You are the one who offered: I am discussing only what you proffered and have no expectations. Perhaps you do not realize how telling your own words can be. Perusal does not suggest any attempt at putting anything into practice, and you have yet to make any stab at correcting that inference. All of this forms a rather consistent picture.
When you persistently project the same things on me, sure, you get a consistent picture. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have a consistent picture of you, too.
It seems that discussion would be a good thing in a discussion forum if the discussion is to progress.
Good, then you should know that I can only take what you say at face value. Still no correction on the inference that you haven't exerted the effort and taken personal responsibility for trying to build self-confidence? You know, I would have taken any such correction at face value, but forever evading it is telling.
Again: If you think that I (or anyone else) should be willing to discuss themselves, in an open forum, with someone as hostile as you ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I guess that is your kind of self-confidence: A total conviction that one is right, and that everyone who doesn't agree with one, is wrong. A total conviction of one's own goodness and compassion. Disregard for the people one is talking to and instructing. Offering unasked for criticism and advice. Demanding others to comply with one's criticism of them. Severely criticizing others and attacking them personally for failing to comply with said criticism and advice.
Again, I've only commented on what you proffered: If you don't want to discuss yourself, perhaps you should consider refraining from posting your opinion publicly. You don't seem to have much of an idea of what self-confidence is.
It is possible to discuss an idea without discussing the person who happened to put it forward for discussion. Millennia of philosophy are proof that it can be done.
Sure, but then you cannot dismiss valid answers based solely on your own parochial experience. Nor can you use an argument from fallacy to justify such a dismissal. You made this discussion personal by parading your personal incredulity as if a sufficient rebuttal. If you do not like where this thread has gone, quit doing that.
I didn't simply dismiss answers, I was not convinced by them. Just like so many philosophers are not convinced by some answers. And just like them, I required further analysis - which all of you refused. :shrug:
What further analysis? There are some things in life that you can only learn by doing, and I am afraid this is one of them. This is analogous to saying you are not convinced you could swim when you will not enter the water further than waist high.
Read the Pali Canon or the Hindu scriptures, for example - there is plenty of further analysis on the topic. For example, before we can talk about self-confidence and act on it, we need to know what the self is to begin with. The problem of selfhood is well-noted in philosophy.
Esoteric excuses, but still only excuses. The self is simply what you consider yourself to be, nothing more. Self and self-confidence are only matters of consideration. Consideration is only a matter of discipline and self-control.
So you're saying that I cannot have self-confidence unless I have to have some Eastern understanding of "self"?
