Not the same at all. It's really not anyone heres problem that you have such a jealous reaction to anyone with a degree. If you are that jealous then go and get one for yourself and stop flying off the handle whenever people correct your uneducated assumptions about things. I got high marks for my essays about stoicism all through out my education when it came up so I'm sorry if I'm not willing to entertain your ridiculous opinions about stoicism or accept your appraisal that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I did learn about stoicism and I learned about Antinatalism too and have probably read far more on both those subjects than yourself, else I wouldn't have gotten my degree. Get over yourself and give up your ridiculous fantasies about convincing the world to stop breeding. It is impossible to achieve without viciously and maliciously sterilising everyone against their will. Whatever reason you have for being jealous of children you should drop it. It's astounding to me how transparent antinatalists are on this topic. You don't like kids, you dont like that children steal attention away from your problems or you don't like that no one would want to have a child with you. Its most likely one of those. I have wrote more than a few pieces on the psychological motivations for negative affect ethics and all the motives come from a place of selfish, irrational egoism. So you've been traumatised before? Who hasn't? After all the shit my family did to me I can think of plenty of horrible shit that I could use to justify anger and revenge on the rest of the world but I don't because I promised myself I'd never blame those who arent responsible and I know that I can be better than all that shit and I refuse to become just as bad or worse than the people who made me suffer before. Then you have all the amazing individuals who have went through far worse than I that still don't turn into vicious, hateful, jealous and spiteful individuals like the people that hurt them. Get some therapy mate, seriously.

Sincerely hope you are banned from the site soon. I've nothing against Autodidacts when they actually demonstrate ability but from you I've seen none. You're just another dogmatic ideologue trapped by their own warped logic and I feel sorry for you.

No, you're not listening. I patiently explained, for instance, why simply making claims about psychological states - their causes and regulation - is not philosophy, but psychology. — Bartricks

Yes, but, it goes both ways. Many modern psychologists have actually claimed that Stoicism was an inspiration of sorts towards treating attitudes and mental states as subject to therapy. REBT, CBT, logotherapy...

You should ignore Bartricks. Psychology used to be a branch of philosophy and moral psychology is a field which is a collaboration of Philosophy, psychology and ethics. Anytime anyone tries to use the whole "No psychology" arguments is a, ignorant of the history of psychology and b, even more ignorant about the history of philosophy itself.

In fact you should be wary of anyone trying to place themselves as the moderator of the content of your argument. Quite frankly ive noticed that individuals can get really angry when you bring up an empirical field of study to contradict them as if philosophy isn't allowed to use empirical evidence.

Also as someone who actually has a degree; if your argument needs to address psychology then you should address it while keeping your conclusion philosophical. You can have psychology as part of premises in an argument so long as the conclusion logically follows and you arent talking out the side of your neck.

I did learn about stoicism — Mark Dennis

I see no evidence of that. If you knew about Stoicism you'd know that the views I mentioned - such as that grief is irrational and that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance - are typical Stoic views.

such a jealous reaction to anyone with a degree — Mark Dennis

and have probably read far more on both those subjects than yourself, else I wouldn't have gotten my degree — Mark Dennis

Your inability to focus squarely on the arguments and your tendency to take robust arguments personally strongly implies you lack any proper academic training. And you clearly do not know much about either Stoicism or antinatalism or argumentation. You seem incapable of making valid inferences or in fairly characterising an opponent's position. Antinatalism, for instance, is not synonymous with the view that we ought to kill ourselves (as anyone who's read the literature on the subject - or, you know, just thought about it intelligently - would know).

Whatever reason you have for being jealous of children you should drop it. — Mark Dennis

Er, what? Are you literally insane?

This thread is about Stoicism and is not an appropriate venue for you to vent your irrational and unfocussed anger. I've argued here that Stoicism often ceases to be philosophy and becomes therapy. It is in that capacity that it may be both helpful and needed by you.

I accept - and mentioned this earlier - that psychology is a branch of philosophy in that it uses reason to find out what's true.
But whereas a psychologist will want to know the causes and mechanisms of our psychological states, the philosopher will want to know things such as what psychological states it is good to be in, what psychological states one ought to be in, and what a psychological state is, in and of itself.
those are not questions psychologists ask or set about answering.

Now, if you want, you can say that Stoicism is about what emotions we feel and how to get rid or them (or control them). And you can say that, as such, it is a psychological thesis, but as psychology is really a branch of philosophy, it is therefore a philosophical thesis.

And that's fine - I agree. But let's just be clear: it is a thesis not about what is good or bad, or what is right or wrong, or what the universe is fundamentally composed of. Rather, it is just a psychological thesis.

Well, the whole thread's premise is based on straw-manning psychology as if something separate from the ethos of neo-Stoical philosophy as self-help and personal development, no?

Yes, lets all bow and capitulate to what someone without a degree thinks is evidence of actual training.

The reason I'm not engaging with you or discussing this with you is it would genuinely be a waste of my time because you won't get it. Because you lack the education. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. You aren't here to argue in good faith you're here to force us all to agree with your views.

I tried discussing antinatalism with you once before and I can see for myself the way you interact with others. I don't have the patience to teach you why you are wrong amd you'll just reject it all anyway and you'll be rude at every step of the way.

I'm sorry, but your personality is just too abrasive for me to have an adult conversation with. You don't get it and I'm over it.

OK, you added more content to that post, but, does it apply to modern-day Stoicism?

It isn't a straw man. If you're unhappy and want to be happy, you see a therapist, not a philosopher.

Why? Because a therapist is someone who's an expert on how to manage one's psychological states.

A philosopher, by contrast, is not an expert on those matters. For though a philosopher is interested in using reason to find out what's true, they focus on those questions that do not seem to be capable of being settled by empirical means.

So, if you want to know if you ought to be happy, then you would seek out a philosopher.

A psychologist can - or may be able to - tell you how to be happy.
A philosopher can - or may be able to - tell you whether you ought to be, and can tell you about whether happiness is purely subjective or has an objective aspect to it.

I have not said that Stoicism is definitely a psychological thesis. But many Stoics seem to make it into one - typically when their more philosophical claims are placed under scrutiny.

Now, if you want, you can say that Stoicism is about what emotions we feel and how to get rid or them (or control them). And you can say that, as such, it is a psychological thesis, but as psychology is really a branch of philosophy, it is therefore a philosophical thesis. — Bartricks

OK, well first, this isn't even what Stoicism is about. Second, do you only think in a pejorative (stereotypical) manner?

Broadly on the topic of this thread, I'd just like to note that philosophical counseling is a thing.

Well, I think to be deserving of the title 'Stoic' one surely has to have a body of views that bear a strong resemblance to those of the historical Stoics, otherwise it would be a misleading thing to call oneself. So I think attacking the views traditionally associated with that title is fair enough, as anyone who is currently calling themselves a Stoic should either be able to explain why they do not believe such things yet can still be fairly called one, or should be able to defend those views.

It isn't a straw man. If you're unhappy and want to be happy, you see a therapist, not a philosopher. — Bartricks

I'd say see both, as a pragmatic method or thing...

Second, do you only think in a pejorative (stereotypical) manner? — Wallows

I am not sure what you mean. I think extremely aggressively. That is, if someone tells me their worldview, then I try my hardest to show that it is false.

Well, I think to be deserving of the title 'Stoic' one surely has to have a body of views that bear a strong resemblance to those of the historical Stoics, otherwise it would be a misleading thing to call oneself. So I think attacking the views traditionally associated with that title is fair enough, as anyone who is currently calling themselves a Stoic should either be able to explain why they do not believe such things yet can still be fairly called one, or should be able to defend those views. — Bartricks

Wow, this is quite obtuse, please elaborate on what you think is the difference between a Stoic and therapist, if you don't mind?

EDIT: And, I hope this isn't like, I want to be happy, therefore I see a therapist or how ought I be happy, being a question reserved for the philosopher.

I would have thought that the last person someone who needs counselling should see is a philosopher!

I think some Stoics are therapists, some are philosophers, and some (most, I suspect) are a bit of both.

A therapist is just trying to treat a person - that is, they are trying to make you into a certain sort of a person, be it a happier person, or a more controlled person, or whatever.

But a philosopher would be interested in what kind of a person one ought to be, and in what oughtness itself is, and in what a person is, and in what reality would need to be like in order for it to contain properties such as oughtness, and goodness.

So take Buddhism. If you engage a Buddhist in argument - that is, if you ask them to provide some kind of evidence that their worldview is true - they will typically change the subject and tell you how to be content.

Not saying all Buddhists do that - but in my limited experience, most do.

At that point they are not doing philosophy. They are not giving me epistemic reason to believe in their worldview. Rather, they are seeking to show me that I have instrumental reason to believe in their worldview.

Or take a Christian. A Christian might point out how much happier you'd be if you believed in God and an afterlife in which all wrongs are righted and so on. Well, they may be right - but that is not evidence that their worldview is true.

The philosopher - the true philosopher - is interested in whether gods and afterlives and souls and so on, actually exist. They are not interested in how beneficial or otherwise it may be to believe in such things.

So, if a Stoic starts saying "here's how to be happy..." and "believing this or reflecting on this will make you more able to deal with reversals of fortune etc." then they are offering instrumental - perhaps even moral - reasons to believe in their worldview, but they are not offering epistemic reasons (evidence) for their worldview. And it is evidence that true philosophers are interested in.

Of all the examples you took Buddhism as one to represent the astonishingly fine line between what one can call a philosophy or way of life that addresses in the extreme the suffering of an individual.

Go figure.

yes, because it is a good example. I have never encountered a Buddhist who stuck to providing evidence rather than reverting to appeal to therapeutic benefits when pressed.

At this point I don't think you know what both of us are even talking about. I'm certainly lost hereabouts.

I am not lost and I know exactly what I am talking about.

You asked me some questions - such as the difference between therapy and philosophy - and I answered them.

I do not know why you are lost or think that I am.

A therapist tries to change your psychological state.

That's not what a philosopher is trying to do.

A philosopher is seeking to answer questions that only careful reasoned reflection can illuminate. Such as 'what 'is' a psychological state? (are they physical states, or states of an immaterial thing?)', and 'what psychological state is it good for a person to be in?"

It is precisely because the philosopher's questions can only be answered by careful reasoned reflection, whereas the therapist's questions require detailed empirical investigation, that we have separate disciplines dedicated to answering them.

The post starts out OK; but, then we have this profound non sequitur:

It is precisely because the philosopher's questions can only be answered by careful reasoned reflection, whereas the therapist's questions require detailed empirical investigation, that we have separate disciplines dedicated to answering them. — Bartricks

Says who?

Says who? — Wallows

Me. Just then.

It is not a non-sequitur. It is just a fact.

Why do you think psychology and philosophy are distinct disciplines?

While I mostly disagree with Bartricks here, I think there is at least a similar point to be made about how the original Stoics had a metaphysical view that was supposed to give reason for adopting their now-eponymous demeanor, and that metaphysics is quite contestable now, requiring some other reason be given in place of it (or else the conclusion be rejected) if you don’t accept that metaphysics.

Why do you think psychology and philosophy are distinct disciplines? — Bartricks

Well, there's WAY more overlap between the two rather than the superficial differences your trying to 'create'...

He Genuinely doesn't. I told you already he's not here to debate or give you a fair shake. He's here to force us to capitulate to his views and he will just try and make you feel lost in order to believe of himself that he's "winning" the debate.

Asking a Buddhist for meaningful evidence that their fundamental views are correct is like trying to get water from a stone because the stone doesn't believe in MEANING. This guy is still arguing from a point that he feels any philosophy should be able to justify itself with evidence yet doesn't describe what he feels evidence should be. This guy will just move the goalposts every time so you really are wasting your time.

Says who? — Wallows

Him of course. Weren't you reading? Bartricks is the judge of all and should be praised is what he is trying to really say. Anyone who disagrees with him gets labeled as uneducated or not doing philosophy right.

He literally told me to be "More like me" earlier. You are wasting your time with him. You are a philosopher, he is a subversive. Don't stoop my friend.

He literally told me to be "More like me" earlier. You are wasting your time with him. You are a philosopher, he is a subversive. Don't stoop my friend. — Mark Dennis

Just trying to burn down this straw man that he set out hereabouts.

Why are they distinct disciplines?

Psychologists often make philosophical assumptions (often unnecessarily), and philosophers sometimes make psychological assumptions.
But they're distinct disciplines.

Can't you see the difference between these two questions:

"What will make me happy?"

"what is happiness?"

Just trying to burn down this straw man that he set out hereabouts. — Wallows

I completely understand that desire, however it is already ashes on the ground and he's staring longingly at a photo of it pretending and telling himself it isn't.

Oh and in case you are wondering why I have such a problem with him; He asked me a few months ago why we shouldn't sterilize our own population and all other animals too in a debate about antinatalism. I literally suggested that he wanted to do this because of his antinatal views, thinking it would turn out to be a straw man on my part but he actually likes that idea and asked me "Why not?".

It's always the people with skeletons..

Seriously you are far too intelligent Wallow, to let someone like Bartricks get under your skin. He will be banned soon, the moderators are discussing his behavior as we speak.

Can't you see the difference between these two questions:

"What will make me happy?"

"what is happiness?" — Bartricks

OK, but pragmatically I see no reason why a philosopher can't in principle answer a question purportedly exclusive to a therapist. And, I mean no disrespect to either or both professions.

Have you ever been to therapy, may I ask?