Latest news with #Epictetus
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Can you choose to believe something, just like that?
Some years ago, I was in a lively conversation with a software developer about arguments for and against God's existence. After discussing their merits and shortcomings, he paused – perhaps a little impatiently – and said, 'You know, these arguments really don't matter that much. I choose to believe in God. Believing is so valuable for my life.' But is that how belief works – can you simply choose to believe? People can, of course, choose to read certain sources, spend time with certain groups, or reflect on a certain matter – all of which influence their beliefs. But all of these choices involve evidence of some kind. We often choose which evidence to expose ourselves to, but the evidence itself seems to be in the driver's seat in causing beliefs. For much of the past 2,000 years, philosophers would have been perfectly comfortable with the software developer's claim that belief is a matter of choice. A long line of distinguished thinkers – from the Stoic philosopher Epictetus and Saint Augustine of Hippo to French rationalist René Descartes and early feminist Mary Astell have held that people can exercise at least some control over their beliefs. Over the past half-century, however, 'doxastic voluntarism' – the idea that belief is under the control of the will – has been widely rejected. Most current philosophers don't think people can immediately believe something 'just like that,' simply because they want to. What beliefs someone ends up having are determined by the people and environments they are exposed to – from beliefs about a deity to beliefs about the solar system. As a philosophy professor myself, I've dedicated years of reflection to this issue. I've come to think both camps get something right. Some philosophers think that the nature of belief itself ensures that people cannot just choose what to believe. They argue that beliefs have a 'truth-aim' built into them: that is, beliefs characteristically represent reality. And sadly, reality often does not obey our wishes and desires; we cannot just decide to think reality is a certain way. No matter how much I may want to be 6 feet, 8 inches tall, reality will faithfully imprint it upon my consciousness that I am 5'11" every time I glance in the mirror or make an appearance on the basketball court. Were I to resolve to believe that I am 6'8", I would quickly find that such resolutions are wholly ineffective. Or consider another example. If belief were truly voluntary, I would gladly relinquish my belief that climate change is afoot – imagine how less worried I'd be. But I cannot. The evidence, along with the widespread agreement among scientific authorities, has indelibly impressed upon my mind that climate change is part of reality. Regardless of whether I want to believe or not believe, bare desire isn't enough to make it happen. Beliefs seem largely outside of our direct control. But if that's true, some rather alarming consequences seem to follow. It seems we had better stop blaming people for their beliefs, no matter how far-fetched. Suppose I believe a dangerous falsehood: that Bill Gates used the COVID-19 vaccine to implant microchips in people, or that climate change is a hoax, or that the Holocaust is an elaborate fabrication. If belief is involuntary, it looks as though I am innocent of any wrongdoing. These beliefs just happened to me, so to speak. If beliefs are not voluntary, then they seem the spontaneous result of my being exposed to certain influences and ideas – including, in this case, conspiracy theory chat forums. Now, people can choose what influences they allow into their lives – to some extent. I can decide where to gather information about climate trends: a chat forum, the mainstream media, or the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I can decide how much to reflect on what such sources tell me, along with their motivations. Almost all contemporary philosophers think that people can exert this type of voluntary control over their beliefs. But does that mean I am responsible for the beliefs I arrive at? Not necessarily. After all, which sources we decide to consult, and how we evaluate them, can also be shaped by our preexisting beliefs. I am not going to trust the U.N. climate panel's latest report if, say, I believe it is a part of a global conspiracy to curtail free markets – especially not if I had many similar beliefs drummed into me since childhood. It gets difficult to see how individuals could have any meaningful freedom over their beliefs, or any meaningful responsibility. Research has led me to think that things are a bit less grim – and a bit less black and white. Philosopher Elizabeth Jackson and I recently carried out a study, not yet published, involving more than 300 participants. We gave them brief summaries of several scenarios where it was unclear whether an individual had committed a crime. The evidence was ambiguous, but we asked participants whether they could choose to believe the individual was innocent 'just like that,' without having to gather evidence or think critically. Many people in the study said that they could do exactly this. It's possible they were mistaken. Still, several recent studies at the intersection of philosophy and psychology suggest people can control some of their beliefs, especially in situations where the evidence is ambiguous. And that describes many of the most important propositions people are forced to consider, from politics and careers to romance: Who is the best candidate? Which path should I pursue? Is she the one? So, it looks like we have some reason to think people are able to directly control their beliefs, after all. And if the evidence for God is similarly ambiguous, perhaps my software developer was right that he could decide to believe. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Mark Boespflug, Fort Lewis College Read more: What is love? A philosopher explains it's not a choice or a feeling − it's a practice Lincoln called for divided Americans to heed their 'better angels,' and politicians have invoked him ever since in crises − but for Abe, it was more than words Stoicism and spirituality: A philosopher explains how more Americans' search for meaning is turning them toward the classics Mark Boespflug receives funding from the John Templeton Foundation.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Empathy can take a toll – but 2 philosophers explain why we should see it as a strength
In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, billionaire and Trump megadonor Elon Musk offered his thoughts about what motivates political progressives to support immigration. In his view, the culprit was empathy, which he called 'the fundamental weakness of Western civilization.' As shocking as Musk's views are, however, they are far from unique. On the one hand, there is the familiar and widespread conservative critique of 'bleeding heart' liberals as naive or overly emotional. But there is also a broader philosophical critique that raises worries about empathy on quite different and less political grounds, including findings in social science. Empathy can make people weaker – both physically and practically, according to social scientists. Consider the phenomenon known as 'empathy fatigue,' a major source of burnout among counselors, nurses and even neurosurgeons. These professionals devote their lives to helping others, yet the empathy they feel for their clients and patients wears them down, making it harder to do their jobs. As philosophers, we agree that empathy can take a toll on both individuals and society. However, we believe that, at its core, empathy is a form of mental strength that enables us to better understand the impact of our actions on others, and to make informed choices. The term 'empathy' only entered the English language in the 1890s. But the general idea of being moved by others' suffering has been a subject of philosophical attention for millennia, under labels such as 'pity,' 'sympathy' and 'compassion.' One of the earliest warnings about pity in Western philosophy comes from the Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus. In his 'Discourses,' he offers general advice about how to live a good life, centered on inner tranquility and freedom. When it comes to emotions and feelings, he writes: 'He is free who lives as he wishes to live … And who chooses to live in sorrow, fear, envy, pity, desiring and failing in his desires, attempting to avoid something and falling into it? Not one.' Feeling sorry for another person or feeling pity for them compromises our freedom, in Epictetus's view. Those negative feelings are unpleasant, and nobody would choose them for themselves. Empathy would clearly fall into this same category, keeping us from living the good life. A similar objection emerged much later from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche framed his discussion in terms of 'Mitleid' – a German term that can be translated as either 'pity' or 'compassion.' Like Epictetus, Nietzsche worried that pity or compassion was a burden on the individual, preventing them from living the good life. In his book 'Daybreak,' Nietzsche warns that such feelings could impair the very people who try to help others. Epictetus's and Nietzsche's worries about pity or compassion carry over to empathy. Recall, the phenomenon of empathy fatigue. One psychological explanation for why empathic people experience fatigue and even burnout is that empathy involves a kind of mirroring of other people's mental life, a mirroring that can be physically unpleasant. When someone you love is in pain, you don't just believe that they are in pain; you may feel it as if it is actually happening to you. Results from neuroscience and cognitive psychology research indicate that there are different brain mechanisms involved in merely observing another's pain versus empathizing with it. The latter involves unpleasant sensations of the type we experience when we are in pain. Empathy is thus difficult to bear precisely because being in pain is difficult to bear. And this sharpens the Stoic and Nietzschean worries: Why bother empathizing when it is unpleasant and, perhaps, not even necessary for helping others? The answer for why one should see empathy as a strength starts with a key insight from 20th century philosophy about the nature of knowledge. That insight is based on a famous thought experiment by the Australian philosopher Frank Jackson. Jackson invites us to imagine a scientist named Mary who has studied colors despite having lived her entire life in a black and white room. She knows all the facts about the spectrum distribution of light sources and vision science. She's read descriptions of the redness of roses and azaleas. But she's never seen color herself. Does Mary know everything about redness? Many epistemologists – people who study the nature of knowledge – argue that she does not. What Mary learns when she sees red for the first time is elusive. If she returns to her black and white room, never to see any colored objects again, her knowledge of the colors will likely diminish over time. To have a full, rich understanding of colors, one needs to experience them. Thoughts like these led the philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell to argue that experience delivers a special kind of knowledge of things that can't be reduced to knowledge of facts. Seeing, hearing, tasting and even feeling delivers what he called 'knowledge by acquaintance.' We have argued in a book and recent articles that Jackson's and Russell's conclusions apply to pain. Consider a variation on Jackson's thought experiment: Suppose Mary knows the facts about pain but hasn't experienced it. As before, it would seem like her understanding of pain is incomplete. In fact, though Mary is a fictional character, there are real people who report having never experienced pain as an unpleasant sensation – a condition known as 'pain asymbolia'. In Russell's terminology, such people haven't personally experienced how unpleasant pain can be. But even people without pain asymbolia can become less familiar with pain and hardship during times when things are going well for them. All of us can temporarily lose the rich experiential grasp of what it is like to be distressed. So, when we consider the pain and suffering of others in the abstract and without directly feeling it, it is very much like trying to grasp the nature of redness while being personally acquainted only with a field of black and white. That, we argue, is where empathy comes in. Through experiential simulation of another's feelings, empathy affords us a rich grasp of the distress that others feel. The upshot is that empathy isn't just a subjective sensation. It affords us a more accurate understanding of others' experiences and emotions. Empathy is thus a form of knowledge that can be hard to bear, just as pain can be hard to bear. But that's precisely why empathy, properly cultivated, is a strength. As one of us has argued, it takes courage to empathically engage with others, just as it takes courage to see and recognize problems around us. Conversely, an unwillingness to empathize can stem from a familiar weakness: a fear of knowledge. So, when deciding complex policy questions, say, about immigration, resisting empathy impairs our decision-making. It keeps us from understanding what's at stake. That is why it is vital to ask ourselves what policies we would favor if we were empathically acquainted with, and so fully informed of, the plight of others. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Emad H. Atiq, Cornell University and Colin Marshall, University of Washington Read more: Too many people with back pain call ambulances or visit the ED. Here's why that's a problem Empathy is the secret ingredient that makes cooperation – and civilization – possible The morality of feeling equal empathy for strangers and family alike The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Forbes
18-05-2025
- Health
- Forbes
7 Strategies To Stop Thinking About Work (Or Overthinking)
It is possible to stop thinking about work. When work is stressful it's natural to obsess, overthink or over-process. But so much rumination can actually result in more stress. And this can create a doom loop, leading to even more overthinking. But it's possible to stop thinking about work and put your thoughts on a more positive path. You're wise to manage your stress, because stress is rising all the time. You're also smart to manage your thinking, because it has a huge impact on your overall wellbeing. What you give focus to tends to consume your energy. As Epictetus said, 'You become what you give your attention to.' In addition, the words you use and the way you think about things can impact on your belief system. This is referred to as linguistic determinism, and it's a reminder that managing your thoughts is one of the primary ways to positively affect your beliefs and behaviors. So how can you manage your thinking and reduce the amount of time you spend processing or obsessing about work? First, you can adjust your thinking. It's healthy to consider your day and identify ways you can improve. We all have an instinct to matter. We want to do a good job and generate credibility. In addition, it's natural to get a sense of identity from your job. Of course, your identity is also based on your roles with your family, friends and community as well, but caring about the work you do is also constructive. All this is to say that it's natural to continue to think about work beyond the boundaries of your day. Manage your thinking by giving yourself permission to think about work outside of your working hours. You might reflect during your commute home or ponder a problem while you're walking your dog. This thinking process is okay and can be helpful in advancing your ideas about a challenge you're facing. Another great way to adjust your thinking is to be sure you're not just ruminating about a problem, but figuring out how to take action and improve things. If you're just processing what's wrong, what's not working or things that are out of your control, it can be disempowering and depressing. But if you can shift your thinking to focus on ways you can take action, you'll get a big payoff in your wellbeing. Consider the role you play in the issue that's bothering you. If you have a conflict with your colleague, in what ways can you empathize with them, reach out or talk things through? If you feel over your head on a project, in what ways can you build your skills or find someone who can give you coaching or advice? If your efforts failed, in what ways can you improve your approach for the next time? Manage your thinking by determining the role you play. Focus on how you can empower yourself to take responsibility to improve the situation or solve the problem. All of these will contribute to positive wellbeing, because they can restore your sense of perspective and control. Stop thinking about work by establishing boundaries and routines Another brilliant way to stop thinking about work is to limit your thinking. You can also reduce overthinking by setting and protecting your boundaries. It's hard to stop thinking about work if you're always on or always checking in. Let colleagues know how you prefer to be contacted. Some people are comfortable with texts, while others prefer email they can choose to check or not. Let others know your communication protocols. But also ensure you're taking personal responsibility for how much you check in. Turn off notifications. Set limits for yourself on when you'll look at your messages. Also be flexible. If you're in the middle of a huge project, others may need you to be especially responsive, but overall, you can take ownership to make decisions about when you're checking in. Manage your thinking by reducing your exposure to work-related content, so you're not unintentionally driving a pattern of over-involvement or over-processing. Another super-effective way to reduce the time you spend thinking about work is to establish routines that help you disconnect. These are especially effective because they cue your brain that you're transitioning to something different. For example, you can listen to your favorite music (with the volume up!) during your commute home, or stop at the fitness club to work our on the way home. You can take a shower or change clothes immediately after getting home. You can also make time to play with your child when you walk in the door. Even drinking a large glass of water can remind you to turn off the work-thoughts and liberate yourself to focus on everything else. Manage your thinking by creating routines to disconnect and cue yourself that it's time to stop thinking about work. Another way you can stop thinking about work is to change the content of your thoughts and to get active. Sometimes it can be tough to stop doing something or thinking about something. Neurologically, we are better at replacing the thoughts we want to stop with other thoughts we can focus on instead. You can choose to give your attention to other topics. Perhaps you want to build your knowledge of investing or managing your finances. Or maybe you want to consider your parenting style or how you're creating the conditions for a positive family life. Or maybe there's a community project that you can put your thoughts and energy into. Manage your thinking by filling your mind with non-work topics that you're passionate about, that interest you and that you feel are important. With this strategy, you'll occupy your brain's capacity with new thoughts and areas of focus. Another surefire way to reduce the time you spend thinking about work is to get active. Spend time on a hobby that requires your attention and energy. Go for a walk and listen to an audio book. Work in your garden. Go cycling. Play pickle ball. You can also get away from overthinking about your work by investing in social time. Go out for coffee with a friend, ask questions, listen to how they're doing and offer support. In addition, you can invest in your community based on the many reasons to volunteer. Donate your time with your local organization packing sack suppers for kids that face food insecurity, drive for meals on wheels or take your dog to the airport to greet veterans who are returning home. Contributing your talents and providing for others is a great way to get out of your own head and expand your perspectives. Manage your thinking by filling your time with activities, socializing or volunteering. You can also manage your thinking with tried and true techniques that help mental health, wellbeing and the quality of your thinking. Spend time in nature. There are multiple studies that show the power of nature and its beneficial effects. One, in particular, published in People and Nature finds that spending time in nature changes your perception of time. You are more likely to flow between thoughts of the past, the present and the future, and reduce the likelihood of obsessing about the past or worrying too much about the future. You also tend to perceive that you have more time, when you spend time outdoors. You can also do deep breathing or meditation. Doing a cold plunge has also been shown to reduce stress and clarify your thinking. There is also evidence that spending time with pets can reduce stress. And if you love to take a weekend nap, that is also proven to be beneficial, based on research published in Sleep Health. In fact, napping can improve cognitive function and brain volume. And napping boosts health, happiness and performance. Manage your thinking by employing techniques that can help you de-stress and improve your opportunities for focus. There is an old saying, 'Change your thinking, change your life,' and it's apt. Spending some time thinking about work and taking responsibility is healthy and empowering, but you don't want to overdo it. Manage where you place your focus and attention, and you'll surely enhance your wellbeing and happiness.
