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?

You're not being clear. What exactly is a religion (such as Christianity in the United States) competing with the state over? You seemed to claim that it was competing for political power earlier. If that's right, how will deregulation and deterioration of entitlements help religion gain political power?

I can assure you that I've made no recent slip of the tongue (or fingers), so lighten up, buttercup.

In the sense I already described. If the state implements social programs, people have less need to turn to the church for their social support. So the church has motive to be against state social programs to preserve a reason for people to turn to themselves instead. — Pfhorrest

I think you will concede that the state has vastly more resources at its disposal than the church. This indicates a lack of competition.

Conservatives (not necessarily religious conservatives, as there are of course religious liberals) claim to be against socialism because they believe it's inefficient, or rather that the state is unable to do it as well as free-market capitalism. History tends to validate this claim. On the other hand, unregulated capitalism without social safety nets, etc. can lead to an unstable economy.

In the US, religion has already lost to the state, in both political power and in supporting the populace. I believe the separation of church and state is written into the constitution. How can there be any sense of competition?

Is stoicism really a personal philosophy? — sime

The difference between religion and stoicism in this regard I believe lies in authority. There are certainly authorities in stoicism, such as Epictetus, but they're not ultimate authorities like God or the Pope, who maintain a dogma of some sort. Stoicism is more like a science that is open to revision, can accommodate vastly divergent metaphysics, and has no ultimate authority.

What the fuck does it tell you?

That’s why the religious right is so antisocialist. They see secular society as a competing religion. If the only social support system is religious then religions benefit. If there are alternatives then religions risk losing to the competition. — Pfhorrest

This doesn't make sense for the simple fact that there are many religions in the world that may 'compete' and if secularity were seen as just another religion then it would simply be viewed as another competitor in the same category of competition. In any case, there's only a marginal difference between religious and secular charity. Secularity tends to support secular institutions and the religious tend to support religious institutions.

I’m hoping you looked at the article, and read it to the end where the article finishes with this line;

“The threat of tyranny can be real enough. But those who act as though democracy is constantly on the precipice are likely to miss the path that leads not simply to fuller justice but to true safety.” — Brett

In the preceding paragraph the author writes:

tyrannophobia is blinding many to the real warnings of the election: A dysfunctional economy, not lurking tyranny, is what needs attention if recent electoral choices are to be explained — and voting patterns are to be changed in the future.

The apparent concern in regard to "true safety" is not placing attention where it can do the most good, which in this case is claimed to be the dysfunctional economy. Nowhere in the article does it explain how mass hysteria or tyrannophobia plays into the hands of totalitarianism. You still haven't explained how one may lead to the other. The truth is that you can't explain it, because the claim is irrational, as is your claim that this topic expresses mass hysteria. To put it bluntly, you're being hysterical, which is extremely odd considering your line of critique.

Let's assume that you've shown the "mass hysteria" present in this topic, how exactly does it play into the hands of totalitarianism?
— praxis

I thought you’d prefer the NYT as opposed to Fox.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sunday/trump-hysteria-democracy-tyranny.html — Brett

I’ll ask once more, how exactly does the alleged mass hysteria expressed in this topic play into the hands of totalitarianism?

Stoicism expects too much from modern-day man-kind. — Wallows

By way of simile, it’s as though you suggest that the gym I go to expects too much from me. Of course that in order to gain a benefit from gym workouts a regular practice needs to be maintained, as well as balance in cardio/resistance training with adequate technique. Now that I think about it, I guess the gym does expect a lot. I guess the question is whether or not it’s too much, or rather, if the cost is worth the benefit.

Generally speaking, staying fit is healthy, and health is unquestionably good. ‘Modern-day’ mankind may have other priorities, however, which override the value of good health. I wonder if those priorities are worth it. Maybe those other priorities expect too much.

I rest my case. — Brett

Your case is the following?

The comments made on this OP right from the start are full of hysterical nonsense about the end of the world, fascism, catastrophic consequences and war. It’s mass hysteria that plays into the hands of totalitarianism, which is what this OP amounts to. — Brett

Let's assume that you've shown the "mass hysteria" present in this topic, how exactly does it play into the hands of totalitarianism? Feel free to research Fox News opinion pieces, Breitbart, or whatever, in trying to rationally explain your claims.

And you characterize all two hundred and thirty five pages with the few such snippets you can find? That’s irrational.

There’s one for Fascist hysteria? What about the rest? The one from wayfarer was on page 218. Are you working from the end towards the OP?

The comments made on this OP right from the start are full of hysterical nonsense about the end of the world, fascism, catastrophic consequences and war. — Brett

Would you mind pointing out these comments? There’s two hundred and thirty four pages so I’m sure you can find something to support this claim, but it might take you a while to find it.

Quite frankly, the Turner prize awarded four ways looks like a simple publicity stunt to me, and in no way actually addresses the politically polarized world we currently find ourselves in. I might buy it if the works were ideologically incongruous, but it doesn’t sound like they are from the descriptions in the Guardian article. Am I missing something?

I also don’t see the connection to Stoicisim. I can’t think of any aspect of Stoicisim that’s opposed to competition.

A mashup of misunderstood ideas and words. Equally important as 'knowing thyself' is 'knowing thine subject matter'. :wink: — Wayfarer

Heh, well said.

What has this to do with the OP? — tim wood

The OP basically compares Buddhism and introspection, with the fallacious assumption that they are somehow synonymous. Buddhism is a religion and as such it relies on a system of doctrine and hierarchical authority and not on one's own introspection. Its claims about reality, the mind, and the self are not open to reformation. Ancient Greek mysticism, on the other hand, practiced by notable figures like Plotinus and Pythagoras, was unconstrained by religious dogma. As @Possibility mentions, "To start with a limited perspective of self makes sense. But the idea is to ‘know thyself’ in an ever-broadening context."

Knowing thyself can be approached in various ways, such as via physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and of course through mysticism. The best approach probably depends on the reason or purpose for studying the self. Buddhism ostensibly studies the self to end suffering. In reality, however, the purpose of religion is to bind a community in common values and goals (telos), offering what I'll describe as a package of meaning. It should also be mentioned that in some forms and communities of Buddhism that it emphasizes contemplation or mysticism. Generally speaking, mysticism can relieve existential anxiety and in that way lessen suffering.

So the key fallacy of the OP is that mysticism wasn't practiced by ancient Western philosophers. Not only is this false but Socrates, Plotinus, Pythagoras, and others were unconstrained by religious dogma in their introspection. Not to say that they weren't publicly constrained.

Oh? You’ve actually complemented me in the past for it, if I recall correctly.

Truth is so often inconvenient for the Trump supporter.

The OP is well written but, to my mind at least, rather confused and the author’s intentions aren’t clear. My response touched on a key issue that might have initiated a “worthy” dialogue. The OP now six days stale and there are no signs of life to date.

Does whining pass for worthy dialogue on this illustrious forum, btw?

There was no insulting language (vulgarity?) in my previous post. Nevertheless, I was ridiculing you.

Must be that you’re so habituated to ridicule that you can’t even recognize it anymore. :razz:

Mysticism was practiced in the West, though perhaps not as extensively.

Curious what sort of legal action could be undertaken for editing out the personal information of a member.

Just a comment on something VagabondSpectre mentioned in another topic.

NOS4A2 is an example of a poster who toes the line of philosophical value vs effort. His posts are intellectually bankrupt, but they're also coherent and not poorly written. He genuinely seems to believe his ideas, and he definitely puts some degree of effort into posts. He could actually be a paid Russian troll, but even if that's true, his posts still meet that good-faith "effort" requirement, and he otherwise colors inside the aforementioned hostility lines, so even if we knew he was getting paid to write his posts, it might still be worth letting him stick around.
– VagabondSpectre

Assuming the objective of a paid Russian troll is to influence American voters to vote for a destabilizing or Russian friendly presidential candidate, they would be largely wasting their time on a forum like this. They'd get much better results on facebook and the like. So if NOS4A2 is a paid Russian troll, he should be...

I dunno, banning yourself for being crazy sounds like a pretty crazy thing to do. — Pfhorrest

Exactly.

I want to ban myself for being crazy, but if I ban myself for being crazy that would show that I’m sane because a crazy person wouldn’t ban themselves for being crazy, so I can’t ban myself for being crazy.