And when I brought up the likelihood of those millions of people being deluded in that respect, given evidence to the contrary, he mistakenly took that to be the fallacy of appealing to the masses. Of course, masses of people have turned out to be deluded in various respects throughout history, but we can still make a reasonable assessment given various factors: the content of the belief, the number of people that beleive it and the basis for their belief, the available evidence... — Sapientia

In this specific case, an appeal to the masses is actually a logical argument, because if Stoicism didn't work, nobody would have followed it. It's why using the same appeal for a suicide cult doesn't work at all...since they're all dead.

And Stoicism wasn't a religion, either, so it's not like they were deluded or anything. It was exactly meant for dealing with suffering, and people decided to go with it if it worked for them.

Yes, the point about it actually working is important, because even if Stoics are deluded in some of their Stoic beliefs, it nonetheless achieves what it's supposed to. To reiterate what I said earlier, it'd be a placebo which nonetheless successfully treats the illness.

My problem with stoicism I guess, isn't necessarily whether it helps people (whether by delusion, habituation, or otherwise), but that pain is elusive in ways that stoicism doesn't necessarily solve.

If we look at a phenomenology of pain, we see that it can go from things such as mild episodes of annoyance to extreme torture. (Let's avoid the extreme torture for now, because most don't get to that level.) But, you stated that a thing's necessity can be given up easily. I don't think that is necessarily true. For example, If someone values human communication, a cell phone is a powerful tool. Further, If that person is naturally an extrovert (which I believe to be the case with many people), losing a cell phone is painful (especially if they are habituated to using one- a silly rich man's toy in the 80s and 90). it simply has become a vital communication device for them (as with many others). I've seen the sheer terror of the thought of losing the cell phone for some people and it can be comically overblown. The reaction could have been one of being calm, cool, and collected (stoic-like) and say to themselves, "it is just a phone, I will get another one.. who needs cell phones anyways.. hey I could be dying on my deathbed or living in poverty..". But it just doesn't seem like most people, even in cognitive behavioral therapy, would be inclined to have this reaction to such a thing. At best, a person might lose it so they can write a sentimental New York Times piece about how they went without a cell phone for a week or month or year.. but even that was a novelty done by an author for rhetorical purposes.

Now you may scoff at me, and I'm sure about three our four people in this thread might do so and pile on the scorn that I didn't use examples of "real" pain.. but that is why I used the cell phone example. It is very much in the world of billions of people, and it very much happens all the time. No "comparisons" to starving third-world persons in Africa are going to negate the immediate phenomenology of the cell phone example. Yes, time will eventually abate the sense of loss of connection, as one looks at it with more equanimity, but that doesn't take any stoic grand value.. First one is pained by the loss and over time it gets less as the loss settles in. What really will happen is a series of annoying events that follows.. switching phones, paying for a new one, regretting one didn't get insurance if they didn't for the phone in the first place, making decisions about cell phone plans, etc. Of course, if you really wanted to be a cynic you can say, "oh those aren't "real" problems" but the annoyances will be there nonetheless." And even more, you can go further and say, "You shouldn't rely on the cell phone in the first place.. why not just go without it" which then cuts off this person's source of communication that almost everyone in his surrounding has access to.

Now, we can imagine the person cut of from cell service, and internet, and tv (like many homeless and third-worlders are used to), but then this seems to not really be something that billions of people (or millions of people) for that matter would rather do. Of course, Schopenhauer would say that is exactly the kind of thing that needs to happen (go without any desires for worldly things-even food if necessary to abate the will), but I never said his path would be more accessible (he never followed it himself!).

All this comes down to the idea that the phenomenology of certain pains- even minor annoyances are just not EASILY amenable to stoicism and some are possibly. Perhaps a personality disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, etc. things that are long-term and ingrained habitual thinking can be decreased (whether by self-delusion, habituation, or otherwise), but oddly enough, on many "pains" great and small, I honestly don't think "stoicism" really works.

And another point I would like to make is that we are all here from romantic desire, lust, or at the least a desire for preference of kids which in itself embodies the "craving" Schopenhauer said was inevitable. These sort of things (love, lust, relationships) are what literally make the world go round, and does cause much harm. However, it cannot be avoided- it is in our nature to be social and social pain will thus ensue. We are not robots, no matter how much the aim of the stoic sage would be that we are so. By nature, indifference is impossible as that is not the normal course of our species if it needs to survive. Survival, at its root has desires that is entailed with it to ensure the continuation of the species. These desires themselves, at their root are a cause of great pain. Whether in hindsight, one has mental techniques, visualizations, and ideologies that try to mitigate the pain, does not make the fact that it is there in the first place go away. It is continual and ceaseless.

This also goes into another thing of temperament, predispositions, and environments. Though I do believe we have many necessary pains entailed within being a social animal, there is contingent factors in people's life-courses that might make them more or less amenable to pain of various sorts. Not all "treatments" for pain are going to work the same on everyone and what might work for one might not work on another person. It depends on the nature of the pain, the person's constitution, environment, etc. To say that someone can simply logic their way out of pain, is probably not going to happen for many people. For some, this may be the "magic bullet" for their woes, for others, it is as healing as a band aid to a gunshot wound.

I have said my piece on stoicism and its effectiveness or ineffectiveness in relation to suffering and pain.

My problem with stoicism I guess, isn't necessarily whether it helps people (whether by delusion, habituation, or otherwise), but that pain is elusive in ways that stoicism doesn't necessarily solve. — schopenhauer1

Schop, I'm not sure if Stoicism ever claimed to be able to solve these problems. This might be an issue of individuals claiming they've found loopholes. As far as I'm aware, Stoicism is about nurturing the virtuous life, not necessarily mitigating suffering. It just happens that it does it fairly well for many people.

Stoicism isn't going to stop a branch from falling and breaking your leg, for example. But it can help with how you deal with the situation, and oftentimes how you deal with a situation directly influences how much you actually suffer (runaway emotions like despair).

the scorn that I didn't use examples of "real" pain — schopenhauer1

Losing your phone is a good example of pain. Pain caused by loss. Buddhism happens to also have a lot to say on this (attachments).

What really will happen is a series of annoying events that follows.. — schopenhauer1

Personally, I'm under the impression that life itself is usually a big annoyance. That's the whole point of philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism and the like.

he never followed it himself! — schopenhauer1

This is the biggest turn-off for me for Schopenhauer. I respect his philosophy and agree with many of the things he wrote, but man was he a dick and antithetical to the "compassionate ascetic" he championed. It made me look for more inspiring and "role model" philosophers like Camus and the Buddha.

I honestly don't think "stoicism" really works. — schopenhauer1

I'm still kind of having a hard time understanding "why" exactly you don't think Stoicism works.

Whether in hindsight, one has mental techniques, visualizations, and ideologies that try to mitigate the pain, does not make the fact that it is there in the first place go away. It is continual and ceaseless. — schopenhauer1

I agree with you here. No need to reproduce.

This also goes into another thing of temperament, predispositions, and environments. — schopenhauer1

These are always in change. Don't trick yourself into thinking that your temperament (whatever that may be) will always be that way or has to be that way.

Not all "treatments" for pain are going to work the same on everyone and what might work for one might not work on another person. — schopenhauer1

I think you pretty much just summed up the entire thread, then. /thread?

Schop, I'm not sure if Stoicism ever claimed to be able to solve these problems. This might be an issue of individuals claiming they've found loopholes. As far as I'm aware, Stoicism is about nurturing the virtuous life, not necessarily mitigating suffering. It just happens that it does it fairly well for many people. — darthbarracuda

The point of the thread is whether stoicism is effective in doing so and many people claimed that it does. I have problems with the idea of "nurturing the virtuous life" as well, and explained it earlier in talking about virtue over compassion.

Losing your phone is a good example of pain. Pain caused by loss. Buddhism happens to also have a lot to say on this (attachments).

What really will happen is a series of annoying events that follows..
— schopenhauer1

Personally, I'm under the impression that life itself is usually a big annoyance. That's the whole point of philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism and the like. — darthbarracuda

But if you read my post again, you see that I am claiming that, even in these small annoyances, it really doesn't "work". The pain is still there and people by and large don't use stoicism to handle the situations. As stated in last thread, stoicism, as far as dealing with long-term things (death, anxiety) may be helpful and more or less effective depending on individuals, but the point of the cell phone, is to show that its impotence can be seen in as small an annoyance as that.

You also point out life itself being an annoyance. This is much of the pessimist's point. The fact that we have to try to use things like stoicism to deal with it, is itself something to consider.

This is the biggest turn-off for me for Schopenhauer. I respect his philosophy and agree with many of the things he wrote, but man was he a dick and antithetical to the "compassionate ascetic" he championed. It made me look for more inspiring and "role model" philosophers like Camus and the Buddha. — darthbarracuda

Actually, one can argue that despite being a dick himself, the fact that he wrote about compassion and asceticism is quite interesting. I think he was well-aware that he was not either compassionate or ascetic, but that this was ultimately sources of undercutting the Will. Just as stoicism, the way to get to a denial of will, is not meant to be easy. The Will doesn't frankly give a shit, and the way out is simply how well we can persevere against its demands.

@schopenhauer1

It seems to me that you are trying to judge stoicism by the criteria that whatever is painful is bad, and whatever is pleasurable is good. But stoicism doesn't operate by this criteria. Its practitioners do not try to avoid what is painful. Many times they actually go towards the painful as opposed to the pleasurable. Instead, stoicism guides itself by the criteria of what is virtuous. For a stoic, peace of mind is attained by the pursuit of virtue, which is the only thing which is under one's control. As such, a stoic "prides" him/herself over their character, as opposed to their outward circumstances, which they recognise to be contingent.

For the stoic, suffering is not equivalent with pain. Instead, suffering is the absence of virtue, which manifests itself in multiple forms. In the example with losing the phone that you gave, it manifests itself as self-blame, continued, out of control thinking about the phone, what if scenarios, etc. However, stoic practice leads one to the elimination of suffering. The stoic sage, much like a sports champion, is not hurt by obstacles, but rather profited. When an obstacle comes their way, they are happy, because there's yet another chance to overcome an obstacle. They are indifferent to pain; they do not care if it's painful or not to overcome the obstacle. The joy of the stoic lies in their character - in being able to pursue overcoming the obstacle that lies in their path - in their degree of self-control. As Epictetus said, death (or defeat) may be unavoidable, but it's certainly avoidable not to go out crying and begging like a slave, but instead keep your head up like an emperor.

As such, your claim that Stoicism doesn't prevent pain is besides the point. It never sought to. It sought to transform your experience of pain into something positive.

For the stoic, suffering is not equivalent with pain. Instead, suffering is the absence of virtue, which manifests itself in multiple forms. In the example with losing the phone that you gave, it manifests itself as self-blame, continued, out of control thinking about the phone, what if scenarios, etc. However, stoic practice leads one to the elimination of suffering. The stoic sage, much like a sports champion, is not hurt by obstacles, but rather profited. When an obstacle comes their way, they are happy, because there's yet another chance to overcome an obstacle. They are indifferent to pain; they do not care if it's painful or not to overcome the obstacle. The joy of the stoic lies in their character - in being able to pursue overcoming the obstacle that lies in their path - in their degree of self-control. As Epictetus said, death (or defeat) may be unavoidable, but it's certainly avoidable not to go out crying and begging like a slave, but instead keep your head up like an emperor. — Agustino

I just don't think people will think like that. People will not be happy with the inconvenience or annoyance. And as your statements suggest, much of stoicism seems to be about outward appearances. If you look calm, you at least seem unphased, and are given more respect. In a citizen-army society, this attitude of looking the part makes sense, especially if you may expect to be a warrior and face death. I just don't think people are naturally inclined to think that overcoming obstacles is great or desirable- it is simply something one does after the fact because one is forced into it.

Also, if suffering is a lack of virtue, why is this so? There seems to be something more underlying that which is to say, another definition of suffering for which it is supposed to be diminishing. It seems to me virtue has a problem of assuming that people lock into some sort of virtue-robotic mode once they have "cultivated" enough of it to be a Great Man. I haven't seen any supermen lately- just usual humans doing things that they like doing because it feels good, they like doing it, or some sort of emotional impulse drives them to it (boredom, curiosity, compassion, etc.).

I just don't think people will think like that. People will not be happy with the inconvenience or annoyance. — schopenhauer1

I think it's more about being in a better state than one is currently in right now. Stoicism may not make you Captain Optimism, but it might just make you a bit less grim.

I think it's more about being in a better state than one is currently in right now. Stoicism may not make you Captain Optimism, but it might just make you a bit less grim. — darthbarracuda

If it works, fine. I just don't think it really solves anything except not complaining too much.
It also seems quite convenient that these so-called "virtues" are EXACTLY what society needs to keep going. Funny, how the inbuilt logic of it sustains the system as it is, and just "deal with it". Pessimists, look at the system (life that is) and rebel altogether.

I think that "find a way to adapt to it" is a healthier outlook than "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!"

I just don't think people will think like that. — schopenhauer1

Evidently not everyone does. But at least some people do.

If you look calm, you at least seem unphased, and are given more respect. — schopenhauer1

Well only looking calm isn't something commendable according to the Stoics. You'd have to actually be calm, something that only you can see within yourself.

I just don't think people are naturally inclined to think that overcoming obstacles is great or desirable- it is simply something one does after the fact because one is forced into it. — schopenhauer1

You are probably right about most people. So what? Does it follow that people should do only what they are naturally inclined to do? Stoicism isn't meant to be easy. It's very very difficult, but then, everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare.

It's very very difficult, but then, everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare. — Agustino

But that is where the pessimist would have hesitation with life's premise. Overcome shit, or live a less than "good" life. Not that I believe that slogan, but apparently some stoics do.

except not complaining too much. — schopenhauer1

Which actually does quite a bit, to be honest. To complain to the actualize your discomfort and spread it to others like a plague.

Which actually does quite a bit, to be honest. To complain to the actualize your discomfort and spread it to others like a plague. — darthbarracuda

Then you better not keep writing about pessimism and go to other topics. I'm fine with it though :). Also, darth, though you are trying to make a larger point.. This kind of shit is what makes me think you troll for these kind of all out ad hominems. I think TGW was dragged into it, and I can see how you are trying to do it with me. Style matters here too in these kind of dialogues if you don't want it to crash like has been doing.

But that is where the pessimist would have hesitation with life's premise. Overcome shit, or live a less than "good" life. Not that I believe that slogan, but apparently some stoics do. — schopenhauer1

It's very strange because it is certainly not possible to have any alternative in non-existence. The fact of existence forces you to cope with it. If you don't, you will suffer, and then you will cease to exist. If you do, and do so well, then you will profit temporarily while alive. Are you mad that you are forced to make this choice? Well not being forced simply isn't in the cards. Why be upset about it? Birth may be an insult, but take it gracefully and make the best of it

I just don't think there really is "make the best of it" in the fashion that stoicism proclaims. I think pessimism has a better handle on the situation and we do make best of it, no matter what system. If following a certain philosophy is what you want to do because it makes you happier, that is fine. People play sports cause it makes them happy, people watch tv cause it makes them happy, people do all sorts of things.

If birth is an insult, I think that should be pursued further. Communities of understanding of our situation would look at the realities and not replace it with ideals of virtue cultivating which is simply circular logic in that we pursue virtue to pursue virtue. That is almost as bad as the hedonic treadmill for hedonism.

Well, there's a difference between discussing pessimism and breeding pessimism. Neither or us seem to be doing the latter so I think we're okay.

I think pessimism has a better handle on the situation and we do make best of it, no matter what system. — schopenhauer1

I disagree. It is not whatever system because whoever for example is saddened and affected by events/circumstances outside of their control is doing something that is absolutely irrational. Why? Because there is no reason to be sad, as it changes nothing. So clearly there are better and worse ways to cope with the facts of existence, which may be the one's of the pessimist.

I'm also shocked at how many handwaves are being done regarding Stoicism. I don't know too much about Stoicism myself, I admit, but from the people who proclaim they do, they aren't really providing many sources. Both sides here.

Are pessimists just lazy? Laying hold of things takes effort, but it's more fun than wallowing.

Certainly a better response than wallowing my friend :p

Are pessimists just lazy? Laying hold of things takes effort, but it's more fun than wallowing. — Pneumenon

No they are just willing to state what they see.

I'm not trolling. It just seems as if pessimism is really convenient for people who want to do nothing, even if that's not always the motivation.

I'm not trolling. It just seems as if pessimism is really convenient for people who want to do nothing, even if that's not always the motivation. — Pneumenon

What is the motivation to "do something"? The assumption is....

No they are just willing to state what they see. — schopenhauer1

Yeah so you can say "it would be better never to be born" and then adopt a stoic attitude. I see nothing inconceivable about that. It would be better never to be born. But that is impossible. Hence next best thing is to be a stoic...

What is the motivation to "do something"? — schopenhauer1

Having the energy. :)

Having the energy is also highly dependent on your beliefs. If you believe you can, you generally have the energy. But you have to push yourself every single time. Your will must grow and grow and grow.

What is the motivation to "do something"? — schopenhauer1

Presumably this would be because one desires an outcome that would only happen if one does something. These desires are more important than the potential suffering that may come about with it.

Presumably this would be because one desires an outcome that would only happen if one does something. These desires are more important than the potential suffering that may come about with it. — darthbarracuda

Fact is, desires, in and of themselves, do not care about the suffering involved. Say I love and desire a woman: I do not care about the suffering involved in conquering her heart. Only in light of other considerations (other desires) do I care about the suffering involved. The Stoic therapy of desires involves both a limitation of desire so that no desire is pursued at the detriment of others (and no morally wrong desires exist), and a way of pursuing desire realistically, relentlessly and with confidence.