How is your health? — Terrapin Station

I think it is good. One is never able to objectively asses that, I figure.

If any of those things aren't as you'd like them to be, what are you doing to change things? — Terrapin Station

Well, I have outlined in the OP, that I have attained satisfaction and contentment. So, there's little to no desire for any change dwelling within me.

And re what you're doing to change anything, what are your goals for today? This week? This month? This year? The next five years? — Terrapin Station

The same. I want to maintain my newfound equilibrium.

I do appreciate Fooloso4's interpretation of the unsaid in the Tractatus, which is hard to find in any textbook. The ethical, mystical, and mysterious. It's good stuff all around.

Cheers.

I don't eat or sleep properly - I haven't eaten all day until just now, for instance - I have terrible memory, and I often act like a sociopath or someone with Asperger's. There are some basic day-to-day stuff that I've just stopped doing, which leads to problems. I'm not communicating with people in my life as I'm expected to. I'm barely coping. All of this is causing big problems for me. I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with me. It's obviously something, even if it doesn't have a name like you get with a mental disorder. Some of this sociopath stuff fits. I got my job through superficial charm, and I use it on customers, but the people I work with have clocked on that I'm a robot.

But there's always a bright side, I suppose. This pizza I'm eating right now tastes good. — S

There's hope. Try some MDMA assisted psychotherapy. It can rewire your limbic system to your prefrontal cortex. It is the latest and greatest for possible sociopathy.

Life is full of trouble. We all end up in it. There's literally a sort of river of shit outside of the building to my apartment, not far from my ground floor apartment. The outside of the building smells like raw sewage. I think I'm going to get fired from my job because I'm too incompetent, because, in part, of what I suspect are some undiagnosed health issues I have. And that's not even the half of it! What else can we do but try to cope as best we can? — S

I have withdrawn from society. I haven't left my house to go anywhere in almost a month. I plan to work online and read my books in my small room. This all sounds pessimistic and depressing; but, I'm happy that I found my way in life.

To be honest, I've become a misanthropic cynic. But, who's judging me?

Preemptive strike them with the best that you've got. Throw rocks, throw your own feaces, throw your little old nan if you have to. Can you get hold of frag grenades? — S

They've been harassing me since I moved into my house. It's insane. I don't even know what to say.

Sorry, my mind has been preoccupied with some dumb shit. Personally, I've been enjoying the dialogue between Pussycat and Fooloso4. I'm not an expert on Wittgenstein, and anyone who claims that they are, are likely full of shit. So, I don't know what issues I should intervene.

I'll try and keep a more watchful eye out for the sake of this thread.

I must admit though, that my interest in philosophy has been lackluster as of late. Ehh.

" The most fundamental principle of Stoic psychotherapy can be found in the very first sentence of the famous Enchiridion or Stoic “handbook” of Epictetus: “Some things are up to us and others are not.” The importance of this maxim and the wider implications of absorbing its meaning and implications are explored in detail throughout the ancient Stoic literature... — Amity

Ah, the Enchiridion, my favorite Stoic manual. It is more direct and to the point than the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

...Epictetus attempts to sum up these notions in a laconic maxim of the kind which the Stoics meant to be easy to memorise and constantly “ready to hand”. — Amity

What do you think about Seneca as a stoic?

"God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference." — Amity

:up:

But nowadays I think that the current has changed, in that superheroes are beginning to be portrayed as mentally unstable people. What do you think? — Pussycat

Haha, I think that is spot on. One of the most prominent themes in comic books is of power and responsibility, along with the dictum that power corrupts absolutely.

Well, it's more than that. Justice is delivered by some ubermensch (read Superman), and everyone gets to enjoy a happy ending. The more you think about it, the whole concept is nuts.

Tiny bump.

Can't deal with a few daily reminders as mental preparation. Too much disturbance. Diddums. :brow: — Amity

I don't wanna! Overcome that!

Dashing away from the conservative undertones in this thread; I believe, most stoics would be left-leaning rather than conservative. Thoughts?

This doesn't reallly answer my question. What is 'peace of mind' and how is it being sacrificed ? Your original 'willingly' seems to refer back to the 'voluntary discomfort' of your title. It is important to clarify what is meant by 'peace of mind'.

Since it seems to be the goal of Stoicism to cultivate and achieve this, why do you see it as something to be sacrificed ? And willingly. This isn't the purpose of the 'voluntary discomfort' exercise. Perhaps it would be good to revisit the OP and give references; the source of this 'concept you introduced and how you used it. — Amity

Well, it's like building muscle, I think. There is a component of strife, struggle, effort, and willpower required to lift the weights; but, after a hard day at work or in the gym, you feel like you've accomplished something worthwhile for your own sake. But, the stoic goes even further and exposes him or herself to trials and tribulations that other people can engender, which I elaborated on in the OP.

" Stoicism holds that the key to a good, happy life is the cultivation of an excellent mental state, which the Stoics identified with virtue and being rational. The ideal life is one that is in harmony with Nature, of which we are all part, and an attitude of calm indifference towards external events."

As to doing it 'in the name of the good' - from above, the emphasis seems to differ with your account — Amity

How so?

I think first and foremost, Stoicism is about training your mind. And that is where the mental exercises come in. The 'good' being what we strive for. The 'peace of mind' being identified with goodness or virtue. And being rational. — Amity

Yes, no disagreement on that from my end.

So, to answer the question you posed:
Your 'peace of mind' is not something to be sacrificed but something to aim for.
It is for your own good initially. The good of humanity has to start somewhere.
If you can do this by using any of the Stoic exercises, fine. If not, there are other ways.
It is not necessary to identify yourself as 'a Stoic'. — Amity

Well, like I said, it requires effort and willpower to willingly go out of your "comfort zone" and do these premeditated exercizes with respect to what misfortunes you will encounter throughout the day. It's just that the stoic goes one step further and doesn't necessarily do it for their own rational self interest; but, for other people too. So, you saying:

'Don't let the bastards get you down!' — Amity

...isn't quite true.

Why not think of stoicism and cynicism as tools and opportunities to be used in different situations? — Judaka

It's difficult to asses when being a stoic or cynic is appropriate. It's kind of a package deal with them. My personal stack is Buddhist teachings and Stoicism.

Knowing what you want and knowing reality, you will be able to suffer when you will be gaining something more important than your comfort in return. — Judaka

I don't understand this. What do you mean by that?

I think the actual opposite of stoicism as you define it isn't cynicism but dark nihilism. Alternatively, perhaps hedonism, cognitive dissonance? — Judaka

I never meant to imply that the opposite of stoicism is cynicism. They are both related to one another.

It seems to me that is hardship pursued to make a man stronger in battle. Cold showers. Walking in the cold without a jumper or cosy socks. This could lead to harm, pneumonia and death through stupidity. — Amity

Well, it doesn't have to necessarily be physical discomfort, which you highlight. I tend to think it can be interpreted from a Buddhist slant in that denying oneself pleasure, delaying gratification, enduring stress and not fantasizing escapist tendencies, forcing oneself to do things they may not like, and such matters.

However, the mental challenge in reading a philosophical text carefully with a view to understanding, well...who knows where that might lead ? Boredom, fascination, enlightenment, laugh-out-loud hysteria ? — Amity

Yes, there is a limit to how much a person can endure. It's not something that is discussed in much detail in any of the works of the well-known stoics.

What do you mean by 'peace of mind' and how is it being sacrificed ? — Amity

I feel as though the point I am trying to make is that people tend to prefer the path of least resistance. It's dangerously easy to indulge in pleasure. People don't like being told what they are doing is wrong or not right. Only in hardship does our true nature come out, and life is becoming increasingly more hedonic, as far as I can tell. It's said that Stoic philosophy is mostly a type of Westpoint/Marine Core philosophy; but, I am somewhat unsure about that. I think it is a useful philosophy for any type of person in any age of time or place.

What do you mean by 'in the name of the good' ? — Amity

Well, stoic philosophy places an enormous amount of emphasis on the welfare of other people. Humanity and mankind are of supreme importance. To live in accordance with nature is important. And what is assumed as natural in stoic philosophy is to be a social animal and engage in politics and the polis.

Voluntary suffering wouldn't be a stoic's or a cynic's way for one can't change reality in any way. One can only learn to accept what comes your way and that goes for everyone. — TheMadFool

Yes; but, voluntary discomfort is a way to harden oneself with respect to the world. It indicates a philosophy that understands that the world is a tough place to maintain one's sanity, and thus should be treated with caution.

Wanting less gives one more energy to actually obtain some of the stuff one wants. — Bitter Crank

Yes, true. It's a paradox.

You have to try and seek out reasonable people wherever possible. — Andrew4Handel

Well, one thing I have learned is that most people ought not be trusted.

What in the name of fuck... :rofl:

If they're giving you shit, throw rocks at them or something. I dunno. — S

Yeah, it's not even funny anymore. And, they beat me to it, they threw rocks at my house already.

I don't know about that. I feel as though the best thing to do is to just limit the passions and desire as per Buddhism. I have an eclectic philosophy of meshing Stoicism with Buddhism. It just seems to me that if you're logical and rational then limiting your desires is the only rational thing to do as a stoic.

Yeah... The whole neighborhood is now involved. I have received death threats from the oldest sibling of that God forsaken family. He could potentially end up in jail, but I don't want that.

I wish I could move but I really am stuck here.

I want to guide the discussion towards ethics, which is always a popular topic. For example, I find Stoicism to be a highly reflexive ethical theory. Namely, the stoic ethos is always in response to some urge, desire, or pain. So too is Buddhism a reflexive doctrine of desire being the source of suffering, and hence desire must be limited and eventually eliminated.

The only non-reflexive ethical theory that I am aware of is utilitarianism. The good is promoted on the basis of what is most fulfilling to not an individual; but, society as a whole.

Ideas, thoughts?

Isn't the example of Wittgenstein's forms of life and language games, representative of a psychologism tone in his Investigations?

I've been scouring the interwebs for more information about Wittgenstein's stance on psychologism, and have found the following book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=MYaOVtuEpPYC&lpg=PA137&ots=dLy6HxQUQU&dq=psychologism%20and%20wittgenstein&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q=psychologism%20and%20wittgenstein&f=false

It's pretty good.

I attached the paper. Hope you enjoy it.

@Banno, I'm sure you might like this post. What do you think about this?

Have any of you read, Ludwig Wittgenstein: Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief?

I never encountered Wittgenstein's beliefs about human psychology; but, know from my readings that he believed that to answer the question as to what is ethical, one ought to understand how human psychology works.