Exactly. The pessimist seems convinced that the rest of us are lying to ourselves because we don't agree that life is so awful. But that's a really poor argument to make. How can anyone else possibly tell me how I feel about life?

I think that the pessimist is right in that these problems do exist, but where they may go wrong is the magnitude and how terminal the problems are. I certainly do experience existential boredom on a daily basis. I see the Absurd every day, and it punches me in the gut sometimes. And, of course, I suffer and bear the burden of life, but sometimes the burden is lighter than other times.

Sure, the pessimist is right about those problems, but the big problem for their position is that a judgement is being made about the value of life, and that sort of thing is up to the individual. The only retort they can give is to deny that individuals are really being honest with themselves when they say that life is worth living to them.

That's a really weak argument to make. It's one thing to say that one's own life isn't worth living because of X,Y,Z. It's something completely different to say that therefore it isn't worth it to me. Because just maybe X,Y,Z doesn't make my life not worth living. Who is the pessimist to say otherwise? They can't determine life's value for me. That's ridiculous.

The pessimist is arguing that everyone is the same boat here living lives where they would have been better off not existing. But not everyone agrees with that. If a person finds their life worth living, then the pessimistic position simply doesn't apply to them, whether they're stoical about X,Y,Z or whatever. The point is that those problems aren't enough to make life not worth it to that individual.

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. — darthbarracuda

Sure it can be criticized -- if the problems in fact don't get solved where they claim to be. And let's be real, Stoicism has never solved any of these problems for anyone. Anyone espousing its virtues in this very thread can reflect on that honestly and see for themselves. 'Yes, but--' no, no buts, just be honest.

The pessimist is arguing that everyone is the same boat here living lives where they would have been better off not existing. But not everyone agrees with that. If a person finds their life worth living, then the pessimistic position simply doesn't apply to them, whether they're stoical about X,Y,Z or whatever. The point is that those problems aren't enough to make life not worth it to that individual. — Marchesk

It doesn't follow from:

I have the opinion that P

that

P.

A value judgement is being made. What else is it but an opinion? My life is worth living or my life is not, or it's a mix between the two. It's an opinion I form for myself. What else could it be? You think a logical argument can determine the value I give my own life? Absurd.

You can have an opinion about whatever you want, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right or even worth taking seriously. Your opinions do not have any magical powers or authority, and people's espoused beliefs most often have little or nothing to do with their lives, since the sphere of opinion is free to circulate without any grounding or credit whatsoever precisely for the reason that you say, that it permits itself ultimate authority regardless of any inconsistencies or possible evidence to the contrary.

If you dismiss argument, and declare whatever you happen to say at the moment to be the ultimate truth that nothing can overturn about some subject, then why are you arguing? Where is the absurdity now?

The thing is, opinions don't matter precisely because they can go whichever way despite any possible evidence to the contrary, nothing stops anyone from having any opinion at all, certainly no facts, no thought, no concern for any real problems. Yet life is a real problem, that has real issues; and so you see, life is not a matter of opinion, because it matters, while [your] opinion doesn't (as you admit, it literally makes no difference, and nothing makes a difference to it).

Because we're talking about how an individual values their life. Sure, the pessimist can point out the bad things about life, but what if the individual doesn't agree that those things overwhelm the good in life such that it would have been better to not be born? Then what? You're saying that this person is valuing their life incorrectly because they view the bad differently than the pessimistic position.

I can't see how you can be right for someone else here, unless you can show that their words don't match up with their psychological profile over time, or something like that. But that's not an easy task. You would have to monitor that individual on a regular basis, and somehow get accurate reports.

Maybe life isn't so bad for some. Maybe they don't feel like they suffer that much on the whole. The good outweighs the bad and all.

Then what? — Marchesk

Then nothing. Who cares if you agree or not? That means nothing. We are doing philosophy; we care about what is true, not who agrees with it.

I can't see how you can be right for someone else here — Marchesk

'Right for someone else?' In the way that the individual is 'right for themselves?' But then, why is there no mystery about how they can be 'right for themselves?' Or, as you seem to suggest, about how they cannot be 'wrong for themselves?' Wouldn't life be easy if your opinions carried this kind of omnipotence? Why not just opine that my life is great, and make it so? Why does anyone have problems at all?

Don't tell me how to live my life.

But seriously, what's more likely: that the Stoic is wrong in their assessment of their own life (and is somehow actually suffering profoundly from these problems), or you are either misunderstanding their position or blowing these problems out of proportion?

But seriously, what's more likely: that the Stoic is wrong in their assessment of their own life (and is somehow actually suffering profoundly from these problems), or you are either misunderstanding their position or blowing these problems out of proportion? — darthbarracuda

I'm not telling you how to do anything. I'm simply informing you of something that would be true, whether I informed you of it or not: that you will continue to suffer, and that Stoicism will not help you with that problem. Stoicism does not, cannot, in fact stop you from suffering, and its impotence will be apparent in your actual suffering regardless of how hard you opine that you are not suffering.

Then this shows that you fundamentally misunderstand what Stoicism is all about.

Then nothing. Who cares if you agree or not? That means nothing. We are doing philosophy; we care about what is true, not who agrees with it. — The Great Whatever

So you think there is an objective, universal truth to be had here? That's very odd for someone who values the Cyrenaics.

Why not just opine that my life is great, and make it so? Why does anyone have problems at all? — The Great Whatever

I never claimed that anyone could do that. I have said that whether one finds life worth living or not is a feeling. If I consistently feel that life is worth living, then it is for me. That's my opinion on life based on how I feel about it. Or it could be more complicated than that, where it sometimes feels worth it, but sometimes not. In that case, I don't know what the truth is, if there is such a thing.

So you think there is an objective, universal truth to be had here? That's very odd for someone who values the Cyrenaics. — Marchesk

I am saying that opinions are impotent. If they were omnipotent, as you say, then I could simply have the opinion that my life was perfect, an that would make it so. Yet life has real problems. Does your opinion about whether you are suffering control whether you are Clearly not. And clearly your position that it does is bizarre.

I have said that whether one finds life worth living or not is a feeling. — Marchesk

And what kind of feeling is that? Is it sweet or sour? No. It is as has been stressed here, a value judgment, not a feeling. And those judgments, what are they worth? Are they going to save you, from anything?

Or it could be more complicated than that, where it sometimes feels worth it, but sometimes not. In that case, I don't know what the truth is, if there is such a thing in this case. — Marchesk

Shouldn't it worry you that precisely where the issues matter most, your ability to think about them is the most facile? The solution is to invent a magical realm within your head where your opinions control reality, and everything you say or think is beyond criticism? But then, why do philosophy at all? Isn't that just a solipsistic game? It would only work for someone whose life already has no problems.

I am saying that opinions are impotent. If they were omnipotent, as you say, then I could simply have the opinion that my life was perfect, an that would make it so. Yet life has real problems. Does your opinion about whether you are suffering control whether you are Clearly not. And clearly your position that it does is bizarre. — The Great Whatever

Fortunately, I never made such an argument. Yeah, life has real problems. We suffer at times. Okay. The question is, does that make life not worth living? The pessimist says yes, but other people disagree. So what makes the pessimist right? Maybe I disagree that problems and suffering necessarily make life not worth living. Who are you to say otherwise for me?

Fortunately, I never made such an argument. Yeah, life has real problems. We suffer at times. Okay. The question is, does that make life not worth living? The pessimist says yes, but other people disagree. So what makes the pessimist right. Maybe I disagree that problems and suffering necessarily make life not worth living. Who are you to say otherwise for me? — Marchesk

Why are you under the impression that whether you disagree with something has anything to do with whether it's true? Notice that the following is an invalid inference:

I disagree with P.

Therefore, not P.

Yet, that seems to be the pattern you are invoking. If not, then what? How does bringing up your disagreement matter in any way?

And what kind of feeling is that? Is it sweet or sour? — The Great Whatever

Feeling good, interested, motivated, like life has a purpose, looking forward to things, enjoying other people, etc. It could include joy, flow, intense interest, or just feeling like things are going well.

Of course they don't always go well, so then it's a question of do they go wrong enough to spoil the good feeling about life? Does it become hopeless? Burdensome? Depressing? Then it stops feeling like it's worth it.

Why are you under the impression that whether you disagree with something has anything to do with whether it's true? Notice that the following is an invalid inference: — The Great Whatever

Because you're arguing about the subjective state of other people. You're claiming that life can't be worth living to them, even though they disagree with you.

Because you're arguing about the subjective state of other people. You're claiming that life can't be worth living to them, even though they disagree with you. — Marchesk

Again, what does it matter if they disagree? Notice that the above pattern of inference, which you continue to invoke, is invalid.

Feeling good, interested, motivated, like life has a purpose, looking forward to things, enjoying other people, etc. It could include joy, flow, intense interest, or just feeling like things are going well.

Of course they don't always go well, so then it's a question of do they go wrong enough to spoil the good feeling about life? Does it become hopeless? Burdensome? Depressing? Then it stops feeling like it's worth it. — Marchesk

I maintain that there is no feeling of 'life being worth living.' That's something you can say, but not feel.

Shouldn't it worry you that precisely where the issues matter most, your ability to think about them is the most facile? The solution is to invent a magical realm within your head where your opinions control reality, and everything you say or think is beyond criticism? — The Great Whatever

But I don't need to do that to feel like life is worth living. That stems from how I feel, which admittedly I don't always feel good about life, and I can't say for sure on the whole if it's worth it to me, but sometimes it certainly is. I would say based on observation that some people would feel that their lives were worth it overall, despite whatever rough patches they went through.

I maintain that there is no feeling of 'life being worth living.' That's something you can say, but not feel. — The Great Whatever

Is that like saying that there is no feeling of being in love, but just something you say?

Anyway, I do feel it and I say it to myself when I do. And sometimes I feel the opposite.

Stoicism has never solved any of these problems [death, suffering, the strangle of time, boredom, anxiety, etc.] for anyone. — The Great Whatever

It has resolved such problems, at least temporarily, and it has helped some people to cope with them when they do arise and become problematic. You'd have to refute strong evidence to the contrary in order to refute this point, namely people's own experience. I myself, and no doubt countless others, have personally experienced such existential issues, and have personally experienced the negative affects that they can have on us, as well as having experienced these negative affects diminishing, and arising less frequently, over a period of time. The latter is attributable, in part, to conformity with Stoicism. I have applied it, and it has been successful to an extent, and continues to be so.

It's highly unlikely (and rather preposterous to claim) that all these people, myself included, are deluded in that respect, and are merely experiencing illusion. Yet, even if that were so, it'd be a placebo which successfully treats the problem nonetheless! So, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Anyone espousing its virtues in this very thread can reflect on that honestly and see for themselves. 'Yes, but--' no, no buts, just be honest. — The Great Whatever

Honesty, these sort of remarks are a waste of time and ought to be beneath you. It's charitable to assume that we, your interlocutors, have already honestly reflected the subject matter, and yet have nonetheless arrived at a different conclusion to yours. If we've done so erroneously, then it's not good enough to simply implore us to see for ourselves, because, as we see it, you're mistaken.

It's highly unlikely (and rather preposterous to claim) that all these people, myself included, are deluded in that respect, and are merely experiencing illusion. — Sapientia

Disagreement is pretentious? (Sorry, I read that wrong, I meant 'preposterous'). I don't know, thinking that it's preposterous that you could be wrong is itself preposterous.

You'd have to refute strong evidence to the contrary in order to refute this point, namely people's own experience. — Sapientia

I am denying that you have experiences of Stoicism solving life's problems because as a matter of fact it doesn't, regardless of what you claim.

I had a headache last night. I took some ibuprofen and went to bed. And hour later the headache was gone. Are you going to tell me that the ibuprofen did not work because it's simply "masking the pain" and "deep down" I still feel the headache? Bullshit.

Ibuprofen is precisely what Stoicism can't give you.

And maybe that's why I don't subscribe to Stoicism. But I don't criticize people who are Stoics, because for them, it might work just fine. Buddhism works better than Stoicism for me, and certainly far better than sitting around bitching about everything.

But I don't criticize people who are Stoics, because for them, it might work just fine. — darthbarracuda

Does it, though? Ibuprofen works, certainly. Stoicism?

Have you tried it? Honestly?

You're beating around the bush here. What specific part of Stoicism do you find does not work to solve these problems? Can you explain why Stoicism is not the answer to these problems? Can you even identify these problems to begin with? And can you identify the problems that Stoicism is even concerned with so that you make sure you aren't constructing a straw man?

If you can't answer these questions without appealing to vagueness or attacks on the personal, subjective feelings of others, kindly step off the stage.