Have an opinion?
Oh I remember when we were taught helenistic philosophy in high school, and when they talked about stoicism, also about epicureism and eclecticism. I agree to the quote to some extent, at least when it comes to psychological situations. When it comes to situations in which the body rules it doesn't make that much sense. If you haven't eaten in a month and are starving, I agree you can decrease the general bad feeling having a strong mind, but still you wouldn't end to feel good, as your body would react even if you don't want to and those the reactions of your body would affect to your thought, because mind is not disconnected from the rest of the body.
Yes, it's one of the most valuable lessons I learned in my lifetime. To make full sense of it requires more study of Stoic philosophy starting with the dichotomy of control.Buddhism has similar teachings.
Psychotherapy is also based on such concepts. The one exception I'd make where these sayings might not be applicable is when someone has a genuine type of mental disorder of a kind that can only be treated through medical intervention.
(Brain surgery, antidepressants, etc). If the person has the ability to overcome their distress absent such medical intervention, then I'd say pretty much the only way is to start challenging their thinking patterns.
Do you think this also applies when someone have depression, some illnesses, are starving to death, gets tortured and experience war - that happiness is a choice?
Of course, some people might be incapable of doing this on their own. They might need the aid of somebody else to help them challenge and reframe their negative thoughts. But they still have to ultimately be the ones to do it. An external party can't forcefully change the way we think, only challenge our thoughts and offer an alternative perspective.
>> Do you think this also applies when someone have depression, some illnesses, are starving to death, gets tortured and experience war - that happiness is a choice?That's the ideal behind the Stoic sage. He is the one who is happy and not suffering even when he is set on fire and burning to death. It's an ideal. No mortal will reach it. But our lives tend to become better and better the more we can move in that direction.If we base our happiness on external events, then our happiness becomes a slave to those external events. We are not in control anymore. If happiness comes from within, then we liberate ourselves and have the ability to be happy and mitigate suffering in spite of external events.
I tend to agree with Marcus Aurelias, He was an accomplished general. His leveled demeanor must have given his troops and subordinates great confidence. I think men should strive to be stoic. There is a time for emotion however. Emotions should be led by reason.
Absolutely. Being unbothered is an art from, and for most, talent is something to be acquired by hard work and consistency.
Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic. And a brilliant general.
Can't agree with an hypocrite who had the imperial authority to decide who suffers and not
Could be true to some extent
It's not true about cases of actual pain, relief and injury someone feels. For example your previous post, we can't say the horrible experience of the victim is something imaginary. About problems like social anxiety, body dismorphia, self steem etc i think it could be true because they're arbitrary concepts.
*Do you agree
Yes I agree
I prefer Eros, but Agape can be beautiful too
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.