u/Mq200

Especially as a man..I've kind of noticed something. Notice how people always tell you how it's okay to reach out and ask for help and if only people asked for help, especially men, then everything will be okay. I've actually tried this a few times and..

Nobody really cared that much lol. At least not to a great extent. Even official helping services did not.

Help, in particular for men, means resources. It usually means money but it can also mean helping someone move. Most problems are solved via resources, not some dumb therapeutic technique. And most therapists are accessed via...you guessed it..money. You know what the funny thing is..the money the therapist gets for talking to you would actually help you out more than talking to him. It would allow you to rebuild your life and create the conditions necessary for healing. Everything else is bullshit.

What I'm saying is I'm kind of realizing why Goggins may advocate for his ways and why his story resonates with many people, especially men. Because despite claiming to, most people actually don't really care about your problems. So you better get going.

I'm not sure if you have made similar observations but his conclusions simply make sense imo.

I've just recently had a thought..in that maybe I don't really care that much about achievements.

I care about having a wife and having kids, being a good dad and being of service while of course earning a decent living.

That's it.

What would you guys say about that ?

There seem to be two opposing schools of though regarding this.

One says that adversity, losses etc can strengthen a boxer as it'll act as reference experience for how to recover from a set-back. Because if a boxer has never faced set-backs, then how will he know how to deal with them when he comes across them later ?

And yet sometimes, a heavy loss has the power to shatter a boxer's self-esteem forever.

What is the reason why for some boxers, adversity serves as a catalyst for building resilience whereas for others it is the opposite ? And what examples for each woul you name ?

This is a classic that is often met with a lot of praise from critics and regular readers alike.

I have to say I'm a bit confused. Tolstoy wants us to realize that Ivan's ideas of life such as chasing wealth and status have lead him to waste his life. Fair enough.

But looking at life, especially at life in the west, it seems to me that people who don't do that are just as miserable, if not more. There's an established link between income and health as well as well-being. Most peoples' lives that I have seen that have improved did so as a consequense of an increase in income or skills. The poor have always had it rough.

Becoming competent and wanting to enrich the world by using your skills seems to be natural too.

In your opinion, is Tolstoy's novel realistic or does it rather scoff at extreme cases like Ivan, thereby potentially leading to narrow conclusions ? Because in my observation, you can be ambitious, make a lot of money and still have a fantastic life and have a loving family too.

And what alternative would there be ? Should one not be ambitious and not better their own life ?

So, this one is interesting to me.

Noam Chomsky is one of the most cited intellectuals in the 20th century who has made contributions to various fields like linguistics, activism and who regularly comments on geopolitics.

Given that Tolle has frequently criticized the over-identification with the mind and/or intellect - would Chomsky fall under this rubrique, too ?

Would a hyper-intellectual life like this be considered a wasted life ? I personally feel about guilty and inferior about not being as accomplished as intellectuals like these.

I don't get how Chomsky is always so calm and reserved.

The guy's vocal tonality never changes. How is that even possible ? Or is this only his public persona ? Does he ever get angry ?

Plus, how come he rarely jokes around ?

Chomsky strikes me as the type of guy who never likes to just "hang around and crack some jokes" with friends. He's mostly interested in intellectual matters. Chomsky doesn't seem to think that life is to be enjoyed in the sense of travelling like a maniac and always being on vacation. He views life as a chance to contribute to important manners.

I actually quite admire that because I differ from him in that respect. I feel like I just like to joke around and run around like cave man. Maybe this is my ADHD talking but I feel inferior everytime when I come across public figures like him.

I personally don't have instagram but I still have facebook. I'm a millenial in his early to mid 30's so this is my facebook account I've had since high school and I'm kind of anxious about deleting it. The idea that you can reach out to somebody, asking them for advice or help is alluring. And obviously many of them don't delete it either and I know you can have a facebook account while still be succesful in real life.

But it seems to me that my brain does not want to participate in life and make the best out of myself until I've fully removed the ability to simulate connection via the internet. Meaning, if I have no longer access to some sort of social media online, I'll have to build connections in real life.

What are your thoughts on this

Have you ever noticed how people will always tell you that you should reach out and that it's okay to ask for help and all that bullshit ?

Dude, I don't need to "open up". I don'tneed to have a talk, to talk it out.

I need money. Give me money so I can rebuild my life and create the conditions necessary for healing. Everything else is bullshit.

Don't want to give me money ? Cool, you don't have to, it's yours. But then stop telling people to reach out.

Most problems are solved via money, not some dumb therapeutic technique. And most therapists are accessed via...you guessed it..money. Here's how it usually goes:

Person has a problem, needs money to solve it. Reaches out. Gets denied. Realized that money is off the table in most 'helping scenarios' -> forever retreats into his own zone. The end.

I know, completely overplayed and most of us are sick of it since we kind of grew up on it and it's become some sort of motivational anthem for millenials or whatever.

But I just listened to it after a long time and wow.. no wonder people were crazy about this guy. You sometimes forget what a beast prime Em was. Incredible rapping and vivid storytelling. It seems like Eminem peaked vocally, stylistically and rhythmically in the 3rd verse. His fall-off after that is almost symbolical. Can't really go higher than that so the fall has to be as equally intense.

Let me preface this by saying; I've meditated before and it's been very beneficial. Similarly, I think buddhism has a lot offer.

But there's a lot of fluff in there, too. There's a very popular guy called Eckart Tolle who seems genuine but who makes his money by repackaging buddhist advice. Such advice includes that not basing your worth on anything at all, transcending the ego and not identifying with anything at all. Things like that. He does all that by having a net worth of 70 million dollars.

I've come to the conclusion that a lot of these principles are coping mechanism and they don't hold up. Having a satisfying job, making some money, establishing relationships - no amount of meditation will solve that. Every single guy I know who has a good life has "achieved" something.

Now, Goggins is of course the opposite of a non-egoic person and life style. Goggin's ego is very much alive.

It seems to me going hyper spiritual and actually ignoring how life works isn't the solution either.

Thoughts ?