What I aim at is a better understanding why I am not happy with my own progress, which I won't ask others to diagnose; but, perhaps see if what I am saying might be true — Shawn

You don't want to care, but not only do you care, you care that you care. You see the problem, right? You can't want to not care, else you care about not caring and your goal was to not care at all. But alas, you can't embark on the mission to not care unless you care about not caring.

Your problem is that you care. Until you don't care about not caring you can't fix that, but wanting to fix it is part of your problem because it shows you care.

It's a hopeless circle, so you must give up hope to cure your hopelessness because hope is a symptom of caring

Give up hope so that you won't be hopeless? How could that make sense? You must not care that you don't care if you don't want to care. but you can't not care if you care to eliminate your caring.

I don't know. Maybe you're stuck living among the living, forced to face each day with joy or sorrow, dealing with the emotions of being human. Take comfort in the fact that that sounds infinitely better than what you were seeking.

Since you must care, embrace it and realize those pangs of caring are unavoidable. That is, acceptance of your feelings seems more realistic than trying to quash them.

Thanks for backing me up here; but, my intent was to point at the secondary effect — Shawn

What is the first effect? And you’re welcome, even though my intent wasn’t as honorable as a white knight’s.

Aren't you alluding instead to "desire"? I mean, it's written on the wall that everyone desires, right? Aristotle with his virtue ethics actually described how a man should feel his, and about, his emotions, in some sense of saying so.

What is the first effect? And you’re welcome, even though my intent wasn’t as honorable as a white knight’s. — praxis

The first effect is the attitude of dropping one's concern over controlling things out of one's control. If it hasn't been pointed out, that requires quite a lot of processing power on your brain. Eventually, one would be able to emote this attitude as apatheia or a passionless state.

Assuming what I'm saying is true, a person has his or her emotions to deal with, which arise sometimes due to events or are internally hard to regulate.

Talking about the term "regulate", the body has its own way of doing that called, homeostasis. To maintain homeostasis in terms of one's psychology is something everyone wants; but, there's no clear way of doing it. Buddhists think that desire is the root of evil for an individual.

Just my two cents.

Buddhists think that desire is the root of evil for an individual. — Shawn

The usual way of saying that is: Buddhists believe that ignorance is the cause of suffering.

The first effect is the attitude of dropping one's concern over controlling things out of one's control. If it hasn't been pointed out, that requires quite a lot of processing power on your brain. Eventually, one would be able to emote this attitude as apatheia or a passionless state. — Shawn

It's not much different to the practice of CBT strategies which was influenced by Stoicism. It isn't that hard to change mental habits. We see people doing it using CBT in large numbers all around the world.

I encountered RET (the precursor to CBT) when I was a young teen and taught myself some habits that have made life a lot easier. But I was always fairly detached, so it wasn't such a huge leap for me.

What is it that you desire or crave that you can't have and that makes you unhappy? The only thing I ever wanted was a better memory. Luxury seems dull to me, besides the average Westerner already lives in luxury, with running water, a bed, heating, good food.

Personally, my issue with Stoicism is that 'when it fails', there's not a way to reason yourself back to it. It's a mental state. I think the tenets (moderation etc..) are laudable, but they are states of mind rather than goals that can be effectively aimed at, I don't think.
It can take years of practice to alter ones habitual responses to life's foibles. That said, I'm something of a stoic myself. Heuehuehu.

Indifference doesn't seem to me apt. Acceptance seems more reasonable. Indifference still amounts to some form of ignorance in the face of most challenges. Dispassionately attacked the problem seems a bit more apt, and I can't rightly call that indifference. My habits are mainly around creating psychological buffer zones. Nought else seems apt for this task.

To some extent, yes: Aristotle thought that we should not just eradicate the passions but, rather, cultivate them towards what is good. That isn't a real thing in Stoicism.

Stoicism wasn't something that required effort. Stoicism, to me at least, was just the natural state of somebody's mind when they have lived a life of hardship. It isn't that they tried to restrict their emotions, it is just that they have seen worse.

Having said the above, one does envy the life of the ancient stoics, to a degree. They were not preoccupied with the social life of the modern era. Instead, they met, drank, had discussions on the events of the senate, were consulted with since everyone in Rome was in one way or another affected by the Greek philosophers. I don't know what more to say, am I moping here? Maybe I should resign myself to feeling inadequate in terms of my coping strategies. — Shawn

There is, indeed, a big difference between the ancient times and today when it comes to the bombardment of our life with social media. So, you try to cope using the means that are fitting for today.
For example, there is no more "vanishing" to a remote, uninhabited island (unless it's a tv show). Even if you isolate yourself, if you have a computer, a phone, or tv, then you're bombarded.
The key is mind over matter. A lot of what you see online are fake. Misinformation. Exaggeration.

What has been your experience with stoicism, or what do you think is the issue here? — Shawn

Back then, stoicism was mostly a matter of the upper class. Being part of the upper class is a whole other category of existing, with quite different challenges and goals in life in comparison to being lower class.

Ancient societies were systemically classist and openly so. While nowadays, we live in socioeconomic systems of merely nominally equity and equality before the law and state. This brings along a lot of problems that people, especially upper class people, simply didn't have, while lower class people are left to the mercy of them.

As far as I can reconstruct, the ancient Stoics actually had enormous pride. It seems to me they were haughty and contemptuous. These are personal characteristics that make life a lot easier, especially when in combination with at least a solid socio-economic status.


In summary, if nowadays, you wouldn't take life advice from an upper class person, chances are you shouldn't take it from the Stoics either. Because it simply won't be applicable in your life.

There is, indeed, a big difference between the ancient times and today when it comes to the bombardment of our life with social media. — L'éléphant

I don't think this is a relevant difference at all. What is different is that the range of socially acceptable means of responding to this "bombardment" is dismally small. People aren't supposed to spit at others, throw shoes at them, not even call them names. (Unless they are rich and powerrful, of course.)

At the same time, the level of political discourse, as well ad general interpersonal discourse, is dismally low and shallow.

At the same time, the level of political discourse, as well ad general interpersonal discourse, is dismally low and shallow. — baker

True.