Inner calm and inner peace in Stoicism.
As a stoic, I have had many reasons for engaging in the life of a would be stoic. One of the more imperative reasons would be to attain a sense of inner calm. However, as some authors would describe the stoic inner citadel of methodological reasonings of how to go about life to attain this state one has to present to themselves every day a sort of creed in practice. This creed affirm the needless effort to seek out inner peace as seen through the every day affirmations of Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus.
Before I ramble longer I would like to focus on the difference between inner calm and inner peace of a Stoic. The difference manifests itself in dispreferred and preferred indifferents. I won't go into what they are but the thesis of this thread is that stoicism presents itself as a constant struggle (in my experience) with analyzing what is important to control in one's life. Life in the Stoics inner citadel is rife with a sense of arising apathy towards what life or fate has in store for you. This sense of need to gauge ones agency or balance in the world or more to the point, modern day would is constantly a point of ponderence or contemplation. Further, if one has a stable job or source of income these issues might be less intense or even severe in my case.
I do have a question to the reader with the above preface. Do you find yourself tired or relentlessly under siege with discerning what life or fate has in store for you? Do you actually read to yourself affirmations every day about what to purpose to yourself in terms of ancient philosophy your intent towards and for what need? Due to this, do you struggle with a philosophical apathy to try to surmount the issue with an attitude towards life? If so, then how did it work out for you?
Before I ramble longer I would like to focus on the difference between inner calm and inner peace of a Stoic. The difference manifests itself in dispreferred and preferred indifferents. I won't go into what they are but the thesis of this thread is that stoicism presents itself as a constant struggle (in my experience) with analyzing what is important to control in one's life. Life in the Stoics inner citadel is rife with a sense of arising apathy towards what life or fate has in store for you. This sense of need to gauge ones agency or balance in the world or more to the point, modern day would is constantly a point of ponderence or contemplation. Further, if one has a stable job or source of income these issues might be less intense or even severe in my case.
I do have a question to the reader with the above preface. Do you find yourself tired or relentlessly under siege with discerning what life or fate has in store for you? Do you actually read to yourself affirmations every day about what to purpose to yourself in terms of ancient philosophy your intent towards and for what need? Due to this, do you struggle with a philosophical apathy to try to surmount the issue with an attitude towards life? If so, then how did it work out for you?
Comments (168)
Thus, I am forced to conclude that the Cynic was right after all in his or her practicality and efficiency at attaining what one would or can call an inner sense of peace with the world.
Is this something the reader finds worthy of commenting in the positive or negative? What are your thoughts?
Do you think that it's true that the stoic attains inner calm or peace through apathy? Is this a natural unavoidable attitude? Is apathy and attitude towards life worth displaying in your opinion?
You have discussed this many times with e.g. @Ciceronianus in your thread here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6764/why-i-gave-up-on-stoicism/p1
I think that @Ciceronianus might describe himself as a pragmatic stoic and might have a succinct and clear response to hand.
Apart from that - if you are still troubled by fixing on one philosophy as a way of thinking about/behaving in life, then why do you need that ? Certainty ? Security ?
One problem at a time.
What are your actual daily living concerns ?
We are all faced with problems, some of which we can sort out by clear thinking.
It doesn't help to get mired in some dogmatic way of living or obsession.
There will always be changing circumstances and we need some kind of knowledge so that we can adapt. Also, a certain flexibility.
A practical way to live your own life as best you can - not necessarily by some theory or handed-down practice.
Self-knowledge and the ability to see the merits or value in adopting mixed methods...
Work out what is do-able for you. Then just do it, or don't.
But you know all this already - why keep asking ?
Quoting Shawn
I think that this is about appreciating the day as it comes. Not taking life for granted.
Not worrying too much about the future cos your end could come sooner than you think.
Look out for that 3-legged elephant on an escalator :scream:
Edit: adding this, but I think you are already well-acquainted:
https://dailystoic.com/7-stoic-tenets-to-keep-in-mind-today/
Could you please post a link to those?
In discussions of S/stoicism, the point is often made that one needs to distinguish between what one can control and what one cannot control.
However, I do not know any reference to this in the writings of the ancient Stoics. Could you post it, please?
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.
And to think, I thought I held promise to join the ranks someday, after I pulled my head out of my ass.
No.
Quoting Shawn
No. But maybe I should.
Quoting Shawn
Yes, but not due to that.
Quoting Shawn
I'm too patient, and too lazy, hoping it happens without putting in the work.
Quoting Shawn
I'm not so sure metaphilosophically analyzing the self is the right way to go about it. But I can definitely see how that would lead to apathy. I don't think cynicism follows from the inverse, though I myself suffer from it and do find some peace. So maybe I should not opine on the matter until such time as I eschew my cynicism. Waiting.
Quoting Shawn
I don't think so. I think objectivity (view from 10 million feet and 10 trillion years) is what will provide the inner calm or peace.
By which I mean that it takes quite a lot of effort to quell the anxiety of making money enough for one's needs or taking care of a family or making time in one's schedule for appointments and family, AND on top of all this behaving in accordance with virtue.
That's mostly what I have in mind.
I guess the plain old simple truth is that I'm a depressed guy that has sought solence in Stoicism; but, the scale was tilted towards attaining Stoic apathy out of my natural disposition towards life and depression. That's about all I can say as the motivating factor of this thread, @Amity...
See,
http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html
And, Marcus Aurelius Meditations.
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/286
I find this reminder hard to accept at times, even though I'm a sage at Stoic apathy now due to it, jokingly.
I might be living in an alternative universe, but I never saw the stoic as concerned about money, family, schedules, etc. I saw more proximity between stoicism and the houseless under a bridge than I did with the average wage slave.
What do you think it means to behave 'in accordance with virtue' ?
How many do you think achieve this ?
It's not about being perfectly free from emotion, that's an impossibility.
But trying to control those harmful to yourself and others.
Like the total rage I talked about the other day. It wasn't helping me and I allowed it to take over my mind. Even with previous experience and a knowledge of different ways to manage it. We are only human. It's worse when you give yourself a hard time over it.
Negative natterings.
--------
https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/
'The Stoics held that virtue is the only real good and so is both necessary and, contrary to Aristotle, sufficient for happiness; it in no way depends on luck.
The virtuous life is free of all passions, which are intrinsically disturbing and harmful to the soul, but includes appropriate emotive responses conditioned by rational understanding and the fulfillment of all one’s personal, social, professional, and civic responsibilities.
The Stoics believed that the person who has achieved perfect consistency in the operation of his rational faculties, the “wise man,” is extremely rare, yet serves as a prescriptive ideal for all. The Stoics believed that progress toward this noble goal is both possible and vitally urgent.'
--------
As we've discussed before - it might be what the Stoics believed but we don't need to or follow the whole shebang.
We might not go on well or attain ALL our goals but the ability to follow a problem or decision-making process in a real and practical manner is important. Don't you think ?
Didn't we agree at one point that the Serenity Prayer, with or without a 'God', was a pretty good way to go ?
Doing the best we can...given some perfectly natural concerns and anxieties...low moods or worse. Hold on to the best, most useful ideas. Let go of the worst.
What sayest thou ?
Quoting Amity
Quoting Shawn
Consider time.
We are natural stoics wrt the past. Good or bad, we take it as it went. Currently, I am writing this, and I am stoical about the present too. It is what it is. Until it's shit, and then I want to escape; which is to say 'I want the future to be other than this'. Desire and fear are the push-me-pull-you pet of the failed stoic; they relate to the future. To be fearful of desire, or desirous of escaping fear is to be caught up in the world.
Be caught up in the world, therefore, while you can. There will be time enough to be a stoical corpse.
Hmmmm. I think I agree. And here I was, hoping I might find magic in stoicism. Maybe I should forget that shit and just get on with life. Embrace the suck, if you will.
I have my concerns over this, with respect to finding little motivation or desire to become this way with respect to my fate or destiny or whatever nature or God has in store for me. I'm cautious and quite apathetic about these current events.
Quoting unenlightened
I say this with trepidation; but, isnt the lofty minded philosopher concerned with other more valuable or dare I say important issues than being caught up with the world?
One can be satisfied in their depression or current apathy, no?
Well you are the expert in this, but you don't read satisfied.
[quote=John Milton]
ALL is best, though we oft doubt,
What th' unsearchable dispose
Of highest wisdom brings about,
And ever best found in the close.
Oft he seems to hide his face,
But unexpectedly returns
And to his faithful Champion hath in place
Bore witness gloriously; whence Gaza mourns
And all that band them to resist
His uncontroulable intent.
His servants he with new acquist
Of true experience from this great event
With peace and consolation hath dismist,
And calm of mind all passion spent.[/quote]
Samson Agonistes.
I don't think one can be depressed, apathetic, and satisfied. But I could be wrong.
It be a sulken sort of satisfaction. My memory commands me not to desire or fear too much as things are happening as they do with or without my influence on their happenings.
I can't imagine it was easier when Stoicism was a thing.
'A sulken sort of satisfaction' - what does that mean ? Resentful that you feel 'under command' not to do, feel or be something ? But that doesn't mean you can't control or influence some causes/effects of events, does it ? Why would it be your memory that commands you ? Memory of your interpretations of Stoicism and a perception of failure ? What ? A Higher Self ?
Your discussions can be a sort of Socratic sustenance. Keeping on going. A source of strength and nourishment. 'A Good Stew' as @180 Proof might write :sparkle:.
Working through stuff...
I guess you can be both content and not content at the same time.
Generally, I am comfortable in my surroundings but it is natural that particular thoughts arise about unsatisfactory states. About how we might have said or acted differently - for a better outcome for self and others.
Quoting Shawn
I find myself tired talking or thinking about same old, same old.
And seemingly never learning a damned thing, even if I have...
It can become discouraging if you think too much about it. I think that is why Marcus, man of action, gave himself limited time to set his mind straight before the daily grind. I can't remember but didn't he write in the mornings ?
I don't read or write daily affirmations.
There is no relentless 'siege' re what life has in store...having covered most of it, I am not so concerned.
Still naturally anxious - there is a need to keep an eye on the way I think/feel.
All the better not to become overwhelmed. I think 'talking' here and elsewhere with fairly sensible and fun people with life experience can help. Just as you are doing :smile:
Here's something to reflect on, stew over:
Quoting Donald Robertson: 3 Ideas the Stoics learned from Socrates
https://donaldrobertson.name/2018/04/18/three-ideas-the-stoics-learned-from-socrates/
We can admit our weaknesses but to dwell in them is not a recipe for contentment...
There's a time for everything.
You wanna dance :party:
No, that should be: Living is taxing on the modern stoic's mind.
The problem with so many modern-day stoics is that they are just that, stoics, with a lower key. They 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. In contrast, the modern stoic lives in a cold, indifferent universe, believes it to be chaotic at some basic level, and he sees himself as a product of this universe. No wonder he has a lot of troubles and is apathetic.
One cannot believe in modern science and still be a Stoic.
That's not a Stoic stance, although it's a stoic one.
Quoting Modern Stoicism
https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/
Quoting James Riley
I don't know what, if any, wizardry will be performed here - maybe suck and see ?
For anyone interested, starts online tomorrow !
Edit: have registered and stuff already out there :cool:
Quoting Stoic Week starts Mon 18th October
https://modernstoicism.com/event/stoic-week-2021/
I never viewed the Stoic as a Carpe Diem entity. I always thought Jordan Petersons lobster eating SSRI taking bloke was closer to what can be conceived as a Stoic.
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.
Quoting James Riley
On the off chance the Stoics are "selling" something, it's not magic they're selling, but how to deal with the practical concerns of daily life and the world. And yes, they are applicable in today's world. I wish I had my book with me to provide an exact quote, but along the lines of "do not busy yourself with checking out what others have been up to, going to their homes, just to see what they're doing, and call it a productive day". They hate kissing asses to emperors, the governors of towns, celebrities or whatever titles in high society one possesses. If you aren't one of the titled individual now, then take care of what you have, and forget about trying to know what others are doing. (Today, it is like someone living in the social media world where life's affirmation is based on the filtered images presented to you by others as "daily normal life".
I was introduced to Stoicism in my college days -- never regretted one bit of it. It has taken good care of me, I'm happy to say. I work in a demanding, high stress field, but good pay. My brain has to work in top capacity all day. It's high capacity or I'm pretty shot. That's just me.
Not to say that the Stoics promised a life without stress, difficulties, hardships, or unhappiness. It's your attitude towards these events that would determine how your well-being will turn out in the end. They do not believe in life as a cruddy existence -- that belief belongs to the Cynics. But the Stoics believe that there will be bad days from time to time. So save your energy by not complaining about the first world problems -- you know, house too big so internet cannot reach your bedroom, too large to clean, paid gardener not doing a good job in the garden, scratch on the car because you went to the grocery store and someone touched your car with a shopping cart, bitter cucumber, that sort of problems.
I'll take my lead from Sa-go-ye-wat-ha for the time being.
Quoting Caldwell
I hope you didn't think I used the word "selling." As evidenced from my post, quite the opposite. I may have been wrong regarding their alleged concern with how to deal with the practical concerns of daily life (I though they were beyond that BS) but I certainly never considered a stoic as concerned with selling.
No I didn't. But the word "magic" triggered "snake oil", and snake oil triggered "selling.
:ok: I guess the context from my other posts was missing.
:wink:
Good for you. It's not an either/or.
I'm pretty lazy and have skipped parts - already covered 43% of it.
Free downloads can be read or listened to later.
Quoting James Riley
Why not ? They got a living to make.
Like any kind of philosophy, there are ideas to sell.
To buy or not to buy...
Depends on the needs/wants of the customer.
Right now, I'm finding modern Stoicism and its presentation - hmmm...underwhelming.
Not committed to it but will spend a few minutes a day to peek in.
If @Shawn registers - might be interesting to compare thoughts.
Monday's Daily Card quote is the Serenity Prayer without God. Yippee.
*Wallow wallow*
It's a pigs life.
Thanks!
Quoting Amity
I was operating under a misconception about what stoicism was/is.
As you were/are/will be.
Enjoy.
So, from a position of ignorance ?
And no interest ?
That's fine too.
Prego :cool:
Misconception does not equal ignorance.
Quoting Amity
I had an interest, but not enough to pursue it once I cleared up my misconception.
Quoting Amity
Thanks!
Right. And that's not what I said. You know that.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information.
Misconception ?is a belief or an idea that is not based on correct information, or that is not understood by people.
Misconceptions can arise from a position of ignorance.
Where did yours come from ?
Quoting James Riley
What is your understanding now?
Answers to be in essay form. Minimum word count = 200.
Quoting James Riley
Again, prego :cool:
Of course I regard Chrysippus laughing at the donkey eating figs and then suggesting that it should have some wine with it as someone worth reading.
Now that is ignorance of a different kind.
Bye.
Your self.
Almost as ignorant as this:
Quoting Amity
Prego.
Adios, MFr.
:party:
I think I shall read something on Stoic logic.
https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-stoics.htm
Knock yourself out :party:
I'm pretty sure we've been over this at least once. E.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543997
No. You must envision a proud and capable military general as an exemplary Stoic.
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?
Will the fashion for Stoicism ever end? I've read Marcus Aurelius and Seneca's letters and found them of little interest (not that this impacts on the matter). Given what you said, can an ordinary plonker be a Stoic, or is that just a middle-class lifestyle fantasy?
Drop political correctness for a moment and try to envision yourself as a powerful member of a powerful tribe. Can you do it?
That's in roundabout how the Stoic feels about himself, except that his reference frame isn't the powerful tribe, but Nature, the Divine.
To the former -- probably not. The plebeian is just not fit to be a Stoic.
To the latter -- yes. Normal middle-class people shudder at the mere thought of taking seriously ideas that there are gods, or that we're all part of a whole, that all is determined, etc. So they whittle Stoicism down to something politically correct, something palatable for the middle class and the bourgeoisie, but this way, they also render it impotent. Jordan Peterson's lobster eating SSRI taking bloke?! Eh. I think Stoicism is actually so "far out there" that much of it doesn't even register in the minds of many modern people.
Personally, I read the writings of the Stoics in the sense as if they were written by a rich, powerful, healthy man. Read otherwise, they are just depressing.
:up: I admit I came at this thread with a misconception. However, after reading some definitions, and some of the posts of those who either pretend to stoicism, or who have redefined it, I'm pretty much "meh" about it. I see great opportunity for a fallacy of gravitas to find a home in it.
That is my sense too. Thanks.
Quoting James Riley
Nice line. :up:
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.
Quoting 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?
Quoting baker
Why would that be necessary to practice stoicism?
With reference to Stoic Week and the course events/videos/discussions:
https://modernstoicism.com/stoic-week/
It is not necessarily about becoming a Stoic but ( amongst other things ) seeing the relationship between Ancient Stoicism and modern psychotherapy - especially cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).
Tuesday's video re the cognitive nature of emotions by Donald Robertson (18:10) is excellent.
Ancient Stoics mentioned: Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.
The 'lecture' is informal, explaining concepts and practical techniques with lightness and humour.
Concepts such as 'cognitive distancing' and the 'view from above'.
The wearing of catastrophic v opportunity tinted glasses. And so on.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, given your background.
Also from others following this discussion.
At (15:00), Donald turns to how he trains psychotherapists in the technique of:
"What's probably gonna happen next ?"...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XuwYvFlNGns
15mins
CBT and Stoicism - Jules Evans includes personal story with humour.
Somewhere at 12:30 he suddenly says SHIT-BRICKED, and this was beautiful in front of an academic audience.
:lol:
Short Story, surely.
So-called Shaky Stoics Shit-bricked on a Ship-wreck :cool:
One of the most powerful ideas I ever heard (when I heard it first 35 years ago) is - "It isn't what people say to you or do that upsets you, it is how you chose to react.' Simple and almost a homily on the surface, but so often when people 'go off the rails' it is because they have been unable to hold this in mind.
Epictetus, in the first century A.D. wrote in the Enchiridion: “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them.”
Shakespeare also incorporated a lot from Stoicism...
Hence the often misquoted line "To be or not to be, I'm cool either way.."
Yes, this is something I try to keep in mind whenever the blood starts to boil for whatever reason.
It is indeed a powerful Stoic theme re the perception of hurt/harm.
Most relevant to @Shawn's Quoting Shawn
Marcus Aurelius wrote in The Meditations:
'Remove the judgement, and you have removed the thought 'I am hurt': remove the thought 'I am hurt', and the hurt itself is removed.' (4:7)
It's a recurring theme re how to cope with anxieties, etc.
Being aware of our perceptions and internal judgements about external events/circumstances.
And then addressing rationally...where possible.
I've read of an increase in referrals and a decrease in resources to deal with the fall-out from Covid and Brexit-related stresses.
Please stay well and continue the good work :sparkle:
Sounds like something said by someone very powerful, someone on whom others depend for mercy.
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.
Read before replying.
Because otherwise, you're just a poor sod in the gutter repeating some silly self-help soundbites to himself.
That might be because it was said by someone very powerful... But you know what? It's been used powerfully with people who are homeless and on the margins for many years and it often transfers effortlessly to them. People who slash themselves with broken bottles and run into oncoming cars as a way to manage emotional distress can change using this approach. Does if work for everyone? Of course not. But it does for many.
I've come rather late to this thread, and may have missed something. But you understand Epictetus was a slave, right? Slaves generally weren't considered powerful men in the Roman Empire of the first century C.E.
He was a slave of a functionary in the court of Nero. His master may have been a former slave himself.
I don’t see how your sadistic appetite is relevant to our little chat.
Quoting 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.
Surely slaves were ambitious? Or at least our particular slave here was.
But here's the catch: How many Stoics actually attained ataraxia, aequanimitas?
- - -
Quoting Tom Storm
If you say so. I have no doubt that there can be post-traumatic growth.
But could a once well-to-do person who has fallen on hard times pick themselves up and rebuild their life using this reduced stoic philosophy?
Why doesn't it work for everyone?
Do any ideas work for everyone?
:up: My ideas should work for everyone. But they don't. :cry:
My problem with Ellis is that he was a staunch humanist, without ever explaining the foundation of his view. You just have to believe that life is worth living, and you just have to believe that you're a worthy human being, that's it, end of story.
To me, the whole of REBT (and CBT) hinges on this belief. And if one doesn't take it for granted, the therapy won't work.
I think that this is actually a recipe for contempt of others. And people in fact feel better when they apply the motto you're mentioning -- but that's because they've found a way to despise the other person and to feel superior to them.
It's similar with forgiveness: it feels good because the forgiver has finally found a way to feel superior to the other person, has finally found a way to despise them.
Quoting Tom Storm
Why is that so? Surely you, given your profession, must have some explanation for it. You can't just chalk it up to Mercury retrograde.
Quoting baker
People don't always have explanations. But I do know that if someone has significant brain damage (which is very common in people with trauma histories - injuries/suicide attempts/overdoses) they may not be able to participate for reason of memory, and diminished capacity (for want of a better term).
How philosophy can save your life | Jules Evans | TEDxBreda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XuwYvFlNGns
Quoting Amity
At 12:32, Jules talks about the 3rd technique for creating 'ingrained habits', as potentially a way to change the way we live/think about our lives. The first two:
1. the maxim - written down in notebooks ( enchiridions) and repeated until memorised.
2. keeping a journal - to keep track of progress. At 12:14, advice from Epictetus re anger management - to count the days we've managed not to lose it. If 30 days, then "Yay, progress !".
3. fieldwork - not enough to theorise, need to get out there for practice.
At 12:45, Epictetus to his students. You may be very good in the lecture room but drag yourself out into practice and you're miserably ship-wrecked. ( or shit-bricked as @Shawn would have it !)
Need to challenge not just your thoughts but your behaviour.
If we have modern day CBT, the questions arises 'Do we still need Ancient Philosophy ?'
At 14:12, Jules gives 2 reasons.
Ending with:
Neither psychology or philosophy - ancient or modern - can give a single answer to the Big Q's like:
What's the meaning of life ? What does it mean to flourish ?
There will always be different and various views and arguments about ideas/theories/practices.
I agree with Jules when he states the importance of practical philosophy brought into schools, universities, companies.
Also, re @unenlightened previous comment:
Quoting unenlightened
I was in 2 minds over this. I thought back to my 2 grandparents who fought in and survived WW1.
Both how they coped and also their families; parents and eventual wives/children.
There's a sense in - yes, they just got on with it. They had no choice or much say in the matter.
Perhaps a natural survival instinct is part of stoicism or v.v.
However, that isn't to say that there weren't negative effects which would linger and perhaps fester.
Perhaps the words 'stress' or 'post-traumatic disorder' didn't enter their vocabulary. But it existed.
The NHS didn't. And now, services are being reduced with remaining staff being stressed beyond belief.
Can we console ourselves with 'All's well that ends well' ?
Re: daily presentations of a 'sort of creed'.
@Shawn
Perhaps you can clarify. Am I right in thinking you are referring to one of the techniques: the use of maxims or proverbs/mantras ?
Quoting Amity
I see these are shortcut reminders to the more in-depth philosophy - or in some cases, religion.
A quick pick-me up, if you like. Or words we live by - that colour our attitude. The way we look at life.
Our health and wellbeing.
Some can be a bit trite or even lead to more questions. 'Everything in moderation' - 'Know Thyself'.
The thing with CBT is that it is remedial, usually short-term and, I think, diagnosis driven ?
People are already suffering from problems.
So, here comes the maxim ingrained or engraved on my skull:
'Prevention is better than cure'.
So, perhaps a 'Practical Stoicism', as a whole philosophy of life - can bring benefits by mental and physical preparation ? A readiness, if you like.
Your thoughts ?
@Ciceronianus
Quoting Ciceronianus
At last. What took you so long ? :wink:
It was a peculiarity of the Roman institution of slavery (and perhaps ancient slavery in general) that slaves had very few rights and were deemed to be of very low social status, but could be freed and, once freed, could become wealthy and powerful mostly through their wealth, and sometimes their association with emperors as those who did the hard work of governing. But there's no evidence that Epictetus was "ambitious" in the sense we would use that word, I think.
Little enough is known of him, but what we do know suggests he wasn't. He was born a slave. He was eventually freed by his master, and taught philosophy in Rome until the Emperor Domitian (not a particularly tolerant man) banished all philosophers from the city. He was "lame" as they used to say, due to physical abuse while he was a slave, or disabled from birth (the sources disagree). After his banishment he went to Nicopolis in Greece and lived there for the rest of his life, teaching philosophy. The sources indicate he lived very simply, had very few possessions, never married, and eventually adopted the child of a friend who otherwise would have been abandoned. He wrote nothing that is known. His Discourses and Enchiridion were derived from notes of his teachings taken by his student Arrian.
He was honored and respected by some influential men of his time, including Marcus Aurelius, though Marcus never knew him or attended his lectures. That's about all we know.
The ancient Stoics often would elaborate on how a true Stoic Sage, who had perfected himself, would think and react to events, but it's recognized this was an ideal. I don't know if anyone ever became a Sage, but if they did I doubt it's something they would claim to be. History indicates that there were those who were professed members of the Stoic school who accepted their deaths at the hands of emperors they had angered with courage and tranquility, like Seneca and the senators known as the "Stoic Martyrs." There's a story about Epictetus that he was tortured while a slave and pointed out to his torturer that if he kept it up he'd break Epictetus' leg, and that once he broke it Epictetus said something like 'I told you so." I'm inclined to think that story is like the stories which were told regarding Christians who were tortured or martyred and how they acted while in pain or dying; i.e., not credible.
I sometimes think I've said all I have to say about certain subjects. Then, suddenly, I think I haven't.
There's no doubt that it would be difficult to live a Stoic life. That may be why professed Stoics like Marcus Aurelius were inclined to engage in the discipline of constantly reminding themselves of what that would entail--in his case in his writings which have come to be known as the Meditations, but which were never intended for publication; most likely they were "spiritual exercises" as Pierre Hadot says.
*sigh*
When evaluating something that is proposed as a coping strategy, one has to test it to see how it performs under pressure.
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.
You and your three monkeys again.
Do you think that CBT or REBT would work on someone like Prince Siddhattha? I think it wouldn't. Would you say the reason would be that he had some kind of brain damage?
Clumsy. I have no knowledge of religious figures like the Buddha, but brain damage might explain them. But no - when I highlighted that point it was to find you one example of people who might not benefit. .
Quoting baker
They are actually your three wise monkey's again. And I guess the interpretation of this favored line of yours is an attempt to suggest that I am not seeing the full picture. Presumably through some kind of selective blindness. Is this a smear, or was your intent less cynical than it appears?
Or maybe it was just an expression of your unwillingness to trust another person's experience on the internet? I understand. You have no idea who I am and what I know, so it's kind of a random statement. If I have your intent correct, I would have probably asked instead - "How do you know that you are not cherry picking your results here?" My answer would be - evidence over three decades. Now this doesn't have to satisfy you and nor should it. And you can't investigate it further as you won't have scrutiny of the work.
Gary Cooper would never be cynical as you sometimes appear to be. Maybe you need to turn in your little tin sheriff's badge and be the deputy instead.
:clap:
No. I don't know if your optimism is genuine or a matter of being diplomatic. So here's that to figure out.
I want to see the breadth and depth of your mind. As I always do, with everyone. But particularly with people who appear optimistic, who "love life".
It's prudent to know whether the person one is talking to is a true optimist about life, with profound reasons to back up such optimism. Or whether they are a bitter cynic or a sad fool diplomatically hiding behind a veil of optimism. I have no use for the latter types.
I wonder what kind of person would develop the kind of outlook on life and life advice as captured in the Enchiridion (and other works of the Stoics). And the only description I can think of is "ambitious". Because the philosophy of the Stoics isn't the philosophy of someone who has given up on life, it's not quietism; it's also not the philosophy of someone who is simply trying to develop a soothing narrative for their troublesome life. No, it's the philosophy of someone who is proactive; someone who seeks to be in control, but who also recognizes the limits of it. And who never gives up. The best description I can think of for this is "ambitious".
(This also seems to be the aspect of Stoicism that is so appealing to modern enterpreneurs among whom the philosophy of Stoicism has a mesure of popularity.)
So then it could be correct to qualify Stoicism as an aspirational philosophy.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
I think in line with the above we have to consider that Stoicism is a philosophy of rationally guided behavior (especially after reading about the divine logos guiding us all, women and men alike). This is what stands out as perhaps most appealing in Stoicism.
Then why your glum OP?
Because I'm not very happy about apathy in Stoicism. It seems like a natural result of Stoicism.
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?
Quoting praxis
I thought this was a turn of phrase. 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. I'm not sure that I am an optimist. I generally hold to that often quoted aphorism from Pablo Casals, the great Catalan/Spanish cellist: "The situation is hopeless; we must take the next step."
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.
Quoting Tom Storm
The thing about profundity is that it tends to be short-lived.
From the OP:
[quote="Shawn;d11977" ] I would like to focus on the difference between inner calm and inner peace of a Stoic. The difference manifests itself in dispreferred and preferred indifferents. I won't go into what they are but the thesis of this thread is that stoicism presents itself as a constant struggle (in my experience) with analyzing what is important to control in one's life. Life in the Stoics inner citadel is rife with a sense of arising apathy towards what life or fate has in store for you [/quote]
What is the difference between 'inner calm and inner peace' ?
An explanation of your understanding of the Stoic concept of 'Indifference' would have been useful.
Why did you avoid this ? It is difficult to articulate. *
--------
You talk of your experience of stoicism as a constant struggle in analysing what is important to control.
Well yes. But it needn't be such a struggle that it exhausts you ! Once you have the basics under your hat, then it should almost be second nature, no ? You've studied this for years and knowledgeable people here such as @Ciceronianus have given much time and energy in your Stoic discussions.
Is it any wonder that:
Quoting Ciceronianus
It's good that you still raise these questions. The discussion brings benefits, even if you appear 'unhappy' or frustrated with Stoicism. Again...
--------
Any analysis of what is of value in life - what makes the difference in achieving wellbeing - isn't easy.
Stoic concepts are confusing, challenging and don't always make sense.
What do you mean by 'life in the Stoics inner citadel' ?
Where is this found ?
Where do you see ' a sense of rising apathy' ? What do you mean by 'apathy' ?
--------
* I'm following Stoic Week. Some of the additional resources, relevant to discussion:
Epictetus on Indifference in Things - Philosophy Core Concepts ( 11:56)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hfSBbUxmQE
A consideration and dialogue re Stoic values and the question: “What’s most important for you in life?”
https://modernstoicism.com/a-stoic-values-clarification-dialogue-and-workshop-by-christopher-gill-and-tim-lebon/
Yes, I think that this idea of Stoic 'indifference' towards 'pain' is not credible when it comes to the actual, physical experience. Indeed, it is a most convoluted concept. No wonder it turns people off !
Quoting Ciceronianus
I don't see Stoicism as being a perfect system of philosophy. Rather it gives guidelines and exercises in thought and considered, careful action.
What is it that might be gained realistically or practically ?
Grateful for the knowledge/experience you bring to the discussion :sparkle:
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. 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. There are those who claim accepting Jesus as our savior will help us succeed as well (like Joel Olsteen, I believe).
But I think you're right that the Stoic seeks to achieve certain things, like tranquility, equanimity.
Quoting 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. I don't expect perfection in life, or knowledge. 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.
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 think the same. It's a wise way of living.
I think the ancient Stoics thought that fame, wealth, etc. were ephemeral, and so were easily lost. So, you see Marcus Aurelius referring to the court of Vespasian or even of Augustus and how little they're remembered or thought of in his time. I also think that they felt that pursuing them requires that we concern ourselves with things beyond our control. But I think the fact that fame, wealth and power are temporary wasn't the only basis on which their pursuit was considered unworthy. I think they were considered insignificant as not conducive to virtue.
Again, is this the Aristotelian conception of arete or virtue? Also, there are preferred indifferents.
As a side issue of this thread, do you think apatheia is a natural conclusion of Stoicism or even quietism?
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.)
Indeed.
I actually read a faux obituary the other day saying that Osteen drowned in a pool of cash ...
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 do.
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.
Quoting 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:
Quoting 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."
The Stoic view of virtue as I understand it is distinguished from Aristotle's because in the Stoic view virtue is the only true, or real, good. So, virtue itself is sufficient for happiness according to the Stoics. External goods and even bodily goods are not needed, though they may provide benefits to a person--thus "preferred" indifferents. The Stoics claim that happiness isn't dependent on those goods, i.e., the claim it's possible to have happiness without fame, wealth, power, and even friends or lovers.
Apatheia in the sense of being without disturbance, without fear, without negative emotions or passions (anger, hate) is what the Stoics strive for; not indifference to all things.
And far too often the lives of others.
I fixed the quote, btw.
Well, not Boy Scouts, I hope. I had trouble being a mere Cub Scout.
Seneca is sometimes thought to be a hypocrite or worse for claiming to be a Stoic while becoming rich and powerful during Nero's Principate (until Neo turned on him, of course). He defended himself from those claims, of course, maintaining (if I recall correctly) that wealth and power would not necessarily cause someone to be without virtue, and could even be used virtuously. Over time, I think Stoicism came to accept that certain conditions though they may result from things beyond our control aren't to be avoided solely for that reason, and may be "preferred" as a result. And, the Stoics thought that we're all citizens of the universe, united by the fact that we all carry within ourselves a part of the Divine Reason which generates and guides it, and should be treated well by each other accordingly. Quoting baker
I agree we should strive for them--make great efforts to obtain them. But we're imperfect beings in an imperfect world.
No, you put words into my mouth.
You were quoting yourself?
It is a fact that religious followers follow and a handful of leaders lead them.
All about the choices we make, why and the consequences for self and others.
The Morning Quote:
“If you can find anything in human life better than justice, truthfulness, self-control, courage … if you can see anything better than this, turn to it with all your heart and enjoy the supreme good that you have found… if you find all other things to be trivial and valueless in comparison with this, give no room to anything else, since, once you turn towards that and divert from your proper path, you will no longer be able without inner conflict to give the highest honour to that which is properly good. It is not right to set up as a rival to the rational and social good anything alien to its nature, such as the praise of the many, or positions of power, wealth, or enjoyment of pleasures. All of these, even if they seem to suit our nature for a little while, suddenly take control of us and carry us away. But in your case simply and freely choose what is better and hold on to that. ‘But what is better is what benefits me’. If it benefits you as a rational creature, then maintain this. But if it does so as an animal, reject it and hold to your decision without a big fuss. Only take care that your enquiry is conducted securely”
Marcus Aurelius: Meditations 3.6
The part I bolded reminded me of @Shawn - his frustration with Stoicism; life choices and apathy.
Following Stoic guidance and exercises is not easy or simple, even when the mind is up for it and in a relatively stable state.
I 'should' go for a walk every day for health benefits BUT I'm tired, it's cold out...
I 'should' phone my nonagenarian, Christian Aunt - she's alone and grieving - and I care - BUT I'm afraid I lose it and say something I regret if she starts 'preaching'...being judgemental...
What would make me a better person - and do I really care ? 'Apathy' can be a bit of a killer...at least not a desirable state to stay in for long...
As discussed, even if the word is derived from the Greek, it shouldn't be confused with the Greek term 'Apatheia'.
Quoting Ciceronianus
So, in contrast to apathy, apatheia is considered a virtue.
It doesn't help to be ambiguous in a discussion which is why I asked for clarification re the OP.
It is not a 'side issue', is it ?
Quoting baker
I think apathy can be a sign/symptom of mental/physical problems. Life circumstances.
It can be pretty normal or natural.
https://www.healthline.com/health/apathy#:~:text=Apathy%20is%20a%20symptom%20of%20several%20psychiatric%20and,palsy%207%20schizophrenia%208%20stroke%209%20vascular%20dementia
Why be unhappy and blame 'Stoicism' ?
--------
Quoting Shawn
It makes me wonder when or why @Shawn began to identify as a pig *
An animal. As per morning quote, Marcus would advise us to reject seeing ourselves as wallowers in a pigsty. A cage of our own making ? How healthy is that ? Of what benefit to self or others.
* @Shawn - do you have the answers, would you be willing to share ?
This constitutes the difference between inner peace and inner calm.
However, you did not say which is which. It would be helpful if you were a clearer writer. Does inner calm disprefer indifferents, and inner peace prefers indifferents, or the other way around? If you can, please clear this up. If you can't then I'll be a notch happier.
The difference is stated in such a conceptually abstract way, that any meaning it may have has surpassed the concept-gate as delimited by my IQ for understanding, accepting and internalizing it.
That does not diminish its attractiveness to its followers, I understand that. Futility is a great utility in ultimate beliefs.
I don't profess to wax and wane on answers. I just believe that Stoicism encourages one to desire a state of apathy. The state of being apathetic is wallowsome and quite perfunctory. Nothing seems to transpire or come to realization when being apathetic. That's why it doesn't cause me any joy or happiness or pleasure to be apathetic. Sometimes I would prefer to read a book or a magazine rather than just apathetically wait until I'm ready to do so, whenever or whatever that means.
Hope that offers some clarification.
Sorry if I made you confused. I suppose what I mean is that when confronted in life with so many potential ways of action and behavior with regards to different types of indifferents, then it can be a challenge to attain anything like inner calm and inner peace...
At best living inside the inner citadel of the stoic is a constant strife or struggle and attaining peace and tranquility at best amounts to apathy.
Yes. Totally :party:
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.
This is true. But I venture to say that to train someone in capitalistic, consumer-oriented, individualist, greedy, egotist, narcissistic behaviour takes five minutes, and it is totally successful. Training in the Stoic way takes a lifetime and you never get quite there.
My conclusion is that we are not only trained, but inclined behaving in non-Stoic ways. Very strongly, from birth. This is the real human nature. And leopards can't lose their spots. Zebras can't lose their stripes. Man can't lose his nature. To force him to do so, whether it's due to outer coercion or inner urge, will encounter insurmountable difficulties, and will never succeed. You can't make a lion vegetarian and you can't train a giraffe to solve partial differential equations. You therefore are occupied to make humans Stoic, and it's a good and noble occupation, and fun in a way, and makes you perhaps feel superior to your peers, but it is never successful.
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.
Interesting comment. Are you sure? I suspect a lot of people are immune to the mindset too.
There are other indicators as well.
The upshot is that we, as a species, acquired some traits that were evolutionarily advantageous, that are now instinctual, and are easier to make people develop and acclimatize to them than against them.
Some of these are: greed, hunger for power, sexual promiscuity. Some "nice" characteristics: caring for the sick, the very young, and the very old; caring and supporting one's own nuclear family; healing; upholding social structure due to personal insight, not merely due to fear of the law or of God; morals and not killing unless it's absolutely necessary.
Stoicism does not jive with the "ugly" features of the human personal psychological make-up. Its basic aims are against the grain of most basic survival instincts / tactics. This makes Stoicism nice, noble and admirable, and at the same time a lifetime struggle to grow in it, never achieving the ideal Stoic lifestyle fully.
Even if some of the negative (as well as the positive) human traits have no longer value in surviving, they will only disappear by natural selection if they become counter-survival behaviour.
Of course to accept the above, one needs to accept evolution as the shaper of species. If one is a theist, a creationist, then what I said can be totally and easily disregarded.
Curious that you regard argument negatively.
Quoting 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 did not say, btw, "argument"; I said "argumentative". Big difference. You committed a Strawman fallacy by altering what I said and defeating the argument I never said. This also shows a lack of sufficient understanding of the language on your part. If you did not make a mistake, then it's intentional on your part, and I resent your insult to my intelligence by your thinking that I would never catch you on your trap.
Please stay to the course of the English language in further replies and please avoid committing fallacious reasoning.
Argumentative
Doesn't sound so very terrible to me. Perhaps all the experience of losing arguments has imprinted a negative impression.
Quoting praxis
I think I might love you two. I mean, if you are going to do it, that is how it is done. It's almost Churchillian, and so much better than my knuckle-dragging F bombs. Gentlepeople, I aspire to this!
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.
What's wrong with wondering and wallowing?
Do you like to wonder and wallow?
:100: When I wore what I perceived as a white hat, I was subsidized by my partners. When I wore what I perceived as a black hat, the money came rolling in. But when I could not sleep at night, I left. If I could upload a picture of my current hat, I would. It's 10X tejon; it was once off-white; but it's no longer pretty. :blush:
:sweat:
Yesh, I wallow a lot.
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.
Again, you cherry-picked the definition out of the complete definitions of the two. You claim there is hardly any if any difference between "argument" and "argumentative", and now again you claim victory on false grounds.
You resort to arguing against reality to prove your point. A consensus has been established, for the meanings of "argumentative" and "argument" and you fight that consensus because you are grasping for straws in you futile attmepts to demonstrate why you are right.
Quoting praxis
The experiences of losing arguments, yes, due to the oppositions' inability to understand reasoned arguments, due to their frequent applications of false logic, and due to their horribly tenacious insistence on wrong conclusions. In other words, I dislike argumentative people who make no sense, and whose very limited cognitive ability prevents them from understanding a line of proper logical reasoning.
Because they are impervious to logic and reason, in service of their false beliefs, I get frustrated with their inability to see reason, which they could not recognize when presented to them.
In other words precisely the type of people like you, Praxis.
Praxis, you have a special ability to get under the skin of people whom you don't like, and you are very adept at making false accusations, and insinuations that have no grounds, yet you make them sound convincing. You are much better at these two than I could ever dream to be. Congratulations, you are an excellent, albeit dumb and ignorant, furthermore stupid and inconsequential, agent provocateur, whose only strength on a philosophy forum such as this is his ability to float falsely appearing as a peer because of his ability to insult people.
Kudos to you for recognizing fragile self-esteem in men, and more bravos for observing the positive correlation.
I can't tell what man has fragile self-esteem, and which man does not, by observation. I'd say a person with fragile self-esteem displays behaviour that reflects feelings of inferiority. Such behaviour to me would comprise weeping a lot, timidity, fear of acquiring new skills (for fear of failure), etc. Working out at a gym and making lots of dough somehow does not strike me as displays of low self-esteem.
Then again I realize that there is a spectral nature to low-self esteem, and that I recognize it in only those who have a large dose of it. Your radar may be better tuned.
Then again, by "restless" you may mean "prone to promiscuity".
In this sense, yes, you are supporting my point. (Thank you very much for that, I hardly ever have got moral support by others on this forum. Quite refreshing... exhilarating, truly.) Those with good looks and with money get more attention of the opposite sex. And why should they not? Good looks mean good genes and high level of testosterone in men, and good money means an ability to provide and protect.
You're right on.
The only part I don't get is why they need a fragile self-esteem for all this. I hardly believe Pres. Kennedy or Mick Jagger had low self-esteem. I can't vouch for their going to the gym, but the consensus is that they were both handsome and with money.
By restless I meant... restless :smile: - needing to be constantly on the move, and active in order to manage anxiety. Sitting still is hard for some men as it might lead to introspection.
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.
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:
If you had taken time/effort to read or understand previous explanations, then you might begin to realise that your belief (I bolded) about Stoicism is incorrect.
Perhaps you do realise it.
Perhaps you 'just desire' yet another discussion about your negative view or experience of the theory/practice of 'Stoicism' which you seem to want to blame for your own state of 'apathy'.
You fail to respond adequately to any questions, explanations or links offered, such as the meaning and causes of 'Apathy'.
So, yes, I would agree that you are 'apathetic' - in the sense of not following through. Ironically, there seems to be a determination to keep on 'wallowing like a pig'. What that means and when you started to identify as a pig - well, that is known to you. You are self-aware.
If that state doesn't bring you 'joy, happiness or pleasure', then what can be done about it, if you even want to or have the capability ?
What makes you think you have to wait 'apathetically' until you are ready to read a book, etc ?
That's not what 'Stoicism' is about, and I think you know that.
'Whenever or whatever that means' - you asked the question, what's your answer. Or will your response be yet another frustrating and confused jumble of words ? We both know you can do better than that, even if you feel more wallowsome just playing around...
--------
Quoting praxis
It's not about 'mastering Stoicism' but yourself - thoughts, emotions and behaviour.
@praxis is right. It's about 'training'; some need guides or exercises for wellbeing.
See previous discussion, ending with:
Quoting Ciceronianus
--------
Stoic Week ended yesterday.
Sunday: Building a Stoic Toolkit.
For when you might 'fall off the Stoic horse', if you even got on...
Even if we feel calm or resilient most of the time, strong responses or emotions can take over which might be less than helpful.
This can happen when we are physically or mentally under the weather: tired, in pain, feeling low.
Generally, this is where self-awareness comes in. We need to 'read' ourselves.
Then, work out where we have particular challenges e.g. Anxiety and then pick out particular phrases or quotes we find helpful. In the moment. Perspective and priority.
Why would we even want to control ourselves, our emotions ?
Some don't.
Is it worth making changes in our daily routines ? Perhaps not. It depends on what we are aiming for.
Other tools in the kit are the keeping of a journal. Thinking of the day ahead, what we want to achieve or which emotion might need attention...being careful in thoughts, assumptions and action...reflecting on how things went...for you and others.
Personally, I don't do this. I'm lazy. However, I seem to have absorbed some of the key quotes, already mentioned of Epictetus and Marcus. They are in my mind, especially when relating to others.
[ Stoic Week, Wednesday...the Circles of Care...]
Leaving it now.
--------
Almost...
A note on Viktor Frankl, as quoted above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl
Quoting Wiki: Viktor Frankl
You think continuing this provocation is helpful or wise ?
The belief in it also serves to justify inaction, which can be comforting.
Quoting god must be atheist
And so, by all means be capitalistic, consumer-oriented, greedy, egotistic and narcissistic, but in any case don't try to be otherwise. It can't be done!
Pffft.
That's not Stoic, not Stoic at all.
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!"
All praxis and no play makes praxis a dull boy.
Precisely, because 'deep down Im a vulnerable little child who needs to be seen to dominate because healthy relationships are beyond me and I am afraid.'
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).
Wow. Three people, three different ways of opining what creates motivation to generate wealth. Baker: power. Tom: restlessness out of fear of inaction which brings one to introspection. GMBA: promiscuity.
I have seen examples and counter-examples to the explanation of this motivation to all three of our opinions. Wittgentstein was right: it is impossible to guess the motivation of another human being. (Although courts and psychiatrists boast of that skill.)
Quoting Tom Storm Good pun. (Compensation: for psychological (perceived or real) weaknesses of the self, and also monetarily for work performed.)
I'd like to thank @Shawn for starting this worthwhile discussion; much appreciated.
Also, I apologise if anything I wrote or my 'tone' caused offence to anyone; it wasn't meant.
Anyway, I tried something new in Stoic Week.
Didn't do it right. Resulted in a bit too much 'calm and peace'.
NB - Should never lie down in bed when attempting meditation. Unless you wanna :yawn:
Friday Meditation - Bonus audio Donald Robertson View from Above
Love :heart:
Peace :sparkle:
Fun :party:
Prego, Hamity. :halo:
:smile: You do know how to inspire.
Been looking at why I shouldn't eat pigs.
Who knows where this might lead... :scream:
Quoting praxis
:lol:
Still lost I take it? I didn't need to read further.
Look my fellow human. This is pointless. Passivity will just instill more and more self disgust. Step up and away. Stillness is death in the manner you're framing it. Why you want death is beyond me. Seems like a strange choice given the godhood you inhabit as a human.
So, do away with the Stoicism? Just disregard it?
It's an edifying philosophy to say the least. What should I do?
I'm not matching expectations? I'm pretty sure I know what Stoicism is; but, I don't perform it well in manner, yes?
That's putting it mildly.
Now what? Pretentions about Stoicism?
I studied Stoicism and know what it means. I also read The Meditations and The Enchiridion. CBT was studied.
I think I have a grasp on Stoicism; but, simply fail at it when I become apathetic. Humdrum.
Can you honestly say that you believe that "the divine logos is guiding us all, men and women"?
I don't believe people have a natural capacity to critical thinking; but, reason or rather rationalize they can.
Aim - Move - Fail - Glory - Repeat