Ultimately, it just amounts to: 'That problem you have? Just don't have it anymore.' — The Great Whatever

Crude, but yes, that's basically it. Your alternative ultimately amounts to... what? 'That problem you have? Do nothing about it'. If you do answer, it's only fair to answer in the same manner in which you've treated stoicism, so please, no sophistication or charity, and it should consist of a short sentence.

I don't think philosophy should be in the business of giving self-help advice and maxims about how to live. It should be in the business of scrutinizing ideas and exposing errors. Bad 'ethical' positions are, if you like, errors. — The Great Whatever

There is a problem, hence there is an error. The problem, in the example, is excessive grieving, which is detrimental. The error would be to do nothing about it, as the problem would persist; and the solution would be to move on - gradually, and with assistance, if need be - thereby ultimately ceasing to grieve in excess.

Crude, but yes, that's basically it. Your alternative ultimately amounts to... what? 'That problem you have? Do nothing about it'. If you do answer, it's only fair to answer in the same manner in which you've treated stoicism, so please, no sophistication or charity, and it should consist of a short sentence. — Sapientia

I don't think there is just an answer to what people in general should do in the face of suffering. It's not the right question to be asking.

There is a problem, hence there is an error. The problem, in the example, is excessive grieving, which is detrimental. The error would be to do nothing about it, as the problem would persist; and the solution would be to move on - gradually, and with assistance, if need be - thereby ultimately ceasing to grieve in excess. — Sapientia

What makes the grieving 'excessive?' Seneca's answer is, because animals don't grieve that much. I'm guessing you don't have anything more insightful than that.

I don't think there is just an answer to what people in general should do in the face of suffering. It's not the right question to be asking. — The Great Whatever

Suffering, to the extent that it's detrimental, should be avoided and minimised, should it not? If not, why? And if it's not the right question, then what is?

What makes the grieving 'excessive?' Seneca's answer is, because animals don't grieve that much. I'm guessing you don't have anything more insightful than that. — The Great Whatever

No more insightful, but just as evident: too much grieving can be detrimental. Excessive grieving can mean not just grieving more than normal, as Seneca's answer (as paraphrased by you) implies, but also grieving to an extent whereby it has a detrimental effect on that person's life and the lives of others, such as close family and friends.

Suffering, to the extent that it's detrimental, should be avoided and minimised, should it not? If not, why? And if it's not the right question, then what is? — Sapientia

Asking whether suffering should be minimized is not the same as asking what should be done in the face of it. Usually if you're suffering, it's 'too late.' In the face of suffering, I'm not sure what the question of what one 'can do' about it makes much sense. We can perhaps live through it, embody it in art, and so on, but what happens, what befalls you, for that very reason can't be avoided once it's on you. You can of course minimize future suffering, but that's not the same as doing something 'in the face of it.'

No more insightful, but just as evident: too much grieving can be detrimental. Excessive grieving can mean not just grieving more than normal, as Seneca's answer (as paraphrased by you) implies, but also grieving to an extent whereby it has a detrimental effect on that person's life and the lives of others, such as close family and friends. — Sapientia

I don't know. Maybe the least detrimental thing is just never to grieve over anything. But even if that were so, a lot of people find such a prospect repulsive. I just think didactic instructions about how much to grieve are absurd. It shows a disconnect with reality.

twg, just to remind you in case you forgot, I'm waiting for your reply regarding this:

It could be mitigated, but new pains would arise. Those who medically cannot feel pain do not by that token have 'good' lives in any sense.
— The Great Whatever

How so? — darthbarracuda

Oh, I was just saying obviously not all pain is simulation of receptors beneath the skin. People have medical conditions where they can't feel 'pain' in that sense but they still obviously suffer.

Asking whether suffering should be minimized is not the same as asking what should be done in the face of it. — The Great Whatever

Indeed, they aren't the same. The former is an answer to the latter.

Usually if you're suffering, it's 'too late.' In the face of suffering, I'm not sure what the question of what one 'can do' about it makes much sense. We can perhaps live through it, embody it in art, and so on, but what happens, what befalls you, for that very reason can't be avoided once it's on you. You can of course minimize future suffering, but that's not the same as doing something 'in the face of it.' — The Great Whatever

Sure, when you suffer, you suffer. And when you suffer, it is of course too late to prevent that suffering from having occured. That's undeniable. But how much and for how long - that we have some control over. That can be in the face of suffering. We can act to alleviate suffering whilst suffering, as opposed to just learning ways of seeking to prevent future occurrences from hindsight. One can, in at least some cases, prevent that suffering from becoming even worse than it already is - gradually, moment by moment, as well as afterwards with foresight into possible events in the more distant future. One can, at least under certain circumstances, reduce it's impact.

Right.

Presumably, however, we could invent technology that could get rid of the aspect of pain that we find uncomfortable and replace it with simply a notification. Evolution did not lead to us having to ability to consciously control our pain receptors, but with the help of technology we might be able to.

Presumably, however, we could invent technology that could get rid of the aspect of pain that we find uncomfortable and replace it with simply a notification. Evolution did not lead to us having to ability to consciously control our pain receptors, but with the help of technology we might be able to. — darthbarracuda

I don't know how that's possible. If for example you consider boredom, loneliness, hopelessness, embarrassment, and so on pains, then you would have to rewire our bodily structure so fundamentally that our existential structures would be completely revamped, to the extent that we might not be able to even recognize them or from our present perspective even imagine them. That's a far more revisionary task than just, say, blocking some receptors. Is it even possible for a feeling creature not to suffer? And is there any interesting sense in which one is alive (that is, not biologically, but in a way that matters) without feeling?

If for example you consider boredom, loneliness, hopelessness, embarrassment, and so on pains, then you would have to rewire our bodily structure so fundamentally that our existential structures would be completely revamped, to the extent that we might not be able to even recognize them or from our present perspective even imagine them. — The Great Whatever

Or, you could look at these pains like I do, and realize that they are self-caused. Boredom can be relieved and can be a motivator for action. Loneliness and embarrassment are horrible feelings but they ultimately can be relieved as well by action from the person. Striving, tanha, can be mitigated by getting rid of three different kinds of desires. It's not as if these pains spontaneously come into being and cannot be solved.

Additionally, I do not think these kinds of pains are anywhere near as bad as, say, being stabbed in the heart. They may cause a person a bit of angst, anxiety, and some depression, but don't usually give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering. And the times that it does give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering (such as extreme anxiety, something I have experience with), there is medication and therapy that helps tremendously.

Is it even possible for a feeling creature not to suffer? — The Great Whatever

We could make an artificial intelligence that is wired so that it never thinks about the past or the future (thus never feeling existential angst), and program it with notifications instead of crude nociceptors.

For beings that exist right now, such as you and me, well, I'm not sure. Unless an experience machine is a valid option, then some kind of existential, psychological suffering (like you said, boredom or striving) is going to arise. It is inevitable, but we can learn to deal with it in various ways that allow us to live our lives in a sufficiently pleasant way.

Or, you could look at these pains like I do, and realize that they are self-caused — darthbarracuda

But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me.

Additionally, I do not think these kinds of pains are anywhere near as bad as, say, being stabbed in the heart. They may cause a person a bit of angst, anxiety, and some depression, but don't usually give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering. And the times that it does give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering (such as extreme anxiety, something I have experience with), there is medication and therapy that helps tremendously. — darthbarracuda

In principle I don't think any one kind of pain is worse than any other, but in practice I think you're right, extreme physical pain is almost always the worst kind. But there's still the question of whether life would be 'any good' even if we were just left with the less unbearable pains that ate away at us slowly.

But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me. — The Great Whatever

What I'm saying is that psychological pain (unless it is caused by a disorder or disease) is perpetuated by our choices and perspective. Regardless of your views on free will, you have to live under the illusion that you have control (the trash will not take itself out, for example). Psychological pain is a very real phenomenon, but ultimately it derives from the person, not the environment. This makes it different than physical pain caused by nociceptors, since we really don't have much control over that kind of pain, and which is caused by an external influence.

Psychological pain is a very real phenomenon, but ultimately it derives from the person, not the environment. — darthbarracuda

I don't see any reason to believe this. Sounds like New Age crap.

tgw, if your standard of argument is going to be a dismissive handwave, then I don't see any reason to continue to discussion.

Psychological pain is not like physical pain. Physical pain is like being cut, bruised, burned, or injured in any other way that results in nociceptors firing and the individual experiencing discomfort of varying degrees.

Psychological pain, especially the pain focused on by pessimistic and existential philosophers, is certainly influenced by the environment, but ultimately is perpetuated by the person.

Obviously a physical phenomenon of pain is not, currently, under the conscious control of the individual. I cannot control whether or not I feel pain after cutting my finger. But psychological pain (that is not sourced from a syndrome such as depression), that can be helped by the individual. Boredom is not an experience that manifests itself and continues to exist as if it were a parasite. Tanha does not stick around like a cut to the finger does. These mental phenomena are perpetuated by the individual, and it is the epitome of defeatism and laziness (or a symptom of mental illness such as depression) to say a person has no control over them.

Do you care to actually argue against this, or handwave it away?

I don't see any reason to believe this. Sounds like New Age crap. — The Great Whatever

You sure, man? I mean, you've never met someone who wallows in their own bullshit to the point of hurting themselves far beyond the original stimulus? I'm not saying that this applies to all psychological pain, but some of it, surely.

You sure, man? I mean, you've never met someone who wallows in their own bullshit to the point of hurting themselves far beyond the original stimulus? I'm not saying that this applies to all psychological pain, but some of it, surely. — Pneumenon

If personal disposition, mental illness, environment, and other contingent factors have something to do with how people are able to cope with psychological suffering, is it really as simple as it seems to get rid of it for some people? Also, if things are different for different people, some have to work harder than others to get rid of it. Sometimes, there are slight nuanced differences in different individuals (in their brain chemistry, social history) and in the situations that are occurring (not all situations that occur to individuals are apples to apples).. that it may be impossible to discern who has more or less reason to wallow than others. Or to put it differently, it may be impossible to discern who who has more or less ability to not wallow.

I really don't think the position that all psychological pain is self-inflicted deserves serious response. So no, I think a handwave is fine.

But then the question just goes back: why are they constituted such as to behave that way? Surely they didn't also choose that, that was not their fault? If you dig down to what you mean by 'self-infliction' of these pains, you will find you don't know what you're talking about.

If you dig down to what you mean by 'self-infliction' of these pains, you will find you don't know what you're talking about. — The Great Whatever

Well, yeah, if you're gonna deny free will, then there's no reason to think of anything as being self-inflicted. On the other hand, a "pull-yourself-together-you-sonofabitch" speech might cause a person to stop inflicting such pain on themselves.

(come to think of it, could free will be a useful delusion? I mean, believing that there's no free will might give me a means to rationalize away the fact that I'm wallowing, thus allowing me to wallow even more, even if I'm right)

Well, yeah, if you're gonna deny free will, then there's no reason to think of anything as being self-inflicted. On the other hand, a "pull-yourself-together-you-sonofabitch" speech might cause a person to stop inflicting such pain on themselves.

(come to think of it, could free will be a useful delusion? I mean, believing that there's no free will might give me a means to rationalize away the fact that I'm wallowing, thus allowing me to wallow even more, even if I'm right) — Pneumenon

A lot of time that is not how it works.. "Hey buddy, pull yourself up by the bootstrap and don't think about it..move on.. stop your complaining!" Ridiculous, cold, uncaring, not recognizing the actual pain being dealt with, and not recognizing the abilities for someone to overcome the situation. Instead it is more cold pragmatic logic. Now, there is a way of helping alleviate someone's suffering without being a haughty dick about it, but what you seem to be indicating just causes more of it. Ethics isn't being a Spartan or a caricature of a hardass football coach. Everyone's situation, psychological situation, and circumstances are different and highly contingent such that such an imperative would simply be ignorant excepting of one's own feeling that "one size fits all" is the way to handle psychological pain of any kind for any person.

Operative word in my second sentence: "might."

Operative word in my second sentence: "might." — Pneumenon

This seems to work on problems that perhaps little children have (losing a game, not getting a toy). It would be inappropriate in almost all adult circumstances. Though, I guess anyone can conjure an anecdote where it applied.

You might be surprised at how childish we adults can be.

I knew you were going to respond that way. Then you must have a lot of assumptions what "adults" might be. Very platonic- do you advocate such ideals? Eventually this runs into circular logic.. if we keep going down this line of reasoning for what adult means. Just saying "able to handle your shit" is way too vague for a philosophy forum, and I am sure you are aware, not appropriate for the nuances of life.

You have never met someone who had something bad happen to them, and was helped in their situation by being told to get over it?

Another thing that helps is real trouble. If you're busy being internally maudlin about someone breaking up with you two years ago, a few minutes of genuine headache can cure those ills immediately.

I'm not sure why you think I have assumptions about adults. You said,

This seems to work on problems that perhaps little children have (losing a game, not getting a toy). It would be inappropriate in almost all adult circumstances. — schopenhauer1

Evidently, you have some assumptions about adults, given your reference to "adult circumstances." You were the one that brought up adulthood, not me.

You have never met someone who had something bad happen to them, and was helped in their situation by being told to get over it? — Pneumenon

Not too many situations this easy.

Another thing that helps is real trouble. If you're busy being internally maudlin about someone breaking up with you two years ago, a few minutes of genuine headache can cure those ills immediately — Pneumenon

That is not making the other trouble go away. It is just a more immediate and debilitating pain. Just because one is not immediate and bodily, doesn't make it any less of an impact. We are not robots, nor am I sure that this is where we should be heading in our aims of how we deal with suffering. Not that you are saying this, but to tie this in to Stoicism, this is one thing I find troubling with it. Stoicism's attachment to virtue over compassion as a foundation for ethics makes life one series of events after another as if life is to be lived in grey.

Pessimists, at the least recognize the tragic and instead of imploring that we live in grey (which practically speaking doesn't work and theoretically speaking has aims towards a life of emotionless virtue which one might argue is MORE a dreary picture than the tragic-recognizing pessimist), they at least use an emotional base for dealing with suffering- mainly compassion.

Evidently, you have some assumptions about adults, given your reference to "adult circumstances." You were the one that brought up adulthood, not me. — Pneumenon

I was going to say that I doubt this approach would work very well on children either. The point is that treating adults in this manner (or anyone really), is not really recognizing the person's problems or empathizing.

That being said, I will grant you, under various circumstances, this may work, BUT to me, it is advice that is more for the advisor than that advisee. The advisor wants to stop the complaining and doesn't want to hear it. I suspect the advisee would simply stop complaining outwardly and suffer without any outward sign of it anymore.

Also, your example points out just how contingent some pain is. In terms of relationships, some people are asexual, thus eliminating the problem of romantic relationships altogether. Some people find someone they are compatible with relatively quickly and with little effort, some people struggle. Some people are naturally introverted and barely need to be with anyone, but would be in pain if surrounded by another person or other people to the extent that more extroverted people would be. Pain is not evenly distributed.

I really don't think the position that all psychological pain is self-inflicted deserves serious response. So no, I think a handwave is fine. — The Great Whatever

So, a strawman handwave to excuse your handwaving. Pardon me but do you actually have an argument here?

I mean, you've never met someone who wallows in their own bullshit to the point of hurting themselves far beyond the original stimulus? — Pneumenon

No, no, you got it all wrong, man. This is deep-shit philosophy; it's obviously apparent that there is a direct relationship between how profound and enlightening your philosophy is and the magnitude of your personal suffering!

Well, that explains the huge number of upper-middle-class kids at liberal arts colleges who think that "You're not oppressed" is a refutation of an argument...

The problem I see with this thread is that the offensive position advocates against Stoicism, remarking that it is foolish and deceptive, while simultaneously proselytizing pessimistic themes. If Stoicism did not solve these problems for Stoics, then they would not be Stoics, because why would they? It seems to me that pessimistic, existential problems (such as death, suffering, the strangle of time, boredom, anxiety, etc) is something that has to be solved by the person in their own way that suits them, and that manner cannot be criticized. Whether or not it works for anyone else, you can't expect that person to wallow in defeat simply because you are wallowing in defeat. You can't criticize someone for not feeling the feelings you do.