I was never given a choice

Post Reply New Topic

When one's self has broken, there is only hope if the pieces can be patched together well enough to give anything a try, to have any energy or hope at all. A sense of worthiness needs to exist. That doesn't equate to wanting to be handed life/prosperity on a silver platter. Without some sort of spark of help, or companionship, or support this can take decades. Then, it may be too late. The kind of help a person needs may not be what is there for them, if at all. If someone broken isn't alone in their struggles, has appropriate support going along with them, that helps during the days and nights when nothing is left inside to hope for, and one can't even think of the start of a plan. IMHO, Coming up with the hope and thought process on one's own could only be done by someone who happens to have a gift and talent for that in the first place.

If you were dealt an winnable hand, you might have to try unorthodox means to get something better.

Alpineglow, let me offer you some kind of more specific, concrete hope. The following is one of the two things that set me on the road to sanity in my own life (along with Zen Buddhism): Epictetus' Encheridion.

I first read this little book as an assignment while in college. When I was in college, I had no support, no real friends, and very little hope. I worked all hard all day in the hot Texas sun, went to school in the evenings, and studied at night. The only thing that kept me going at that point in my life was pure anger and hatred for just about everything and everybody. Both are forms of energy, but very toxic, and more to ourselves than to others.

Epictetus helped me see that things could have been worse for me, and that things could be better even if my outward circumstances never changed. Epictetus was born a Greek slave. As a child he was beaten so badly by his master that he was lame for the rest of his life. And since he couldn't work, his master turned him out onto the streets to fend for himself. Though he became a renowned Stoic teacher, he always lived in complete destitution.

Though I don't read it as much as I used to, a copy of this book is one of the things that is always on my nightstand. It helped me get my thinking straight, and maybe it can help you too. If you're willing to look at it, here it is:

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

I am willing to read it, thank you for the link.

I hope it helps. Good luck.

I read it and agree - I see how it applies despite being written so long ago.

27. As a mark is not set up for the sake of missing the aim, so neither does the nature of evil exist in the world.

^ Is this perhaps the essence - the crux - of Epictetus' Encheridion?

Or, this: "Conduct me, Jove, and you, 0 Destiny,
Wherever your decrees have fixed my station."
- Cleanthes

The central theme of Stoicism, and Epictetus in particular, is that it's not what happens to us, but how we think and feel about what happens to us that really matters, and determines whether we are happy or miserable. And he goes on to explain what is in our power and what is not, and how to react.

This is actually my favorite passage of all:

17. Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If it is his pleasure you should act a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your business, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is another's.

To the Stoics, real evil was not being able to determine what was in one's power and what was not. External events weren't considered evil to them; they were just things that happened, including things like AS. The Stoic motto was to live according to nature, with nature being both external events and the way was are supposed to react to them.

As far as the Cleanthes quote goes, Jove was the head god in the Greek pantheon, more commonly called Jupiter. As far as what it means, it means that we should be happy with what life hands us, especially when we can't change it. And the way we do that is by changing how we think about things. So, station means two things: First, in pre-liberal times, people were born into their station in life, from aristocracy to slave, and rather than be unhappy with our station, we should learn to accept it. Second, Epictetus was lame, so he was very sensitive to physical and mental infirmities, and speaks of them often. So, this would apply to our health problems as well. In other words, since we can't be other than aspies, we should fully accept it. Being aspie is neither good nor evil; it just is. How we choose to feel about it is good or evil, as it's something we control.

^ this is (speaking for myself) exactly where the trouble begins, because to make a sensible plan one needs to know, to assess, one's possibilities. Like when you said to make a plan: that is excellent advice; but does one make a plan to just accept one's circumstances as they are, or not? In other words, how to assess what is in our control and how high to aim with goals can be a difficult challenge for someone with, for example add, executive functioning problems, and as a result recurring depression. Not that this is insurmountable, but it is where some assistance could really be valuable.

Actually, yours is a common criticism Stoicism from people who don't understand it well. Stoicism wasn't about passivity; it was about doing what we can and not worrying about the rest. In other words, if you want X out of life, you do your best, and if it doesn't happen, it's about realizing that's just the way it is, and we must accept it. This is what it means to live according to nature.

Women were another one: If that pretty blonde (or whoever) you know winks at you, go for it. But since she's not within your power to hold and keep, don't feel badly if it doesn't work out. But we should try since it just might.

Actually, two of Rome's most influential men were Stoics: Emperor Marcus Aurelius (about whom the movie Gladiator is loosely based), and Seneca, who was one of the richest men in the Roman Empire, and possible friend to the Saint Paul who wrote much of the New Testament. The works of both Marcus Aurelius and Seneca are both still extant, and widely read, though I don't think their works are as good as those of the poor man, Epictetus, who had to live what he preached every day.

I too have executive function problems, and they are fairly severe, though they tend to get better and worse. As far as depression goes, I think I spent most of my first thirty years in that state. I haven't been depressed in years though. What I'm getting at is that even if executive function issues can't be ameliorated, depression can.

What I wound up doing was whenever something depressing would arise, I would ask myself what about the situation was in my control, and what wasn't, and proceed from there. It takes practice, but it works if it is followed consistently. It begins to become second nature.

I'm not going to kid you and say that living in a bad environment for us is the best even if we learn to deal with it well. But when we have to live in a bad environment, we might as well make the best of it. One of my goals since I was a young child was to have some very rural land far removed from other people. I made it happen, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. But if our circumstances are such that we have to live in a crowded, noisy city, we might as well make the best of it, at least until we are in a position to make changes--assuming we want to make changes.

Nor did Nietzsche think we should wish suffering on ourselves. His position was that suffering is inevitable. Therefore, we should get as much positive out of it as possible.

If this stuff seems common-sensical, it's because once it is properly understood, it is.

Bottom line: Stoicism is about doing our best, which is all we can reasonably expect out of ourselves, and not worrying about the rest, as it's outside of our control.

I like your explanation, thanks. I might look into reading more about stoicism; any recommendations?

Yes, the book you have there, though there are many hard-copy editions available if that's what you want. If you want to do more reading, Epictetus has discourses, which go into more detail. Marcus Aurelius also wrote one titled "Meditations", and Seneca was the most prolific writer, whose work was called the "Epistles".

Stoicism is actually much more elaborate, with its own explanations for a whole lot of things. I wouldn't bother with this kind of thing, which you could read about in books on stoicism, but stoicism's ethics--what I'm recommending--is the important thing.

Rome's old pagan religion was fading fast during the imperial period. So, it was only a matter of time before a serious contender came on the scene. Stoicism was actually considered a viable substitute for early Christianity, though it's not technically a religion. The reason Christianity gained the upper hand is that it is much simpler to understand.

Or if you're asking if there is a commentary-type book on just ethics, I would certainly guess there are, but I've never read one. Unlike some philosophers, I don't have any problems with the way these books are written. But if you find it difficult to understand, just let me know. Part of my job is finding suitable books for people, so it's no trouble at all; just let me know.


Tom Wolfe, author of Bonfire of the Vanities, has a book out that deals with a modern stoic character titled "A Man in Full". I have it on my shelf but haven't read it yet.

I'll download the Epictetus, so as to re-read it, and do a search for his discourses. I'm particularly interested in what you mention about Rome's old pagan religion fading, and Stoicism being a viable substitute for Christianity. Was the old paganism based on Greek gods and goddesses, or something else? If there are accurate histories of this, I'd very much like to read them. If you would tell me of one (or more) books that'd be helpful, thanks much.

And I will look for the "A Man In Full", by Tom Wolfe book, hope the library has it and not on a waiting list.

I wasn't suggesting you don't have problems, I am sure you do also it is actually not nessisarily true that just because you can do something someone else can. My point its not like I or anyone else who isn't getting anywhere in life is willingly letting their problems stop them, but sometimes one has to accept their limitations even if they don't like it.

I don't even know what exactly I want in life except for some peace and a place of my own where I can have a no drama rule, but its not up to me if that happens its up to whoever decides if I get SSI or not, and then its only if I can afford to move out with the SSI money. As for working on things I am trying very hard to work on myself but kind of hard when I keep getting inconsistant therapy and help. Maybe there is some hope but I have yet to actually see anything to be hopeful about.

I'm in pretty much the same place you are. I live in a small town where I can only see a therapist/psychologist once a month. Just out of curiosity, how long have you been waiting for SSI? I probably should apply but in a couple months I'm probably going to be homeless anyway so it wouldn't even be worth it unless I could get it soon, which I don't think is the case. In order to try to get SOME sort of income and keep that from happening, I'm looking into being a mystery shopper. Not sure if you've heard of it, but you literally get paid just to go shop at places and take some notes. It does seem to involve an annoying amount of note-taking, but that's better than a job where I have to deal with people for more than a few minutes. If you're able to do it often you could potentially make as much as someone working a full-time job. Also, you could potentially get some pretty nice stuff for free. It might be worth looking into.