Isn't it better to be right than respected? — The Great Whatever

To which I would reply that you are currently neither.

tgw, you don't need to use fancy words like "cogently" and "interlocutors" to make a case. That's just pretentious sophistry...aka, bullshit. Say what you need to say, don't dress it up without any reason to.

Here's some examples taken from the previous pages that I feel exemplify how I feel you have been treating this thread:

I doubt it. — The Great Whatever

...with nothing else to say.

But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me. — The Great Whatever

Which is like the greatest non-answer. Dismissive handwaving.

I don't see any reason to believe this. Sounds like New Age crap. — The Great Whatever

Like I said previously, dismissive handwaving.

I really don't think the position that all psychological pain is self-inflicted deserves serious response. So no, I think a handwave is fine. — The Great Whatever

Like I said previously, a dismissive handwave to excuse a dismissive handwave.

Sure it can be criticized -- if the problems in fact don't get solved where they claim to be. And let's be real, Stoicism has never solved any of these problems for anyone. Anyone espousing its virtues in this very thread can reflect on that honestly and see for themselves. 'Yes, but--' no, no buts, just be honest. — The Great Whatever

wtf does this even mean. Non-answer. Once again, you are asserting without explaining that Stoicism has never solved these problems.

You can have an opinion about whatever you want, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right or even worth taking seriously. Your opinions do not have any magical powers or authority, and people's espoused beliefs most often have little or nothing to do with their lives, since the sphere of opinion is free to circulate without any grounding or credit whatsoever precisely for the reason that you say, that it permits itself ultimate authority regardless of any inconsistencies or possible evidence to the contrary. — The Great Whatever

It's this kind of pretentious bullshit that gets spread around the internet simply because of anonymity. Do you really act like this in real life? Sorry, mate, but honestly do you expect people to respect you when you are implying that their position is outrageously silly, especially when it concerns the evaluation of the value of someone else's own life?!

This thread started out alright. It went to shit pretty quickly.

And not backing any of it up, might I add.

I have attacked no one's feelings; I have attacked publicly espoused positions. — The Great Whatever

Positions that nobody is forcing you to accept. If Stoicism does not work for you, then it does not work for you. Discussing why this is is perfectly fine, but beating everyone over the head repeatedly with the same vague denying drivel is not argument.

Sorry, Question. Your avatar is similar to the avatar of M-Theory over at the old PF.

:D

Have you tried it? Honestly?

You're beating around the bush here. What specific part of Stoicism do you find does not work to solve these problems? Can you explain why Stoicism is not the answer to these problems? Can you even identify these problems to begin with? And can you identify the problems that Stoicism is even concerned with so that you make sure you aren't constructing a straw man?

If you can't answer these questions without appealing to vagueness or attacks on the personal, subjective feelings of others, kindly step off the stage.

And maybe that's why I don't subscribe to Stoicism. But I don't criticize people who are Stoics, because for them, it might work just fine. Buddhism works better than Stoicism for me, and certainly far better than sitting around bitching about everything.

Maybe it might be too long, but I'm currently reading the free, online version of Metaphysics by Michael J. Loux. You can access it here. I have been thoroughly enjoying it thus far and would recommend it to anyone with a passing interest in an introduction to contemporary metaphysics.

I had a headache last night. I took some ibuprofen and went to bed. And hour later the headache was gone. Are you going to tell me that the ibuprofen did not work because it's simply "masking the pain" and "deep down" I still feel the headache? Bullshit.

Then this shows that you fundamentally misunderstand what Stoicism is all about.

Don't tell me how to live my life.

But seriously, what's more likely: that the Stoic is wrong in their assessment of their own life (and is somehow actually suffering profoundly from these problems), or you are either misunderstanding their position or blowing these problems out of proportion?

I think that the pessimist is right in that these problems do exist, but where they may go wrong is the magnitude and how terminal the problems are. I certainly do experience existential boredom on a daily basis. I see the Absurd every day, and it punches me in the gut sometimes. And, of course, I suffer and bear the burden of life, but sometimes the burden is lighter than other times.

The problem I see with this thread is that the offensive position advocates against Stoicism, remarking that it is foolish and deceptive, while simultaneously proselytizing pessimistic themes. If Stoicism did not solve these problems for Stoics, then they would not be Stoics, because why would they? It seems to me that pessimistic, existential problems (such as death, suffering, the strangle of time, boredom, anxiety, etc) is something that has to be solved by the person in their own way that suits them, and that manner cannot be criticized. Whether or not it works for anyone else, you can't expect that person to wallow in defeat simply because you are wallowing in defeat. You can't criticize someone for not feeling the feelings you do.

M-Theory, you haven't replied yet. Just reminding you.

Wayfarer, I am interested in the Buddhist forum. Is this it?

Sorry for the poor quality (five year old iPod touch camera), but I made some Broccoli Salad.

4 cups raw broccoli
2 cups halved, seedless grapes
2 cups chopped celery
1 cup chopped green onion

Dressing:

1 cup mayonnaise
1 tbsp vinegar
0.25 cup sugar

Serve cold, add sliced almonds before consuming. It is very good and fairly easy to make!

I mean, you've never met someone who wallows in their own bullshit to the point of hurting themselves far beyond the original stimulus? — Pneumenon

No, no, you got it all wrong, man. This is deep-shit philosophy; it's obviously apparent that there is a direct relationship between how profound and enlightening your philosophy is and the magnitude of your personal suffering!

I really don't think the position that all psychological pain is self-inflicted deserves serious response. So no, I think a handwave is fine. — The Great Whatever

So, a strawman handwave to excuse your handwaving. Pardon me but do you actually have an argument here?

tgw, if your standard of argument is going to be a dismissive handwave, then I don't see any reason to continue to discussion.

Psychological pain is not like physical pain. Physical pain is like being cut, bruised, burned, or injured in any other way that results in nociceptors firing and the individual experiencing discomfort of varying degrees.

Psychological pain, especially the pain focused on by pessimistic and existential philosophers, is certainly influenced by the environment, but ultimately is perpetuated by the person.

Obviously a physical phenomenon of pain is not, currently, under the conscious control of the individual. I cannot control whether or not I feel pain after cutting my finger. But psychological pain (that is not sourced from a syndrome such as depression), that can be helped by the individual. Boredom is not an experience that manifests itself and continues to exist as if it were a parasite. Tanha does not stick around like a cut to the finger does. These mental phenomena are perpetuated by the individual, and it is the epitome of defeatism and laziness (or a symptom of mental illness such as depression) to say a person has no control over them.

Do you care to actually argue against this, or handwave it away?

But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me. — The Great Whatever

What I'm saying is that psychological pain (unless it is caused by a disorder or disease) is perpetuated by our choices and perspective. Regardless of your views on free will, you have to live under the illusion that you have control (the trash will not take itself out, for example). Psychological pain is a very real phenomenon, but ultimately it derives from the person, not the environment. This makes it different than physical pain caused by nociceptors, since we really don't have much control over that kind of pain, and which is caused by an external influence.

Would a wolf or a tiger have compassion for me, even a wild hog would kill a person to eat without a worry. Does having a greater ability to reason automatically make it an obligation to develop compassion and empathy? — Sir2u

Having a greater sense of reason means that we humans can look at the ecosystem and realize how much of a pyramid scheme it is, realize how much an organism suffers simply because it wasn't able to fight back. To say that we should just follow nature because that's what nature is, is the naturalistic fallacy.

If for example you consider boredom, loneliness, hopelessness, embarrassment, and so on pains, then you would have to rewire our bodily structure so fundamentally that our existential structures would be completely revamped, to the extent that we might not be able to even recognize them or from our present perspective even imagine them. — The Great Whatever

Or, you could look at these pains like I do, and realize that they are self-caused. Boredom can be relieved and can be a motivator for action. Loneliness and embarrassment are horrible feelings but they ultimately can be relieved as well by action from the person. Striving, tanha, can be mitigated by getting rid of three different kinds of desires. It's not as if these pains spontaneously come into being and cannot be solved.

Additionally, I do not think these kinds of pains are anywhere near as bad as, say, being stabbed in the heart. They may cause a person a bit of angst, anxiety, and some depression, but don't usually give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering. And the times that it does give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering (such as extreme anxiety, something I have experience with), there is medication and therapy that helps tremendously.

Is it even possible for a feeling creature not to suffer? — The Great Whatever

We could make an artificial intelligence that is wired so that it never thinks about the past or the future (thus never feeling existential angst), and program it with notifications instead of crude nociceptors.

For beings that exist right now, such as you and me, well, I'm not sure. Unless an experience machine is a valid option, then some kind of existential, psychological suffering (like you said, boredom or striving) is going to arise. It is inevitable, but we can learn to deal with it in various ways that allow us to live our lives in a sufficiently pleasant way.

I am not certain, of course, but I am pretty damn sure. — unenlightened

I can agree with this. From Charles Sander Pierce, father of pragmatism:

We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt; and no one who follows the Cartesian method will ever be satisfied until he has formally recovered all those beliefs which in form he has given up. It is, therefore, as useless a preliminary as going to the north pole would be in order to get to Constantinople by coming down regularly upon a meridian. A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it, and not on account of the Cartesian maxim. Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts.

So, pretty much, yes we can doubt all we want, but there's no good reason to apply this doubt. There's always the chance everything we think we know is simply make believe, but there's no actual good reasons to believe that everything we know is wrong simply because there's no cosmic answer key.

Right.

Presumably, however, we could invent technology that could get rid of the aspect of pain that we find uncomfortable and replace it with simply a notification. Evolution did not lead to us having to ability to consciously control our pain receptors, but with the help of technology we might be able to.

twg, just to remind you in case you forgot, I'm waiting for your reply regarding this:

It could be mitigated, but new pains would arise. Those who medically cannot feel pain do not by that token have 'good' lives in any sense.
— The Great Whatever

How so? — darthbarracuda

I came looking for recipes to steal and I find arguments about killing pigs. — Sir2u

Welcome to PF. :D

If you are religious then the bible says that the animals are for your use, eat em up. If you are not religious then there is no sin to commit, eat em up. — Sir2u

If you aren't religious you can still have an ethical system based upon empathy and compassion, which would result in you becoming a vegetarian/vegan/pescetarian out of respect for the animals.

I got lost about two-thirds of the way down the previous page in the sparring ring between you and TGW. Something about tornadoes and a weird desire to evangelize disillusionment with the world.

It's too bad that 180 Proof doesn't hang around here often, I think he would agree with my statement that suffering is merely one of many incarnations that arises from the various forces of nature, namely, entropy.

Dreariness, isolation, suffering and other unpleasantness are part of the world (among other aspects some of which are pretty neat), not based on its metaphysical foundations. Talk of a striving will or any other metaphysical ground are just stories and abstractions. It wouldn't be any different if it was turtles all the way down. — shmik

Couldn't have said it better myself, shmik. Suffering is a part of the world, not the structure of the world.

For mass-produced bacon, a single individual's desire for bacon has no effect on whether or not the pig is slaughtered.

Interesting, I haven't heard of this before.

Wittgenstein, then.

It could be mitigated, but new pains would arise. Those who medically cannot feel pain do not by that token have 'good' lives in any sense. — The Great Whatever

How so?

I was going to say something myself, actually. ;)

They would have been slaughtered regardless, and the meat would have been wasted. I agree that ideally we shouldn't kill sentient animals, but they have already been killed. Unfortunately abstaining from being a consumer is not going to bring these pigs back to life, although you could argue that it perpetuates the killing machine.

Which, incidentally, also means that the previous statement is also unverifiable. We cannot trust our senses, nor can we trust our rationality. I see no reason why our rationality alone would allow us to concoct grand metaphysical theories. It is very anthropocentric and narrow minded, but then again this argument is also an appeal to rationality, so it cannot be entirely trusted, which also cannot be trusted.

I agree with you that philosophy is something that is inevitable. However since there is no way to actually verify that our thoughts are correct, as in, they are an accurate representation of reality, then ultimately the entire enterprise of thought is nihilistic.

So meta.

Sure..but I won't be condescending about it: — schopenhauer1

Let's try to keep the martyrdom at a minimum.