Yesh, I wallow a lot. — Shawn

That's not Stoic, not Stoic at all.

I’ve had a gym membership and stayed fit as a lifestyle for my entire adult life, but I’ve never been a money chaser.


Low self-esteem though so your mold halfway fits. — praxis

Pffft.

Why would it?

Like you said:

Life is, among other things, a competition, an arms race. To say so isn't to celebrate or denigrate. — hanaH

I was merely noting that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth".
— Gnomon

Why not? Distrust? — GraveItty

Nah, assumption of equality of people.

I think a person of only average intelligence can understand why controlled experiments are convincing in a way that anecdotes are not. — hanaH

No, a plebeian person is like that.

Fair enough, and that's an important distinction. Let those with ears to hear (and only those) hear. But in a 'rational' context, this means promising something that can't be supported with a controlled experiment, for instance. — hanaH

Sure. But were you in particular ever promised anything by a religious/spiritual person?

It's a digression, but this touches other philosophical themes, such as whether we are calling the same something 'red.' More concretely, how does one insider recognize another?

I take it that's between them.

Which is just what I've been arguing and you've been disagreeing with: that "those people" (if they even exist which we have no way of knowing since we cannot recognize them) cannot demonstrate their knowledge except to others who purportedly share their talent or suitability for it. Or it could be that they share a common delusion. — Janus

Where we disagree is whether "those people" are obligated to demonstrate their knowledge to just anyone.

I maintain that they are not suchly obligated.

What's wrong with wondering and wallowing? — Shawn

Do you like to wonder and wallow?

Ok, so people peddle in hope-mongering. Buddhism, like all religions offer this. I can agree with that. No one likes the idea of no hope.

Why start the game for someone else to play to begin with? If nothing existed, what is wrong with nothing? Is it just that people conflate that with some sort of darkness or something and this makes them sad and anxioius? — schopenhauer1

Where Buddhism differs from many other philosophies is in the way it deconstructs the very notion of selfhood and the notion of suffering.

But from here on, the discussion would necessarily need to get more techincal.

It seems to me that your problem is about organization and productivity, not necessarily about ideology. As a Stoic, one is supposed to get things done, not wonder and wallow.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done

Probably best to start with Ready for anything, because this book is written more in bite size.

Well, whatever one thinks of Kant specifically is one thing, but to say he was concerned with words as opposed to the world is a mistake. — Manuel

To read the works of a particular philosopher as an autodidact is overwhelming, to say the least.

Of course, some seem more readable than others (which is probably why Nietzsche is so popular among autodidacts and why Kant isn't), and based on this first impression, one might conclude that one should be able to master the whole of philosophy as an autodidact. But this way, the autodidact just sets the bar very low, and cuts himself off of everything that supersedes his current abilities and current knowledge base.

In order to improve, to grow, one needs to interact with people who know more than oneself.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

IOW, rely in whatever infromation has collected in your mind up until this point (much of it is probably trash) and whatever is currently available to you (also probably trash), and hold this to be the highest, the most relevant there is.

Certainly, in the quest for authenticity (their own, that of others), many people think that the best way to achieve that is not to expose themselves to any new ideas -- as if this would somehow guarantee authenticity. What they're forgetting is that this way, they're just leaving themselves with the ideas they have collected so far (which might not be very good ones; in fact, which probabbly aren't very good ones, given the dissatisfaction these people now feel) and are cutting themselves off to anything new. The ship of blank slate authenticity has sailed long ago, latest when one was born.

There's also something to be said for the process of arriving at such realizations yourself; regardless of whether others already have. It's not a matter of competition, but of grappling with the human condition. No hard and fast rules. — Janus

Reinventing the wheel is overrated.

Yes, but listening to others discuss ideas, especially professional philosophers, I feel like I'm missing something. I'm trying to get a handle on that. — T Clark

Yes, you're missing the "big picture" of philosophy.

Pragmatism — T Clark

The pragmatic thing to do, as far as the study of philosophy is concerned, is to take up a course of study in philosophy at a university, or something as similar to that as possible. With proper guidance and testing of the student's knowledge of the subject matter.

A formal education in philosophy will provide one with that all-important big picture understanding of what philosophy is about, and this will properly contextualize all of one's further endeavors in philosophy.

jamalrob accused me of not being open minded. I wonder what he thinks about you. I've read Kant and Wittgenstein. They're fine I guess. To me, they're caught in the trap of many philosophers. They've mistaken words for reality.

What better way to justify believing what you're told to believe and not making up your own mind. — T Clark

The bolded parts are two mistaken ideas about philosophy that are common for people who have not had a formal education in philosophy. They are based on the assumption that philosophy is solely a matter of ideology.

I'm sure Kafka was well-read in philosophy, but in the end, is our own experience we have to understand and be aware of. — T Clark

For the purpose of what?

Maybe this is my inner pragmatist speaking, but I see philosophy from a practical perspective. It helps me think and express myself better in a way that has an impact on the way I live my intellectual and everyday life. — T Clark

That's not necessarily philosophy already, it's just thinking.

I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing. — T Clark

Sure. But the way you talk about your understanding of the world has things missing, depending on whom you want to talk about it with.

Of course there is. There are those that realise the state of spiritual liberation spontaneously and are not part of any religion, movement or school. That's what is designated by the 'pratyekabuddha' title. — Wayfarer

But we don't know how common that is because we can't recognize those people.

Are you in any way suggesting that philosophers are pratyekabuddhas or pratyekabuddhas-to-be?

You should know better by now that I'm not an advocate of blind faith.
— baker

C'mon now. A lot of what you've just been saying sounds exactly like that. — Wayfarer

?? I don't know how come it sounds that way to you. I keep talking about religious/spiritual elitisim, the emic-etic distinction, qualifications necessary for religiosity/spirituality, the impossibility of entering a religion/spirituality by an act of will.

I believe that in order to enter a religious/spiritual epistemic community, a person must have "that special something", and this is not something that can be willed, or faked.

In blind faith, a person is pretending to have "that special something", but knows they don't have it.

I fixed the quote, btw. — praxis

No, you put words into my mouth.

What interests me, is that Schopenhauer is generally assumed to be a vociferous and militant atheist, and yet he's totally open to 'the transcendent'. Sure, he's bitterly critical of mainstream religiosity, but he reads religion allegorically, and also acknowledges that they exist for a real purpose, that there's a genuine need there. — Wayfarer

That's peculiar. Can I have a genuine, real yearning for some kind of transcendence, for the transcendent, even though I am religiously/spiritually homeless, unaffiliated? No. I think the transcendent is reserved for religions/spiritualities. There is no religiously/spiritually neutral way to think about transcendence.

I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible
— baker

...as if that is a good thing! 'Close your eyes and swallow the medicine! Everything will be fine, trust me!' — Wayfarer

Oh, come on. You should know better by now that I'm not an advocate of blind faith. I also don't think that the people who were born and raised into a religion have blind faith.

Where I and several other posters disagree is that I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible, far better delineated than they present it as.
— baker

Which is 'foolishness' to the humanist-without-thinking-about-it 'Greeks.' There is something appealing (because dangerous?) about a religion that's willing to abandon the game of pretending to be rational, scientific, democratic, etc. But does K need H as a foil? Perhaps you'd defend a continuing attachment to rationality and stress the elitism? — hanaH

I can't stress the elitism enough. What I've been trying to show is how impenetrable religious tenets are for the outsider. I've been trying to show that just because religious tenets are verbalized in a language one grammatically and lexically understands, this doesn't yet mean that one is qualified to understand them as intended. I emphasize the emic-etic distinction.

There is something appealing (because dangerous?) about a religion that's willing to abandon the game of pretending to be rational, scientific, democratic, etc.

No, that kind of extravaganza was Kierkegaard's thing, not mine.

As a side issue of this thread, do you think apatheia is a natural conclusion of Stoicism or even quietism? — Shawn

Because I'm not very happy about apathy in Stoicism. It seems like a natural result of Stoicism. — Shawn

Stoic apatheia isn't simply apathy, and shouldn't be the natural result of Stoicism, given that a Stoic lives in an orderly, divine universe in which it is possible to act virtuously. A Stoic is proactive, so there's no room for apathy.

Like I've been saying all along, it's only if we strip Stoicism of its metaphysical underpinnings that we end up with a glum perspective on life.

But perhaps the problem is that you don't really believe there is a divine logos guiding our lives?
(Believing in such divine logos certainly goes against modern scientific theories; there's quite a bit at stake here.)


This is from another thread, but I think it also belongs here:

Why is philosophy still associated with no inherent value, or even more practically, valued so little? — Shawn

There's a saying: "A philosopher deals in expendable theories, while the religious man puts his life on the line for the things he believes."

That's an interesting perspective. I think "ambitious" is commonly defined as having a desire for fame, wealth, power, prestige, achievement, etc., in other words for things which make a person impressive, notable to others and influential over others. Ancient Stoicism expressly condemned that desire. — Ciceronianus

Of course. Seeking fame for the sake of fame, wealth for the sake of wealth, etc. would be wrong from the Stoic perspective. But from what I understood, the Stoics were in favor of making good use of one's time and energy, which, if one has the predispositions and resources for them, would result in wealth, power, fame, etc. The Stoics were proactive about worldly matters. Like you say later, "Epictetus suggests we make the best use of what's in our power, and take the rest as it happens." The Stoics weren't like, for example, Buddhist monks who are forbidden from working for a living. (We could even compare the Stoics to Boy Scouts.)

I'm aware of the fact that some people who claim to be Stoics today think it can help us succeed in business. That's clearly a perversion of ancient Stoicism.

Indeed.

There are those who claim accepting Jesus as our savior will help us succeed as well (like Joel Olsteen, I believe).

I actually read a faux obituary the other day saying that Osteen drowned in a pool of cash ...

It's very important whether any Stoic attained sagehood, ataraxia, aequanimitas. Humility aside, if they have not attained the highest goal of what they're teaching, then they're giving advice they themselves were unable to follow through. Which means we're justified to doubt their advice, and their whole philosophy.
— baker

If we're justified in abstaining from any practice or philosophy which doesn't result in our perfect happiness (or tranquility, or enlightenment), then I doubt we'll find anything which meets with our satisfaction.

A doctor who smokes and wo tells you that you should stop smoking (and that it's easy enough to stop smoking) just isn't very convincing.

I don't expect perfection in life, or knowledge.

I do.

Epictetus suggests we make the best use of what's in our power, and take the rest as it happens. I do what I can do with what I have to promote my own tranquility and do right by others, and try not to let what I can't prevent from happening stop me from doing so. It seems a very sensible, even admirable way to live, to me.

Sure, and for ordinary practical intents and purposes I agree with what you're saying here. But I also hold higher aspirations. I do believe there are perfections worth striving for, primarily, perfect happiness and perfect knowledge.

I don't think it's necessary doubt to be always about only two options. — dimosthenis9

At the level of decision making, it is. Before one can decide for a particular option, one has to whittle down the multitude of options until only two remain.

Worries, anxieties, uncertainties etc just plant the seed for doubt.
As to correct my previous post, they aren't exactly the same but surely they are extremely connected and in most cases doubt involves them.

This seems to be the popular view. But I think doubt is ethically motivated, it's a matter of being conscientious. As opposed to worries or anxieties which are much more general, vague.

You should not take it as an accusation, it's more a warning, in the sense that your mind is not totally gone yet I think. You can still pull it together if you try. It's also a way to flag to other posters that there might be some mental toxicity involved there, in case they haven't noticed already. — Olivier5

And you think this is the appropriate tone to use in conversations here?

I do remember the things you say to me, the way you talk about my personality, intelligence, and so on.

The interests remain and it remains that people protect them.
— baker

So if someone wants to con you a few grands, you okay with that because he defends his interests? — Olivier5

Eh? How do you figure that?

It's pointless to try to openly discuss a person's interests when the fulfillment of those very interests is at stake. It's as useless as, for example, pointing out to a private contractor building your house that he's charging too much, pocketing too much money. Of course he's going to defend his interests, and perhaps tell you that you should find someone else or sue him.

In order to make a difference to how humans impact the planet, humans would need to change their interests. But how can they be made to do that?

So I obliged. — James Riley

We both know that you didn't. Right from the onset.

People will say all kinds of things to protect their interests. That doesn't make it okay, but it is what people do and should be taken in consideration as such.
— baker

Rather, it should be discarded as such. — Olivier5

The interests remain and it remains that people protect them.

When in fact there isn't much we disagree on. I can think of really just one thing we disagree on: and that is the vehemence with which scientific claims should be held and the ethical status that should be ascribed to them.
— baker

We agree on that too, if you deigned to read what I said instead of rushing into accusations. — Xtrix

No, we disagree on this matter. I never push for scientific claims the way you do.

All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such.
— baker

Then take some responsibility and be more clear next time.

I should not have to repeat myself over and over again, for every poster in every thread. I should not have to defend myself against wrongful accusations. I should not have to disclose sensitive medical information about myself in public forums. I should not have to accomodate other posters' uncharitable reading.

Incidentally, I never called you “evil.”

You called me irrational etc. etc.

And those are just the ones where I readily remembered the keywords. — baker

And, of course, Mr. Wood @tim wood piling on.

Disinformation by the fossil fuel industry. — Olivier5

People will say all kinds of things to protect their interests. That doesn't make it okay, but it is what people do and should be taken in consideration as such.

A minor disagreement, when you think of it. — Olivier5

No, it's a major one, given the repercussions. I don't have the kind of enthusiastic, confident, optimistic attitude toward the vaccines the way some vocal proponents of vaccination expect me to have so they have categorized me as an anti-vaccer. Some of their replies:

If I were permitted to let you die and not be forced to heroically exhaust common resources to treat you, I'd buy into your Randian libertarian wet dream and let God sort out your bad decisions. But we don't live by that ethic today. If today's ethics require I protect against Darwin, they require you play along too. — Hanover

You are an enemy. I hate you. — James Riley

And from yourself:

You take yourself very seriously, that's for sure, and you're a hero in your own mind, but to me you're just another coward running away from a needle, and rationalizing his fears. — Olivier5

Rather, I nailed you, reason for which you are now speechless... — Olivier5

Cowards with a big mouth and a tiny brain don't deserve to be saved alright. They are a waste of perfectly fine vaccine. — Olivier5

And those are just the ones where I readily remembered the keywords.

What was not working?

I am not particularly afraid of that ever happening... but I can't get out my mind the idea that if we could have summoned some broad political and societal agreement around climate change two decades ago, in line with the scientific consensus, we could have averted or mitigated the worst of it.

We blew that chance because of artificial doubt and manufactured disagreement. — Olivier5

No. I don't believe such things have much to do with doubt or agreement, politicial or social or otherwise.

The simple fact is that lifestyle habits are hard to change in any significant way, even regardless of the time available, what to speak of changing them when under pressure. It's not realistic to expect that people will be able to make such significant changes. Anyone who has tried to give up smoking or junkfood knows first hand how hard it is to make significant changes in one's life. Scientists know this too. To say nothing of the difficulty of carrying out lifestyle changes that would be necessary to change the negative effect of humans on the planet.

Blaming "artificial doubt and manufactured disagreement" is just a convenient distraction.

Any plan for a booster? — Olivier5

No. Given the side effects I experienced, no. I don't have the health and the energy to be an experimental rabbit for people who don't care whether I live or die.

I have been the one pointing out at such fake disagreement promoted here by people like you, as in this post you were quoting.

So you're vaccinated against COVID, Baker? — Olivier5

Yes, I am. Do I feel safe, do I feel protected from covid? No. I wish being vaccinated would help, but I don't have faith that it does help.
I'm also not willing to test it, such as by knowingly exposing myself to the infection.

The Janssen vaccine with which I was vaccinated was originally estimated to be 67% effective, but later, was estimated to be much less. To me, this simply isn't grounds for optimism or for thinking that the battle, much less the war is won.

Vaccination might help a bit, but I don't place faith in it. I certainly don't have the kind of enthusiastic, confident, optimistic attitude toward it the way some vocal proponents of vaccination expect me to have.
This is a major point of disagreement between myself and them.


A poster here said that they feel safe now that they're vaccinated. How this person has come to that conclusion is not clear. Because even in the most optimistic scenario, the Pfizer vaccine is estimated to be only about 66% effective, which is quite a drop from the originally proposed 95+% . To say nothing of the side effects.

I am saying that not using an effective vaccine would be irrational, counterproductive and perverse both in long term and short term. — Olivier5

So now it's just effective? Whatever happened to the holy mantra of "safe and effective"?

Because the carrot and stick strategy is balanced, effective and just, while using only the stick is imbalanced and has perverse effects. — Olivier5

To be sure, you'll need to explain what exactly you mean by the "carrot and stick strategy". Reward and punishment?


In the original scenario from which the idiom comes from, a carrot on a rope was tied to a stick and the stick tied to the back of the donkey, so that the carrot was dangling in front of the donkey without the donkey ever being able to reach it. This was a strategy to get donkeys to carry and pull heavy loads: the promise of a reward. Whether the reward was ever actually delivered is questionable, as the implication is that the donkeys were stupid and did hard work even though never actually being rewarded for it.

That's strange. One is cautious because one cares about oneself, about one's wellbeing. Related to that, cares about the wellbeing of those who are important to one.