Can one exercise his/her own consious will to express this one thought "Enough is Enough!" ?, Like really can one? Can one have anger and feeling of unfairness, which do not origins do not come from the instincts of the body, but rather from the innner self/the soul/ the spirit/the real self?
If resisisting instinctual impulses is the goal, does that mean that one doesnt need to be nice to everyone and have to put up with everyones b*llshit ?
I mean can one just get fed up with people in general, not due instinctual impulses but in a spirit level? Like cant ones self/spirit just become too fed up with something or someone? It is not like one is so unaffected by anyone or any surreding that if one just gets kicked out into space and will fly through the vacuum of space, one just woud be content with it. I think people missunderstand spirituality in this sense, people take it into such an obsurd turn, that you are like a rock that is conetent with anyone, any surreding, or any situation for the matter, like in the previous example if one gets kicked into space (in a 10x10 meters square, space-cube/capsule) and one will just fly through space aiminhslisy, one would just be content with it.
Please read this caricature below, of course the author might have exagereted a bit most likely for the humor sake, and the author might be biased in thinking that nature dictates what is right or wrong (basically the strongest survives), HOWEVER the author DOES have a point in regards his/her comments about the stoic-ideologies biggest problem.
Personally I am tired of humans in general, and it is not instinctively propelled but it is because I am tired of living a mortal life overall and the ordinary humans in my vicinity are only tiring to me including their meaningless lives and whatever it is in them.
Being kind or not kind does not really matter, but usually it does work better to play the kind type and you may find more peace that way. But sometimes being unkind may work better for your peace, for example you have someone around you which you keep just out of politeness but who is very tiresome.
Anger is an emotion of the body (animal) and it can be channeled out of the soul's frustration, it is the animal's reaction to your condition. The animal then has a tightly connected instinct which is subduing action and which is less desirable. Eysua teaches not to become angry because it does make avoiding aggressive action much harder, despite that the old "law" did say not to dominate. The instinct of domination is also triggered by the species of Homo sapiens inclination to contest with others, this instinct is also common in the animal world. If you are taunted, you probably have seen it might be hard to avoid responding to it. When exposed to friction this gives a better opportunity to exercise your mind.
Hence when people treat you unfairly by words it is better to not wish to dominate them. It does not mean inaction, but you must train your control and make your response unaffected by the bodily.
This is an excellent question and here's my take on it. At first it may seem generalising but hold on with me:
Essentially, human nature is propelled by 2 differing tendencies: 1. Left-side of the brain - tendency towards focus, looking at specifics, details,reason, in relations to self and others; competition, high temper, may lead to anger and violence - in essence qualities that are typically more associated with males, but essentially are qualities in all genders with higher left-side drive 2. Right-side of the brain - tendency towards looking at bigger picture,also intuitive, emotional drive, in relation to self-others tendency towards need to please others, be agreeable, may lead to depression, low self-esteem. Quite often typical of a significant proportion of females,but essentially are qualities in all genders with higher left-side drive.
Since most of philosophers, influencers and prophets (wise-man/woman)in the past and even in present were males, their advice was often reflecting their tendencies and focused on suppression of anger, drive for power and control, while very rarely were directed towards people with tendencies typical of right-brained individuals, such as the need to establish own boundaries, care and love of ones own soul and body (well, for females it was quite obvious recommendation to be submissive, self-sacrificing for the better of own family, children,community, etc).
While most of people will put all of their emotions under one easy bag of 'anger', it's worth exploring where that anger is actually coming from. Am I angry because my ego wanted me to win this game, get that job, win this argument? Or this feeling of internal agitation is actually a physical signal of your soul that you are being wronged and you need to respond accordingly (most rightly by detaching yourself of that wrong, for example by leaving the abusive relationship, or expressing clearly, but respectfully that you do not want to be treated this way and demanding more rightful attitude from the interlocutor).
Nothetheless, some of the great thinkers of the past alluded to maintaining this subtle balance. Jesus clearly said - 'love thy neighbour as you do yourself'. Not 'love neigbour more than thyself' or 'love thyself less than the neighbour'. The key is to balance out care for others and for ourselves. Clearly, being 'kind' to others at an expense of one's soul is not going to create more spiritual light in this world, as one light (you) will be suppressed or extinguished for the benefit of other (that other person, which is definitely not what the philosophers would strive for. Indifference to wrong is not an answer. It take indifferent society for the evil to spread as someone wisely said.
So to answer your question: no the soul should not be expected to accept an evil that is thrown on them. The trick is to be able to know yourslef and respect yourself, which will help you to establish minimum expectations of treatment/behaviours by others. If there are people who do not respect those boundaries, be able to communicate that in respectable manner and reestablishing terms. if that does not work, minimising the exposure or let oneself free of that relationship.
I think there is a huge misconception surrounding Stoic Philosophy.
Stoic guy: "There is nothing you can do to harm me uberman, only I have the power to do that" Uberman: *catapults stoic guy into space*.
Stoic philosophy stipulates that people can become obstacles to us which is nothing wrong because we are supposed to put up with them. And the obstacle they present is not a permanent one because, our mind, being away from the drama (which is where it is supposed to be) can adapt and re-oriente itself toward a more proper way of doing things, and therefore "What stands in the way becomes the way". If that makes any sense.
But in general I think the idea of the Ubermensch(Overman) and the Stoic philosophy are two sides of the same coin. Both call for Man to overcome himself in their own proper ways.
What Stoicism is supposed to stand for is indifference to instinctive stimuli i.e. no pleasure to things which may induce a feeling of instinctive satisfaction where hormones flow and boost primitive behavior.
Giving in to anger and aggression is an example of pleasure actually, responding to anger can feel good and it is not good. Anger leads to thoughts about domination, revenge and so on, it is very much an instinctive reaction and it reminds us how much our body is an animal. Here Stoicism is very important to avoid instinctive activation and to have mental strength to resist the response, and here is also where the misconception comes in, about taking a beating without any defense at all as in the satiric comics. While the Stoic is not to give in to emotions and become taunted and thus angry, the Stoic can choose to react by logic and make some move against the aggressor, which does not necessarily have to be violence. So Stoicism is not equal to pacifism, although the Stoic would make an unemotional move involving strategy and thus have no need to dominate the culprit, but the Stoic would not just stand there like a fool if a fist comes flying.
The Stoic would however be wise enough to leave ordinary humans and their meaningless ventures in life aside and not be too involved in their lives except if they can manage to teach them something.
Stoicism does not mean one cannot feel content, the whole idea of the ancient faith is avoiding to activate the bodily and the list of what types involved I have written here and there in this forum. Happiness is never mentioned as negative in the "law", not once, but true happiness does not come from obeying the bodily desires. So a good laugh is not necessarily derived from the bodily but triggered as a response to a condition of the mind.
Those who criticize this lack information and lack understanding, and base their opinion on that. This is because they think pleasure in life is natural and not seeking it is stupid as they have no greater realization about this world. They have never tried to see what happens if a person does try to suppress the instinct, which result makes a person only feel more superior, and the resistance to the instinct leads to better insight.
Aviel: Immanuel, Thank You very much for the work you do. Thank you for your insight, IM SINCERELY THANKFUL! There are people to whom your work is very important, and I can and will raise my hand for being one of them.
Jul 31, 2017 10:29:55 GMT
Immanuel: You are welcome, hansolo. It is for your sake that I am doing it primarily, but I am also a bit curious myself regarding the underlying lore. Persistent research and critical thinking has led to a great breakthrough.
Aug 13, 2017 19:08:46 GMT
nullandvoid: Wondering what a future with only non-dualistic people would be like?
Jan 28, 2018 14:53:12 GMT
Immanuel: Symbiotic existence, like a permanent telepathic coexistence. This is why humans are placed to learn to coexist on Earth on a very basic level and even with marriages, in order to be ready for a greater union by developing from there.
Feb 2, 2018 21:32:19 GMT
Immanuel: Our challenge here is Homo sapiens' self-preservation and other instinctive drives/motivations, which makes people think in "dualistic" ways.
Feb 2, 2018 21:34:12 GMT
hftwo: Immanuel do you believe that You will be able to do "Godly" things during this Immanuel-life-time? Because I do think if Jesus said that you will. e able to do these things and even greater! But logically thinking to get Godlike powers...
Oct 4, 2018 10:48:45 GMT
hftwo: ... one needs to become perfect /totally complete as a being. I do not count on my self, because it seems like the sex commandment is something that I usually break.
Oct 4, 2018 10:49:35 GMT
hftwo: How can I count myself as a perfect being if I cannot control the reproduction urges of the body?
Oct 4, 2018 10:50:10 GMT
hftwo: But at the same time, I do not want to be a human any longer, I do not want to be weak any longer.
Oct 4, 2018 10:50:49 GMT
cerulean: learning to live each day as the last i.e giving our best at each moment, not allowing for sloppiness in thinking and doing, not even for a second. Not allowing the postponing of what should be done
Oct 10, 2018 18:51:29 GMT
cerulean: We should learn to do that, and then all other things will be easier. By adopting a way of being instead of just focusing on abolishing those apparent wrong acts such as masturbation.
Oct 10, 2018 18:55:42 GMT
Immanuel: I might seem to prescribe impossible goals, but I also say that we do reside in a creature which is an animal and you will not be rid of its functionality without killing it and the creature as an animal has needs which are inevitable.
Nov 4, 2018 21:01:04 GMT
Immanuel: What the "Ten Commandments" counteract is the enslaving effects of the body. Furthermore, I am still not convinced about what the seventh command says as it probably says "unnecessary sex". Jesus gave a recommendation of not even looking upon a woman.
Nov 4, 2018 21:05:37 GMT
Immanuel: Jesus' word of not even looking upon a woman (or man) suits that of no unnecessary sex. It is about that sexual trigger in the mind which is spoke of. Pay attention to that translators usually add "other" within parentheses, meaning it is about ANY woman.
Nov 4, 2018 21:11:06 GMT
Immanuel: "but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28 NASB
Nov 4, 2018 21:17:55 GMT
cerulean: Right, so one should probably adopt an entire way of living, instead of focusing on one thing, because many other things can lead to that one thing you are trying to keep away from.
Nov 5, 2018 12:44:38 GMT
Immanuel: Yes, this is about a way of living rather than a dumb set of rules. People have incorrectly referred to the so-called 'Ten Commandments' as laws to uphold for the sake of worship, but this is wrong. They are guidelines in order to maintain a conscious lif
Nov 5, 2018 18:38:31 GMT
Immanuel: Unfortunately the first lines of the Commandments were distorted so badly it looks like they sanction religious worship. While they seem to promote relinquishing the mind, the truth is they that say the straight opposite.
Nov 5, 2018 18:43:25 GMT
hftwo: Just "Be" is that simple
Jan 11, 2019 12:54:40 GMT
hftwo: You have everything You need, You have Yourself, or is it?
Jan 11, 2019 12:55:25 GMT