Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains

Yeah. Epictetus mayor work is Discourses which are lecture notes taken by one of his pupils. Enchiridion is a short condensation of the main theses if it, it was meant to be a travel-version you could always carry around in your tunic pocket (Or in your handbag? I guess they had pockets in the tunics or did they carry handbags around with theur stuff?), and it was also popular with the early Christian monks.

Was Osho a stoic?

I wouldn't know but I don't think so.

I compare stoicism to a statue in the centre of a busy square. It is and it's surroundings is. Kind of like this:  "As the drunken Scotsman said to the statue of Greyfriars Bobby, "Allan Holdsworth's greeeaat!!" Bobby didna say naught. He was thinkin it over."

Pretty much yes.

Like with Kants, there's something omnious in it also though.

16. When you see anyone weeping in grief because his son has gone abroad, or is dead, or because he has suffered in his affairs, be careful that the appearance may not misdirect you. Instead, distinguish within your own mind, and be prepared to say, "It's not the accident that distresses this person., because it doesn't distress another person; it is the judgment which he makes about it." As far as words go, however, don't reduce yourself to his level, and certainly do not moan with him. Do not moan inwardly either.

Skipping all the middle calculation, you can sorta see the connection between Eichmann being a follower of Kant (that's what he claimed himself anyway), Kant's distrust of all emotions, and the Stoics considering empathy to be a disturbing emotion that one should get rid of.

Yes, that's E+R=O (Event + Response = Outcome) as opposed to "Event = Outcome"...

I'm no fan of the chickenfarmer's son and can't care less about him. But that you say there's something ominous in that kind of stoicism, I can understand. Nobody is really stoic. Some people claim to be that, but they are fooling themselves....

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

SheridanJupp wrote:

I compare stoicism to a statue in the centre of a busy square. It is and it's surroundings is. Kind of like this:  "As the drunken Scotsman said to the statue of Greyfriars Bobby, "Allan Holdsworth's greeeaat!!" Bobby didna say naught. He was thinkin it over."

Pretty much yes.

Like with Kants, there's something omnious in it also though.

16. When you see anyone weeping in grief because his son has gone abroad, or is dead, or because he has suffered in his affairs, be careful that the appearance may not misdirect you. Instead, distinguish within your own mind, and be prepared to say, "It's not the accident that distresses this person., because it doesn't distress another person; it is the judgment which he makes about it." As far as words go, however, don't reduce yourself to his level, and certainly do not moan with him. Do not moan inwardly either.

Skipping all the middle calculation, you can sorta see the connection between Eichmann being a follower of Kant (that's what he claimed himself anyway), Kant's distrust of all emotions, and the Stoics considering empathy to be a disturbing emotion that one should get rid of.

I look at this as comparable to the Bhuddist philosophy of non-attachment.

Which is yet another form of decadence... Healthy people don't have time for that. Nor would they have the desire to be like that. The idea of wanting to detatch.... it is a sign of a unhappy yet plentiful/lavish life. But at least the Buddhists are honest about it. I can't say the same for the Christian view on suffering.

Well, I've always maintained there is no such thing as a purely altruistic act, so I guess...yes?

I like Marcus Aurelius' The Meditations. Yes, I know a Roman Emperoris not the best place to go looking for advice without a huge helping of hypocracy, but I pretty much look upon philosophy as ideals to strive for, which no one can fully achieve. (Or even slightly achieve in some cases.)

SheridanJupp wrote:

Which is yet another form of decadence... Healthy people don't have time for that. Nor would they have the desire to be like that. The idea of wanting to detatch.... it is a sign of a unhappy yet plentiful/lavish life.

Oh little kitty, I shall expand on this later.

Being altruistic, genuinely altruistic ..... yeah, there has to be self-interest involved. But self-interest isn't bad in and of itself.

I admire your courage. I'm always willing to end up with my proverbial shoe in my mouth, hahaha...

It is indeed a problem to probosculate upon. I shall leave my current thoughts here until later:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU

Or just normal people. I always thought the buddhist monks were cheating. Easy enough to be serene and non-detached when you live in a totally quiet temple where nothing dramatic ever happens, and all you do is meditate 12 hours a day and your daily routine has been the same for the last 19 years.

Give Dalai Lama 3 young children with colic, a wife with mad PMS, insane neigbors playing trash metal 24/7, a car that breaks down, a sadistic boss and problems paying his mortgage and let me see if he THEN can keep up his otherworldy serene smile!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-czX0Y1z0yY

For you Masamune314 :-)

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

SheridanJupp wrote:

Which is yet another form of decadence... Healthy people don't have time for that. Nor would they have the desire to be like that. The idea of wanting to detatch.... it is a sign of a unhappy yet plentiful/lavish life. But at least the Buddhists are honest about it. I can't say the same for the Christian view on suffering.

Or just normal people. I always thought the buddhist monks were cheating. Easy enough to be serene and non-detached when you live in a totally quiet temple where nothing dramatic ever happens, and all you do is meditate 12 hours a day and your daily routine has been the same for the last 19 years.

Give Dalai Lama 3 young children with colic, a wife with mad PMS, insane neigbors playing trash metal 24/7, a car that breaks down, a sadistic boss and problems paying his mortgage and let me see if he THEN can keep up his otherworldy serene smile!

I agree with you there about the monks. However, the acceptance of what cannot be changed and the idea that contentment (I hate to use the word happiness) is found in our own thoughts and how we look at a given situation is very soothing to me. In reality however, I am a blend of Stoic and Niettzschean in philosophy. It would take me two or three pages to explain how I can logically meld them together though. I try telling this to folks and they just look at me like I have two heads.

I find contentment in being completely silent. That for me is the best state of mind. No thoughts or feelings. I had seen some disturbing webms and lying in bed I realized that there's this "outer space" where nothing can bother me. I call it "outer space" because I like to think that when you take away all matter in the Universe, it's a similar state. The state of absolute quiteness of the mind and the carrier of matter (sub atomic matter included) are in my opinion one and the same thing. Does that make sense?

That sounds like it came right out from a Hornby book.

or Mill and Boon.