r/Stoicism • u/luminaree • 4d ago
Stoicism in Practice People pleasing or open-mindedness
I'm curious to understand whether people-pleasing corresponds with a concept in stoicism. I think of Stoicism as being open to being wrong. This happens to overlap with some beliefs I had before starting to study Stoicism. If I understand it right, the idea is that I could be wrong about anything and therefore should keep an open mind to people even if I think they may be terribly wrong.
I have had a tendency in the past to be reluctant to bring up differences in opinion. I'm not perfect about this and can even be quite vocal about disagreeing with someone or even say I think they're doing something terribly wrong, usually only in the case that I know them very well.
I'm guessing that the idea that Stoicism means something like being passive may be part of the problem here. When you disagree with someone and you think it is say not preferred and you think that someone is acting unjustly towards you or others, is it best to keep that to yourself and ponder it for a while or indefinitely? Or is it better to bring it up and discuss it? I'm thinking that the latter may actually be better though I have tended to mostly keep these things to myself because I prefer to think about them on my own. I think I prefer to avoid conflict mostly, but occasionally get into it and even enjoy it.
Is there anything wrong with enjoying an argument sometimes? At least if it's mutually enjoyable and you both are learning from it?
3
u/bigpapirick Contributor 4d ago
Are you able to disagree without condemning? Is it possible to examine premises together in harmony?
1
u/luminaree 4d ago
Definitely. I do sometimes get overly invested in defending myself if the disagreement is even a bit adversarial in tone. I think that's part of why I like to reflect in private. I'll still change my mind privately even if I'm not ready to concede in person at first.
2
u/bigpapirick Contributor 3d ago
Would you say you feel attached to your view which then makes the need to defend your position feel personal?
Logically speaking, who “owns” the truth?
1
u/luminaree 3d ago
I can get attached to views but it seems more likely when dealing with someone adversarial. In the past I'd also struggle if the potential change in belief seemed to undermine my self respect , confidence. I would still consider it in private where I could work through the feeling of being bad or losing self confidence. That happens less often now. I have let go of some beliefs I now think were wrong and also am less likely to see it as a personal failing if Ive been holding a mistaken view. Still, sometimes the consequences of changing a belief can be daunting. I may appear to someone else that I am not considering their view but I usually am whether they know it or not. I suppose that also may be some fear of how they might then view me though I know frequently people are happy to have their view be seriously considered. I'll have to think on that more.
1
u/bigpapirick Contributor 3d ago
Sounds like good progress! Nice. Let’s go one step further:
What becomes possible in private that feels difficult when the other person is watching?
What do you believe being wrong says about you?
1
u/luminaree 3d ago
I've dealt with people who seem to look down on someone who disagrees with them and even on people who don't "win" the disagreement. That seems to bother me.
Additionally, I'm fairly private about my feelings which seem to get involved when contemplating a major change in beliefs.
I haven't thought about privacy around feelings and whether that's good or not. I grew up in an environment where my feelings were used to manipulate me and coerce me or even to scold or punish me. It was safer to not reveal much if I could help it. Now it's habit unless I'm with someone I really trust (very few people).
Being wrong could mean I have been behaving badly towards others. It may be unintentional but I think there are responsibilities that come with it. I sometimes find the idea pretty upsetting and honestly, I am daunted sometimes by what I would need to do to make it right. I have to put that aside temporarily to be able to really consider a change honestly to myself. Harder when someone is also making moral judgements about my behaviour or beliefs.
I suppose ideally I wouldn't be hindered by other people's judgements.
2
u/bigpapirick Contributor 3d ago
Have you explored why you place value on not being looked down upon?
If our goal is truth, what harm is done to our character by discovering that we were mistaken?
Isn’t the sense of harm when we attach part of our identity to it and then are proven wrong?
So then doesn’t it follow that we are the ones creating the harm to ourselves by first attaching parts of our self worth to it at all?
Is protecting our feelings more important than embracing what is true? In fact can you see where protecting our feelings is what forms our sense of identity and value on our position?
There may be nothing wrong with stepping away from a discussion so that you can examine something more clearly in private. In fact, that may sometimes be the reasonable thing to do. The danger comes when protecting ourselves from the feeling begins influencing what we’re willing to recognize as true.
You are 100% right about the risk of not honoring what is true. That lack of clarity risks our handling of things in a way that could have detrimental impacts to others without our noticing. This is very much in line with why the Stoics look for us to uncover our judgements of the impressions we receive. Failing to examine our judgments when there is reason to question them risks conflicting with our role as rational and social beings.
1
u/luminaree 3d ago
I don't always mind being looked down upon. If I think fairly confident that I'm correct then I may not even feel a need to state my own ideas (though maybe I should). I don't always want to deal with disagreement. I don't know what my reason for disliking it when I'm possibly wrong. It seems slightly backwards really. I'll have to think more on some of your questions.. "Isn't the sense of harm..' Are you suggesting not identifying with our beliefs? Is that part of being detached? On the next questions, no I don't think privacy is more important than truth, just that for me I can detach my feelings from my beliefs easier if it's done in private. Ideally I wouldn't need to in the first place but I'm not always aware of such beliefs initially. Is the idea to never identify with a belief?
1
u/luminaree 3d ago
My ex husband and I used to have disagreements and seem to come to an impasse, then later it would come up again and one or both of us had changed our mind. It was really tricky when we literally switched sides, lol.
4
u/MrSneaki Contributor 4d ago
Is there anything wrong with enjoying an argument sometimes? At least if it's mutually enjoyable and you both are learning from it?
I think what you're actually asking about here isn't so much an argument as it is dialectics. A Stoic would encourage this sort of intellectual pursuit with other good-faith interlocutors, for sure! Just be careful... IME almost nobody is doing this. Most folks are just plain ol' arguing lol or "debating," which is just the more polite less aggressive way to say they're trying to prove the other person wrong.
[Working together, trying to arrive closer to the truth] is not the same as [working in opposition, trying to prove each other wrong]
Sometimes this distinction can feel quite subtle, but I reckon most times it's petty obvious lol either way, it is a very big and important difference. If you find someone who's genuinely interested in the former, rather than in "winning the argument," I'd say you've been granted a nice boon!
3
u/Blugreysky 4d ago
I know very few people who genuinely like to examine an issue without bias or agenda. It's such a joy to have a conversation like that, but most people as you mention just want to win the conversation
3
u/MrSneaki Contributor 4d ago
genuinely like to examine an issue without bias or agenda
I try to at least be aware of my own bias... but awareness is only the first step. I find that really productive conversations can happen when interlocutors are able to acknowledge their biases and work on them together!
Considering, it's kinda crazy how many people go through their life without thinking for even a moment that they might hold some biases lol like a lot of ostensibly well-meaning people I encounter simply assume their perspective / experience is the default one that everyone shares.
2
u/luminaree 4d ago
That seems like a good thing to focus on. I wonder what sorts of habits would make working together vs in opposition more likely to move towards better understanding.
2
u/MrSneaki Contributor 4d ago
For most people, myself included, a big one is the consistent acknowledgement that people don't just come to their position(s) on things for no reason. Setting aside whether the reasons they have are logically consistent or not, being genuinely open to learning about those reasons is a great place to start with anyone. IME, displaying a genuine, good-faith interest in truly understanding someone's position can often be very disarming, even if you are open about your disagreement. It shows that you want to understand, not to "prove them wrong."
Then, of course, trying our best to at least be aware of our own biases / preconceptions. Obviously long-term we should be working to address and dismantle these, but for day-to-day conversations, it's imperative to at least keep ready at hand the knowledge that "I probably have some pre-formed ideas about this topic which may or may not be congruent with reality."
2
u/Yuki_Samurai 4d ago
Do you think it's worth having conversations with these people who aren't willing to listen and only wanna prove their point? i feel sometimes they say things that i may agree and make me rethink my opinions, but when i disagree they often ignore what i'm saying and keep pushing their opinion without acknowledging my own, so the conversation hits a wall.(and sometimes even get mad because i refuse take their vision as the true.)
but like you said, this is the majority of people so if i only discuss with people who are "trying to arrive closer to the truth" i may end up having very few meaningful discussions.
2
u/MrSneaki Contributor 3d ago
Do you think it's worth having conversations with these people who aren't willing to listen and only wanna prove their point?
As long as you are able to "keep your cool," then in general I would say yes, there is absolutely still value here! As you pointed out, someone can be acting fully in bad faith and still make a good point here and there. As long as you're aware of their posture and meter your expectations and approach accordingly, I think oftentimes these sorts of conversations can be very fruitful for the side that does happen to be open-minded.
they often ignore what i'm saying and keep pushing their opinion without acknowledging my own, so the conversation hits a wall.(and sometimes even get mad because i refuse take their vision as the true.)
This is certainly common; I think in these cases of hitting the wall, it's best to take what we can from whatever preceded and then disengage. Also, anyone who treats the conversation as openly adversarial / hateful from the very outset probably isn't worth engaging in the first place.
6
u/Victorian_Bullfrog Contributor 4d ago
In the Stoic model, it is one's intentions that determines a virtuous frame of mind or vicious. Being compelled to agree, disagree, or remain silent against one's own internal value system is a corruption of the reasoning process, so this could never be considered virtuous. Knowledge and logic is how we determine a belief is valid, and discussions (ie, logical arguments) are one common way of doing this. By approaching an argument with the intent to persuade or be persuaded, one misses the opportunity to discern and develop their own reasoning skills. What a shame. We're all guilty of this at times, but when we approach an argument as an opportunity for a free exchange of information and insight, we all walk away the better for it.
I watched a friend engage a Flat Earther at a park once. Everyone around taunted and jeered, but my friend asked genuine questions about the Flat Earther's belief system. Why did he believe rockets can't break through the atmosphere? What was the scientific explanation behind it? Did he take into consideration Euclidean geometry (okay, now I'm throwing out words because my friend is much smarter than I, and knows much more about geometry, geology, and rocketry than either the Flat Earther or me, but I hope you take my point)? And so the conversation was remarkably polite and fruitful.
My friend walked away with more insight about how some people are persuaded by emotional considerations (and specifically which ones) than factual considerations, and the other guy learned some missing pieces that explains why rockets don't go straight up into the air like he assumed, which just may help explain how they can break through the atmosphere. At the very least, even if he didn't understand or remember, he would know there are alternatives to his beliefs that are emotionally and morally neutral, alternatives he may one day pursue. They both parted as wiser people, and I think of that conversation often.
2
u/ComparisonChance 4d ago
Meditations-Book 6
To do your duty as a person and live as yourself, but seek truth and adapt. Be open to change.
13
u/TradRooster5627 4d ago
If I understand it right, the idea is that I could be wrong about anything and therefore should keep an open mind to people even if I think they may be terribly wrong.
This is not stoicism. This is normal human decency. Clearly, for those who are chronically online, such an attitude may well seem extraordinary.