I'm not going to address your whole post because there are limitations to what can be said in words. However, I can say that none of this bothers me from any POV be it an evolutionary biological one or not. I don't believe that one's nature ought or even can dictate the nurture aspect of living.

Not to sound presumptuous; but, I feel as though my philosophy of life, which has become more cynical rather than stoical trumps what you have said, and that's why I don't really think badly of my life or at least I don't ruminate over what others think of me and such. I live happily with my mom, as many others do nowadays because of or as a result of my economics and disabled status. It's not bothersome to me anymore as I mentioned in my first post. I guess I should really stop mentioning that I'm 27 and live with my mom anymore; because that just spurs a picture of some stereotype person or some such matter.

But, I do have to say that you are deeply imbued with what others would think about your situation or what is socially right to do. As a sort of Cynic, I find it amusing that anyone would be so concerned with that. To each his own, I guess.

Oh, and I have read Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. It's a fascinating book that at its core (in my view) professes a stoic attitude towards whatever predicament one find themselves in life and making the best out of it.

Post removed for privacy reasons.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Do you mind elaborating a bit, especially as it relates to the concerns at hand? Examples might help. I am claiming that we have feelings, values, instincts, and so on, that are hardwired. Are you saying that conditioning can overcome these? — oysteroid

Well, the simplest and most elegant example I can provide to you is of the Cynics. They disregarded almost off of the things you have mentioned in your post.

And yet you say you are depressed, possibly in connection with feelings of alienation. — oysteroid

Well, that's just the biological me that I have to deal with, no other way to combat it, be it accepting or ignoring or forgetting, and etc.

Why would your isolation cause you to feel deeply depressed if you were free of the need for others? — oysteroid

What I'm saying is that I've been depressed or isolated for so long that I've built some sense of a 'shell' or tolerance to the feeling. I used to indulge in stimulant drugs to fill that void. Nowadays I just take my meds, contemplate philosophy, and that pretty much leaves me satisfied with my condition.

Cynicism, stoicism, and whatnot, certainly might urge one to try to diminish such concerns, but by liking such ideas and identifying as an adherent of such ideas, are you thereby freed of such concerns? No. Freedom from such things is an ideal, like perfect goodness, that we can get closer to, but cannot actually embody fully. — oysteroid

Yeah, there are degrees of freedom in anything, as well as being free from the typical negative and positive emotions. Cultivating a healthy balance is ideal, but some (Cynics again) take a more radical stance and throw away it all, and are left with a sense of serene comfort in their nullification of wants and desires of material goods.

Is it impossible for someone else to insult or offend you or otherwise make you feel bad with the way they treat you, excluding physical harm? If it is possible to make you feel anything negative through words, body language, expressions of disgust aimed at you, or anything of the sort, then you are not free of concern about the opinions of others. — oysteroid

I think that's an undue burden on any school of thought. Even though Buddhism comes close, there are still emotions that they encourage one to cultivate and manifest in behavior. Cynicism goes straight to the heart of the issue, and because of that are disregarded as fringe philosophers, in my opinion.

My suspicion is that at some level, you already do feel bad about certain aspects of your life, whether you'll admit it to yourself or not, and that this might be playing a role in your depression. So I intended to try to bring it forward so that you might someday address it and thereby improve your well-being. If these things truly don't bother you at all, and I am wrong, kudos to you. — oysteroid

The thing is that we might both be wrong, and I'm perfectly fine with being wrong in isolation if that's the case. Let me put this another way. I have adapted to the prospect of being on disability and living with mom. It doesn't bother me that much anymore. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd spend it on the mortgage on the home I live in and put the rest into an index fund and derive benefits from the dividends. One can dream, though.

To me, it is a kind of weird enlightenment or something to be truly free of the opinions of others, maybe even your own opinions of yourself. It would involve the possibility of a kind of radical authenticity. But such a condition, I have decided, is probably impossible given our nature as a social species. I think such concern can be reduced, but not eliminated. And philosophy is one of those things that can help reduce such concern, especially when you have found the given values of society to be groundless or otherwise problematic. — oysteroid

Prior to my fascination with Stoicism and Cynicism, I was impressed by the American transcendentalists. And, the name is well deserved, that is 'transcendentalism'. You can find some very impressive characters in that school of thought, even though this was due to their sheer intellect at rationalizing their behavior in contrast with what society demanded of them. I guess, call it rugged individualism. At some point in my life, I felt that I needed to integrate more with society and tried joining the military. I couldn't handle the lack of control in the newly command style of life found in the military. Biologically, I also had issues that prevented me from functioning in the new environment. So, I'm saying that I've tried, and everything has led up to this point in my life, and I'm jolly fine with it. I wouldn't be so jolly had I not tried integrating (military, college, minimum wage job) etc.

I'd be very surprised if such people exist. If they do, I'd bet they are mutants of some kind, like people who totally lack empathy or can't feel pain. — oysteroid

Oh, they have existed, philosophy is abound with such unique and peculiar individuals.

As for Frankl, the main point I took away wasn't stoicism, but rather the idea that having a sense of purpose, a goal, something to look forward to, hope for the future, and so on, made a huge difference for people in the concentration camps. Those without these didn't do well. Those who did tended to get along better. And being able to find meaning in the suffering itself tends to be helpful. This fits with the title of the book and his whole system of logotherapy. — oysteroid

Well, what I took away from his book, is that people always have, irrespective of what circumstances they are in, a choice to decide what state of mind they want to be in. Yes, goals, purpose, the future, and so on, all facilitate the meaning of that choice. Some people, claim it's an existential work of art; but, I felt that Frankl meant it to be read in a Stoical manner. That's my opinion at least. [Edit], I'm actually quoting from the book I have in my hands right now:

What was really needed was a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life - daily and hourly. One answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct.

Powerful, stuff. I know I've somewhat failed on most of what he recommends one doing. It's not a type of therapy for the masses, that's for sure.

What a piece of utter crap... *shakes head*

I thought at first this crap was coming from you. I was wondering - what happened? I remember you were quite an intelligent fellow at old PF, I often read your posts with joy. Then I saw where the stink was coming from:

Have a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c9Uu5eILZ8 — oysteroid

No wonder! You've been drinking the kool-aid of that scam artist Jordan Peterson :-} He's loving it - he's making $70K+ PER MONTH - in just a little bit, he will be a millionaire - his family will be sorted for life. You, on the other hand, will still be a poor lonely 40-year-old - cause Peterson only makes himself richer, by selling you afterthoughts and shadows.

Something I've come to recognize is that we are hardwired to value certain things — oysteroid

That's false. People are very different, there's no "hardwiring". Maybe YOU are hardwired, but not everyone is.

Being on disability and still living at home with your mom as an adult is by itself a recipe for depression — oysteroid

>:O - living on disability is getting income from the government. That's good in my books. Any income you can gain for free, why not?

As for living with your mother, what's the problem with that? :s Don't you see what a man-child you have made yourself into? Don't you see how you are duped? A little medal, a little "status" is all it takes to have you on your knees. What did Napoleon say?

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a little bit of ribbon"

That's how people are controlled. If you cannot stand having the whole world laugh at you, how are you greater than them? Didn't even the great Chinese general Huan Xin crawl between the knees of two vagabonds?! Who cares what the world thinks, when you control the real pillars of strength? Appearances are irrelevant.

Because let me tell you the truth. Status is but a shadow of the real things that drive this world. There are four important things in the world. First, it is your God. Then it is your family. Then it is money. And lastly, it is brute strength (whether physical or the military). Currently, they are in that order of importance. God and family will always remain in the first two places, but brute strength and money can change places, depending on your society.

Belief and servitude to God, loyalty to your family, money and brute strength. That's how a man gains a good life.

Now let's think about it. Why move out from your mother's place? To gain the world's respect? What good will that do you, if you lack the four pillars of success? It is a shadow - that respect will vanish as soon as it is given, since it is not based on anything lasting, on anything that can compel it. An accident, or a disease, will be sufficient to lose that respect. You will always be a servant to the world that way, you will never be free. I still live with my mother. Why would I move out, to pay rent to another person? Isn't it more intelligent to save that money I'd pay for rent instead, get a mortgage, buy a property, and rent it out? Then it pays for itself, while I live with my mom. Then when my parents die, and the property has paid for itself, I will have 2 properties. I can leverage one, to gain control over another. Soon, that boy you were laughing at will be a landlord, earning more than needed from the rent of 2 properties. My family will then have the means to support itself, and even grow its income. You on the other hand will have chased after the wind of respect, and be left with nothing in the end but a pile of debt that still hasn't paid for itself. In the long run, I will compel the world's respect, and you won't. And all because I wasn't scared to have the world laugh at me, and chased what was important - that which is the real object that causes the shadow of respect. Going against the grain is the only way you'll ever make it in this world.

Look at Obama. He laughed at Trump. What good did it do him? He only humiliated himself.


Laughing does nothing. Insulting does nothing. They change literarily zero. Why do I care if the whole world laughs at me, so long as I control the army? They can laugh, but everyone knows where the real power is. The true philosopher does not grasp after the shadows on the wall of the cave - but after that which causes the shadows.

If I have done my duty to God, why do I care what the world thinks? Shall I not have great reward in Heaven?

One would think those on a Philosophy forum wouldn't be so attacking. He gave you his opinion. Without any resentment or anger towards you or anybody. And here you are spitting your ideas unto him as if he has done you wrong; as if it would be right to spit at him and to WANT to cause suffering and distress within a person for any reason. It's like, even on a philosophy forum, people care about what others think. Oh noe. It's like your proving Oysteroid right? Oh woe.

I hope I don't come across as trying to make you feel bad about your life or put you on trial in some way, as if you have to defend your life and choices. That isn't my intention. — oysteroid

But in my opinion, through honest self-examination and whatnot, I tend to think that I have just managed to become extra conscious of and honest with myself about what is the case for most everyone in this respect, even those who insist otherwise. It is always possible that I am wrong and that there are many people out there who are truly unaffected by what anyone else thinks of them, who don't desire affection, admiration, approval, the warmth of social connection, validation, the warmth of physical contact, the feeling of being valued, or any of it, people who also can't be wounded aside from physical attack. I'd be very surprised if such people exist. If they do, I'd bet they are mutants of some kind, like people who totally lack empathy or can't feel pain. — oysteroid

Looks like we found a mutant. Spoiler alert: They're everywhere.

Status is but a shadow of the real things that drive this world. There are four important things in the world. First, it is your God. — Agustino

If I might drag you out of the cave for a brief glimpse I’ll point out that God is pretty high status.

One would think those on a Philosophy forum wouldn't be so attacking. He gave you his opinion. Without any resentment or anger towards you or anybody. And here you are spitting your ideas unto him as if he has done you wrong; as if it would be right to spit at him and to WANT to cause suffering and distress within a person for any reason. It's like, even on a philosophy forum, people care about what others think. Oh noe. It's like your proving Oysteroid right? Oh woe. — Frank Barroso

I'm not attacking at all. I know Oysteroid from the old PF, and he's a good guy. I was more aggressive than normal because this isn't the first time I see this, and he's trying to influence others in a way that I think is negative. That's a problem, especially since this isn't the first post in this thread in which he's doing it. So the first time I let it slide largely, but now I decided to intervene.

I don't know what happened to Oysteroid, but he's different in this new perspective that he displays now compared to how he was at old PF. The reason why I got angry at him is because he's just humiliating himself, he's calling it quits to his own life philosophy because he listened to Peterson, and he's probably having a hard time right now, or whatever. He shouldn't quit, declare his life as sucky, and come around whining and advising people to take the road that Western culture basically tells them to take anyway.

And notice I didn't disagree with Oysteroid on this:

But in my opinion, through honest self-examination and whatnot, I tend to think that I have just managed to become extra conscious of and honest with myself about what is the case for most everyone in this respect, even those who insist otherwise. It is always possible that I am wrong and that there are many people out there who are truly unaffected by what anyone else thinks of them, who don't desire affection, admiration, approval, the warmth of social connection, validation, the warmth of physical contact, the feeling of being valued, or any of it, people who also can't be wounded aside from physical attack. I'd be very surprised if such people exist. If they do, I'd bet they are mutants of some kind, like people who totally lack empathy or can't feel pain. — oysteroid

But I do severely disagree with the road he (and Western culture) recommends to take in order to achieve that. I think quite the contrary, the road Western culture recommends will leave you in the ditch.

I am (largely) unaffected by what others think about me (I have developed, and am trying to develop, as much as possible, a thick skin), but I can't say I don't desire admiration, being valued, and the like. It's more like a question of what I'm willing to pay for admiration, being valued, etc. and what I'm not willing to pay. I don't prostitute myself for admiration, being valued, etc.

There's a lot to address here. I've been a bit overwhelmed with things to do today. I'll try to answer adequately soon.

Agustino, it seems to me that you've misunderstood some things and made some assumptions. I guess I need to make my position more clear. And no, I am not big Jordan Peterson devotee. I am not even familiar with most of what he has said. I just ran into that video on depression the other day by chance and agreed with some of what he happened to say in that one. Aside from that, all I know of him is his panic over SJWs that I've encountered in a podcast or two. Not my thing, really.

Well, the simplest and most elegant example I can provide to you is of the Cynics. They disregarded almost off of the things you have mentioned in your post. — Posty McPostface

Regarding the Cynics, the Stoics, Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, Pythagoras, Krishna, and most other personalities that appear in very old texts, reports of their lives, actions, and words are not very reliable and tend to be full of exaggeration, fabrication, and downright deification. It was common back then for later writers to present their words as those of a dead sage. In the case of Socrates/Plato, half of what Socrates supposedly said was Plato putting words in his mouth. We don't know what these people were really like or how their ideas worked for them in actual practice. Hell, Pythagoras was said to have a golden thigh and to bilocate! Do you believe that? I'd say that reports of people completely free of the concerns I am talking about are likely equally unreliable.

Besides, didn't most of these people have a social life? And didn't they enjoy some esteem? A sense of importance? And so on? We don't hear from those who truly abandoned society and can only guess at their mental state.

Was Diogenes perfectly content in the lifestyle he chose? How do you know? I don't get the impression of a man at peace when I read about him.

Show me a real, live, happy person free of such concern due to the adoption of such ideas.

Also, these people felt they were breaking ground and found meaning in what they were doing, no? And they were engaged, trying to affect the world. They didn't withdraw and hide in their rooms!

Let's consider the actions of Diogenes, the public masturbation and pissing on people, for instance. What was that all about? Freedom from opinion? Really? He was obviously making a show of his rebellion against their norms! A rebel isn't free of what he rebels against. A conformist's behavior, thought, and appearance are a direct function of the norms of society, or of public opinion. An anti-conformist's (not a nonconformist's), or a rebel's, is still a function of public opinion, only the inverse, and so such a person is still a slave to what others think. A true nonconformist's ways would be independent of society and probably not terribly remarkable or shocking, maybe even agreeing with society in most ways, as such a person might see the sense in some of the things normal in society, language conventions for example, or stopping at red lights, or pooping in toilets. Such a person would be indifferent to what people think, not rebelling against it, not violating taboos for the sake of violating taboos. Do you think a punk rocker in the 80s in public with a pink mohawk was free of concern for the opinions of those who sneered at his appearance? Hardly. Really, such behavior is kind of juvenile, if you ask me.

I would suggest that Diogenes was probably an attention-hound! He obviously got a lot of it! He was like the shock-rocker of his day. He was a celebrity! He probably reveled in it! He even got the attention of Alexander the Great! He was about as free from opinion as Marilyn Manson!

Post removed for privacy reasons.

Agustino, I'll deal with you later... ;) I need to go for a run and do some things other than staring at this screen!

I sometimes wish I could just start over. The problem is that even if I could, I wouldn't know what I know now. But you can benefit from my experience. — oysteroid

Yes, and here again goes your whole search for meaning... aren't you tired of all this searching for meaning and such? You've searched for it your whole life, but meaning is right there, under your nose, in your present circumstances. You've built for yourself an entire mental prison, which you now confuse for reality. Aren't you tired of using others - in this case Posty - as your tools, to make you feel meaningful and useful? Why do you need others? Meaning comes from the inside, not from the outside. You actually hurt others in this way. You don't have to give Posty your valuable experience - he doesn't need it. He needs to be free to make his own decisions, live his own life.

Listen, I understand. I've lived this life of hiding from life and the world and taking refuge in Mom. I know it and all the thought processes and rationalizations that tend to go with it better than you do. I am older and more experienced. — oysteroid

>:O Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not laughing at you, but this just sounds hilarious! You may be older and more experienced, that has nothing to do with being right though. I brush elbows in my work with people 2 or even 3 times my age - their "experience" and "age" doesn't intimidate me anymore (though it used to). They don't know more than I do, and neither do I know more than they do for that matter - we both have to learn from each other. Stop putting yourself on to the high position of teacher, who shares from his infinite suffering to help us poor mortals and unexperienced idiots live better lives, while you can feel meaningful. It's not nice, and it's not going to be productive.

Part of becoming an adult involves realising that others (mom, father, boss, etc.) don't actually know more than you do - they're just as blind and ignorant as you, so you have to trust your own judgement, cause you ain't going to find a better one anyway.

But when I finally left at 27, it felt good. I started to flower and unfold in many ways that aren't psychologically easy while under the strong influence of a mom. — oysteroid

Well, I first left home at 18 when I went to University and I didn't live with my parents anymore. I've only gone back to living with my parents long after, when I finally left the UK. I can't say I "flowered" etc. any differently. What's the big deal? Same thing really, apart from obviously that I can't bring someone (friends, don't think anything bad) into my parents' home easily, the way I could when I lived in UK. So really, no big difference honestly.

My cousin lived with his mom till he was darn 31. Now he's married and doing mighty well. So what's the big deal? :s You're living in a mental prison of your own making. Your anxiety is creating false threats and obstacles that don't even exist. Stop searching for meaning and BS, and find a way to deal with anxiety and depression. They sound like they are your real problems. Not lack of meaning, etc.

Could this romance work, even with the age difference? What would she think of me when she learned about my life, my age, my romantic inexperience, and my joblessness? — oysteroid

Yes, it could, but you'll never find out until you try it. Having tried and failed is better than not even trying.

She's more experienced with relationships at 25 than I am at 40. Let's put this bluntly: I am still a virgin. It is difficult to admit it, even given the anonymity here. That's a hugely difficult thing to overcome for me. — oysteroid

What's the big deal about being a virgin?! Seems like you cling to this same 15-year-old mentality. What's the big deal? You're a virgin, so what? You're not in school anymore, nobody actually cares. To realise how silly this is, what do you think my girlfriend would have been like in high school if I told her, wait a second, I'm a virgin, I guess now you need to initiate me before we go further :s ...

Virginity is only a problem in your mind. You think being virgin makes you different. You think you need to have "experience" with regards to sex to be good at it. Etc. All false. If you can control your feelings, including fear, anxiety, etc. then experience or no experience, it doesn't matter. You're a man - the idea that you'd ask a girl to 'initiate' you, even if she happened to be 50 while you're 20 is absurd. Lunacy - the exact opposite of what women are looking for anyway.

She'd have to initiate me. And I would be an emotional mess after all the deprivation and romantic/sexual hopelessness that I've endured for so long. One kiss and I'd probably break down sobbing. — oysteroid

So, how do you think I started working as self-employed? You think I called local companies up, being like "Umm, never built a website before, but I'm sure I can do a great job for you!"? Of course not. If I had done that, I would never have gotten even a single client. How do you think I can work with people 2-3 times my age? How can I sometimes compete against people with 100x times my experience? Experience is bunk. Hillary Clinton has experience, but as Trump said, it's bad experience. Just cause someone has more experience than you, it doesn't mean they're smarter or better.

It is obvious, for one thing, that I need to get my life really going and develop a significant income before I can even think seriously about pursuing a romantic involvement. I need to become a man. Right now, I am a child still in many ways. — oysteroid

About the income, I obviously agree. Though I disagree that you're still a child. The only reason you're still a child is cause you keep behaving like a child, instead of dropping that, and just acting like a man. You already are a man - you don't need to become one. It's not such a big deal that you never had a girlfriend, or that you're a virgin... really. Why do you make such a fuss about it? You think an animal in the forest, if for one reason or another, it didn't have the chance to have sex until it was the equivalent of 50 year old in human age, you think that animal would be frustrated and reluctant to have sex when he sees a female? :s All you have done is constructed a mental prison for yourself. Your problem isn't that you're a virgin, you lack experience, yadda yadda - your problem is that you're obsessed about your virginity, lack of experience, yadda yadda, such that they become stumbling blocks in your journey to find your happiness.

The same with the 25-year-old girl - how do you know the relationship will not work if you don't try it? She has a boyfriend, so I get why you don't, but I'm talking about your attitude here. You need to be more optimistic.

(and by the way, romantic experiences are most likely neither as amazing as you think they are, nor as bad as some people say they are - in other words, I don't actually think you'd feel a lot better now if you were married and with kids. Sure, it's a way to deceive yourself, that's how desire, psychoanalytically, functions. What you lack, that's what it wants most. But that doesn't mean it would make you fulfilled. Becoming a grown up means, to one extent or another, realising the vanity of desire. There is a reason why people generally return to the same baseline level of happiness - if they are miserable people, they generally keep being miserable, and if they are of a sunny disposition, they keep being of a sunny disposition, usually regardless of what outer circumstances are like).

Doesn't sound like it to me. Didn't you say earlier that you have been deeply depressed and that you suffer in your isolation and alienation? It seems to me that you are erecting rationalizations to defend your unhappy way of life so that you can avoid dealing with the issues that need to be dealt with, so that you can avoid facing your fears and overcoming challenges. — oysteroid

Yes, that all may be true; but, I have adjusted to my current state of affairs. Contrary to what you are saying, instead of fighting with my current life, I try and live it without regrets. Mind you, I made a conscious decision some ten years back that I won't regret choosing a life of celibacy or in social isolation. There really is no imperative, for me, to indulge in a vivid social life or one full of romantic relationships and sex.

Listen, I understand. I've lived this life of hiding from life and the world and taking refuge in Mom. I know it and all the thought processes and rationalizations that tend to go with it better than you do. I am older and more experienced. And I've observed the lives of others who have done this. It isn't healthy. And the more you justify it, the longer you let it go on, the worse things will eventually get. Those parts of you that cry for attention will not lie quietly down there under the lid you are trying to hide them under. You might successfully make yourself unconscious of them for a while, but they'll erupt sooner or later. If later, they'll also consume you with regret. — oysteroid

Living with mom really isn't an issue here. I don't understand how it can even be an issue apart from some sense of extremely low self-esteem and thus rationalizations to the matter.

I am nearing 41. I didn't leave home for the first time until I was 27. My next oldest brother also left home at 27, three years before I did. Our parents were far too permissive and enabling in this respect and too eager to avoid the empty nest. We were partly meeting their needs to have us remain forever as children. Also, they were aging. Since my mother and father were 45 and 48 respectively when I was born, I grew up with an acute consciousness of their mortality, and a deep fear of their deaths, especially that of my mom. When I hit twenty, my mom was 65. Her mom died at 70. I worried that maybe not much time was left and I loved her dearly, and still do. I feared that if I left home and pursued the life I wanted (art school and a career in painting), she would die soon and I'd regret not having spent what little time was still available with her. So I stayed. But it was also safety and ease and emotional security and avoiding many things that I feared that held me there. — oysteroid

Please understand, I don't intend to live with my mother for the rest of my life. I have two options ahead of me. One is to work with a friend on building an online supplement store, and the other is to go back to college to complete and further pursue a degree in economics. I figure the degree in economics would be the best long-term option; but, I want to first try and see if I can make a living without any degree at all. In some sense, taking baby steps until I feel confident that I can either live without a degree and reduce the obsessive obsession of mind with completing college or realize eventually, that it's the best option if I can't make a decent living without a degree.

Now I am nearing 41 and I feel like I've lost my own life. I am full of regret, frustration, sadness, and all sorts of things. I am especially sad about the lack of romance and children of my own and the sense that I am fulfilling my many potentials. I don't regret the time spent with the ones I love. I don't regret caring for them. — oysteroid

Your life seems full of regrets, and you don't pad yourself on the back for being a good person and looking after your mom. That's not something I understand fully. Perhaps, we are quite diametrically opposed individuals. As an artist, you value things that I don't. My only creative or artistic expressions manifest in doing philosophy. Furthermore, I have a rather difficult issue that I have to treat (somewhat similar to your Cushings disease). My issue is schizophrenia. Whether I like it or not it's a cross I will bear for the rest of my life. It's a burden; but, not untreatable.

Let me emphasize, that I also lived in Europe for almost a decade, and haven't encountered the same resistance to living with your parents as in the States. I find the level of embracing individuality, as nearing neurotic levels in the States as opposed to happily living with your parents in Europe without nowhere near the amount of regret as in the US. I guess, the European way of life in some regards is more economical, as many people end up in great debt and burdened by new responsibilities they can't handle when living unprepared on their own. The amount of credit one can obtain to support that lifestyle is absurd, in the US. It can also explain why Europeans on average have a higher rate of educated individuals than the US, because they don't resent living with their parents and have a guardian angel looking after their welfare be it the State or their parents.

But I do severely disagree with the road he (and Western culture) recommends to take in order to achieve that. I think quite the contrary, the road Western culture recommends will leave you in the ditch. — Agustino

In the real world we see tons of people follow the western culture path and, on the surface at least, they're happy. We read a few dozen philosophers follow personal heroism and, on the surface at least, they too profess happiness. I guess I experience a strong disconnect between those two apparent truths. Usually, the philosophers would never admit they're wrong so I guess I found it refreshing to find a philosopher in some respects that actually promoted the cultural heroism vibe (not that I even agree with western culture).

There are some obvious advantages to picking this over that. Even if no one picks this over that; it'd be smart to know the differences. And vice versa no matter what side your on. Feeling offended that others might be getting swayed by a wolf in sheep's clothing doesn't give you the right to scapegoat the sheep you thought was evil. Turned out the sheep was sheep, and you were the wolf. This scenario would suck. So it'd be wise to at least consider the scenario in which the sheep is no wolf, and to simply watch carefully. No dead sheep and you still resolve the situation.

(and by the way, romantic experiences are most likely neither as amazing as you think they are, nor as bad as some people say they are - in other words, I don't actually think you'd feel a lot better now if you were married and with kids. Sure, it's a way to deceive yourself, that's how desire, psychoanalytically, functions. What you lack, that's what it wants most. But that doesn't mean it would make you fulfilled. Becoming a grown up means, to one extent or another, realising the vanity of desire. — Agustino

Yes, it could, but you'll never find out until you try it. Having tried and failed is better than not even trying. — Agustino

I fail to see how we could accept the vanity of desire yet at the same time actually try to court a partner which would be to desire quite a lot. But I do get what your saying in both cases and agree with both. I agree in a very big way that meaning comes from within, I am still on this side of the scale rather than that side. But, the killer in this argument is that if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it did a tree fall? So, we must have some sort of impact on our environment and thus derive meaning from our outside actions not just from what we do with ourselves. Could I pick your brain a little as to the specific actions or experiences or deeds or emotions within or outside of yourself that give your life meaning?

I was wondering if anyone has felt some sort of alienation from practicing or doing philosophy — Posty McPostface

Most of our human lives we live in seclusion of being quite in school, so when some breaks from the norm they may feel alienated if they do not get the response they were looking for.

In the real world — Frank Barroso

Where's the fake world? :s I hate this BS construct of a "real world". Everything is "real world".

on the surface at least, they're happy. — Frank Barroso

Given that 50% of marriages end up in divorce, you should reconsider that. Oysteroid paints the picture from the vantage point of someone who seems to have made what he doesn't have as the ultimate ideal, without even realising the pitfalls. It does often happen that desire, when not allowed to be satisfied, erects the impossible goal into the best thing, and the one and only thing that can make life worth living. Oyster is saying nothing new - we know this from patients under psychoanalysis for the past 100 years or so. And we also know that if they do fulfil that desire in the end, they will feel worse than ever, the way Oyster felt after finishing the mountain climb. Desire does not lead to fulfilment, it's a blind alley.

Turned out the sheep was sheep, and you were the wolf. This scenario would suck. So it'd be wise to at least consider the scenario in which the sheep is no wolf, and to simply watch carefully. No dead sheep and you still resolve the situation. — Frank Barroso

Yeah, and what if it's the other way around? Isn't that a good scenario? That's why you have to use your judgement.

I fail to see how we could accept the vanity of desire yet at the same time actually try to court a partner which would be to desire quite a lot. But I do get what your saying in both cases and agree with both. — Frank Barroso

So you fail to see how we could accept them, but you do agree with both of them? :s

Could I pick your brain a little as to the specific actions or experiences or deeds or emotions within or outside of yourself that give your life meaning? — Frank Barroso

Well God gives me meaning, and other than that my family and my work. But I don't think there's anything you need to do to live a meaningful life. You could live a meaningful life never leaving your room, or sitting in a cave in meditation & prayer your whole life. That too is possible.

If you don't enjoy it you must be doing it wrong. Philosophy is about the pursuit of the good life. Nothing else. The good life is whatever makes you happy. Sure a cheese cake makes you happy but it only lasts for so long. The pursuit of philosophy is forever. Always faithful, sometimes difficult to understand but always exciting.

Yeah, and what if it's the other way around? Isn't that a good scenario? That's why you have to use your judgement. — Agustino

In the case of a bank robbery you get inside and immediately with your super-human level of perception and objectivity you suspect this man is about to rob the bank. IRL, yes there is a difference between sitting on my chair telling you a story than being IRL stopping a bank robbery. For here with the anonymity of the internet there are no repercussions for undue actions of harassment. IRL you would not have pointed out that wolf in sheep's clothing for fear of being wrong; the gravity of that situation IRL would have directly caused your actions to be quite different from how they were here on this forum.

So you fail to see how we could accept them, but you do agree with both of them? :s — Agustino

I agree with both of them to certain extents as is with many things. I was pointing out the impossibility of having these two things be perfectly in conjunction with each other at their extremes. For how can we recognize it is futile to desire and to also desire a most rare gift as another person.

Well God gives me meaning, and other than that my family and my work. But I don't think there's anything you need to do to live a meaningful life. You could live a meaningful life never leaving your room, or sitting in a cave in meditation & prayer your whole life. That too is possible. — Agustino

You seem to derive meaning from many things outside of yourself; yet you preach a meaningful life even through inactivity. Could you explain how someone could do that?

You seem to derive meaning from many things outside of yourself — Frank Barroso

Well, the most important source of meaning is God, and God is both inside and outside.

Could you explain how someone could do that? — Frank Barroso

Depends on what you consider inactivity. Is a monk sitting his whole life in a cave in meditation and prayer inactive?

Well, the most important source of meaning is God, and God is both inside and outside. — Agustino

No, not really. Your concept of God was given to you by your culture. If, for example, you were raised feral, you would have no such concept, or your concept of God might be furry, or otherwise something quite different.

So, do any other members feel somewhat alienated by delving into philosophy? My alienation is mostly from just feeling somewhat different than other people who enjoy making money, spending time with friends drinking or just interacting, and such. I also think most people aren't interested in 'truth', 'wisdom', or positive human traits and virtues like honor, honesty, pride, and non-deceitfulness. It just seems to me that when a person is motivated by some things like 'truth' then their whole personality changes, and there's a focus on virtue and ethics. — Posty McPostface

I largely sympathize, but philosophy has "cured" me of thinking of myself as one the good guys. I mean that I see a gap between the "knowledge hero" and the good guy. I'm pretty liberal, for instance, but I think I annoy or scare off my liberal peers by always trying to see the other side and by insisting on the "monster" in each of us. I am interested in truth, but seeking the truth about truth itself problematizes this interest. Is the truth not also about superiority? A nice seat on the mountain? But who says its bad to want a seat on the mountain if not someone seeking a seat on the mountain.

This game of self-description in which one always comes out on top is what especially fascinates me. So I have to argue a little bit with your suggestion that most aren't interested in truth, virtue, wisdom. Indeed, I think we are all quite interested. We just have different basic notions of these things. For some not thinking too much is itself wisdom. You and me probably seem sickly to some in our constant readiness to analyze and demystify. They're not wrong. There's a violence in critical thought, a peeling of scabs, a trespass. If philosophy at its most revolutionary is abnormal discourse, then it is also thoughtcrime that only every once in a while becomes the new law. I think Schop had it right. Irritability, aggression. That's largely what philosophers are made of.

But I do feel a certain alienation. On the other hand this is also transcendence. People can be boring where a diffuse and manageable sexual desire (or lifesytle-sustaining business) is not involved. Smalltalk and chitchat. It's content-poor. There's not enough for the mind to chew on. (Note the aggression in this chewing, I say, as I reach for a piece of nicotine gum). There is also the ocean of cliche that the philosophy-exposed always-thinking person recognizes as such. On the bright side, a well told story has never lost its charm for me.

By our labor in the economy we make money, I hate to break it to you, honey, but engaging in economic activity with you isn't going to bring us together. Transactions are alienated interactions, for the most part. You may make--I may save--money in a transaction, but we aren't going to be buddies as a result. — Bitter Crank

Why are we going to get buddies based on producing food in the ground together (the toil of the land), and not also by producing money in a money-tree where the dough naturally grows? :-$ Why does the object that we work around ultimately matter with regards to human connections?

Why are we going to get buddies based on producing food in the ground together (the toil of the land), and not also by producing money in a money-tree where the dough naturally grows? :-$ Why does the object that we work around ultimately matter with regards to human connections? — Agustino

Because 0.1% own what 90% make through their toil. But, that's taboo to talk about, right?

Because 0.1% own what 90% make through their toil. But, that's taboo to talk about, right? — Posty McPostface

Right, but I don't think that the 90% really would want to make the sacrifices required to make money. Entrepreneurship isn't easy, you work all day pretty much. Most people will not sacrifice their social lives for example, in order to devote that time to business. So, a priori, I wouldn't expect a lot of people to gather together to make dough.

Right, but I don't think that the 90% really would want to make the sacrifices required to make money. Entrepreneurship isn't easy, you work all day pretty much. Most people will not sacrifice their social lives for example, in order to devote that time to business. So, a priori, I wouldn't expect a lot of people to gather together to make dough. — Agustino

Yes, to some extent. Though you're really hyping up the argument by a stretch, methinks.

Yes, to some extent. — Posty McPostface

Right, so then you agree that a substantial part of the population (i) doesn't want to own a (or more) businesses, and (ii) they wouldn't be capable to run them. So no wonder that they wouldn't form friendships around it.

But I'm talking about the segment of the population that would (i) want to own a business, and (ii) have the discipline and knowledge required to run it. Why can't they form friendships around it, the way two dancers can form a friendship around their practice?

Surprised that this thread died down, oysteroid seems to have abandoned it as well.

That's just a little bedtime story you tell yourself before going bye byes.

That Agustino's concept of God is derived from culture? That would put me to sleep, sure. Actually, I woke this morning at around 3 am by some bad dreams and couldn't get back to sleep. My stress level has been generally higher lately and a disturbing visit to the vet's office yesterday (my dog's basically in palliative care now) didn't help. After trying for an hour I put on a hypnosis tape for sleep. Worked like a charm, so that's how I went bye byes last night. Some English dude telling me to relax, that I was calm and peaceful, etc.

On a deeper level, I find meaning and relief from existential anxiety in the concept of emptiness. A cultural gift not unlike that of Agustino's God. There's no real narrative to emptiness however, which is very much unlike most God stories.

Do you have a favorite bedtime story?

my dog's basically in palliative care now — praxis

Sorry to hear about your dog.

Actually, I woke this morning at around 3 am by some bad dreams and couldn't get back to sleep. — praxis

That used to happen to me sometimes. A nasty feeling. But there's nothing to do to escape that feeling, just waiting. Trying to do something to escape it makes it worse.

I find meaning and relief from existential anxiety in the concept of emptiness. — praxis

Emptiness means that even the things you care about are empty though. That doesn't sound very peaceful.

Agustino's concept of God is derived from culture — praxis

All concepts are linguistically mediated and therefore derived from culture, just like language. However that which the concepts point to, that isn't derived from culture.