>>4266481I see so little number of people having similliar views though... My hypothesis is that such thinking works only if you already consider our world an overally good place, which I do, yet majority of people do not. As I mentioned, the "proper mortar of approach", it all depends on it. I feel that people often confuse philospohy, one's own version of "how to spend your life" with what makes us happy, fulfilled. I would even risk the statement that it's quite the opposite. It's whether we are happy or not which sculpts our views the most. Shortening, approach is happiness, philosophy is morals. Both influence each other greatly, yet not equally and changing one doesn't necessarily mean a change in the other one. Going back to the original topic, going by this theory, one couldn't be a true stoic if he just considered that the way and "tried" to achieve it. He would have to change his whole approach to life, to one of a true stoic, an emotionless one, the true belief that emotion and expression has no sense at all. Same analysis can be applied to my "philosophy", if you excuse the term. One could treat it as the way to live, the only correct one and try their hardest to achieve constant euphory, listening to overjoying music, avoiding potentially depressing subjects etc. Yet, it wouldn't achieve them nothing, as it is not this kind of happiness, it's not euphory. I'd say it's closer to just being content. And well, you most likely could enter such state for a while using external stimuli, however staying in it can only be reached by taking different approach. Fundamentally changing everything you have ever stated for, redefining who you are. That is the key, understanding the possibility and the necessity of such drastic change in order to really make a difference. Upon overcoming our natural disbelief in that, one can become free. Truly so.
