I'm not sure what it means to say that, like, logic, mathematics, valid inference rules, certain types of categories are "in the mind". — Marty

So, where does one demarcate where psychologism starts and where it ends? It seems like a hopeless task to try and demarcate the difference between psychologism and antipsychologism.

Only in showing that any such account that replaces good with something else must miss the point. — Banno

Then, where does that leave us?

@Banno, is your OP motivated by a pragmatist's account of morality?

Well, this just seems like a rehashing of Hume's is-ought problem. Isn't it?

More rigorously as consent or consensus?

But making it a "we" doesn't help... so far as I can see: We can be right and they can be right, even if our views contradict one another. — Banno

Well, isn't it about what can be agreeable to more than one individuals that derives truth value of moral propositions?

Go on... — Banno

The issue that you presented of seeming inescapable relativism for moral claims is mitigated by adhering to what can be shared about the content of moral propositions between parties.

So can anyone analyse goodness? — Banno

Yes, but only through intersubjectivity.

Please be patient as I am slow. Where have you addressed this already?

I mean, it's probably a mistake. — Marty

What do you mean by that?

Fooloso4, can you elaborate on the "will" to do good according to Wittgenstein? I am under the impression that the will to do good is derived from the transcendental self wrt. to the world. Yet, if the self cannot be encapsulated within the bounds of the world, then what can be said about the will?

Is there something in the arrangement that you don't like? — Valentinus

Well to be honest, not really. I couldn't ask for more. I guess I'm feeling appreciative today.

I do some meditation in bed while laying down. Not sure if that counts.

Thanks for the app, I'll give it a whirl.

Hate is a strong emotion. — Banno

Indeed, emotions, tricky thing that verge into the Frankfurtian realm of lower order volition's and higher order volition's.

Adopt an attitude of acceptance. — Banno

Easier said than done.

We rent out the guest room for students and young workers. It help pay the mortgage.

Stoicism is an attitude. Misanthropy is a way of being. — Banno

You say that both can be professed concomitant, yet my OP clearly demonstrates that there's some snag somewhere. Care to untangle the knot?

It's said his master (or someone) deliberately broke his leg, rendering him lame for life. — Ciceronianus the White

See, that's the sort of stuff that is beyond my capacity to be indifferent about. It's just plain wrong.

Perhaps, but when someone says or does something, or tries to do something wrong and its in our power to rebuke or stop them, we should do so regardless of their opinion. — Ciceronianus the White

How is that even possible in the kind of world we live in?

It's not so much repression as intelligent regulation, and a recognition that much as we may want to, we can't control others no matter how much we hate them. We will get angry, but we need not trash our hotel room or break windows or break jaws, or act maliciously or vindictively. We need not allow our anger to consume us. We need not hate, or plot revenge. — Ciceronianus the White

What does intelligent regulation even mean?

Stoicism requires discipline, and practice. — Ciceronianus the White

That much I understand.

Many people do wrong. If you can stop them from doing wrong, do so. — Ciceronianus the White

How? We live in a postmodernist society where anything flies and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I suspect it was much "easier" being a stoic back in the days of ancient Rome.

If you can't, their conduct is to be regretted, but it's of no use to let yourself be overwhelmed by their character or conduct, and it's within your power not to be. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, but I find stoicism to be in some ways at odds with human nature despite the appeals to being in accordance with nature. My resentment is the nullification of legitimate feelings, like anger, and their repression. I mean where else does it go?

For the matter, I have fallen back to Cynicism. I am a failure as a stoic wannabe.

Stop allowing yourself to be unduly disturbed by things beyond your control--which would include "people in general." — Ciceronianus the White

Easy to say. I am unable to get past the burden of Stoicism manifest in this quote from Marcus Aurelius:

Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. — Marcus Aurelius

Really? Begin each morning with negative visualizations of people in general? Who does this to themselves?

You don't have to agree with the theory of indifference to benefit from a Stoic therapy. — Amity

What do you mean by that? Thanks for the link, quite interesting.

Perhaps frustration is a better word for my lingering sentiment hereabouts. Frustration with people who are nasty along with the fact that nobody wants to be corrected.

Let's just say that if you conclude that exhibiting such behaviors would not make you any happier, perhaps a more appropriate attitude towards such people would be one of pity, instead of hate or dislike. — Tzeentch

It would be near impossible to profess pity towards people who spit on you, don't you think? Again, we seem to be talking about ideals contra-reality.

The Stoical response is to be indifferent towards such behaviors...

What is the source of your misanthropy? — TheMadFool

It is the arising sentiment about bad behavior that other people can display, which is derived from experience, whilst trying to maintain composure, through stoicism.

It's as if one were to live with a Pollyanna sense of optimism or to be confined to a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance in regards to experiencing life as a Stoic.

If you were to exhibit these behaviors, would it make you any happier? — Tzeentch

I don't think this is relevant. I don't need to reciprocate negativity with negativity. Nothing good comes out of it. I'm just highlighting the dichotomy between feeling and thinking with stoic philosophy.

Life sucks. — Bitter Crank

But, the Stoic says that one should not feel bitter over that fact, and to continue on one's journey despite this claim derived from experience. This is the quintessential ideal manifest in Stoic philosophy. That is to disregard such a sentiment and endure. It can be torturous.

Hate is typically a bad thing. But, that's the issue here. I feel one way; but, my mind is telling me that the feeling is misguided. What to do?

Reflect. Hatred is often a form of self-loathing and such negative emotions can be an ocean of insight into one's own mind. — Tzeentch

What I can say about this is that my hatred is due to the "burden of trying to be a Stoic", by which I mean, that the amount of effort required to actually be a stoic is very high. It's not an easy task, being a stoic.

If you were to act that way, would it make you happy? — Tzeentch

"to act", what do you mean by that?

I don’t think Stoicism is the problem for you. It is good that you recognize that there are toxic people. — Noah Te Stroete

Not entirely. I recognize that toxic people are around and about in the world, it's just that I seem to be committing a gross overgeneralization with some sort of prejudice against people in general. I am aware that the world is full of good people and such; but, I seem to disregard that fact and focus on the rotten few that can make your world a hell.

Nothing wrong with that, and I don’t see how that contradicts Stoic philosophy. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, to summarize the OP there's a profound cognitive dissonance presented in the OP. So, yeah...

Not likely. It's a good neighborhood and I like my living arrangement. Also, we're both tired of moving around and want to rest easy here.

Of course generalisations are not impossible. But they may have different degrees of validity, which depend on context, including context of purpose. — Baden

I don't even know how to address this. What allows one to determine that the same methodology of psychology can be determined one or more individuals?

So is the basic premise here that psychology is not an empirical science? Because if it is, it seems to me that this is just the problem of induction. — Echarmion

That's pretty much the issue here. I don't think anything I said amounts to much more @Baden.

My mother pretty much wants me to stay put until I get my housing in the area. Until then I'm not sure what to do as the waiting list is pretty long.

Just expanding on this, the issue is that I don't have very high self-esteem and confidence to push myself out of my current state of affairs. Not to give the impression that I am unhappy, I am quite content and satisfied with living with my mother on disability. It's just that I don't know how to motivate (or convince myself that I am capable of...) to move out of the home.

Not much as far as I can tell.

Sorry, I think you're on point with Kant. Though, psychologism has been replaced by cognitive science in the field of philosophy as of late. What do you think?

Well, Kripke relies on actual practices, and it seems than nearly all who oppose what he's claiming here, which isn't some grand replacement theory but a better account of actual examples, work from logical fictions... — creativesoul

I don't really understand what you mean here. Can you expand?

And re Hume, the rejection of psychologism occurred in the 19th century. So after Hume. — Terrapin Station

You mean here, that Frege along with the logical positivists, yes?

Meaning is not identical to language. Language is a vehicle by which to communicate meaning. — MindForged

I'm puzzled by what you mean by this? Why the discontinuity?

As I've said a number of times, I think that one of philosophy's biggest mistakes was the rejection of psychologism. — Terrapin Station

You mean analytic philosophy, I assume? Continental philosophy seems rife with psychologism in my opinion. Just look at, for example, The Structure of Behavior: Maurice Merleau-Ponty or even Hume.