| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stoicism, in the classical sense, isn't bottling things up. It's recognizing that whatever happens is your lot in life, so you might as well be happy about it.
Your child dies. Because death is something that happens during the course of life, you recognize this and realize your life is in accordance with the natural laws. If you align your will (self) along the natural order, you will be happy/content with what happens.
Stoicism is a rejection of passions, desires, etc. It's not bottling up your emotions, but rather considering them human failings and attempting to discard them altogether.
Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of men's desires, but by the removal of desire.
Part of it is how you define bottling. I'd consider bottling as a method of avoidance. When something comes up, you avoid thinking/dealing with it in an attempt to avoid the negative emotions. That's effective... up to the point that it isn't. Once you're at that point, then what? If you've only learned skills adept at avoidance, how do you deal with problems that can't be avoided?
A more permanent solution is learning to deal with an issue in a way that brings you at peace with it. The idea being that even if an issue is too big to come to peace with immediately, if you've developed good skills for coming to peace with something, you can at least work on that issue over time until it's solved, slowly reducing it's effects over time. Coming to peace with a problem also has the benefit of dealing with the problem, so that you don't have to continue dealing with it again and again over time. It's also more likely to improve your interpersonal relationships, reducing the number of problems that develop.
Avoidance is often a valid tactic. It can be impermanent, insufficient and inefficient quite often though. On the other hand, for problems that are temporary and not worth the time to solve, it's very effective.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only some g#+$+$med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak in this day and age can believe you can solve your emotional issues by burying them.
So, in a world with over 7 billion individuals, you think it's absolutely impossible that there is even a SINGLE one of them that might actually be better served by putting whatever issue behind them and not thinking about it than they would be continually poking it with a burning stick over and over and over ?
[rolls eyes]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's because that approach ALWAYS bites you in the ass later on.Burying is just another way of saying suppression. You try to suppress your emotions they will burst out threefold stronger... or worse. The longer you suppress them, the bigger the blowout. And it will happen in the worst way, at the worst time.
How could you possibly know that? This is a claim to know whats going on in the heads of 7 billion people, as well as the fortune teller's trick of shifting a prediction into the future if it hasn't panned out in the present.
Try taking some courses in psychology sometime and study some case histories. I have a half century of personal history backing me up on this. When you take the combined experiences of my family and other loved ones, that's over three centuries worth.
Only some g!@~@*med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak in this day and age can believe you can solve your emotional issues by burying them.
If you have half a century of experience of talking about your emotional issues... I would say the method you are using isn't working. That further calls into question your view of people who do not use your method as "g!~#+~med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak".
Only some g#+$+$med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak in this day and age can believe you can solve your emotional issues by burying them.So, in a world with over 7 billion individuals, you think it's absolutely impossible that there is even a SINGLE one of them that might actually be better served by putting whatever issue behind them and not thinking about it than they would be continually poking it with a burning stick over and over and over ?
[rolls eyes]
Ah, I see the confusion here. Often times when I do therapy about an event I don't even talk about the event. I talk about how to deal with the emotions and thoughts that the event has brought upon that person and how they can modify, change or cope with those thoughts and feelings. Again, studies that I have read have shown that digging into a person's traumatic history isn't always the greatest thing but can be beneficial. (Of course there are an equal amount of studies that say the opposite...) The reality of mental health is that it is an individual preference. As people keep mentioning, there are over 7 billion people on the planet and not one methodology will work for all of them but for a vast majority of them they can benefit from current methods. The main thing that was taught to me when I was getting my degree is that I may be the expert on the symptoms of mental health and the methods of dealing with them, I will never be the expert of my clients.
Insults do not further this discussion.
Well think of it this way. Many people come to my office due to bottling their emotions and experiencing mental health problems. By the act of having the emotional release that comes from talk therapy, many people have reduced symptoms.Ok, but how do you measure the effectiveness of that therapy vs either continuing to bottle it up or say, re opening the school of stoicism and showing people how to keep bottling? The people bottling it up don't really led themselves for study because.. well they're not seeing anyone. There's no control group.
The opposite isn't fair either: its rare you find a mass shooter that wasn't in therapy therefore the therapy obviously isn't working (people that are that bad are more likely to wind up in therapy on their own, or via mandate)
Now it is time for me to ask you some things. For the bolded part above, how do you know that these individuals were in therapy? Do you know that they were in therapy right before these events occurred? Is it possible that the therapy, while not preventing the event, may have delayed it from happening sooner? I could go on, but I think we get the point.
My point is that it appears to be very easy to question the validity of therapy. What about the validity of not going to therapy? What is the benefit of bottling your emotions? You did mention that it would be difficult to study but since you have questioned therapy, I feel its time for the shoe to be on the other foot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try taking some courses in psychology sometime and study some case histories. I have a half century of personal history backing me up on this. When you take the combined experiences of my family and other loved ones, that's over three centuries worth.
And with that much experience can you tell me what you're using for a control group?
Only some g+@%%+med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak in this day and age can believe you can solve your emotional issues by burying them.
You're just jealous of my chainsaw carved NCC 1701.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the bolded part above, how do you know that these individuals were in therapy?
Usually shows up on the news rather quickly.
Is it possible that the therapy, while not preventing the event, may have delayed it from happening sooner? I could go on, but I think we get the point.
Yes. I even pointed out that this was not a fair comparison.
My point is that it appears to be very easy to question the validity of therapy. What about the validity of not going to therapy? What is the benefit of bottling your emotions? You did mention that it would be difficult to study but since you have questioned therapy, I feel its time for the shoe to be on the other foot.
I am maintaining agnosticism on the issue, and thus am supported by the fence :)
If you're going to pay 100 dollars an hour for something, I think the onus is on that something to demonstrate its effectiveness.
I think the only possible experiment is to try both yourself and see what works. Bury it and let it die works better for me than talking. I haven't wound up on cnn YET...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the term "bury" or "bottle" to not be useful.
When you bury it, are you dealing with it and removing it from your list of problems? Or are you just trying to avoid thinking about it?
Considering that the OP started this topic with a request for How to Vulcan yourself in 5 easy steps or less, I'd say the latter.I find the term "bury" or "bottle" to not be useful.
When you bury it, are you dealing with it and removing it from your list of problems? Or are you just trying to avoid thinking about it?
I'm pretty sure that some people are using the terms to mean both things, or using them interchangeably with these and other concepts. Sometimes I'd be they're even changing definitions without realizing that they're changing definitions.
"Bury" and "bottle" are vague and easily redefined depending on the speaker, so really I'm making an appeal to stop using them in this conversation and for people to try and be more accurate in their descriptions.
Trying to establish set definitions is going to take several hundred posts of debates, with analogies, and people arguing about the incorrect specifics in those analogies, and then making analogies to explain those specifics in the analogies which leads to people arguing about the incorrect specifics in those analogies, which requires people to make analogies to explain their point which leads to...
As for being a Vulcan, that's a decent analogy for Stoicism. The rational thought process that because things happen in life of which you have little to no control over, you shouldn't be upset about those things, because being upset won't do anything to change it.
That sounds rational at first approach. But I've already pointed out a situation vaguely up top. I'll elaborate.
Your child develops leukemia. It's a natural event, it happens all the time to hundreds of thousands of people around the world. It probably even happens to animals too, we just don't look for rates of cancer in penguins and buffalo. Stoicism (or the discarding method) teaches you that since this is a natural event and not something you can control, you should be perfectly at peace with your child developing leukemia. It's only your attachment to the child and desire for them to live that makes you sad.
There's a certain logic and truth to the concept, but for 99.9% of people, we're going to have feelings about stuff. Very few people actually achieve a state of discarding all emotions. So, most people are actually practicing avoidance techniques, which is one of those things that works great, until it doesn't. And for most things that's fine, but when someone is in distress, it's not terribly useful or helpful, because they are already past the point of avoidance.
Interestingly enough, mindfulness techniques help me achieve a temporary state of discarding emotions. I can think about something without considering it bad or good. I find slowly reattaching those qualifiers to better understand how they impact me helps me understand where I am having problems emotionally and make it easier to look for solutions (still trying to work on the implementation side).
For the bolded part above, how do you know that these individuals were in therapy?Usually shows up on the news rather quickly.
We believe everything we hear on the news?
Is it possible that the therapy, while not preventing the event, may have delayed it from happening sooner? I could go on, but I think we get the point.Yes. I even pointed out that this was not a fair comparison.
Well that's good...I guess.
My point is that it appears to be very easy to question the validity of therapy. What about the validity of not going to therapy? What is the benefit of bottling your emotions? You did mention that it would be difficult to study but since you have questioned therapy, I feel its time for the shoe to be on the other foot.I am maintaining agnosticism on the issue, and thus am supported by the fence :)
If you're going to pay 100 dollars an hour for something, I think the onus is on that something to demonstrate its effectiveness.
I think the only possible experiment is to try both yourself and see what works. Bury it and let it die works better for me than talking. I haven't wound up on cnn YET...
See this doesn't work for me. It's not fair that you come in here to be a naysayer and then claim immunity to the repercussions of what you said. I realize I don't have to continue this conversation but it is irritating when one person claims "agnosticism" .
If you're going to pay 100 dollars an hour for something, I think the onus is on that something to demonstrate its effectiveness.I can't +1 this hard enough.
How is it not effective?
And to respond to your follow-up, no one is making you go. It is a choice. And for some it works.
Only some g#+$+$med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak in this day and age can believe you can solve your emotional issues by burying them.So, in a world with over 7 billion individuals, you think it's absolutely impossible that there is even a SINGLE one of them that might actually be better served by putting whatever issue behind them and not thinking about it than they would be continually poking it with a burning stick over and over and over ?
[rolls eyes]
I just don't have the energy for endurance stick poking contests; and it is obvious that many professionals are kept employed because we are encouraged to share, bemoan, go over our issues again and again while getting that professional help. Seems a bit anti-individualist to me, and the critiques of the mental health professions can be quite exemplary with a lot of critical thought within, if that is what anyone wants to read up on (a good way to spend a semester I found, some great writings from the 70s and 80s).
Save money, start on self improvement, be better, more self reliant and not dependent on people using you as a cash stream, while they keep you in a cycle of repeating your woes to a paid audience.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry, DM Under The Bridge, that you have had such a bad experience(s) with therapy(s) in the past. I'm happy you are such a self-actualized Galt-ian iconoclast, a self-reliant island unto yourself, and never lack for clarity of thought and action... but most people are still imperfect finite humans, and utilizing trained professional help when needed isn't a sign of weakness or gullibility or attention-seeking.
No one is saying to stick with a psychiatrist or psychologist who isn't effective for (general) you, anymore than sticking with a general practitioner doctor who isn't effect for (general) you. But many many people have been helped with therapy and judiciously-prescribed (and followed up) medications, and wholly dismissing the entire option for them is extremely myopic.
It has been shown that in some cases, talking about issues or venting can increase dependence on those issues.
If talking about it isn't helping, it could actually be making things worse.
We believe everything we hear on the news?
Do we not believe anything we don't see with our own eyes? I can't see a motive for falsifying that information, at all, so yes.
See this doesn't work for me. It's not fair that you come in here to be a naysayer and then claim immunity to the repercussions of what you said. I realize I don't have to continue this conversation but it is irritating when one person claims "agnosticism".
Well, the question is does therapy work better than just bottling it up? I realize that saying "We can't know" and "might for some people, might not for others" is annoying, but I can't see any other position on the issue. People bottling it up simply aren't available for study or identifiable in any way, and people in therapy aren't a random group because they're self selecting for people with serious problems. [badlogic]More people seeing shrinks are nuts therefore therapy makes you crazy[/badlogic]
As for how to, I think fishing is a good idea of how to practice bottling things. You have
-the company of other men, in front of whom you have to keep the bottle stoppered
-an excuse not to talk (they say it scares the fish. I think its for this rather than catching fish)
-a need to hold still
-a distracting physical/mental activity of casting the line.
- a small amount of pharmacutical assistance as required (beer)
-Quiet surroundings.
For me its either wood carving, reading in the tub, or violent video games so I can zone out for a bit.
Many of the things being said here about "Stoicism" are, as can be expected regarding the internet, not necessarily accurate. Most of what the average person knows about stoicism, as a philosophy, comes from reading the Enchiridion, a pithy work that is a collection of “blurbs” about stoic thought by a disciple of Epicitetus. However, the philosophies of Zino of Citium, Epictetus, and other Stoic philosophers of ancient times are much more complex than what is being presented here.
It is my understanding that we only really know what Zeno of Citium might have said because of Epictetus, because none of Zeno's works have survived (or any of the other early Greek Stoics), and only later Imperial Stoics have had their words survive. The information we do have about Zeno and his peers mostly comes from books written 500-700 years after his death.
Primarily, Stoicism is not about dismissing sadness or grief as “a waste of time” and nothing about Stoicism suggest that if one were to find themselves in a situation where a loved one was suffering from an incurable disease that grief should be avoided. Quite the contrary, sadness, tears, grief, depression, disappointment, are all understood to be as natural as any other human emotion and a stoic philosophy would not be based upon dismissing these feelings.
Stoicism simply teaches that it is better to understand why these feelings upset us, and what we can do about them. Understanding what is under our control and what is not, fundamentally, is the heart of Stoicism, and how we deal with this understanding, how we look at our feelings based upon our understanding of what is under our control and what is not, is seen as a foundation of leading a natural and harmonious life.
That doesn't sound like Stoicism to me at all. Stoicism does teach understanding of why feelings upset us. It teaches that they upset us because we desire, we hope and we dream. Stoicism teaches that those sound like positive things, but they directly lead to negative things. When you desire something and you get it, now you will fear to lose it. If you don't want to feel that fear, just learn to not have desire.
Being free of desire and hope means that you are truly free. Stoics believed that any man with desire and hope was a slave to those very things, that they would control him and determine his course in life. Stoicism believes that you can't control the external world, you can only control your self. Therefore, if you want to avoid the bad thing, don't avoid the bad thing, avoid the internal behavior that leads you to the bad thing.
A bad feeling is a commotion of the mind repugnant to reason, and against nature.
That doesn't sound like acceptance of negative emotions to me.
Try taking some courses in psychology sometime and study some case histories. I have a half century of personal history backing me up on this. When you take the combined experiences of my family and other loved ones, that's over three centuries worth.
And with that much experience can you tell me what you're using for a control group?
Only some g+@%%+med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak in this day and age can believe you can solve your emotional issues by burying them.You're just jealous of my chainsaw carved NCC 1701.
That...sounds awesome.
Only some g#+$+$med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak in this day and age can believe you can solve your emotional issues by burying them.So, in a world with over 7 billion individuals, you think it's absolutely impossible that there is even a SINGLE one of them that might actually be better served by putting whatever issue behind them and not thinking about it than they would be continually poking it with a burning stick over and over and over ?
[rolls eyes]
Talking helps. It does. So does letting things go. You need both. One inevitably leads to the other. I work on the talking side of things, sorta kinda. And on the letting things go side, sorta kinda. You can't do one without the other. If letting things go works for you to the point of exclusivity, that's fine. But please don't spit on your poor left hand just because it's your poor left hand. You will find that your right might still fail you on occasion. Nor should you spit on lefties just for being lefties. We can't all be righties. We can't all be you.
Yet BigNorseWolf doesn't charge $100/hr for his "might work, might not" solution.
Having a pile of money to go along with potentially life-crippling issues doesn't help the life-crippling issues go away.
Acceptance and understanding are not the same thing.
Would I want to live in a world where they were one and the same? I don't know.
Acceptance and understanding are not the same thing.
Agree, it's a rejection of negative emotions as bad. He even classified them as against reason and nature.
His argument is that if you're a "sage", someone with complete understanding, you have full access to reason. Reason tells you that bad feelings are against nature. It's a lack of understanding that leads to bad feelings when certain things happen.
This is a rejection of the varied emotions that most people feel when presented with a majority of situations in life.
Classical stoicism is a neat idea, but taken to it's logical conclusion that is put forward by Zeno of Citium (of which we don't actually have any record of him putting forward, just references from Roman philosophers and emperors), it's a rejection of the concept of emotion.
Emotion is something you feel when you don't understand how the universe works. That's the upshot of stoicism on a grand scale.
At a lower level, stoicism does have some interesting things to say about perspective and how we assign emotions to things based on our narrative of the universe. If you reject the ethical guidelines of stoicism, but instead use it as an analytic tool to figure out why you feel the way you do about something, there's quite a bit of usefulness there.
As for claims of writings of early stoics, again, most of what we know about Zeno of Citium comes from writings of other people. Cicero referenced him some, but not extensively or in any complete format. Diogenes Laertius wrote about him, but that was almost 500 years after Zeno, which actually puts those writings AFTER the writings of late stoics.
Of course there is very little information about Laertius. His book does nothing to illuminate his sources, nor does he cite other works. It's basically a collection of anecdotes that had been passed down through multiple centuries, so the authenticity of them is at best questionable.
Anyways, that quote clearly says that bad feelings are repugnant to reason and nature. If you're smart and obeying the natural order, you shouldn't be having bad feelings. That's what it means. It's not understanding so that you can cope. It's understanding so that you don't have those bad feelings.
That's an interpretation that requires the addition of words not currently present in that quote. He's saying that bad feelings and reason are antithetical to each other. That bad feelings are NOT part of nature. It's right there in the sentence.
Zeno taught apatheia (absence of passion). He taught that indifference to pleasure and pain brought peace and tranquility and elevated your ability to apply wisdom.
Not that you could use wisdom to understand your feelings, but that your feelings got in the way of obtaining wisdom.
Edit: I can also find sources to back up this interpretation. Basic run down.
Edit 2: tried to add something but it got eaten.
I'm not saying this is the ENTIRETY of stoicism, or that stoicism is useless. Neither is true. Stoicism is a good method of looking at the world with a more reasoned perspective. It can help to determine if things are important, or if they are pointless. It also helps give a better perspective of what you can and cannot control. If you can't control something, why beat yourself up that you can't control it?
If my kid gets cancer, should I feel bad? Yes, but you can apply stoicism to a slightly different question...
If my kid gets cancer, should I feel bad about myself? No, which is actually a pretty common kind of thought for people suffering from depression.
I am sorry, DM Under The Bridge, that you have had such a bad experience(s) with therapy(s) in the past. I'm happy you are such a self-actualized Galt-ian iconoclast, a self-reliant island unto yourself, and never lack for clarity of thought and action... but most people are still imperfect finite humans, and utilizing trained professional help when needed isn't a sign of weakness or gullibility or attention-seeking.
No one is saying to stick with a psychiatrist or psychologist who isn't effective for (general) you, anymore than sticking with a general practitioner doctor who isn't effect for (general) you. But many many people have been helped with therapy and judiciously-prescribed (and followed up) medications, and wholly dismissing the entire option for them is extremely myopic.
I laughed hard at the Galt-ian iconoclast point, but be sure you don't confuse Golarion with reality. No man is an island, to quote John Donne, but we can all be aware of being drawn into prolonged dependence, and deliberately continued and institutionalised weakness supported by professionals. That is what I mean by weakness, it is not weakness to suffer or to feel the need for help, that is a part of being human, but keeping people dependent on an industry is making them weaker than they can be.
The critique of the shadiness long attached to psychology and psychiatry doesn't need to be associated with fantasy or the mythic picture you paint of me, the critique of expansionistic psychology is available in many books, and has been so for decades.
You can be confident the "help" will continue to persist, because even after these critiques and the understanding of the crimes and manipulations of the psychological professions, psychology, its ideas and professions still continue and grow, it tries to oversee more, influence societies to a greater degree, alter language and draw those that are hurt and lost into it. Eppur si muove, and it continues to grow.
Other paths completely separate from these machinations are possible. They can be far more independent and self-reliant, far more suited to asking questions on being and identity without monetary costs, and remaking ourselves without expert oversight by the professionals within this very new system (psychology is still so very young, but it is trusted with so much). I am merely suggesting The NPC try methods other than the cultural reflex of "seeking professional help". Perhaps older techniques and ideas, perhaps trying to find their own answers through personal investigation and application. Relying on ourselves is never a bad thing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I laughed hard at the Galt-ian iconoclast point, but be sure you don't confuse Golarion with reality.
I was referring to this Galt, not the Golarion one.
No man is an island, to quote John Donne, but we can all be aware of being drawn into prolonged dependence, and deliberately continued and institutionalised weakness supported by professionals...
Yeah yeah yeah, the doctors who graduate at the bottom of the class still get to be called Dr., a certain minority of them (like in any profession) are corrupt and/or looking for a constant revenue stream, BigPharma gonna pharma, yada yada yada.
Have you yourself ever been to therapy run by a professional? Do you have any actual knowledge of modern therapy outside of caricatures and distortions? For most people that need it, therapy often works. For those that require it, judicious and monitored pharmacology often works. A professional therapist/doctor will not keep leeching off a patient who is ready to move on. And there should be no stigma in someone seeking out professional help for their mental health anymore than seeking out a professional car mechanic or professional carpenter. If you don't need the help of a professional, great and lucky you, but please don't stigmatize that option for the many it can help... too many who need such help refuse it from the shame an ignorant society attaches to it.
Edit: I am irritated because I've seen friends and family stuck in harmful self-perpetuating ruts because everyone around them told them to "man up/it's all your head/just get over it" and how seeking professional help was shameful. The original poster came in here with a valid concern, and the thread has devolved into yet another "who's right/who's wrong" pissing match instead of concrete suggestions on how to help.
I think it is funny that your comments, about stoicism contain the following
It is my understanding that we only really know what Zeno of Citium might have said because of Epictetus, because none of Zeno's works have survived (or any of the other early Greek Stoics), and only later Imperial Stoics have had their words survive. The information we do have about Zeno and his peers mostly comes from books written 500-700 years after his death.and then this
That's an interpretation that requires the addition of words not currently present in that quote. He's saying that bad feelings and reason are antithetical to each other. That bad feelings are NOT part of nature. It's right there in the sentence.Yes it is an interpretation that requires more than what is said in that quote. And I'm no expert, but I've read the discourses (by Adrian)and I think it is a valid interpretation.
I see you want to continue to argue, without saying anything convincing. I've provided quotes, information, references. All you've really said is "no, you're wrong." If you want to continue discussing that part of the topic, you're going to have to try harder to keep my interest.
If you instead want to talk about the second edit of my previous post, and discuss how stoicism can be usefully applied I'm totally down for that. I agree that stoicism has things of value to teach, but like most philosophies/religions that are 2000 years old, it isn't perfect and has flaws. Understanding those flaws is also important. We aren't required to repeat the mistakes everyone who has come before us has made.
I am sorry, DM Under The Bridge, that you have had such a bad experience(s) with therapy(s) in the past. I'm happy you are such a self-actualized Galt-ian iconoclast, a self-reliant island unto yourself, and never lack for clarity of thought and action... but most people are still imperfect finite humans, and utilizing trained professional help when needed isn't a sign of weakness or gullibility or attention-seeking.
No one is saying to stick with a psychiatrist or psychologist who isn't effective for (general) you, anymore than sticking with a general practitioner doctor who isn't effect for (general) you. But many many people have been helped with therapy and judiciously-prescribed (and followed up) medications, and wholly dismissing the entire option for them is extremely myopic.
I laughed hard at the Galt-ian iconoclast point, but be sure you don't confuse Golarion with reality. No man is an island, to quote John Donne, but we can all be aware of being drawn into prolonged dependence, and deliberately continued and institutionalised weakness supported by professionals. That is what I mean by weakness, it is not weakness to suffer or to feel the need for help, that is a part of being human, but keeping people dependent on an industry is making them weaker than they can be.
The critique of the shadiness long attached to psychology and psychiatry doesn't need to be associated with fantasy or the mythic picture you paint of me, the critique of expansionistic psychology is available in many books, and has been so for decades.
You can be confident the "help" will continue to persist, because even after these critiques and the understanding of the crimes and manipulations of the psychological professions, psychology, its ideas and professions still continue and grow, it tries to oversee more, influence societies to a greater degree, alter language and draw those that are hurt and lost into it. Eppur si muove, and it continues to grow.
Other paths completely...
sorry you had a bad experience. I hope what you are doing works for you, and that you are comfortable with the fact that not everyone is you or will get your results with your methods.
|
|
and that you are comfortable with the fact that not everyone is you or will get your results with your methods.
Too bad some proponents of "professional help" can't seem to take this advice as well. And instead feel the need to hurl insults and accusations of being a "g#+$+$med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak"
Not to name any names.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
and that you are comfortable with the fact that not everyone is you or will get your results with your methods.Too bad some proponents of "professional help" can't seem to take this advice as well. And instead feel the need to hurl insults and accusations of being a "g#+$+$med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak"
Not to name any names.
Too bad some antagonists of "professional help" can't seem to take this advice as well. And instead feel the need to hurl accusations of "prolonged dependence, and deliberately continued and institutionalised weakness supported by professionals"
Not to name any names.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a "g#+$+$med idiot Trekkie or hyper macho freak"
Insult? I figured it was someone that knew me...
Irontruth -
I've not said anyone is wrong, I've only said I think my interpretation is valid.
I don't know why you continue to insist that you can provide "quotes" that will support the argument that my interpretation is not valid when you yourself have said there isn't "really" anything that can be quoted with certainty?
I don't understand why it is important to you to show that I have misunderstood Stoicism when I've only said that there is a potential for people to misunderstand Stoicism in the first place?
I have no desire to “keep your interest” and really no desire to talk about the subject any further.
I quoted him someone ironically. Because the quote did not line up with your interpretation, also to show that your earlier claim that people should read Zeno of Citium, or somehow pay attention to his teachings instead of Seneca is a ridiculous statement, because it isn't possible. The only reason we know much about Zeno, or what he taught, is because books from the late stoics survived, because nothing of his did.
The little bit you've gotten into about stoicism, honestly sounds more like a mixture of epicureanism and stoicism, which I'm fine with, but isn't really stoicism.
Seriously, I am all for professional help. It's just that talk therapy of the old style (childhood traumas and the like) doesn't provide results.
|
|
Yet BigNorseWolf doesn't charge $100/hr for his "might work, might not" solution.Having a pile of money to go along with potentially life-crippling issues doesn't help the life-crippling issues go away.
It is, however, better than having the issues and NO money when the psychiatrist fails to make any progress before you can't afford to pay him to waste your time and not solve anything.
Is it too soon to make a Prosium joke?
It is, however, better than having the issues and NO money when the psychiatrist fails to make any progress before you can't afford to pay him to waste your time and not solve anything.Yet BigNorseWolf doesn't charge $100/hr for his "might work, might not" solution.Having a pile of money to go along with potentially life-crippling issues doesn't help the life-crippling issues go away.
actually, I amend my earlier statement. The money will probably be better spent on all manner of ineffective self medication, be it through substances, behaviors, and/or supporting a lifestyle of "man up!".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fishing's cheaper than therapy.
Well. unless you actually buy a boat... (aka a hole in the water into which money is poured)
I laughed hard at the Galt-ian iconoclast point, but be sure you don't confuse Golarion with reality.I was referring to this Galt, not the Golarion one.
No man is an island, to quote John Donne, but we can all be aware of being drawn into prolonged dependence, and deliberately continued and institutionalised weakness supported by professionals...Yeah yeah yeah, the doctors who graduate at the bottom of the class still get to be called Dr., a certain minority of them (like in any profession) are corrupt and/or looking for a constant revenue stream, BigPharma gonna pharma, yada yada yada.
Have you yourself ever been to therapy run by a professional? Do you have any actual knowledge of modern therapy outside of caricatures and distortions? For most people that need it, therapy often works. For those that require it, judicious and monitored pharmacology often works. A professional therapist/doctor will not keep leeching off a patient who is ready to move on. And there should be no stigma in someone seeking out professional help for their mental health anymore than seeking out a professional car mechanic or professional carpenter. If you don't need the help of a professional, great and lucky you, but please don't stigmatize that option for the many it can help... too many who need such help refuse it from the shame an ignorant society attaches to it.
Edit: I am irritated because I've seen friends and family stuck in harmful self-perpetuating ruts because everyone around them told them to "man up/it's all your head/just get over it" and how seeking professional help was shameful. The original poster came in here with a valid concern, and the thread has devolved into yet another "who's right/who's wrong" pissing match instead of concrete suggestions on how to help.
Then the Galt you refer to is still fictitious, not real, and you are trying to associate me to a fiction still. The point still stands, thank you for clarifying what you meant.
Not only have I studied the flaws of psychology and psychiatry at university (if we were neighbours we could go through these critical units together, and I would be pleased to do so), I have also seen its detrimental effects on my friends. Such as, just to keep it to one example, the young teen diagnosed and labelled with serious issues that make his life far harder, because he answered a question a certain way. He was a normal chilled kid and well adjusted to some negative circumstances. He has never gone on to crime or deviancy (he likes to play games and listen to music) but the psychologist was convinced that there was something wrong with him and she interfered in his life again and again and tried to keep him under her influence, manipulating the parent to return him to therapy over and over. That points to experts trying to interfere in the lives of others. My psychologist buddy always thinks he knows best, and that he is qualified to offer help. People do not need these new priests. Their efforts are an insidious force, and its worst aspects need to be recognised, including its powerful effect on cultures over such a short time. It is best to avoid this new priesthood and improve outside of its influence.
I am not saying man-up and preaching the shallow masculinity, there are other ways, more authentic ways for the person wanting to make change, than to get involved with psychs, their labels and their opinions.
Fishing's cheaper than therapy.
Well. unless you actually buy a boat... (aka a hole in the water into which money is poured)
Rent that boat, get free or cheap second-hand books. Use the internet to pursue free videos of whatever chills you or helps you to relax (like meditation, cooking, gardening).