Life Exp. Vs Stotic Philosophy

[Inuzuka]

Life experience versus Stotic Philosophy.
Which would ultimately prevail in the end?-Honest question.
EDIT: The 'stotic' dosen't refer to stoticism. A better way to rephrase the question would be

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

"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)

PriestessKikyo

[Oujirou]

Might just be me that doesn't know (or it's too early to think), but what do you mean by stotic philosophy? Maybe 'stotic' as in 'stoicism' used here 'practical wisdom; calmness of temper and judgment; equanimity; fortitude; stoicism; as, to meet misfortune with philosophy.'? Or 'the philosophical system of the Stoics following the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno'

Or this 'Stoic - A member of an originally Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 B.C., believing that God determined everything for the best and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Its later Roman form advocated the calm acceptance of all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or of the natural order.'

Anyway thinking too much, I'd have to go with life experience on this one in the end, but perhaps I'll have a different opinion when I actually wake up and clue in to what stotic philosophy is.

[Inuzuka]

Terribly sorry for my incompetence.

Originally Posted by Oujirou

'stotic' as in 'stoicism' used here 'practical wisdom; calmness of temper and judgment; equanimity; fortitude;

[Oujirou]

Your incompetence? nah I still don't know what it means by that definition, I just looked it up is all. I just keep going deeper and confuse myself but philosophy is interesting anyway ^_^ but I'll have to stick with life experience on this one.

You haven't really given your thought tho.

[Umbrae]

Good question. Honestly, in the end assuming it is not a life or death situation experiance will win out. If it is a life or death situation, experiance would be nice, but philoshophy would most likly win out. As the old saying goes "experiance is the only thing you alaways get right after you needed it". where as a philoshophical view, or idea about the situation, and how to deal with it could be prepared beforehand.

[Mr_Paper]

Speaking as an existentialist, stoicism is nothing more than an escape from life through an attemp to exist as nature, completely indifferent, without goals or intentions. A stoic's greatest task is to simply exist, nothing more and nothing less. They try to live, if they do indeed try to live, by deluding themselves into believing that they are nothing, that their very existance is neither grand nor insignificant - they seek to be absolutely indifferent to themselves and the world. By believing that they exist as nature they shamelessly escape the consequences of their actions and decisions by claiming that it was as nature meant or that it happened because it was the universe's will. Stoicism is to escape life or to not live.

Life experience on the other hand is the natural outcome of living. As one lives one learns from the experiences and hardships and comes to better one's self through them. The only way to gain life experience is, indeed, to live a genuine life - or simply put, to live.

So, as I see it, the general force of your question is asking whether it is better to live or to not live. One can reword this easily into terms once tackled by one of literatures greatest playwrights, to be or not to be.

"To be, or not to be,--that is the question:--
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?--To die,--to sleep,--"
Hamlet, Act III Scene I
Wiliam Shakespeare

Unfortunately the answer to this is ultimately dependent on the individual, as you are asking which of the two is better, stoicism or existentialism. As an existentialist, I say it is best to live.

[Inuzuka]

Originally Posted by Mr_Paper

Speaking as an existentialist, stoicism is nothing more than an escape from life through an attemp to exist as nature, completely indifferent, without goals or intentions. A stoic's greatest task is to simply exist, nothing more and nothing less. They try to live, if they do indeed try to live, by deluding themselves into believing that they are nothing, that their very existance is neither grand nor insignificant - they seek to be absolutely indifferent to themselves and the world. By believing that they exist as nature they shamelessly escape the consequences of their actions and decisions by claiming that it was as nature meant or that it happened because it was the universe's will. Stoicism is to escape life or to not live.

Life experience on the other hand is the natural outcome of living. As one lives one learns from the experiences and hardships and comes to better one's self through them. The only way to gain life experience is, indeed, to live a genuine life - or simply put, to live.

So, as I see it, the general force of your question is asking whether it is better to live or to not live. One can reword this easily into terms once tackled by one of literatures greatest playwrights, to be or not to be.

"To be, or not to be,--that is the question:--
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?--To die,--to sleep,--"
Hamlet, Act III Scene I
Wiliam Shakespeare

Unfortunately the answer to this is ultimately dependent on the individual, as you are asking which of the two is better, stoicism or existentialism. As an existentialist, I say it is best to live.

Q:To be or not to be.The sad thing is,after reading your fantastic post,i still can't see whats so great about 'living',and whats so bad about 'running from reality'.(*Forgive me if i misunderstood*)
This might seem stupid,but isn't this situation like choosing between the 'Red Pill' or the 'Blue Pill'?(The Matrix)If you could live happier inside the Matrix(*Or away from reality*)why should you go to the real world?
A:To improve yourself.The reason we live and excist by default.To go into the real world(*Or rather,to face the consequences of your actions*)is to face your problems and solve them.Taking the 'Blue Pill' only makes you a fool for turning away from reality even when life gives you a chance to seize it.Stoic phiosophy is just like thinking of the real world when you're inside the Matrix.(*In other words,to think about reality when you live inside a dream*)On the other hand,which would really win out in the end?
I'm going to try now to interprete Mr_Paper's last line his/her the post.which i blieve holds the most 'truthful' answer(*Once again,forgive me if i misinterprete the original message/meaning of that post*)'To be or not to be' is IMO the question with the most varied answer,like he(*Mr_Paper*) said it's all a matter of personal preference.Or in other words,a matter of your own perception.'I think therefore i am',i cannot explain to you how true that pharse is.Ultimately everything is what you make it out to be/what you think it to be.But,is what we think always correct?OR,Is what we think really what we think?
Like Mr.Paper said,it's all a matter of personal preference on how you choose to live your life.

-As i have posted in this post before,we live to improve ourselves.Is that really true?Ultimately yes,even in our society which depends on us to sustain it.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

Just on a side note, the famous phrase "I think, therefore I am", is used somewhat out of context here.

[Kyolux]

I think life experience is better, even if it costs you.. Well I think that 'cause I've been stoic for too long and trying to change actually now, trying not to run, trying to care about the world around me.. not to run or act like it doesn't matter what happen.

To me, for a long time it was what looked like the best option, because by staying stoic you do less bad things.. but it's kinda gets on you and it's against one own's nature really..

Anyway I'll stop blabbing..

[MikoKikyo]

Originally Posted by Inuzuka

'I think therefore i am',i cannot explain to you how true that pharse is.Ultimately everything is what you make it out to be/what you think it to be.But,is what we think always correct?OR,Is what we think really what we think?
Like Mr.Paper said,it's all a matter of personal preference on how you choose to live your life.

Just on a side note, the famous phrase "I think, therefore I am", is used somewhat out of context here. This phrase came from the French catholic philosopher Renee Descartes, who was trying to find a geometrical and systematic approach to philosophy (he studied geometry too, which is theoretically based on a system of "proofs"). So he attempted to erase from his mind all prior knowledge that he had acquired from all sources, so as to discover a fundamental truth that could be the basis of all subsequent theories, and that was self-evidently true. At assuming all reality and truth of the world to be fake, there was only one thing he could be absolutely sure of, and that was the fact that he was thinking, he was reasoning. He thus concluded: " I think; therefore, I am". (There must be an "I" to be doing the thinking.)

I guess people have come to use this phrase in broader ways now, for example you just used it as a support that "Ultimately everything is what you think it be". There's a certain level of truth to that, but the phrase itself most closely means that our ability to think is the primary factor that defines our humanity; it is the most basic endeavor of existence.

[aahhsin]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

Just on a side note, the famous phrase "I think, therefore I am", is used somewhat out of context here. This phrase came from the French catholic philosopher Renee Descartes, who was trying to find a geometrical and systematic approach to philosophy (he studied geometry too, which is theoretically based on a system of "proofs"). So he attempted to erase from his mind all prior knowledge that he had acquired from all sources, so as to discover a fundamental truth that could be the basis of all subsequent theories, and that was self-evidently true. At assuming all reality and truth of the world to be fake, there was only one thing he could be absolutely sure of, and that was the fact that he was thinking, he was reasoning. He thus concluded: " I think; therefore, I am". (There must be an "I" to be doing the thinking.)

I guess people have come to use this phrase in broader ways now, for example you just used it as a support that "Ultimately everything is what you think it be". There's a certain level of truth to that, but the phrase itself most closely means that our ability to think is the primary factor that defines our humanity; it is the most basic endeavor of existence.

Right.... too much information. I thought Descarte's phrase just basically answered

How do you know you're alive?

So he answered, I think, therefore I am.

Better get this back on topic.

Life Experiance I believe would ultimately prevail. Many times I have asked advice from someone older then just sitting there and thinking about it. Now philosophy isn't bad, heck it helps out in the field of logic and morals, but face it life experiance covers that up just fine.

This really sounds like Western Thinking vs Eastern Thinking. Where Western philosophy thinks toward the future and what people are supposed to be doing, over a circular like thinking like in the east.
(This is basic stereotyping)

[Inuzuka]

Originally Posted by aahhsin

Life Experiance I believe would ultimately prevail. Many times I have asked advice from someone older then just sitting there and thinking about it. Now philosophy isn't bad, heck it helps out in the field of logic and morals, but face it life experiance covers that up just fine.

This really sounds like Western Thinking vs Eastern Thinking. Where Western philosophy thinks toward the future and what people are supposed to be doing, over a circular like thinking like in the east.
(This is basic stereotyping)

You asking for someone's advice when you encounter a problem is a really good concept.(*I hail whoever thought that idea up*)But that's a bit 'off topic' no?(*No offense*)
Sure,you can say life experience can help out as much as philosophy can in the field of morals & logic,but on the other hand,which gives you more insight?Which would ultimately give you more of a 'reason' to support it?

[StoneColdCrazy]

Lately, I think existence preceeds essence. We essentially live and then find our own meanings for life. But then I also think a lot of people are passive, under the sway of their Conatus, as Spinoza called it.

I think I see philosphy the way Wittgenstein sometimes did - as much a form of therapy as anything else. Or at least I've interpreted it that way; a way to logically and systematically observe and understand the world about us, as well as find practical solutions to the problems we are presented with. Philosophy is (generally) so progressive. I've never seen religion as being so.

SCC

[Inuzuka]

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

Lately, I think existence preceeds essence. We essentially live and then find our own meanings for life. But then I also think a lot of people are passive, under the sway of their Conatus, as Spinoza called it.

I think I see philosphy the way Wittgenstein sometimes did - as much a form of therapy as anything else. Or at least I've interpreted it that way; a way to logically and systematically observe and understand the world about us, as well as find practical solutions to the problems we are presented with. Philosophy is (generally) so progressive. I've never seen religion as being so.

SCC

A way to systematically observe the world around us,understand it and find practical solutions to the problems we are presented with.Therapy.
Intresting ways to describe philosophy,honestly.Well, as you have said,philosophy is progressive,and it is a way to find the most effective way in which to live our lives and to do things in general.(*I am sorry if i misinterpreted*)But wouldn't life experience do the same for you?As Mr_Paper had stated,it's all a matter of personal preference on how to live your lives,if philosophy is better for you then use it,if wisdom gained from life experience is most suited to your lifestyle,then all the better.
The bottom line is,it's all a matter of how you choose to live your life,ultimately.And the sad,sad thing is,i just killed my own thread

-Forgive me for my ignorance,but what is 'Conatus' ?

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by Inuzuka

But wouldn't life experience do the same for you?

Well, I suppose my studying philosophy is me gaining a certain kind of life experience, but I put more weight on what many philosophers have said than I do what a lot of other people have.

Originally Posted by Inuzuka

Forgive me for my ignorance,but what is 'Conatus' ?

Spinoza said something along the lines of there being basic desires within every individual, such as self-preservation, and base passions which drive us to do the 'standard' things that we do. He called this Conatus. "Our passions derive from this Conatus and when we react merely under the sway of our passions we are passive. To be active we must understand our passions in the wider system of causes and effects, we must dispassionately find their true place within the completely intelligible, infiinite, causal system of nature. Then they become clear ideas. This way the free man masters his emotions."

It's a little bit like Socrates saying you should examine your life. Don't just do things, ask yourself why you are doing them, and so forth. I'm always surprised... or appauled... at how many people aren't interested in doing this.

(Disclaimer: This might not be an ideal description. My philosophy isn't very good.)

SCC

[Sepiraph]

Am I the only person who thinks that we'd need better clarification on what exactly we are debating on this thread? By that I mean, the original question:

Life experience versus Stotic Philosophy.
Which would ultimately prevail in the end?-Honest question.

What is your definition of "which would ultimately prevail"? In other word, what the hell are we arguing about?

[MikoKikyo]

Originally Posted by Sepiraph

Am I the only person who thinks that we'd need better clarification on what exactly we are debating on this thread? By that I mean, the original question:



What is your definition of "which would ultimately prevail"? In other word, what the hell are we arguing about?

You're not alone. That's exactly the reason I haven't actually provided an answer to the question either.
My first problem with this was that looking at stoicism as the first definition provided - "practical wisdom; calmness of temper and judgment; equanimity" - I don't think it should be at odds with philosophy. With life experience, you gain wisdom, which walks hand to hand with philosophical concepts and ideals. Then Mr. Paper provided a more literal and precise interpretation, but also rather one-sided in my opinion. In order to debate this question, we need to agree on one definition of stotic philosophy, and why this should be against life experience.

[Mr_Paper]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

You're not alone. That's exactly the reason I haven't actually provided an answer to the question either.
My first problem with this was that looking at stoicism as the first definition provided - "practical wisdom; calmness of temper and judgment; equanimity" - I don't think it should be at odds with philosophy. With life experience, you gain wisdom, which walks hand to hand with philosophical concepts and ideals. Then Mr. Paper provided a more literal and precise interpretation, but also rather one-sided in my opinion. In order to debate this question, we need to agree on one definition of stotic philosophy, and why this should be against life experience.

Here are some good sites with rather detailed explainations of Stoicism (I threw in the Existentialist ones for fun). Hopefully they will provide a general enough overview of the topics in question to allow the debate to continue unhindered.

A simple explaination of Stoicism:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/stoicism.htm

A very complex explaination of Stoicism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

A simple explaination of Existentialism:
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html

A very complex explaination of Existentialism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

Unfortunately I disagree with Stoicism on a very fundamental level so I am often biased with regards to it, sorry for coming off in a very one-sided manner. Also, after rereading Inuzuka's posts I think they're interested in finding out whether people believe it is better to simply live one's life or live in comtemplation of life. I may be wrong, but their replies after my initial post seem to indicate this.

[dreamless]

I think we should first get clear whether this "Stoic philosophy" equals "Stoicism"?

Also "Stoic - A member of an originally Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 B.C., believing that God determined everything for the best and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Its later Roman form advocated the calm acceptance of all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or of the natural order"? is far different from "practical wisdom; calmness of temper and judgment; equanimity; fortitude"...

besides isn't "practical wisdom" somewhat similar to "life experience"?

[diabolistic]

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

Spinoza said something along the lines of there being basic desires within every individual, such as self-preservation, and base passions which drive us to do the 'standard' things that we do. He called this Conatus. "Our passions derive from this Conatus and when we react merely under the sway of our passions we are passive. To be active we must understand our passions in the wider system of causes and effects, we must dispassionately find their true place within the completely intelligible, infiinite, causal system of nature. Then they become clear ideas. This way the free man masters his emotions."

SCC

IMO, Spinoza is a complete and total whackjob.. his whole theory on monads and occasionalism defy reason.. its basically the lazy man's excuse "everything i do must be because God is controlling me. Everything i feel must be because God is putting emotions into my monads." ya.. ok.

but back to the point..

As living, breathing, and feeling organisms, we have been blessed with more mental and emotional capacity than the average vegetable. Why waste what is there?

sure, a turnip can always sit there going "i'm just a turnip, but one day, maybe, i'll become something more."
surely we're more resourceful than that? ;P

as a choice of lifestyle, accumulating life experience is not only more beneficial and natural, but you'll also make more friends <3.

however.. if we are looking at stoicism and and life experience as an epistemological argument, that is, all knowledge is either a priori (knowledge gained that does not require experience, such as mathematics) or a posteriori (knowledge gained only come from life experiences, such as a bad experience with a priest causes you to believe that religion is bad), it can be argued extensively both ways...

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by diabolistic

IMO, Spinoza is a complete and total whackjob.. his whole theory on monads and occasionalism defy reason..

Monads? Surely you mean Leibniz then? Leibniz had a similar haircut and was around during a similar period. He also wrote a lot of 'public' stuff that pleased the establishment and is often considered far less insightful than what he wrote privately and kept to himself.

As living, breathing, and feeling organisms, we have been blessed with more mental and emotional capacity than the average vegetable. Why waste what is there?

sure, a turnip can always sit there going "i'm just a turnip, but one day, maybe, i'll become something more."
surely we're more resourceful than that? ;P

I think you're right there, and I think that partly relates to what Philosophy is about. Socrates said than an unexamined life is not worth living and I think we should constantly be examining our lives, with respect to what we chose to do and what the world does around us. I think that's our key to success, that if we keep that as our philosophy, as our approach, then there's nothing we Kant do. Ahem.

Originally Posted by Mr_Paper

Here are some good sites with rather detailed explainations of Stoicism (I threw in the Existentialist ones for fun). Hopefully they will provide a general enough overview of the topics in question to allow the debate to continue unhindered.

Argh. Language games*. Mr Paper - what's your definition of Existentialism, then?

SCC

*"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."