Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club
Philosophy Discussion Forums A Humans-Only Philosophy Club
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.
This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Some say it is a practice of suppressing emotions. Others, like myself, view it as more controlled emotions vs. suppression.
What are your thoughts on it? There also seems to be a small come-back in popularity. I think this would be beneficial, seeing how our world is these days.
Thoughts, ideas, observations, etc.? Let's talk about it.
Appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Some say it is a practice of suppressing emotions. Others, like myself, view it as more controlled emotions vs. suppression.
What are your thoughts on it? There also seems to be a small come-back in popularity. I think this would be beneficial, seeing how our world is these days.
Thoughts, ideas, observations, etc.? Let's talk about it.
jdb
I am interested in the Stoic approach but have not read very much of this school of philosophy. However, I have been recommended to read in this direction. So, as you have begun a thread on it, perhaps, you could develop some kind of introductory synopsis, and what you see to be the positive attributes of this philosophy and its relevance in the twentieth first century.
Appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Some say it is a practice of suppressing emotions. Others, like myself, view it as more controlled emotions vs. suppression.
What are your thoughts on it? There also seems to be a small come-back in popularity. I think this would be beneficial, seeing how our world is these days.
Thoughts, ideas, observations, etc.? Let's talk about it.
jdb
You say it’s more a matter of controlled emotions than suppression of emotions, but I believe the result of controlling emotions is to suppress them, at the least to refrain from expressing them.
Also, I’m not too sure that controlling or suppressing the expression of emotions is beneficial in the world as it is today. Tensions are high and the suppression of emotions may ignite in physical violence once a certain level of frustration has been reached.
Appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Some say it is a practice of suppressing emotions. Others, like myself, view it as more controlled emotions vs. suppression.
What are your thoughts on it? There also seems to be a small come-back in popularity. I think this would be beneficial, seeing how our world is these days.
Thoughts, ideas, observations, etc.? Let's talk about it.
jdb
You say it’s more a matter of controlled emotions than suppression of emotions, but I believe the result of controlling emotions is to suppress them, at the least to refrain from expressing them.
Also, I’m not too sure that controlling or suppressing the expression of emotions is beneficial in the world as it is today. Tensions are high and the suppression of emotions may ignite in physical violence once a certain level of frustration has been reached.
Well, turning on the TV and watching Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, Minn/St. Paul, St. Louis, etc. etc. etc. being burned to the ground in the name of "justice" is horrifically clear that what we are doing is, well, just simply not working and have resulted to being animals. To focus on what we control is more important than just getting upset and being ignited by literally everything would be more beneficial for literally, everyone.
Appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Some say it is a practice of suppressing emotions. Others, like myself, view it as more controlled emotions vs. suppression.
What are your thoughts on it? There also seems to be a small come-back in popularity. I think this would be beneficial, seeing how our world is these days.
Thoughts, ideas, observations, etc.? Let's talk about it.
jdb
I am interested in the Stoic approach but have not read very much of this school of philosophy. However, I have been recommended to read in this direction. So, as you have begun a thread on it, perhaps, you could develop some kind of introductory synopsis, and what you see to be the positive attributes of this philosophy and its relevance in the twentieth first century.
Who Were The Stoic Philosophers?
Marcus Aurelius
Seneca
Epictetus
What Are The 4 Virtues of Stoicism?
Courage
Temperance
Justice
Wisdom
Stoicism is not really about controlling or suppressing emotion. Here is the real deal:
http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html
It's only about 15 pages, but this was the most life-changing thing I ever read. It is short but dense, and you'll no doubt need to read it more than once to gather it in. To give you an idea, here is a university professor giving an excellent chapter by chapter analysis:
^(I couldn't embed the video because it is a playlist, or because I am too dim, or both)
It takes him 11 hours for 15 pages!
This is because the stoics have a different way of understanding most things than most other people. They disassemble ideas about duty, freedom, justice and such and rebuild them in ways that make them easier to uphold and harder to deny. Their positions really need no support once you've grasped them, because the truths should be obvious. It's a REAL "no-spin zone". What may be puzzling is why you often you fell for the bs the rest of society is pushing.
I'll try to give a TLDR summary in the morning when I have more time, but the original sources are worth your time.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Favorite Philosopher: EpictetusLocation: Florida man
Appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Some say it is a practice of suppressing emotions. Others, like myself, view it as more controlled emotions vs. suppression.
What are your thoughts on it? There also seems to be a small come-back in popularity. I think this would be beneficial, seeing how our world is these days.
Thoughts, ideas, observations, etc.? Let's talk about it.
jdb
Control and suppression of emotions that necessarily accompany control is only half of it.
The worst of Stoicism is the denial and deprivation of the fundamental driver of living things based on an illusion that a finer and more rational self can to salvaged.
It is fake and simply does not work unless you are autistic, psychopathic or sociopathic. And I'm not sure about autistic.
Appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Some say it is a practice of suppressing emotions. Others, like myself, view it as more controlled emotions vs. suppression.
What are your thoughts on it? There also seems to be a small come-back in popularity. I think this would be beneficial, seeing how our world is these days.
Thoughts, ideas, observations, etc.? Let's talk about it.
jdb
Control and suppression of emotions that necessarily accompany control is only half of it.
The worst of Stoicism is the denial and deprivation of the fundamental driver of living things based on an illusion that a finer and more rational self can to salvaged.
It is fake and simply does not work unless you are autistic, psychopathic or sociopathic. And I'm not sure about autistic.
To quote a great philosopher I once read: "Rubbish!" If there is nothing to stoicism, then why has much of psychology and self-help been developed based upon its principles?
“When I started to get disillusioned with psychoanalysis I reread philosophy and was reminded of the constructivist notion that Epictetus had proposed 2,000 years ago: "People are disturbed not by events that happen to them, but by their view of them." I could see how that applied to many of my clients.” (Albert Ellis, founder of rational emotive behavior therapy, an element of cognitive behavioral therapy)
Stoicism simply has no appeal to people who think they have things figured out already. Most folks think they know right from wrong, and don't feel the need to dig into what they believe about right and wrong or why they believe it. <(See the long quote below) They see the golden rule or the categorical imperative and they yawn, but they get all excited trying to figure out how things work at the subatomic level or in the middle of a black hole. There's little risk to theorizing about science, or even how OTHER people should behave. Yet, if we think about our own morals and behavior, how WE treat others or fulfil our duties or might really become free and happy, we might have to admit past mistakes or see a need to change going forward.
Stoicism works, at the very least for the vast numbers of people who have emotional problems, various sorts of mental illness, like depression, anxiety or anger or those who suffer with all sorts of addictions. You simply can't concede the value of psychology, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy, or self-help programs like Alcoholics Anonymous without seeing the value of stoicism. If you don't see value in stoicism, you are effectively saying that you know right from wrong, you are not subject to any sorts of cognitive distortion, and you are as happy and tranquil as you could be or care to be. You are saying, in effect, that you don't need to grow or don't want to grow. Strangely, perhaps, you may be saying that people are incapable of growth, or of using their faculties of reason and choice. If you choose determinism over choice, then you are still, as Sartre says, "condemned to be free". Stoicism is the bedrock of psychology. Therefore, it can work for you and everyone to some degree whether you believe it or not. We all suffer from cognitive distortions and can make progress against them. If you think you have no cognitive distortions, then that thought in itself is a cognitive distortion!
The beginning of philosophy to him at least who enters on it in the right way and by the door, is a consciousness of his own weakness and inability about necessary things. For we come into the world with no natural notion of a right-angled triangle, or of a diesis, or of a half tone; but we learn each of these things by a certain transmission according to art; and for this reason those who do not know them, do not think that they know them. But as to good and evil, and beautiful and ugly, and becoming and unbecoming, and happiness and misfortune, and proper and improper, and what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, whoever came into the world without having an innate idea of them? Wherefore we all use these names, and we endeavor to fit the preconceptions to the several cases thus: "He has done well, he has not done well; he has done as he ought, not as he ought; he has been unfortunate, he has been fortunate; he is unjust, he is just": who does not use these names? who among us defers the use of them till he has learned them, as he defers the use of the words about lines or sounds? And the cause of this is that we come into the world already taught as it were by nature some things on this matter, and proceeding from these we have added to them self-conceit. "For why," a man says, "do I not know the beautiful and the ugly? Have I not the notion of it?" You have. "Do I not adapt it to particulars?" You do. "Do I not then adapt it properly?" In that lies the whole question; and conceit is added here. For, beginning from these things which are admitted, men proceed to that which is matter of dispute by means of unsuitable adaptation; for if they possessed this power of adaptation in addition to those things, what would hinder them from being perfect? But now since you think that you properly adapt the preconceptions to the particulars, tell me whence you derive this. Because I think so. But it does not seem so to another, and he thinks that he also makes a proper adaptation; or does he not think so? He does think so. Is it possible then that both of you can properly apply the preconceptions to things about which you have contrary opinions? It is not possible. Can you then show us anything better toward adapting the preconceptions beyond your thinking that you do? Does the madman do any other things than the things as in which seem to him right? Is then this criterion for him also? It is not sufficient. Come then to something which is superior to seeming. What is this?
Observe, this is the beginning of philosophy... Epictetus, "The Discourses"
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Favorite Philosopher: EpictetusLocation: Florida man
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2022, 4:26 am
It is fake and simply does not work unless you are autistic, psychopathic or sociopathic. And I'm not sure about autistic.
I am quite sure: that you know little or nothing of autism, and likely about the same for psychopathy and sociopathy. Using mental illness as an insult, as you have done here, is crass and offensive. And nothing to do with Stoicism.
JDBowden wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2022, 4:26 pm
Stoicism appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Isn't it true that any worthwhile school of philosophy is — or describes — a way of life? If philosophy is not — or cannot become — an intimate part of life, then it is pointless (IMO). Ivory-tower philosophy, as we might call it, is without purpose or meaning. IMO again, of course.
I don't have time to try to give a quick summary of the all main points of stoicism right now, so I will simply start today with the big one, the dichotomy of cognition:
Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you...Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"
This is the key that opens up the rest of the principles and ideas of stoicism. Most of us are suffering needlessly in various ways because we fail to understand this message.
We have control over our inner selves and little else. I can form opinions, desires and aversions and choose my actions. As soon as the idea leaves my mind and tries to become action, though, the world is in control. The world doesn't care beans about my desires or aversions. My attempts to "set the world right" or to achieve any end I seek might end in disaster. I could be prevented in full or in part from working toward my goals. My action might have the exact opposite effect of the one I intended! Even my own body is not really in my control (Did Marie Antoinette or Abraham Lincoln control theirs?).
So, if you seek happiness, esteem, riches, or eternal salvation through actions in the world outside your mind, then you are bound to be frustrated most of the time. This cycle often leads to anxiety, depression, anger, addiction, perhaps even suicide.
If, instead, I seek happiness by trying to be good, by choosing virtue, and by limiting my choices to those things within my control, then I am almost certain of success.
You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not in your own control to conquer., Epictetus, "The Enchiridion
It follows that good and evil are to be found within ourselves, not in the outside world. Others do as they see fit; they seldom if ever choose to harm us for the sake of the harm, but for what they see as a greater good. They may be ignorant or misinformed, but that is their problem. We have our own problems that need most of our attention.
If I want to win the World Series or be elected Governor or to become rich or famous or just to gain the love of another, I am at the mercy of others or of circumstances (a slave of them, as former slave Epictetus is fond of saying). Most of the time, I won't get what I seek, or if I do, I am likely to find the victory shallow and unsatisfying and rush off to the next battle. However, if I wish only to be kind to my neighbors or to read to my kids every night, I can almost always make these things happen. If I am averse to sickness, injury or death, well, I am in for a rough ride. I can't hold these things off for long. If instead I am averse to robbing a liquor store or yelling at my kids, I can avoid these things if I make the effort.
This is the keystone of the bridge to happiness and freedom promised by stoicism. You'll struggle to see the value of stoic ideas of freedom, virtue, duty and such unless you can see them through the lens of this critical idea. I'll try to carry on with a couple of those other ideas when have more time. In the meantime, the video below does a great job of explaining the principle and the value of the dichotomy of cognition.
I also want to note something about this idea of controlling or suppressing your emotions. This is only a side effect of directing your desires, aversions and opinions properly where they will do you the most good. If you are worried about yourself instead of what the world might do "to" you, then you are much less likely to have an emotional reaction to events. Most emotional reactions are tied to your opinions. You can fully control your opinions, and thereby control your emotions much of the time as a side effect; that does imply that you couldn't or shouldn't have emotions.
If I watch the Bengals lose the Super Bowl, I am upset. But, seeing a team lose does not upset me. I am upset because I have decided for rather silly reasons that it is good and important that this team wins, and sad or upsetting if they lose. I could change my opinion and thereby change or eliminate my emotional reaction to the outcome of the game. This extends to just about anything else:
With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies. Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Favorite Philosopher: EpictetusLocation: Florida man
Appears to be more of a way of life than a specific school of philosophy.
Some say it is a practice of suppressing emotions. Others, like myself, view it as more controlled emotions vs. suppression.
What are your thoughts on it? There also seems to be a small come-back in popularity. I think this would be beneficial, seeing how our world is these days.
Thoughts, ideas, observations, etc.? Let's talk about it.
jdb
It's impossible to suppress emotions. It is possible to change feelings which are combinations of emotions and beliefs. For instance if you feel humiliated you can feel better once you recognise humiliation is a combination of fear (i.e. the emotion of fight or flight) plus the cognition that others or another is hostile and aggressive. If on reflection it seems true that your cognition is accurate you can do nothing except tolerate the other's intention towards you, or remove yourself from the irritation. In each case it helps you when you understand your own reaction.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2022, 4:26 am
It is fake and simply does not work unless you are autistic, psychopathic or sociopathic. And I'm not sure about autistic.
I am quite sure: that you know little or nothing of autism, and likely about the same for psychopathy and sociopathy. Using mental illness as an insult, as you have done here, is crass and offensive. And nothing to do with Stoicism.
I do not regard all autism as a mental illness, and neither should you.
tututut.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2022, 4:26 am
It is fake and simply does not work unless you are autistic, psychopathic or sociopathic. And I'm not sure about autistic.
I am quite sure: that you know little or nothing of autism, and likely about the same for psychopathy and sociopathy. Using mental illness as an insult, as you have done here, is crass and offensive. And nothing to do with Stoicism.
I do not regard all autism as a mental illness, and neither should you.
tututut.
Talk about blaming the victim! You basically said that stoicism is only useful if you are a psychopath, or perhaps if you are autistic. What conclusion should we draw from your bundling of these groups (though I'm not at all sure PC drew any conclusion about who is mentally ill)? Since stoicism essentially became psychology and self-help, you are by extension blasting anyone who ever thought they benefited from either of these.
Does kindness have a cost to you that you simply cannot bear? Couldn't you disagree with our ideas without pointing out that you think anyone playing along might be a psychopath? Couldn't you even try to withhold judgement and perhaps discover that there might be something of value in an idea which you have not yet claimed as your own? If you can't politely disagree with someone, that seems to say more about you than them. (I wouldn't point this out now if I hadn't seen so many other unnecessary attacks on others from you in the past). You can do better.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Favorite Philosopher: EpictetusLocation: Florida man
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2022, 4:26 am
It is fake and simply does not work unless you are autistic, psychopathic or sociopathic. And I'm not sure about autistic.
I am quite sure: that you know little or nothing of autism, and likely about the same for psychopathy and sociopathy. Using mental illness as an insult, as you have done here, is crass and offensive. And nothing to do with Stoicism.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2022, 8:20 am
I do not regard all autism as a mental illness, and neither should you.
tututut.
I used the everyday vocabulary, despite its inaccuracy, to ensure my point was made. Your use of disability to insult Stoicism was well outside the bounds of decency, and you should be ashamed of yourself, not tutting at me.