"Where's the 'ignore' button?" Every other forum I visit has an ignore button that allows me to tune out certain "people"... it makes it really easy to concentrate.

I like the model of Socrates that Plato presents to us. The guy just didn't get angry or argumentative.

I've had a few decent conversations with people on this forum...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/648/systems-vs-existentialism#Item_31

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/406/is-your-interest-in-philosophy-having-an-effect-on-how-you-live-your-life#Item_56

I posted something.. and then thought better of it....

Let me just point out that consistency/reason/rationality requires that you judge your own belief system (and its followers) by the same standards with which you judge others.

They are attractive, but they are very individualistic. They're not communal the way religions are communal. Religions involve a religious community of believers who share the faith together and agree to live by certain common principles and ideals.

I've given evidence that the modern Stoics do have communal practices... and Stoicism itself is concerned with the well-being of all men to such an extent that they call all men their brothers.
Check out one of the disciplines of Stoicism... known as the Discipline of Action that states that all actions are meant to be performed for the good of all mankind.

benevolently wishing all of mankind to flourish and achieve “happiness” (eudaimonia) the goal of life, while accepting that this is ultimately beyond any individual’s direct control. It’s tempting to see this discipline as particularly associated with the cardinal virtue of “justice”, which the Stoics defined as including both fairness to others and benevolence. Hadot calls this discipline “action in the service of mankind”, because it involves extending the same natural affection or care that we are born feeling for our own body and physical wellbeing to include the physical and mental wellbeing of all mankind, through a process known as “appropriation” (oikeiosis) or widening the circle of our natural “self-love” to include all mankind. I’ve described this as “Stoic Philanthropy”, or love of mankind, a term they employed themselves.

You use the term individualistic like it's a problem. But, I don't see the problem. I'm not sure I agree that communal forms of relationships are for everyone, or that everyone MUST be involved with some community. I don't know what would be wrong with someone who cared about humanity (someone who considers himself to be a follower/disciple of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, etc.) but who also found it more comfortable to be around people less than others around him. Many people describe themselves as introverts who rebuild their reserves of energy by being alone. I don't see any problem with that.

Let me ask you a couple of questions....
If you were shown evidence that Christians engage in premarital sex (and abortions, by the way) on a regular basis, would that evidence be enough to make you give up on Christianity as a religion?

What I'm trying to tell you is that there isn't unity.... There are very large divergences in beliefs upon key issues. — Agustino

If you were shown evidence that Christianity is a religion with very little unity, and very large divergences in beliefs upon key issues... would that evidence be enough to make you give up on Christianity as a religion?

Are you merely asserting that you know that modern Stoics don't care about what the ancient Stoics texts say? That has not been my experience. My experience has been that modern Stoics encourage each other to read and meditate on the ancient Stoic texts.

It has also been my experience that The most important thing for Stoics is morality. Edit: and yes, that includes sexual morality.

The Stoics had a lot to say about sex and lust.. for instance..

Actually, the Stoic texts we have make it very clear that the Ancient Stoics did believe in God. I challenge anyone to find me even one Stoic in the ancient world who was an atheist...

However, it is also the case that a majority of people interested in Stoicism today are atheists... and most of them acknowledge that the Ancient Stoics were believers.. most modern Stoics just think the Ancient Stoics were wrong about the question of God's existence. — anonymous66

Precisely the problem I was talking about. Also most of today's Stoics would disagree with the Ancient Stoics on, for example, sexual morality.

I've been involved with Stoicism for a little over a year. At it's core, Stoicism is the belief that Morality is The most important thing. Stoics believe that they are merely people who are on a path toward moral perfection. They are people who believe that Virtue is Necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia (flourishing as a human).

One of the most influential people in the Modern Stoicism Movement is Massimo Pigluicci. He has a blog called howtobeastoic.
He also writes a Stoic advice column. Here is his take on Infidelity... (Spoiler alert.. he's against it).

Actually, the Stoic texts we have make it very clear that the Ancient Stoics did believe in God. I challenge anyone to find me even one Stoic in the ancient world who was an atheist...

However, it is also the case that a majority of people interested in Stoicism today are atheists... and most of them acknowledge that the Ancient Stoics were believers.. most modern Stoics just think the Ancient Stoics were wrong when it comes to question about God's existence.

It doesn't tell you whether there's a God or not (there are both Stoic atheists and Stoic believers),

You mean like Christianity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml
It also has atheists and believers.

Deism looks pretty attractive. Stoicism looks pretty attractive. Revealed religions? Not so much. — anonymous66

They are attractive, but they are very individualistic. They're not communal the way religions are communal.

Really? I encountered Deists in the UU church I attended. And, ever heard of Stoicon? I went last year, I'll probably go again this year. There is a thriving community of Stoics online. I suspect the same is true of Deism.

Religions involve a religious community of believers who share the faith together and agree to live by certain common principles and ideals.

Oh.. Sounds a little like Stoicism.

But, perhaps there is some room for agreement. It seems to me that most hellenistic philosophies were therapeutic in nature. Man has issues... I'll grant you (and Kierkegaard) that. So, the next question is, what is the solution to what ails man? You obviously believe that Christianity (and specifically Your form of Christianity- one that doesn't rely on the text of the Bible, but rather a personal relationship w/ God) IS The answer. Not everyone agrees with you.

I recommend that, if any person is in despair, or has any problem for which he would like a solution... then he should look for a solution to his despair, or whatever problem it is.

It is good to quote Kierkegaard about that, though. The man who thinks he does not live in despair is in the most despairing condition

That looks to me very much like "heads I win, tails you lose."

Yes I obviously agree with God creating the world such that virtuous living leads to flourishing. The God of the philosophers is a phrase used by Pascal to represent what philosophers usually mean by God -something abstract, instead of Real that you can encounter right now. The Christian God for example is a personal God - you can have a relationship with God, indeed it's that relationship that makes all the difference. Whereas the God of the philosophers isn't a person - it's a "force" or something similar. The problem with that is that such a god means absolutely nothing to you in the end but an abstract concept - a story. — Agustino

I don't know about other philosophers. but I know a little about Aristotle's beliefs, and Socrates', and Plato's and Seneca's and Marcus Aurelius', and Epictetus'. And it seems to me that their beliefs about God led them to live pretty good lives. The God these men describe sounds pretty real to me.

The problem I have with revealed religions can be explained best by dialogue...
Random Follower of a Revealed Religion: Let me tell you about my great religion and the great God behind it.
Me: Is that the religion whose followers committed these atrocities?
RFRR: No follower of my religion has ever done anything wrong!
Me: I'm not interested in a religion that promotes denial...

RFRR: Let me tell you about my great religion and the great God behind it.
Me: Is that the religion whose followers committed these atrocities?
RFRR: Well, admittedly some of our followers got some things mixed up. They thought God was telling them to do X, but really He wanted to them to do Y.
Me: How do I know you're any better now at determining what your God is like, and what He wants you to do?

Even Jesus seems to be saying that God wasn't actually the way He was as presented in the Old Testament. So, it looks like Christians have this great text... they just can't be sure what it's really saying about their God.

Deism looks pretty attractive. Stoicism looks pretty attractive. Revealed religions? Not so much.

I think the Catholic church should be congratulated for admitting it made mistakes. That is a step in the right direction.

People see problems with religion. It's difficult to see how a good God would be okay with the evil done in His name.

The idea of a God who is not associated with religions has it's own appeal.

I wonder what anyone would have against the God of the philosophers.

— anonymous66

Atheisms, even serene atheisms, are always phrased as "I don't agree with that". They reject a given linguistic expression.

- Mariner
I find it encouraging that even New Atheists as strident as Richard Dawkins have gone on record as saying they don't have an issue with certain conceptions of God... Dawkins admits he is just fine with what he calls a deistic God or the God of the physicist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgrEvEM_j1o

I wonder what anyone would have against the God of the philosophers. I like the idea of a God creating the world such that living a virtuous life would lead to flourishing as a human, and everything else is pure speculation. What happens after we die? I don't know, no one does... there are several different stories. Which one appeals to you? I kinda like the idea that maybe we will live our lives over and over again, like the Stoics suggested. But, maybe instead of it being exactly the same every time, maybe all of creation gets a little better on each iteration.

Here is how Aristotle defines anger in Rhetoric Book II chapter 2.

Anger may be defined as an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards what concerns oneself or towards what concerns one's friends. If this is a proper definition of anger, it must always be felt towards some particular individual, e.g. Cleon, and not "man" in general. [1378b] It must be felt because the other has done or intended to do something to him or one of his friends. It must always be attended by a certain pleasure -- that which arises from the expectation of revenge. For since nobody aims at what he thinks he cannot attain, the angry man is aiming at what he can attain, and the belief that you will attain your aim is pleasant.

It's interesting that Seneca says that he doesn't define anger in the same way that Aristotle does...

Aristotle's definition differs little from mine; for he says that anger is the desire to repay suffering.

I also just noticed that Nussbaum has this to say in the Aeon article...

A good place to begin is Aristotle’s definition: not perfect, but useful, and a starting point for a long Western tradition of reflection.

Thanks for the link to the Atlantic article. Here's a quote from that article:

The last thing—and this is the crucial one, I think: Aristotle, and every other philosopher known to me who writes about anger, says that part of anger itself is a desire for payback. Without that desire, it’s not really anger—it’s something else.

I just came across this article by Martha Nussbaum today... she covers some of the same ground as she does in the book (and in the Atlantic article).

There’s no emotion we ought to think harder and more clearly about than anger. Anger greets most of us every day – in our personal relationships, in the workplace, on the highway, on airline trips – and, often, in our political lives as well. Anger is both poisonous and popular. Even when people acknowledge its destructive tendencies, they still so often cling to it, seeing it as a strong emotion, connected to self-respect and manliness (or, for women, to the vindication of equality). If you react to insults and wrongs without anger you’ll be seen as spineless and downtrodden. When people wrong you, says conventional wisdom, you should use justified rage to put them in their place, exact a penalty. We could call this football politics, but we’d have to acknowledge right away that athletes, whatever their rhetoric, have to be disciplined people who know how to transcend anger in pursuit of a team goal.

More controversial, perhaps, is [Aristotle's] idea (in which, however, all Western philosophers who write about anger concur) that the angry person wants some type of payback, and that this is a conceptual part of what anger is. In other words, if you don’t want some type of payback, your emotion is something else (grief, perhaps), but not really anger.

I've been reading a lot of the primary texts of Stoicism, and I also started listening to Martha Nussbaum talk about the subject (youtube) and I bought her book Anger and Forgiveness a few weeks ago, and just started reading it. From the introduction:

At the heart of my argument is an analysis of anger, which I present in chapter 2. Concurring with a long philosophical tradition that includes Aristotle, the Greek and Roman Stoics, and Bishop Butler, I argue that anger includes, conceptually, not only the idea of a serious wrong done to someone or something of significance, but also the idea that it would be a good thing if the wrongdoer suffered some bad consequences somehow. Each of these thoughts must be qualified in complex ways, but that's the essence of the analysis. I then argue that anger, so understood, is always normatively problematic in one or the other of two possible ways.

The first way is what she calls the "road of payback". It is mistaken because it includes the belief that the suffering of the wrongdoer somehow restores the important thing that was damaged. She labels this as false and incoherent, but nevertheless points out that it is a very common belief. "But the wrongdoer's suffering does not bring back the person or valued item that was damaged."

The second way is the "road of status". And this one makes sense to Nussbaum. If the victim sees the injury as a down-ranking of their own status, then payback makes sense in that if a victim is able to humiliate the wrongdoer, then the victim's status becomes relatively higher. "But then there is a different problem; it is normatively problematic to focus exclusively on relative status, and that type of obsessive narrow-mindedness, though common enough, is something we ought to discourage in both self an others."
Edited to add
".... but of course, all these ideas must be unpacked and defended. Anger may still have some limited usefulness as a signal to tell self and/or others that wrongdoing has taken place, as a source of motivations to address it, and as a deterrent to others, discouraging their aggression. Its core ideas however, are profoundly flawed; either incoherent in the first case, or normatively ugly in the second."
She goes on to add,
"Most average people get angry. But often, noting the normative irrationality of anger, particularly in its payback mode, a reasonable person shifts off the terrain of anger toward more productive forward-looking thoughts, asking what can actually be done to increase either personal or social welfare. I explore the course of reflection that leads to this future-directed thinking, which I prefer."

It's not the job of humanity as a whole to find answers to those questions. But it is the job of philosophers to get satisfactory answers to those questions, which they have failed to do. Philosophy is a failure. Time to find a new discipline.

What I see here is an argument that takes this form: "I've decided that it's the job of philosophers to do X... They haven't done X, therefore philosophy is a failure."

But, what if someone else were to argue: "I've decided that it's the job of doctors to cure all diseases.. they have failed to cure all diseases, therefore the medical health field is a failure. Time for all doctors to find a new profession." Would you accept that argument?

It's relatively easy to make frivolous arguments of this sort, isn't it? Someone could easily argue: I've decided that it is the job of profession X to do Y. X has failed to do Y, therefore X is a failure.

I'd say most academic philosophers have the exact same mindset.

I prefer to be around people who are willing to acknowledge and question their own assumptions... people who are actively looking for good counter-arguments and counter-examples.... people who welcome the challenge that comes from looking at things in ways they haven't themselves considered.

One of the possible reasons that people dislike (or think they dislike...) philosophy, is because they think along these lines:
"I know I have a pretty good idea of how the world works, how I define words, etc... until someone actually challenges my assumptions about those things... then I start to doubt what I thought I knew... and having my assumptions challenged and doubting what I thought I knew is uncomfortable."

I suppose another reason people have a negative attitude toward philosophy is that some people find it difficult to imagine someone else making a living as a philosopher.

But, I've found it difficult to imagine making a living as say, a salesman, or a writer, or any number of occupations, and yet, some people do make a good living pursuing those occupations (and I'm happy that those occupations exist).

@Sapientia

They're interested enough to give their opinion on it. It could be an interesting conversation. They might even change their mind. If someone said that philosophy - or anything for that matter - is stupid, then I think that it'd be quite natural to respond by asking them why and/or sharing your own opinion in return.

By making an argument against philosophy, aren't they, in fact, doing philosophy? If they take the time to create a reasoned argument as a response, I might just ask, "if you don't like philosophy, then why are you doing it?"

It seems to me that, in a very real sense, everyone does philosophy (if philosophy is using reason and argumentation)... it's just that some are better at it (have more skill, more experience, etc.) than others.

You don't. Why would you? Didn't they make it clear they have no interest in this subject? — Noblosh

Good point.

By "stupid" do they mean 'impractical', or 'no use'? Is undertaking a degree in philosophy going to be useful to you? If so, do you believe it will be the degree itself, or the pursuit of it that will be useful? I recently dropped out of an undergraduate degree majoring in philosophy that I have been pursuing for the last 8 years while still running my landscape design and contracting business, practicing painting and drawing and writing and learning music (I love too many things).

I dropped out because I had not undertaken the study in order to get a qualification, but to enhance my study of philosophy (which I had already been doing for many years prior). My areas of interest within philosophy have narrowed so much over that time that trying to find time to read texts that I am not that interested in, and write the essays that I have little enthusiasm for writing, has come increasingly to consume too much of the precious time I need to devote to the list of texts I want to study as well as my other pursuits.

I dropped out with an 80% average, two academic prizes on my record, and a $9000 HECS debt, and I have no regrets because learning the discipline of study and writing essays certainly helped me. The piece of paper at the end would only be useful if you would be able to use it to qualify for a profession you really wanted to practice. — John

I can relate. I wouldn't mind just reading and writing about what I want to read and write about, sans degree.

It's not so much that you're putting words in my mouth, but that you're taking what I said out of context with your little cut-and-paste job, and I do object to that.

I also object to the misleading implication in your annotated comment. There is no sneaky, dubious shift going on which warrants any criticism. Obviously the purpose of googling it is to bring up definitions from online dictionaries. — Sapientia

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this... This is your chance to set things right...

Assume that I'm asking you, "How would you define anger?" How would you respond?
Would your answer be
1. I would use Google
2. I would use an online dictionary
or 3. I would look online and use the definition that agrees with what I already had in mind

Or is there some other way you'd answer the question?

My point? It seems to me that some are of the opinion that there is some obvious, agreed upon definition of anger. If that is the case, then I'd like to know what that definition is, and just what it is about that definition that makes it obvious.

This article from Psychology Today was in my inbox today....
5 Ways Anger is Not Like Other Emotions

• It’s Motivating: Anger’s purpose is to push you to protect yourself. Anger gives you energy. It’s activating, and it drives you to engage, not withdraw, as most other emotions do.
• It Never Stands Alone: Anger is always a result of feeling something else. You feel hurt, marginalized, overlooked, targeted, mistreated or vulnerable. Anger isn’t just an emotion, it’s a constellation of emotions. There are always layers of feelings underneath it, feeding it.
• It Seeks a Target: Other emotions can simply be. Anger cannot. Like an arrow shot from the bow, it looks for a target. This is what makes anger so easy to misdirect. It may erupt at the wrong person, in the wrong way and at the wrong time so very easily.
• It Can Be Turned Inward or Outward: Sometimes directing our anger at its true target can be acutely uncomfortable, and sometimes we aren’t aware of the true target. This is when we are at risk for turning our anger inward, directing it at ourselves.
• It’s Capable of Damaging Your Health: Research has shown that anger prone individuals and people who express their anger as rage are more at risk for heart attacks and cancer.

How to Start Using Your Anger in a Helpful Way

Make an effort to become aware of the moment you feel anger. Usually, your heart rate will speed, your face may feel hot, and you will feel a surge of energy. The sooner you notice your anger, the sooner and better you can take control of it, and use it in a healthy way. The key is to know that you’re angry when it’s small instead of after it’s already intense.
Regard your anger as a helpful message from your body, and put energy into figuring out its proper target, and what its message is. It may be saying, “Watch out for this person,” “Speak up,” “Protect yourself,” “This is an unfair situation,” “You are being hurt right now,” or an infinite number of different things. Listen to your anger, and it will inform you.
Learn the skills of assertiveness. The skills are: being aware of your anger and why you’re feeling it (our first two bullet points); managing the anger so that it doesn’t come out excessively; and identifying the right words and tone to express the feeling to its proper target. These are the skills of assertiveness. And you can learn them!

After thousands of years of philosophy, philosophers are still unable to determine whether they're dreaming or not, whether there's an external world, whether other minds exist, whether human beings have free will, whether the sun will rise tomorrow (problem of induction), whether their cognitive faculties are reliable, etc. — lambda

Isn't it the case that no human has figured out the answers to these questions? Why not label humanity itself as a failure because of these unanswered questions?

Anyway... I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to be a philosophy professor. I mentioned that the Stoics defined anger as the desire to hurt someone in retaliation, and that the Stoics believed that anger is always harmful to the one who is angry. He mentioned that Aristotle defined anger in much the same way. I know that Aristotle thought that anger was merely something to be regulated (so not always harmful to the one who is angry). I haven't taken the time to see if he was right about the way Aristotle defines anger.

Let me see if I can sum up our conversation so far. Don't let me put any words in your mouth, if I get anything wrong, please correct me.

Me: It seems to me that if anger is defined as: the desire to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary.
Sapientia: That's not a good definition
Me: How are you defining anger?
S: The usual way, Google it. If you had Googled it, you would have seen for yourself.
Me: How do you decide which definition among those Googled, to use?
S: Online dictionaries are useful.... I use the online dictionary definition (notice the shifting from Google to online dictionary....)
S: I just use the first definition that agrees with the way I define anger.

Dictionaries are useful things. The dictionary definition for anger that I gave happened to more-or-less match what I had in mind, and that it did was no pure coincidence. It also has the advantage of expressing it better than I could have done unassisted. — Sapientia

You're evading the question. Why did you choose that definition, and not another?

Googling it should have provided sufficient confirmation. — Sapientia

Explain to me the process by which you decide which definition to use... do you just use the first one you see? or do you use some other process to make your choice?

Or is it the case that you just look for the definition that you already had in mind? In which case, can you explain why you have that definition in mind, and not some other definition?

I pretty much just say "Nuh uh". If asked for proof, I say "No".

But, then, I'm not interested in persuading them, and am giving just about as much thought to my replies as I tend to feel they're giving.

Why respond at all? It's sort of like shitting on art or science. It's just like. . . uhhh, OK. Good luck with that, buddy.

Thanks... I'm leaning towards this type of response. When I get a negative response, I just think to myself, "Yes, that is your attitude towards philosophy." and I make judgments about their ability to reason. Eventually, they might be able to persuade me that have some aptitude for reasoning, but they're going to have to work at it.

Thank you for that. I'm 50, and I suspect my age is a factor in people's responses.

Here's a well reasoned article that expresses the idea that it's not actually anger that is the problem, it's aggression.

My perspective is that the “problem” normally is found in the aggressive actions that stem from our angry thoughts and feelings, as opposed to being with the angry feelings per se

You Americans are obsessed with managing your anger. I don’t get it. Aggression is what needs to be managed, not feelings of anger.

The usual way. Google it. — Sapientia

You do understand that that is not really an answer, right?

You did actually provide your choice (the one you chose from among the many the possible choices from Google), so kudos for that.

Sometimes when I read your posts (in this thread and the pornography thread), I get the sense you're saying (with some frustration), "I just randomly choose a definition from the internet.. isn't that what you do?" Is that really the message you want to convey?

I've befriended a philosophy professor (he's in his late 40's), and he just doesn't engage (if asked, "why philosophy?") If people keep pushing, he is inclined to say, "I dunno... in my mind, it's kinda like asking, 'why do you breath?'" And he admits he makes judgments about the mentality of people who make the assumptions they do about philosophy.

You have a good point. When someone says, "that's stupid", when it's obvious they don't even know what they are criticizing, I tend to make judgments about what kind of person they must be. (although, based on my own experience, some people do eventually come around, after their initial aversion).

I can also see myself not pursuing a degree in philosophy, but continuing to talk about it. Maybe I can talk philosophy w/o having to say the word... But, I am in the habit of taking philosophy classes and reading philosophy. It's kinda hard not to say the word.

So the question still stands... how to respond to, "philosophy is a stupid and a waste of time."?

I have to admit. I do feel like the shoe is on the other foot. About 30 years ago I met a guy who was into philosophy, and I tried to convince him it was ridiculous. I'll have to think about just what it was that changed my perspective.