What fool would want to not give his or her true self under circumstances like these, eh? — god must be atheist

The problem must be that you don’t know yourself well enough, and that basically amounts to ignorance or the opposite of wisdom.

Apparently he's fully internalized victimhood. Tear. :fear:

Was there any moment of stress about death in your childhood that you remember? — Nils Loc

Not that I can recall. No one I knew died, which I imagine would have brought it to my attention if nothing else did. The earliest that I can remember someone I knew dying was when I was around 13. A neighbor drowned while snorkeling about 100 yards from our house. He was spearfishing and got stuck in a cave. I never understood how that happened because he was something of a waterman, surfer, young and fit, and he dived there a lot. Thinking about it now, I suppose he may have been drunk and/or stoned. Anyway, he was the first dead body I ever saw, though for only an instant from the shoreline when they pulled his body onto the small coastguard boat.

I don't recall being stressed about it, just mystified because the place where he drowned didn't appear dangerous to me at all. It was just a small cave.

Is there any explanation for the taboo surrounding death in our current Western culture? — Nils Loc

I'm guessing basic fear.

Were you exposed to any kind of education regarding death in school or your private life? — Nils Loc

I was taught to avoid it whenever possible.

Should we expose children to the dead in a sort of communal setting early on as a way to mollify this fear or is this a bad idea? — Nils Loc

I think it's a good idea, however, it would seem necessary to have sufficient context and not merely expose them to the dead. I suppose that means religion for most, and some sort of philosophy or meaningful secular outlook for the rest.

Anyone have hospice experience and has it changed how you think about the dead and dying? — Nils Loc

My mother had in-home hospice care at the end. It seemed ideal, given the circumstances. Far better than dying in a hospital bed attached to tubes and various machines. Perhaps your interest is with hospice care workers though.

I recently read a book called Being Mortal that somewhat changed how I look at aging and death. It's a rather depressing read, in how the elderly are so marginalized, and in contemplating the prospect of eventual disease and death. In terms of well-being, in many cases, the best way to die may not be aggressively fighting to live. You may even live longer not fighting it.

I’m trying to defend those you are lying to. — NOS4A2

You are truly a saint in the basket of deplorables.

In a healthier society (one less sickened by the depredations of capitalist predators like the Sackler family's opiate racket) we would live longer and/or happier lives. — Bitter Crank

Would we? And is it really that easy to pin the guilt on capitalist predators like the Sackler family? I think a healthy society could handle its predators.

Do you trust humans to give you an accurate model of the future? Extreme poverty is in decline, life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900. Is it really time to cower in some bunker? — NOS4A2

For the last three years life expectancy in the USA has declined, so something ain’t right.

Suit yourself.

Add on top of that the memes and shitposting, he is the anti-politician. — NOS4A2

He memes and shitposts for political reasons, numbnuts.

It's apparently even divisive to claim he's not divisive. — Hanover

No, I just didn’t think LuckilyDifinative’s argument would be amusing. I’m sure that yours would be hysterical though, if you would be so generous as to share it with us.

Anyone who would claim that Trump is not divisive is probably not worth arguing with.

Obstruction passed too.

I was just watching Trump at his Michigan rally just now for a few minutes and at one point he mentioned “in the Trump presidency 10 months is an eternity,” meaning that people will have a hard time remembering this crap a week after the senate vote, so no backlash for Liberals. Sounds about right to me.

‘meaning’ is more or less the department of ‘ethics’/‘religious institutions’. — I like sushi

Meaning that only some fool wearing a robe has the authority to say what the meaning of life is? :rofl:

He’s doing a great job. It’s hard to believe how much time we’ve wasted hiring politically-correct lawyers to run a country, when we should have been hiring billionaire playboys. — NOS4A2

Needless to say, when you say “we” you’re not speaking for liberals, or even workers in the rust-belt still experiencing a manufacturing recession.

This is the unconscious mind at work, where the conscious mind is akin to a whistle on a locomotive chugging along forward. — Wallows

Stoics believe that we have complete control of thought, judgment, and action. For my personal experience in controlling thought, I just check my meditation app and it says that over the last 12 months I've meditated for 127 hours and eighteen minutes. Very very little of that time was I able to control thoughts as I intended to. On the other hand, I did have some success and having had that success I know how to go about arranging the conditions that are conducive to quieting the mind (how I practice controlling thought in meditation). Basically the same story for judgment and action. I have biases and bad habits that are deeply ingrained but I can nevertheless make plans of action to overcome them, should I choose to.

So it's not quite as bad as you suggest, I believe. A more apt analogy might be something like a tugboat controlling an oil tanker. An oil tanker has such mass and momentum that it takes time for changes in speed and direction to take significant effect. Also, the oil tanker can be affected by other tugboats in ways that we may not be consciously aware of.

Whatever the case, the point of the Stoic dichotomy of control is serenity, or to put it in neurological terms, to deactivate a hyperactive default mode network. I don't know much about CBT but it sounds very similar, if not practically identical.

Only one group is screaming “apocalypse” while glueing themselves to buildings and streets. — NOS4A2

The other group is screaming various batshit crazy conspiracies theories of which Greta is merely a puppet.

Nor heroism.

Trump, through his twitter feed and economic posturing, can bring countries to their knees without shedding a drop of blood. — NOS4A2

His supporters will believe this is true regardless of whether or not it is true. He can’t lose in that regard.

Where did this theory originate? I’ve asked this before and received no answer. Also, can you back it up with any evidence at all?

I am abandoning the conversation with him on this topic for a while. — god must be atheist

It's not the stoic way, but for some it's good to stay within their comfort zone.

My point was that he claims you differentiate between the religious right and the religious left, while you never once did that in this thead. — god must be atheist

the religious right is so antisocialist — Pfhorrest

You don't value truth, God. May I call you God for short? What do you value?

To recap, pfhorrest claimed that the religious right (henceforth RR) uses charity to psychologically pressure the needy to support conservative causes
— praxis

You got that backwards. I’m not saying they use religion to further their political ends, but that they use politics to further their religious ends. — Pfhorrest

The conservative ends and religious ends of the RR differ?

I’m not trying to be oblique — I like sushi

Transparency is often overrated.

To recap, pfhorrest claimed that the religious right (henceforth RR) uses charity to psychologically pressure the needy to support conservative causes (increase the number of unwanted children in society or whatever). Then I wrote something. Then he wrote something. I wrote something else. He got cranky, having had a bad day at work. Then I said, “not the stoic apparently.” Not my best moment. Anyway, at some point I mentioned something about boats. Wait, no I said yhats... yachts? That’s hard to spell. What was I talking about?

Sigh.... — god must be atheist

I actually didn’t realize you’ve been fucking around from the beginning. Hook removed. :razz:

Maybe you can take some credit for Pigliucci bailing.

Where do you see an effect of the religious left not trying to win new members for their congregations? — god must be atheist

Where did I claim that was the case?

I think there are two Stoic philosophies... — god must be atheist

Technically, I also didn’t read the book. I bought it on audible.com and listened to it while driving and walking the dog. You should try the spoken word if your condition is preventing you from reading books that may be featured on services like audible.

I’m not sure how this section is supposed to work, specifically if anyone is welcome to comment or if it’s just for the topic creator and guest. Whatever the case, no one has stopped me yet, and I think it could be considered a courtesy to try resolving basic points so that the professor, should he return from his forum sabbatical, could focus on deeper aspects.

Regarding the two pillars, all I should say is that three disciplines are discussed in How to Be a Stoic, which are desire, action, and ascent. The dichotomy of control falls under desire (we should desire things within our control), and the virtue of which is courage and temperance. Perhaps you saw a more simplified or less structured version of this. It might be important to have the fuller picture in order to better appreciate the goal of Stoicism, which is essentially Eudaimonia or human flourishing. Item 5 in the OP suggests to me that this might not be clear.

Point 2 in the OP could also use some clarification. Stoics believe in living according to nature. Two distinguishing features of sapiens is that we are a social species and that we possess the capacity for reason. That is our nature, in part anyway, and it distinguishes us from other species. From this insight, accredited to Aristotle I believe, the Stoics derived the notion that human life is about the application of reason to social living. I suppose this reasoning may suggest that, for instance, living like a mindless animal (e.g. an anti-social murderous criminal) is not living according to human nature but rather the nature of a beast.

So indeed Stoics rely on their capacity of reason and their moral intuitions (to at least begin with) in order to develop virtue/character which they believe is necessary to live eudaemonicly.

As for your question, I don't find it very interesting, personally. Stoicism is a practice. What there is to teach of it is actually rather simple. The hard part is the practice. In this way, it's more like having a routine of going to the gym than it is a routine of going to a classroom. To get the best results at a gym it's best to know what you're doing, but by far it's about the practice, doing the work, being mindful of proper technique, etc.

I think a more interesting question might be whether or not Western culture and its particular value structure is fertile soil for Stoicism. We typically don't seek the good life or a meaningful life. We value money, status, fame, a good career, a big house with a white picket fence, and The American Dream (may it rest in peace).

Having just finished How to Be a Stoic, by Pigliucci, I can say there are a number of ‘assumptional errors’ that could be cleared up by simply reading the material. Rather odd to make these assumptions rather than do the reading.

How dare he? — NOS4A2

My guess: sociopathy.

Poor jealous Donald lashing out at a teenage girl.

Such a creep.

Who said the religious left are not spending their money on the needy? You really seem to love your straw men. — Pfhorrest

You seriously couldn’t tell that I was being facetious?

But there is also a clear motive for religions to oppose state-operated social services, so that religion is the only place to turn to for social services, and so more people turn to religion. That would be a motive more for people who are concerned about their religion "winning" over alternative worldviews and lifestyles, and less for people who see other religions and the state providing those same things as allies in a common cause. In other words, the right vs the left. — Pfhorrest

Your meaning isn’t clear, but you seem to be suggesting that the religious left doesn’t care about “winning.” Why should they care any less about winning than the right? I can assure you that the left cares a great deal about not losing in political issues like abortion, etc.

So does the religious left use their psychological pressure on the needy to promote Pro-choice laws and policies, and effectively work against their Conservative religious brethren in the adjacent pew?

Here's the thing...

I do not think that critical thinking is something that can be taught. Questioning authority is not equivalent to critical thinking. Doubt without adequate ground is not the result of critical thinking. It's the result of something else much less worthy... much less admirable. — creativesoul

Here’s the other thing...

Authority can be built on inadequate ground, and in that case critical thinking can show its great worth.

It's not just religion in general of course. Buddhists, for instance, are too busy navel-gazing to care about politics, and in the US they're mostly liberal besides. Religious conservatives are the demographic being discussed, which from what I can glean from the Pew Research Center is around 60-70%. It makes me wonder what the religious left does with all that cash they're not spending on the needy in order to apply psychological pressure on them. Yachts, I'll bet.

Oh yeah, well, I’m not going to continue talking with someone who doesn’t know what a typo is, so there!

I suddenly feel 10 years old.

I had a shitty day at work... — Pfhorrest

Not the stoic apparently.

...you seem weirdly obtuse about this topic. — Pfhorrest

I imagine that it might seem weirdly obtuse to someone who could see no problems with your theory. Did you come up with it, by the way, or did you get it from someone else?

If all you meant was that people who are helped by religions will be more likely to do things to support them in turn, then we're in agreement. — Pfhorrest

We are most definitely not in agreement. This does help to clarify your theory though, such as it is.

Sorry, that’s my last comment. — Brett

:party:

What is “the real disease”? — Brett

People so lost and in desperate need of a Shepard that they’ll latch on to even the most vile celebrity that claims to speak for them.

I would also like to see clarification on the use of humour. — god must be atheist

Provided that it’s of sufficient quality, it can be used effectively to lighten a mood, ridicule a fool, or merely to amuse yourself. Throw caution to the wind, I say, and let loose your wit as the mood strikes you. If you’re banned for it, at least you can take some comfort in knowing that you’ve been true to your whimsical instincts.

My studies in psychology inform me that you're being unnecessarily hostile.

So my example does illustrate how it's supposed to work? What is the fallacy then?

I'm merely trying to glean something meaningful from your abstractions. Feel free to help me out.

So for a real-world example, let us say that I become homeless and need help to get back on my feet. Let's also assume that all state/fed social safety nets that might once have helped me out have been dismantled by the Godfearing Trump administration and that my only salvation can be found in religious social programs. Having benefited from their help, I'm compelled to convert to conservativism and henceforth use my voting power to further the conservative agenda, as well as generously donate to the church.

Is that about how it's supposed to work?