Yeah, it probably has that connotation often. The quote I relayed wasn't meant that way, though. It's actually from Brian Eno--musician, composer, producer, etc. And it's partially a statement of his working philosophy, especially related to the way he treats "mistakes." Preconceptions in this context isn't negative. It's just what he (and his collaborators) had in mind to do/achieve. But it has broader application, too.

MU is trying to allude to the contradiction in you definitions. If mental strength is defined in opposition to mental illness-- an absence of incapacity-- it cannot be the response to present mental illness. In this case, it's impossible for someone to have mental strength and also a mental illness.

This is why "mental strength" has no apparent practical definition. In the terms of you definitions, it is not a response to mental illness, some action taken to deal with a present mental illness, but a description of being in a state without mental illness.

Comment: The definitions allow the classification of all possible conditions of the mind as either being mental illness or being mental strength. — Agustino

You definitions preclude this because it would require that a condition of mind could be both a mental illness (incapacity) and mental strength (absence of incapacity).

Note: your direction is more or less correct, "mental illness" is a classification of ethics, a way of saying a particular way of thinking ought to exist. Rather than a description of a state of mind, it's a judgment about what sort of mind ought to belong.

This, however, amounts to an absence of standard in judging the presence of mental illness. In any case, we are relying on a ethic defined in-itself, rather than the presence of a mind.

In this respect, "mental illness" is revealed to be more rhetorical than anything else. It's a form a naturalistic fallacy. Instead of being honest about what at stake, a thought, behaviour or action which ought not exist, we equate what's wrong with the mere presence of body and thought. In terms of the individual, it's sort of a denial of responsibility. Rather than describe actions or states which ought not be (e.g. lack of motivation, despair, etc., etc.-- depression), someone is just said to be "mentally ill." It's nothing more than an image used to position where someone goes in an order-- e.g. the sorts of people who ought or ought not be, the sorts of people who need treatment or medication, etc.,etc.

MU is trying to allude to the contradiction in you definitions. If mental strength is defined in opposition to mental illness-- an absence of incapacity-- it cannot be the response to present mental illness. In this case, it's impossible for someone to have mental strength and also a mental illness.

This is why "mental strength" has no apparent practical definition. In the terms of you definitions, it is not a response to mental illness, some action taken to deal with a present mental illness, but a description of being in a state without mental illness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

First of all, I have never thought about it that way. I dislike this kind of quibbling though because it doesn't get us anything of practical value. We can talk about this day and night - none of us will become any better because of it. What I meant as opposite is this: mental illness is incapacity - mental strength is capacity - NOT lack of incapacity .... I wrote the opposite merely because I didn't want to write the same sentence again using capacity instead of incapacity.

This, however, amounts to an absence of standard in judging the presence of mental illness. In any case, we are relying on a ethic defined in-itself, rather than the presence of a mind.

In this respect, "mental illness" is revealed to be more rhetorical than anything else. It's a form a naturalistic fallacy. Instead of being honest about what at stake, a thought, behaviour or action which ought not exist, we equate what's wrong with the existence of body and thought. In terms of the individual, it's sort of a denial of responsibility. Rather than describe actions or states which ought not be (e.g. lack of motivation, despair, etc., etc.-- depression), someone is just said to be "mental ill." It's nothing more than an image used to position where someone goes in an order-- e.g. the sorts of people who ought to be, the sorts of people who nee treatment or medication, etc.,etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, so what's the practical significance of this? How does that help any of us? Do you become a better person because you know that? Does your neighbour? Do I?

I see, thanks for sharing! (Y)

Well they have been wronged by that bad guy. But the fault isn't with that guy - that guy is a bad guy. It's their judgement that's the fault - they didn't judge him correctly. If they had judged him correctly from the beginning, they would never have been harmed. So their failure is merely the opportunity to begin again, as Henry Ford said, this time more intelligently. — Agustino

I get that. Just because you are able to do so doesn't mean it's obvious for everyone. I was trying to point at the underlying innate tendencies of humans which might be aiding in a "failure" to do so. Even though non-conformism might be a thing due to it being very obvious to some that a large part of the constituents of our environment do not see this, it does not necessarily follow that they're stupid or even "fail". If nobody is "enlightened" with such heuristic, who's at fault?

If a larger part of the population does not see things this way, they still constitute the environment we apply ourselves in socially. should we blame ourselves in failing to make others see how learning actually works, should we make the utmost of the opportunity to deceive others while using their lack of awareness or should we concede failure ourselves because we don't comply with a majority?

These are very different ways of interpreting an observation which I basically agree with.

You're not really quibbling with ideas, you're quibbling with their formulations. But their formulations are ultimately quite irrelevant to their applicability, or to their value as ideas. — Agustino

I can't see your point here, ideas are formulations. Have you ever met an idea which is not a formulation? It appears like you are trying to separate form from content, saying that the form of your approach, which is what I objected to, is unimportant, it is the content which matters. But what I think I demonstrated in my post, is that your approach is pure form, there is no content. We are left with a non-physical capacity, as the content of mental strength, what does that mean?

What I meant as opposite is this: mental illness is incapacity - mental strength is capacity - NOT lack of incapacity .... I wrote the opposite merely because I didn't want to write the same sentence again using capacity instead of incapacity. — Agustino

Pure capacity means nothing. The same capacity which is the capacity for good is also the capacity for evil. Have you read Plato? The same capacity which is the capacity for mental strength is also the capacity for mental weakness. Capacity without the qualification, capacity for "X", is meaningless. And so your definition of mental strength is also meaningless.

I think that very failure of the image of "mental illness" vs "mental strength" is the point.

What practical relevance does saying have "mental strength" have to anyone? It's nothing more than an imagined image. As a claimed solution, it really offers nothing more than any other response. One might go to a Monastery, believe everything their psychiatrist says or collect their new age crystals.

The image of "mental strength" has more to do with opposing particular types of responses (e.g. the cost, drugs of psychiatry, how psychiatry doesn't allow a person to be better on their own, etc., etc.), then it does for defining a practical outcome of mental illness.

What I meant as opposite is this: mental illness is incapacity - mental strength is capacity - NOT lack of incapacity —

Which is not what you said in the OP.

Definition of Mental Strength: The exact opposite of mental illness. — Agustino

And yes, this knowledge does make us better people. Not necessarily because we can magically solve mental illness, but rather because we don't fall into the trap of confusing an image (e.g. "mental strength") for a solution and then punishing people for whom it doesn't work. It means we don't scapegoat people for failing to get better by our preferred method (and it will mean we don't deny them the opportunity to get better by some other means we happen to despise).

In the context of the individual, it makes our understanding sharper too. A person who goes it on their own actually describes behaviours which ought to be changed, rather than considering a nebulous notion of "mental illness" which requires some yet to be understood solution. I think there may be something of a practical effect here.

If one knows behaviours they ought to change, they can direct themselves towards achieving that. Well, some people can at least. It certainly gives more to go on than saying: "I'm mentally ill and need to be fixed."

Even the word "strength" depends on what we value abstractly, in any case it might be seen as an ability to endure certain immediate circumstances to achieve a goal on a longer term. — Gooseone

Strength could apply in two ways here, with respect to value. First, there is the need for a certain mental strength which gives us the capacity to establish a hierarchy of values. This is how we apprehend which things actually have value to us. Then there is a strength required to resist giving up on these determined values, and allowing these priorities to dissolve.

should we blame ourselves in failing to make others see how learning actually works, should we make the utmost of the opportunity to deceive others while using their lack of awareness or should we concede failure ourselves because we don't comply with a majority? — Gooseone

We should try to make them understand.

Pure capacity means nothing. The same capacity which is the capacity for good is also the capacity for evil. Have you read Plato? The same capacity which is the capacity for mental strength is also the capacity for mental weakness. Capacity without the qualification, capacity for "X", is meaningless. And so your definition of mental strength is also meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I have read Plato, but I'm not interested in quibbling over notions - especially when you take words such as capacity, which I use in common parlance, and give them the technical meanings they have in some philosophies. So tell me how your understanding of capacity (which you take from Plato et al) helps you achieve or not achieve mental strength, or else I'm not interested in criticism which puts nothing better in its place. Then if you tell me that, I can see if there are problems with it - problems which will appear on a practical, not theoretical level, and I can let you know what I think.

I think that very failure of the image of "mental illness" vs "mental strength" is the point. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, replace the image then. Do something useful, don't just point fingers. We have to discuss by comparing notions. You just criticise. That's not very effective, because ultimately people choose between alternatives - nobody chooses criticism. So what's the alternative?

Which is not what you said in the OP. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I said that in the OP as short form - as I said, instead of repeating the sentence and changing capacity with incapacity, I just wrote that.

and then punishing people for whom it doesn't work. It means we don't scapegoat people for failing to get better by our preferred method (and it will mean we don't deny them the opportunity to get better by some other means we happen to despise). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Who talked of scapegoating? The point was what works and what doesn't work, there's no scapegoating here. People are not punished for acting a certain way by anyone - rather their actions themselves will be punishments or rewards, depending on whether they work or not.

A person who goes it on their own actually describes behaviours which ought to be changed, rather than considering a nebulous notion of "mental illness" which requires some yet to be understood solution. I think there may be something of a practical effect here.

If one knows behaviours they ought to change, they can direct themselves towards achieving that. Well, some people can at least. It certainly gives more to go on than saying: "I'm mentally ill and need to be fixed." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nowhere do you outline such behaviours, nor the means of changing them.

We should try to make them understand. — Agustino

I sincerely agree and it is a value judgement which I use to judge myself and my environment.

In terms of behaviour, there is no image to replace in this context. You were only ever talking about theory. With respect to mental illness (or rather, how people ought to think and behave), you never defined a problem. You began with this nebulous image of "mental illness" that needs to be fixed and imagined the image of "mental strength as it's solution." But what was wrong? Who was acting in a way they shouldn't? What behaviour needs to be fixed?

You have neither spoken about any such issue or offered any practical advice. From the beginning, this thread has been all theory, not an identification of a behavioural problem and a suggestion of a partial solution, but (supposedly) an instance of knowledge or explanation to any problem-- you say: "lack of mental strength" just as the lazy psychiatrist might say "brain chemistry and drugs."

With respect to practical advice, we can't even approach the subject until we start talking in terms of specific behaviours. This thread has never been about doing anything useful in this respect. It's all about the theory which gets used to define how people respond to the mentally ill.

Who talked of scapegoating? The point was what works and what doesn't work, there's no scapegoating here. — Agustino

You didn't talk about it, but your argument entails it. Take, for example, the several people I know who've had successful experiences with therapy. If we worked by your system, they ought have never started seeing a physiologist. If they weren't managing on their own, you would have chastised them for lacking "mental strength" and just demanded the understand it (how?). You would (in your ideal world) deny what worked for them (since it's supposedly ineffective-- just a racket of scam artist taking their money) and prescribe them "mental strength." Their health would be a scapegoat to the application of your preferred method of treatment.

Yes I said that in the OP as short form - as I said, instead of repeating the sentence and changing capacity with incapacity, I just wrote that. — Agustino

Ah well, the problem is that implies that capacity/incapacity are working on the same axis, are in opposition.

Mental illness (some incapacity--failure) and mental strength (some capacity--success) does work as a discintion. But the trouble is it still lacks definition. What is the behaviour that needs to be changed? What behaviour is successful? The contradiction may be resolved; the mentally ill (failing) may respond with mental strength (success) in the future, but that says nothing of practical value about anyone's behaviour.

No of course not, because you focus on two fucking definitions instead of read what follows. First - I suggest that language/concept using animals are prone to mental illness. Hence mental illness is something that emerges out of this capacity of the mind to use language/concepts. That means that mental health too will emerge out of this ability to use language/concepts. That's very practical. Someone who knows that can suddenly have the break and realise that the way I see myself, the way I view myself, prevents me from getting to what I want. Or they can realise that, since their issues emerge out of a way their mind uses language and concepts and frames their situation, they can reframe it, they can find a different way to frame it, a way in which there is hope. Or they can realise that such a way to view their situation is fucking nonsense and useless. I love people, and I love helping people, but you seem to never see this. All you see is some image of me as an oppressor, because that fits your narrative. Anyway, it's up to them what they do or do not do with it - but they have many options available from which they can choose or not choose - it expands the options that are available. That's what thinking can do - outline PRACTICAL options and frameworks which could help solve problems.

Second idea I outlined, is that not all people who have experiences which are different from the norm are mentally ill - and thus such people shouldn't be medicated, but they should be helped to navigate their experience better - to linguistically frame it such that they are not handicapped. Again, you miss this - instead you keep stuck to some quibbling over definitions like a child. Fuck the definitions. Get down to business - real business, not nonsense!

That's the problem though: the definition of "mental illness" is not practical. It a nebulous allusion to failure. What is the failure? Is what's called "mental illness" even a failure at all? No doubt you want to help people, and I more or less agree with what you say there (with the addition that "mental illness" is a concept of how people ought to act that emerged out of our language concepts), but you still respect the (oppressive) idea of "mental illness" as a concept of someone nature.

Fuck the definitions indeed, particularly "mental illness." Who needs that second order notion of being handicapped to distract them? If something is wrong, why not just describe that and tackle it head on? What does saying that one is "mentally ill," as opposed just describing behaviours actually add to the picture?

If something is wrong, why not just describe that and tackle it head on? What does saying that one is "mentally ill," as opposed just describing behaviours actually add to the picture? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, go ahead, do it. Let's see it. I will judge it, once I see it. So far it's all criticism what you're doing - nothing original. Stop sitting on the sidelines and get down in the ring. This thread is for everyone to contribute however they want, and however they see fit in the process of generating ideas and brainstorming. If you dislike the definitions, good! Do something about it, propose something different.

So tell me how your understanding of capacity (which you take from Plato et al) helps you achieve or not achieve mental strength, or else I'm not interested in criticism which puts nothing better in its place. — Agustino

It's your thread, your definitions, you tell me your understanding of this non-physical capacity which you call mental strength. That's what I'm interested in, what constitutes mental health, but you just seem to want to focus on mental illness. You claim that you want to talk about something practical not theoretical, but you're lost in some theory about what constitutes mental illness. Fuck mental illness, let's concentrate on something practical, how we can obtain mental strength. But no, logic, puzzles, theories, etc., things which exercise the mind, are too academic for you.

No this thread isn't for me to defend any kind of idea. I made that clear in the opening post. This thread is for brainstorming, by everyone. I'm happy you're unhappy with my definitions - so go ahead and reframe them. Propose a different framework. Do whatever you think has to be done. Explore the subject. You don't need me to explore the subject. You can do that yourself.

Though I might not fully agree with the term mental illness as used by Agustino, I'm assuming he's talking about something which should not be defined (easily) based on obvious behaviours but involves a self-report of mental and emotional states, including a need to make such a report.

Seeing it's usually not a very good idea to let someone judge their own mental states completely and "understanding" one's own mental states involves a degree of articulation ("Because it felt good" might appear to be a self-report involving sufficient reason but I guess we can agree it generally does not suffice as a good enough explanation and we're expected to have a degree of self control), would we get farther if we let individuals articulate a self-report? And, if so, how can we know that we ourselves are capable of judging such a self-report?

We give adults a degree of freedom whereby certain behaviours are not tolerated, most of these behaviours are judged according to the respect with which others' freedom is respected. People have a large degree of freedom to harm themselves (it's not forbidden to become an alcoholic to my knowledge) and we cannot force people to really care about someone who is suffering from loneliness.

Social engagement, common sense / knowledge and a good handle on our own biases could aid in making the large grey area between, let's say, having an occasional drink and full blown alcoholism smaller. Common knowledge would be important here because nowadays actual care could easily be seen as "intrusive meddling".

In a similar vein, what about the many nihilistic / solipsist threads on this forum? We're unable to judge behaviour but there's a difference between someone having a decent fulfilling life where spare time is used occasionally to let natural curiosity rein free and inquire into matters of meaning and knowledge vs. someone who suffers an existential crisis, has become unable to keep a job and sees life as something unfulfilling / futile.

It is my own personal judgement that a large degree of nihilism / solipsism is usually not very beneficial for someone but it might be beneficial for those who are actually trying to negate life's experiences somewhat (depersonalisation light?). There can also be those who really don't care for anything else but forcing a good answer to certain difficult questions and this could be regarded as "mental strength", in some cases brilliance and persistence have not always been equal to a healthy physical existence. There's also a degree of egotistical arrogance: "Refute this motherf#ckers, Ha!", But (and I would really like to get some feedback on this one) it could also be a justification for having a point of view which is wreaking havoc on one's experience. Using the mind to rationalize bodily feelings can be a coping mechanism in some cases. If we see someone living in an obvious detrimental way and we ask for a self-report, a rationally articulated (irrefutable) report can be given and, if there's no familiarity with the concept I'm trying to elaborate on here, any help could be judged to be intrusive meddling".

Would a nihilist be trying to gain an identity, would he / she rather find actual meaning, is he / she just butthurt in not being able to know the future, is a solipsist an ego on high octane fuel, distraught in not being able to generate their own thoughts, comforted in having found an impossible to refute metaphysical position, etc?

A lot of what I'm talking about I would not consider a mental illness, far from it, yet some of it could very well lead to a mental illness. It is my opinion that mental strength 'could' be regarded as being in control of emotions yet I feel that, at least in "civilized" societies, there's little need to be over protective concerning our own identities / emotions; I wouldn't see being emotionally "touchy feely" as a mental strength yet an honest self-report would qualify. Justifications and strong convictions can, to my mind, be regarded as a hint that there's something to report on (mental stress?), it's usually far from obvious though.

No this thread isn't for me to defend any kind of idea. I made that clear in the opening post. This thread is for brainstorming, by everyone. I'm happy you're unhappy with my definitions - so go ahead and reframe them. Propose a different framework. Do whatever you think has to be done. Explore the subject. You don't need me to explore the subject. You can do that yourself. — Agustino

'Mental strength' could be seen as functioning analogously to 'fitness' in evolutionary theory. One cannot say much about it in advance, and what is fit in one ecology may be unfit for another.

For Norman Normal, anything that deviates from current accepted practice is incomprehensible, and therefore probably insane - mad sad or bad. But Norman turns out to be mistaken if the deviance becomes accepted and society changes. At which point the madman retrospectively becomes the leader and hero. Just as the successful mutation becomes the new species, whereas the unsuccessful becomes the new disease.

Gregory Bateson has related ideas. (But do watch out for the cultish offshoots.)

Thank you unenlightened, you've expressed very well what I was only capable of alluding to. Agustino's mental strength, which is called a "capacity" doesn't give us anything until we say capacity for what. Now you have given us "fitness'' according to evolutionary theory. But this throws Agustino's theory of mental illness into disarray. If one's mental capacity is judged according to societal norms, then an individual who excels in the capacity for fitness may be judged as outside the norm, and mentally ill.

Evolutionary fitness is an extremely difficult concept. If it is related to survival, we can immediately abstract it from survival of the individual, because evolutionary theory doesn't associate survival with survival of the individual. Now, the person with mental strength does not put one's own survival as the highest priority, and one who puts one's life at risk is not necessarily mentally ill. Furthermore, evolution goes beyond the survival of the species, such that new variations may create newly evolved species. How can we reconcile this with the proposed concepts of mental strength and mental illness?

How can we reconcile this with the proposed concepts of mental strength and mental illness? — Metaphysician Undercover

With great caution!

For example, a heightened sensitivity, or even a new sensitivity to some environmental/social factor, may look like a weakness. For instance, in my lifetime in the UK there has developed a sensitivity to child abuse (as we now call it), that wasn't taken seriously before. There is still a deal of resistance to this namby-pamby attitude.

At the same time, speaking from experience, there are conditions that are fairly clear cut, just as there are mutations that are obviously maladaptive. The disintegration of speech, of contact with reality, and of the personality, that constitutes the classic schizophrenic are pretty obviously not going anywhere good, for society, for the species, for the individual, or for anything else. Although even here one should be cautious; it includes a creativity, and a sensitivity that with the right nurturing can become productive and transformative.

One cannot say much about it in advance, and what is fit in one ecology may be unfit for another. — unenlightened

Yes BUT - take the cockroach. It is a species of insect that has evolved very little, if at all, in the past 300 million years. It is very adaptable, and not fragile to modifications in its environment - it can thrive pretty much regardless of environment. If you expose it to the same radiation level as Hiroshima for 30 days, 10% of its population survives. If there are no males around, the females can reproduce by themselves. They become immune to poisons and chemicals very rapidly. And so forth. Now, here's a creature whose survival is pretty much environment independent (I say pretty much because obviously there would be some extremely severe environments they wouldn't be able to survive in).

By analogy, I recognise for example that the mind/person that maximises flourishing (and survival) during a war environment is different from the mind/person that maximises flourishing during peace. The social skills that are required in peace are things such as mixing in well with others, lack of aggression, being part of the group, engaging in social activities like parties, drinking, sensitivity to others and so forth. The skills and mindsets that maximise the chance of survival in war on the other hand are controlled aggression, courage, daring, pragmatic intelligence, critical thinking, patience, resisting pain, decisiveness etc. But notice there is an asymmetry in terms of fitness between the two mindsets. The "war" mindset, let's call it, is superior to the "peace" mindset. It's true that during peace the person with the "war" mindset will have a harder time - he won't be as successful as the other guy. But he'll manage. But - during war on the other hand, the "peace" mindset is first to be exterminated, while the "war" mindset has a greater chance of survival. So in one situation the "war" mindset is significantly better than the "peace" mindset, and in the other situation it doesn't perform as well as the "peace" mindset, but well enough to ensure survival. So if one is to pick rationally, it seems to me that one will pick the more austere "war" mindset - because that covers more than one base as it were. Obviously I gave some extreme examples to show the point I'm trying to make, but this points to the possibility that there may be a series of characteristics which equate to mental strength across many radically different environments.

For Norman Normal, anything that deviates from current accepted practice is incomprehensible, and therefore probably insane - mad sad or bad. But Norman turns out to be mistaken if the deviance becomes accepted and society changes. At which point the madman retrospectively becomes the leader and hero. Just as the successful mutation becomes the new species, whereas the unsuccessful becomes the new disease. — unenlightened

But you see that's the thing. Norman Normal is as Taleb would say fragile. The environment changes, and he's gone. The deviant on the other hand, so long as he assures some degree of survival in the current environment, but stands to gain SIGNIFICANTLY from random changes in the environment is positioned at the right place, while Norman Normal is making a fatal mistake and is in fact sitting on a booby trap.

... take the cockroach. It is a species of insect that has evolved very little, if at all, in the past 300 million years. It is very adaptable, and not fragile to modifications in its environment - — Agustino

But you see that's the thing. Norman Normal is as Taleb would say fragile. — Agustino

I would say that Norman is a cockroach. He is like the vicar of Bray in adapting to society, or like the decent citizen who becomes an extermination camp guard. In a consumer society he consumes, and in war he fights.

But my evolutionary analogy was intended to steer you away from survival/ success as a measure of sanity. I had thought you would see immediately that a sane man can get crucified. And with Jesus in mind, I suggest that sanity is fragile in that worldly sense; that it is vulnerable to social insanity, precisely because it cannot adapt itself to the world gone mad.

And with Jesus in mind, I suggest that sanity is fragile in that worldly sense; — unenlightened

I don't think so. Jesus died, like Socrates, on purpose. Some things are worth dying for, because when you die for them you make a point. And regardless, we're all going to die someday, might as well die for a great cause. But notice that their death didn't come from weakness or lack of worldly success - they were successful, that's precisely why they [the authorities] wanted to kill them. And they stood upright, and refused to yield and obey the authorities, and preferred death, rather than bowing down and giving up on their values. If they had bowed down, they would have already lost everything they were fighting for anyway. Death was a pragmatic solution, I would have chosen death in their situation too.

The Taoists and other Asian cultures seem to understand the relationship between worldly success and spiritual success. The two of them come together - it's impossible to succeed in the spirit and fail in the world. That's a schizophrenic Western conception that the good guy always loses. Why would anyone believe that? To me, there is no spiritual strength that fails to break through in the world. The spiritually strong remarks himself, he makes himself seen and heard. He is always a problem for the authorities and those in power - because he has the strength to disturb the created order.

Did you hear of Nick Vujicic for example? He has no arms and no legs, but because of his spiritual strength, he beats all those odds.

The two of them come together - it's impossible to succeed in the spirit and fail in the world. — Agustino

This sounds like chest-beating bullshit. What exactly does it mean to "fail in the world"?

I had thought you would see immediately that a sane man can get crucified. — unenlightened

Indeed - but this only tells us that the sane man was also mentally strong, and sufficiently dangerous to the established order that there really was no other way to get rid of him - he can't be bought, can't be threatened, can't be guided, can't be manipulated, can't be stopped in any other way. His crucifixion is precisely the crowning of his Earthly as well as spiritual success. The fact he holds onto dignity and refuses to give up on the good just to live one more day - that's spiritual strength. And the fact that others resort even to killing him - that's a sign of his worldly success.

What exactly does it mean to "fail in the world"? — John

I will answer, but before I do, I'm curious just what you would understand by "fail in the world"? What images would this bring to your mind?

You first, dude.

His crucifixion is precisely the crowning of his Earthly as well as spiritual success. — Agustino

Well you need to educate me about this, because it's a use of the terms 'earthly', 'spiritual' and 'success' that is wildly different from my current understanding. On the face of it, it looks like you are moving the goalposts in a great hurry, because earthly, as in cockroachly success, certainly didn't include not surviving a few posts ago.

You first, dude. — John

He who wants something from another has to accept the conditions on which they'll be given no? :P But the reason why I want you to go first is because I don't understand what you don't understand. "Fail in the world" is a common phrase I think. So what does that make you think about?