I don't know, thinking that it's preposterous that you could be wrong is itself preposterous. — The Great Whatever
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. — The Great Whatever
Thanks for twisting my words. — Sapientia
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
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
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
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. — The Great Whatever
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
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. — TheGreatWhatever
I'm not twisting your words; you aren't considering what you're saying. — The Great Whatever
How many people believe something is irrelevant to its truth. — The Great Whatever
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. — The Great Whatever
I doubt it. — The Great Whatever
But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me. — The Great Whatever
I don't see any reason to believe this. Sounds like New Age crap. — The Great Whatever
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. — The Great Whatever
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. — The Great Whatever
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. — The Great Whatever
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
not essential to my more moderate, stoic-like position;
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
To which I would reply that you are currently neither.Isn't it better to be right than respected? — The Great Whatever
This thread started out alright. It went to shit pretty quickly. — darthbarracuda
Yes, I've seen it. I made a post a few years ago about the difference between common and philosophical pessimism and Thorongil also had some good posts clarifying something similar though he uses "temperamental pessimist" vs. "philosophical pessimist".
I also think that the pessimists have an aesthetic that the world has an underlying suffering that cannot be avoided whereas Stoics seem to have this optimism that as long as they strengthen their capacity for indifference, this can be largely avoided or overcome. Stoicism goes well with therapy and self-help practices because it provides a solution-based outcome. Stoicism tries to mitigate the fact that life presents itself as a problem (problems) to overcome, and pessimists are quick to point out that life has problems to overcome in the first place and this is not a good thing. Why should people have to cope with the problem? Why be given the problem? — schopenhauer1
Fair enough, and I think you made a good point that not all philosophies are going to resonate with everyone. I guess part of my post was to ask whether following Stoic principles justifies or solves the evils of life and thus supposedly renders the pessimist's evaluation moot (if one were to follow the program).
I agree with much of TGW's sentiments. I have a couple follow up questions for TGW: — schopenhauer1
It may be remembered that one of Schopenhauer's sharp-eyed criticisms of Stocism is that in teaching mere detachment from, rather than abandonment of, desire it forgets that things to which we become accustomed usually become a necessity. For this reason, he preferred the genuine poverty preached by the Stoics' predecessors, the Cynics, and regards Stoicism as a bourgeois debasement of Cynicism (WR II: 155-6; see pp 35-6 above). — Julian Young in his book Schopenhauer
"There is no real difference between a warm, snug study and this ward," said Andrey Yefimitch. "A man's peace and contentment do not lie outside a man, but in himself."
"What do you mean?"
"The ordinary man looks for good and evil in external things-- that is, in carriages, in studies--but a thinking man looks for it in himself."
"You should go and preach that philosophy in Greece, where it's warm and fragrant with the scent of pomegranates, but here it is not suited to the climate. With whom was it I was talking of Diogenes? Was it with you?"
"Yes, with me yesterday."
"Diogenes did not need a study or a warm habitation; it's hot there without. You can lie in your tub and eat oranges and olives. But bring him to Russia to live: he'd be begging to be let indoors in May, let alone December. He'd be doubled up with the cold."
"No. One can be insensible to cold as to every other pain. Marcus Aurelius says: 'A pain is a vivid idea of pain; make an effort of will to change that idea, dismiss it, cease to complain, and the pain will disappear.' That is true. The wise man, or simply the reflecting, thoughtful man, is distinguished precisely by his contempt for suffering; he is always contented and surprised at nothing."
"Then I am an idiot, since I suffer and am discontented and surprised at the baseness of mankind."
"You are wrong in that; if you will reflect more on the subject you will understand how insignificant is all that external world that agitates us. One must strive for the comprehension of life, and in that is true happiness."
"Comprehension . . ." repeated Ivan Dmitritch frowning. "External, internal. . . . Excuse me, but I don t understand it. I only know," he said, getting up and looking angrily at the doctor--"I only know that God has created me of warm blood and nerves, yes, indeed! If organic tissue is capable of life it must react to every stimulus. And I do! To pain I respond with tears and outcries, to baseness with indignation, to filth with loathing. To my mind, that is just what is called life. The lower the organism, the less sensitive it is, and the more feebly it reacts to stimulus; and the higher it is, the more responsively and vigorously it reacts to reality. How is it you don't know that? A doctor, and not know such trifles! To despise suffering, to be always contented, and to be surprised at nothing, one must reach this condition"--and Ivan Dmitritch pointed to the peasant who was a mass of fat--"or to harden oneself by suffering to such a point that one loses all sensibility to it-- that is, in other words, to cease to live. You must excuse me, I am not a sage or a philosopher," Ivan Dmitritch continued with irritation, "and I don't understand anything about it. I am not capable of reasoning."
"On the contrary, your reasoning is excellent."
"The Stoics, whom you are parodying, were remarkable people, but their doctrine crystallized two thousand years ago and has not advanced, and will not advance, an inch forward, since it is not practical or living. It had a success only with the minority which spends its life in savouring all sorts of theories and ruminating over them; the majority did not understand it. A doctrine which advocates indifference to wealth and to the comforts of life, and a contempt for suffering and death, is quite unintelligible to the vast majority of men, since that majority has never known wealth or the comforts of life; and to despise suffering would mean to it despising life itself, since the whole existence of man is made up of the sensations of hunger, cold, injury, and a Hamlet-like dread of death. The whole of life lies in these sensations; one may be oppressed by it, one may hate it, but one cannot despise it. Yes, so, I repeat, the doctrine of the Stoics can never have a future; from the beginning of time up to to-day you see continually increasing the struggle, the sensibility to pain, the capacity of responding to stimulus."
Ivan Dmitritch suddenly lost the thread of his thoughts, stopped, and rubbed his forehead with vexation.
"I meant to say something important, but I have lost it," he said. "What was I saying? Oh, yes! This is what I mean: one of the Stoics sold himself into slavery to redeem his neighbour, so, you see, even a Stoic did react to stimulus, since, for such a generous act as the destruction of oneself for the sake of one's neighbour, he must have had a soul capable of pity and indignation. Here in prison I have forgotten everything I have learned, or else I could have recalled something else. Take Christ, for instance: Christ responded to reality by weeping, smiling, being sorrowful and moved to wrath, even overcome by misery. He did not go to meet His sufferings with a smile, He did not despise death, but prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane that this cup might pass Him by."
Ivan Dmitritch laughed and sat down.
"Granted that a man's peace and contentment lie not outside but in himself," he said, "granted that one must despise suffering and not be surprised at anything, yet on what ground do you preach the theory? Are you a sage? A philosopher?"
"No, I am not a philosopher, but everyone ought to preach it because it is reasonable."
"No, I want to know how it is that you consider yourself competent to judge of 'comprehension,' contempt for suffering, and so on. Have you ever suffered? Have you any idea of suffering? Allow me to ask you, were you ever thrashed in your childhood?"
"No, my parents had an aversion for corporal punishment."
"My father used to flog me cruelly; my father was a harsh, sickly Government clerk with a long nose and a yellow neck. But let us talk of you. No one has laid a finger on you all your life, no one has scared you nor beaten you; you are as strong as a bull. You grew up under your father's wing and studied at his expense, and then you dropped at once into a sinecure. For more than twenty years you have lived rent free with heating, lighting, and service all provided, and had the right to work how you pleased and as much as you pleased, even to do nothing. You were naturally a flabby, lazy man, and so you have tried to arrange your life so that nothing should disturb you or make you move. You have handed over your work to the assistant and the rest of the rabble while you sit in peace and warmth, save money, read, amuse yourself with reflections, with all sorts of lofty nonsense, and" (Ivan Dmitritch looked at the doctor's red nose) "with boozing; in fact, you have seen nothing of life, you know absolutely nothing of it, and are only theoretically acquainted with reality; you despise suffering and are surprised at nothing for a very simple reason: vanity of vanities, the external and the internal, contempt for life, for suffering and for death, comprehension, true happiness--that's the philosophy that suits the Russian sluggard best. You see a peasant beating his wife, for instance. Why interfere? Let him beat her, they will both die sooner or later, anyway; and, besides, he who beats injures by his blows, not the person he is beating, but himself. To get drunk is stupid and unseemly, but if you drink you die, and if you don't drink you die. A peasant woman comes with toothache . . . well, what of it? Pain is the idea of pain, and besides 'there is no living in this world without illness; we shall all die, and so, go away, woman, don't hinder me from thinking and drinking vodka.' A young man asks advice, what he is to do, how he is to live; anyone else would think before answering, but you have got the answer ready: strive for 'comprehension' or for true happiness. And what is that fantastic 'true happiness'? There's no answer, of course. We are kept here behind barred windows, tortured, left to rot; but that is very good and reasonable, because there is no difference at all between this ward and a warm, snug study. A convenient philosophy. You can do nothing, and your conscience is clear, and you feel you are wise . . . . No, sir, it is not philosophy, it's not thinking, it's not breadth of vision, but laziness, fakirism, drowsy stupefaction. Yes," cried Ivan Dmitritch, getting angry again, "you despise suffering, but I'll be bound if you pinch your finger in the door you will howl at the top of your voice."
"And perhaps I shouldn't howl," said Andrey Yefimitch, with a gentle smile.
"Oh, I dare say! Well, if you had a stroke of paralysis, or supposing some fool or bully took advantage of his position and rank to insult you in public, and if you knew he could do it with impunity, then you would understand what it means to put people off with comprehension and true happiness."
"That's original," said Andrey Yefimitch, laughing with pleasure and rubbing his hands. "I am agreeably struck by your inclination for drawing generalizations, and the sketch of my character you have just drawn is simply brilliant. I must confess that talking to you gives me great pleasure. Well, I've listened to you, and now you must graciously listen to me." — Chekhov
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. — The Great Whatever
Insulting someone is the last refuge of a person with no argument. — The Great Whatever
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. — The Great Whatever
I tell you that stoicism does help people (which is a reasonable explanation of the fact that millions claim to have been helped by stoicism), to which you respond that they are deluding themselves. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.