Several have told me that I lacked faith.

I actually used to hope that they would teach me how to have faith -- but no, they didn't.

No brownie points, but it did make me laugh. If you did have what it takes - what is it you are meant to have? — Tom Storm

How could I possibly tell you if I don't have it?

Spiritual types tend to say that they have the real thing while others are fakes. To secular outsiders this is one of the turn-offs of the spiritual hustle. In the end many of us just don't think there's any secret worth bothering too much about. — hanaH

Oh, I still think there's a secret. I've just mostly given up on it.

My general view is that modern liberal culture normalises a kind of aberrant state. Whereas traditional cultures make moral demands on the individual, that has been reversed in the ascent of liberalism, whereby the individual, buttressed by science and economics, is the sole arbiter of value, and individual desire is placed above everything else. Nihil ultra ego, nothing beyond self. — Wayfarer

There are two trends within individualism: expansive/entitled individualism, and defensive individualism. The former is in roundabout what you describe above. Defensive individualism is what being left to oneself and being solely blamed for oneself looks like. Defensive individualism is a reaction to the decay of society.

Peer-review and exposure to criticism lets inferior ideas die by exposure. — hanaH

Or not. Consider virtue epistemology: It was popular with the ancients. Then it pretty much died out. And then it resurfaced again in the early 2000's, picking up pace.

What, by the way, do the self-anointed compete for? — hanaH

That's their circus, their monkeys. Not mine.

I think there's a kind of performative contradiction at the intersection of critical philosophy and elitist spirituality. The trans-rational elitists often can't help offering reasons that they deserve more recognition by plebeian rational humanists. "Can't you see that my spiritual genius is invisible?"

What did they expect when they told people "You don't have what it takes"?

Look around and see the profusion of healers and gurus and visionaries now available without leaving your home. I doubt that the world has ever offered such a spiritual buffet to the average person, along with the lifespan and leisure to enjoy such things. — hanaH

No, those are just the torments of Tantalus. All those "goodies" might indeed seem like they are at your fingertips -- but when you reach for them, you can never reach them, or they disappear altogether.

The "tyranny" that troubles some may be the absence of tyranny, namely the freedom of others to be unimpressed by their claims of spiritual status or insight.

They reap what they sowed.

But that doesn't obviate the critique, although I don't know if I want to try and spell it out in detail right at the moment.
— Wayfarer

You and baker both seem to be echoing Nietzsche's disgust with the last man. — hanaH

Not Nietzsche's. While I'm no fan of consumerism, I don't agree with Nietzsche either.

The Last Man is the individual who specializes not in creation, but in consumption. In the midst of satiating base pleasures, he claims to have “discovered happiness” by virtue of the fact that he lives in the most technologically advanced and materially luxurious era in human history.

But this self-infatuation of the Last Man conceals an underlying resentment, and desire for revenge. On some level, the Last Man knows that despite his pleasures and comforts, he is empty and miserable. With no aspiration and no meaningful goals to pursue, he has nothing he can use to justify the pain and struggle needed to overcome himself and transform himself into something better. He is stagnant in his nest of comfort, and miserable because of it. This misery does not render him inactive, but on the contrary, it compels him to seek victims in the world. He cannot bear to see those who are flourishing and embodying higher values, and so he innocuously supports the complete de-individualization of every person in the name of equality.

Awww, typical right-winger lamentation, "Oh, poor übermenschen us, that we have to endure being accosted by the untermenschen!"

Devoid of a share, single sense perhaps, but rife with many different senses of over-arching purposes. We have the leisure and freedom to explore and discuss such things. Frankly I don't trust what I see as a kind of nostalgia. Sure, we have hot water, air conditioning, Novocain and plenty of food, but we are "condemned to be free" when there "ought" to be a kindler, gentler theocratic hand at the helm. — hanaH

Are you sure? Right-wing political options are on the rise, and so is poverty.

Imagine a person who tried various spiritual fads and classics in their 20s and found them all wanting.
— hanaH

When I was young I spent 15 years respectfully trying to understand revealed wisdom and higher consciousness, spending my time in the company of theosophists, self-described Gnostics, Buddhists, devotees of Ouspensky/Gurdjieff, Steiner, etc. What I tended to find was insecure people obsessed with status and hierarchy who had simply channeled their materialism into spirituality. There were the same fractured inter-personal relationships, jealousies, substance abuse and chasing after real estate and status symbols that characterise any secular person. — Tom Storm

I used to be a "seeker" (god, I hate the word). I looked into several major and minor religions. I was always told, in more or less (usually less) polite ways that I "don't have what it takes".

And while even some religious/spiritual people themselves told me that what looks like materialism, insecurity etc. among the religious/spiritual (and that I should thus dismiss it as faults, imperfections), I've never been convinced by that. Instead, I took a different route: What if the way religious/spiritual people usually are, actually is precisely the way a religious/spiritual person is supposed to be? Why ignore the obvious? So, yes, by these criteria, Donald Trump is a deeply religious/spiritual person. Yes, I know this isn't going to earn me any brownie points. That's what they get for telling me that I don't have what it takes.

Precisely, because 'deep down Im a vulnerable little child who needs to be seen to dominate became healthy relationships are beyond me and I am afraid.' — Tom Storm

No, this doesn't occur to me. The everyday reality is that if one appears poor and weak, people tend to interpret this as "This person must be destroyed, they're asking for it. It is morally right to destroy the weak and unfit." It's how there is a culture of blaming the the person who is worse off (sometimes this coincides with blaming the victim, but not always).

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. — baker

What evidence for what truth are you talking about? — GraveItty

You're asking why is it that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth". You suggested the reason for this was distrust.

I'm suggesting that it is the assumption of equality of people that leads those who assume such equality to not accepting personal confidence as evidence of truth.

If we're all equal in some relevant way, then why should I accept your personal confidence as evidence of truth, notably when you differ from me?

Equality implies intolerance/rejection.

Throwing yourself into making money and working out are often about deliberate transformation - to project a view of yourself as powerful and desirable when you feel anything but. We used to call it compensation. — Tom Storm

Nah. I see displays of wealth and health as a matter of setting boundaries and putting up signs -- "Don't even think of trying to fuck with me, because I will destroy you! You can see that I have the power to destroy you!"

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.