Kinda funny but, like your short story in the competition, fiction doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. At least I made it past the first couple of paragraphs in this latest drama. :razz:

I've tended to think that restless men (particularly) who have fragile self-esteem chase after two things - money and gym membership. — Tom Storm

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.

So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior.
— Hanover

The problem with your tennis analogy is that there is no determinable criteria of excellence in philosophy. Even the so-called experts, the academics, are deeply divided on the values of, for example, on the one hand, Heidegger or Hegel and on the other, analytic philosophy. There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy and that is telling. Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste. — Janus

What I was thinking when I read Hanover’s post. Deliberate practice requires a high degree of structure and well defined goals. There are definitely well established methods for training in things like music and sports, but philosophy? I seriously doubt it. I doubt there are even well established training methods for aspects that are less subjective, like critical thinking.

Argumentative

• Given to expressing divergent or opposite views.
• Using or characterized by systematic reasoning.

Doesn't sound so very terrible to me. Perhaps all the experience of losing arguments has imprinted a negative impression.

No leopard, lion or giraffe can be jealous, greedy, vengeful, and argumentative. — god must be atheist

Curious that you regard argument negatively.

I put to you that our "negative" (in the Stoic sense) human traits have developed for a reason; a good reason; and they are here to stay with us, you can't edit it out of humans with reason and social cohesion. — god must be atheist

I put to you that our "positive" (in the Stoic sense) human traits have developed for a reason; a good reason; and they are here to stay with us, you can't edit it out of humans with reason and social cohesion.

I am aware that it is not a simplistic division and many may see explore religion and philosophy together. However, many people who come to philosophy have stepped outside of mainstream religious thinking and I am wondering about the way in which philosophy provides an alternative way of finding explanations and meanings. Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

Searching for and finding alternative explanations and meanings is corrosive to religion because it disrupts faith in its authority. Religion is replaced by finding explanations, community, a sense of being part of something greater than yourself... or in a word, meaning, for yourself.

I thought that was going to be about a Game of Thrones sequel.

Beautiful.

This is the real human nature. — god must be atheist

We are a social species and have the capacity of reason. Living in accordance with that nature is what stoicism is all about. We aren’t leopards, zebras, lions or giraffes.

Stoicism: It can't be mastered. It can't be done. It can't be practiced. — god must be atheist

It definitely rubs our capitalistic values forged in rugged individualism the wrong way. We're not trained for well-being, so we need to train ourselves.

Ape sitting in room ruminating on air, almost certainly utterly moronic. — StreetlightX

This sort of thing supposedly lead Siddhartha Gautama to some world-renown insights.

The OP didn't suggest to me at all that we should "blank-slate oneself to ideas."

I watched the new Dune movie last night on HBO. I generally liked the casting, and the visual and soundtrack aesthetic was gorgeous and seamless. Despite that richness it somehow felt thin or lacking passion.

Long live the pawns!

What should I do about this? — Shawn

Me no understand question.

You were quoting yourself?

It is a fact that religious followers follow and a handful of leaders lead them.

There's a saying: "A philosopher deals in expendable theories, while the religious man puts his life on the line for the things he's been led to believe." — baker

And far too often the lives of others.

I fixed the quote, btw.

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

I understand the condemnation is due to their not being in our control and can all be lost rather easily. Virtue, on the other hand, is said to be something that we can control, and not as easily lost.

I was acknowledging Baker's answer to my response. I wasn't aware that respect meant that I had to be in total agreement too. — Tom Storm

I've been led to believe that it means to hold something in high regard and not merely a sign of acknowledgment. No matter, I just found it amusing, and thanks for that.

I certainly understand how people might view optimism in a complex world like ours as requiring a profound or robust framework to hold it up. — Tom Storm

The thing about profundity is that it tends to be short-lived.

Thanks for your response. I respect this. :up: — Tom Storm

You respect Baker’s prudently polarized view that a person is either a true optimist about life, with **profound** reasons to back up such optimism, or a bitter cynic or a sad fool diplomatically hiding behind a veil of optimism?

:lol: People are not so tidily categorized, in my experience. In any case, I’m curious about this profundity that reasonably supports optimism. Just how profound must it be?

Again with the lazy troll. Here's a link that may help your troll game:

https://www.mandatory.com/fun/172527-how-to-be-a-troll-the-beginners-guide

I went to the page and did a search for "Mahayana". That word is not used even once in the article, so how could it possibly support your stupid claim? There's no reason that whatever is preached in that article can't apply to Mahayana Buddhism because there's no fundamental difference in their beliefs about emptiness.

I'd love to see these modern-day stoics (and the old ones, too, actually) cope with some real problems, like poverty on the verge of homelessness or grave illness, or both.
— baker

I don’t see how your sadistic appetite is relevant to our little chat.
— praxis

*sigh*

When evaluating something that is proposed as a coping strategy, one has to test it to see how it performs under pressure. — baker

It's a rather odd take to view stoicism as a strategy for coping with grave suffering. Also odd to delight in the suffering of others, I will add. I see it as a practice to live well or achieve eudaimonia. Spirituality and a sense of self-worth, two aspects of human experience that you seem to emphasize, may be important aspects of that endevor but there's more to it.

Read the god damn thread and keep up with the discussion, instead of me having to repeat to you everything over and over and reply to everything to you specifically. — baker

You claim that the stoic feels like a powerful member of the divine and that this feeling is, in a roundabout way, the core of its efficacy. No doubt it's good to feel powerful, and it's good to feel connected, but there's much more to life than feeling powerful and connected. "After enlightenment the laundry" as the zen proverb succinctly puts it.

You wrote:

Normally, when Buddhists talk of emptiness, they mean it in the Mahayana sense ("nothing has any inherent existence or nature"). But that's not what it means in Theravada

This implies you may be claiming that emptiness in the Theravada sense means that things do have inherent existence or nature. That's stupid, of course, but you don't explain what you mean, which is also stupid.

I fight the good fight because all the tyranny of stupidity needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Thank you William Shatner for taking a risk and being the oldest fucker to ever be expelled into outer space, and for being such a dramatic actor.

I'd love to see these modern-day stoics (and the old ones, too, actually) cope with some real problems, like poverty on the verge of homelessness or grave illness, or both. — baker

I don’t see how your sadistic appetite is relevant to our little chat.

That's in roundabout how the Stoic feels about himself, except that his reference frame isn't the powerful tribe, but Nature, the Divine.
— baker

Why would that be necessary to practice stoicism?
— praxis

Because otherwise, you're just a poor sod in the gutter repeating some silly self-help soundbites to himself. — baker

If we just look at the aspect of CBT, there is a large body of evidence that indicates it can be much more beneficial than silly self-help sound bites, even for gutter dwellers.

You’re not explaining your views so I’m assuming all this self-empowerment silliness amounts to nothing more than trolling.

Shakespeare also incorporated a lot from Stoicism... — Shawn

Hence the often misquoted line "To be or not to be, I'm cool either way.."

Looks like it has the full video University lecture series. I signed up but didn’t pay the $50 for certification so I won’t be a bonafide CCV (climate change virtuoso).

A lot of books on climate change. Would be nice to know which was a good one that focuses on the science.

You’re one of the laziest trolls I’ve seen.

Abortion is awful! — PatriciaCollins

It is, but there are worse things, like backstreet abortions, or children being raised in impoverished conditions.

This really isn't rocket science. But yes, modern-day people tend to lack a sense of proper pride and dignity, so they can't relate to those who have them. — baker

Modern-day stoicism is all about well-being, and well-being is not opposed to a proper (not deficient or excessive) sense of pride and dignity. Indeed, this really isn't rocket science.

Drop political correctness for a moment and try to envision yourself as a powerful member of a powerful tribe. Can you do it? — baker

I’m not a powerful member of a powerful tribe, but I can fantasize that I am. Are you suggesting that ancient stoics were all a bunch of daydreamers?

That's in roundabout how the Stoic feels about himself, except that his reference frame isn't the powerful tribe, but Nature, the Divine. — baker

Why would that be necessary to practice stoicism?

You're claiming that Theravada Buddhists believe that things do have inherent existence or nature? If so, you're obviously very wrong.

You were saying something about the modern stoic being prone to quietism and I speculated that the pantheist may be more prone to quietism than the modern-day person because they may have an inclination to commune with God, rather than be a military general or whatever. Also, 180 pointed out several modern-day stoic military generals.

I don't see the point of making these claims if you're not going to try substantiating them. Are you just trolling?

:roll:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Theravada+buddhism+and+eptiness&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

They [modern-day stoics] have abandoned the metaphysical underpinnings of Stoicism, which, however, are of vital importance for contextualizing Stoic ethics, making them actionable, without too much difficulty and regret. — baker

This isn’t a very objectionable claim, being so oddly expressed, but it feels like I should object, so I will object, and demand that you at least try to substantiate it.

Do you think that it's true that the stoic attains inner calm or peace through apathy? — Shawn

Yesterday I was engaged in a sporting activity that didn’t go well and I remember feeling that I had a “heavy heart” when leaving it. That down in the dumps feeling quickly abated however when, da-ta-da-da!, STOICISM came to my emotional rescue. I had no control over the environment and conditions, or the other people involved, and it would only cause needless grief to fret over a past failure. So I focused on what I can control and reviewed my performance, and the choices I had made that day, in order to improve.

Xuit has nothing to do with luck. Go ahead and take another guess.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? — Pop

Why is it so hard for you to be honest?

Xuit is an ungrounded variable mental construct: Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be xuit. Xuit’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed xuit information. Xuit can be anything the xuitist thinks of, but this is limited by their consciousness. — “Alter-Pop”

What is Xuit? You don’t know because I haven’t defined it.

Completely in character, Pop completely ignores the fact.
— praxis

:roll: For the tenth time, and it is the first paragraph of the definition.

Proof of the definition:

​1.   Art is an ungrounded variable mental construct: Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be art. Art’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed art information. Art can be anything the artist thinks of, but this is limited by their consciousness.
— Pop — Pop

For the eleventh time, in order to define something you need to specify it’s unique attributes. Your definition only identifies information, human consciousness, and social constructs, nothing specific to art. It is not a definition of art and has no explanatory power in regards to art.

Completely in character, @Pop completely ignores the fact.