Quote:
Originally Posted by feb2020user
I have to accept what I can't control, genuinely accept it, in order to focus on what I can. There's a point where being a control freak is self-destructive, and I pass that point too often.
|
Fair enough. In which case, I highly recommend Stoic Philosophy and Existentialism, if you haven't already checked those out. The former teaches one to distinguish between what is and isn't in one's control, and the latter emphasizes freedom of choice, from which follows absolute responsibility of our actions.
I think it's also important to remember that lack of control over a certain circumstance doesn't always necessitate powerlessness. As one obvious example, just because you can't control the actions and thoughts of someone else doesn't mean you're powerless against them. You can control how you respond to them.
And regarding identity:
I'd have to have a self to doubt for that, and I don't feel like I do.
You'd also need a self in order to use "I," statements, yet here you are. We're not entirely bereft of a sense of self.
Consider Existentialism again, from Sartre:
Quote:
|
A tree is a tree and lacks the ability to change or create its being. Man, on the other hand, makes himself by acting in the world. Instead of simply being, as the object-in-itself does, man, as an object-for-itself, must actuate his own being.
|
SparkNotes: Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980): Being and Nothingness
But maybe that sort of kaleidoscope identity is still technically an identity.
Agreed. After all, deceitful and manipulative are characteristics.