Originally Posted by Inuzuka
So ultimately the question cannot be answered, with reference to your post (Or was your post the result of my inability to clarify the meaning behind the question posed in the first post) It all depends on how you live ultimately, how you choose to live, what you think is right, and what you think is conducive for yourself. Different studying methods ar suitable for different people, the same goes for philosophy. You are the one who judges what is correct and what isn't. The choice is yours ultimately.
This is your interpretation of what that followed from my post, not bad, but not quite my point. I believe in a definition of "life experience", as well as the idea of being dead while alive. But what within that question pertains to this conversation - which I was explaining - is the fact that I don't
believe life experience should be regarded strictly in terms of social interactions, physical developments and activities, or co-existence. Therefore, I was pointing out that Stoicism/living in contemplation of life, was also a legitimate form of life experience, at least from the perspective of its philosophical origins.
Regarding the meaning behind the question in the first post. 'Life experience' means 'wisdom/philosophy you can gain only by experiencing things'. And 'stotic philosophy' dosen't refer to stoticism. (terribly sorry, my ignorance in such matters caused you guys such confusion) It merely refers to 'contemplating about life progressivly from a third person view'.
In other words, would you be able to find a more suitable philosophy for living your life from looking at it from a third person perspective, or would you be better able to do it from experiencing it in first-person.
There seems to be a logical contradiction in the way you phrased the question. But I appreciate the attempt to perpetuate the discussion
Even if you look at your life from a third person perspective, you can't stop yourself from experiencing-those things which you are viewing in the third person- in first person. They are intertwined.*
I humbly suggest to rephrase it as "viewing your life from your own perspective,(not taking into account the third-person absolute)
, or from a third person view, (wholly objective and nonsusceptible to your prejudices and passions)
?" (to simplify it -> your perspective v. a neutral perspective instead of your life experience versus a third person perspective)
I believe it would be better to acknowledge your own first person view, but then adopt a third person perspective (as in, a neutral and objective viewpoint) when taking measures and balancing rights and wrongs. This allows for one to act based on reason and morality, instead of irrational passions (frustration, anger, jealousy, etc).
*Assuming someone can contemplate their lives - or life in general - from a third-person view, this should not hinder them from incorporating their own natural perception and judgment into it. Not viewing your life from your own perspective is a merely abstract concept, which is, in a practical sense, seemingly impossible. Can you stop yourself from feeling the impact of others and their actions? How can you stop yourself from passing your own judgment into the world around you, and even the smallest incidents? In order to not
look at the world according to your own view (first person view), it would be necessary to extinguish all your sense of morality, values, impressions, judgements, past experience, etc. I can see this being possible in a theoretical sense, however. Ultimately it boils down to the question I presented as stated above, I think.