So your issue with the "box" idea is that it doesn't go far enough? You think hamstringing your technology shows a lack of self control, but getting rid of the technology altogether doesn't? Doesn't seem like a consistent view to me.
No. My issue with it is that it only pretends to solve the problem. As stated in my original reply, my idealistic solution is to keep using your phone but gradually exert mindfulness and discipline to retrain you relationship to it. This too me is the quintessence of self-control. However, as binder said, the idea of trying to moderate something you're so deep into sometimes just doesn't seem possible. And it's futile to attempt something you don't believe is possible. In those cases, I think that abstinence is an acceptable secondary solution. I don't believe it to be as good as my ideal solution and I don't think it's an ultimate representation of self-control. But if it stops a person abusing something and makes them happier then I say 'go for it'. Furthermore, I believe abstinence can be gateway to reintroducing something back into your life once you've had space away from it to reset. From there you can then practice 'true' self-control. In comparison, the box idea is a middle-ground that accomplishes nothing. It doesn't teach you to use something responsibly nor does give you enough space from it to reapproach it with a newfound mindset.So your issue with the "box" idea is that it doesn't go far enough
I find that to be a pretty nonsensical point of view. Your issue seems to be about purity, only "true self control" is good enough to be worthy, it's either that or complete abstinence. Why? What makes you say that the box accomplishes nothing? What's wrong with a practical solution that doesn't involve true mastery of the self? Most of us aren't Buddhist monks. If not keeping chocolate at home helps you not overindulge with chocolate consumption, what's wrong with doing that? Are you suggesting someone should only eat chocolate if they're able to keep it in their house without eating it on impulse?
Yes, that is my point view. If I want to make a change in my life, I want to do it properly. Halfhearted solutions do not satisfy my need for self-improvement. Do I expect everyone to share this approach? No. Firstly, absolutely nothing is wrong with it, but for me personally it is not the way. I guess the way I chose to word my previous posts didn't do me any favours here. I only meant to share my opinion on my approach to self-improvement. I don't care what other people choose to do. They can live their lives how they see fit and I certainly wouldn't look down on anyone for choosing to lock their phone in box during the evening or not buy some chocolate every so often. Secondly, an anecdote. I used to be addicted to sugar. The amount of cakes and chocolates I'd get down me each day was not good; I could eat a share size pack of my favourite chocolates in minutes. And it started doing a number on my teeth. Under the advice from my dentist, I stopped eating anything with added or refined sugar. I kept this up for 5-6 months. Then slowly I reintroduced it into my diet in a controlled way. A month or so back, I made a choice to stop eating a smaller pack of my favourite chocolates halfway through. I put them to the side and actually ended up forgetting about them. When I remembered them the next day, the positivity that I felt from having mastered myself was worth 1000 moments of halfhearted happiness. I had treated something that had previously caused me problem with a newfound responsibility. I had my cake and ate it too. And they weren't left in a shop or locked away in box, they were just to side of me within arm's reach. Is that really nonsensical?Your issue seems to be about purity, only "true self control" is good enough to be worthy, it's either that or complete abstinence.
What's wrong with a practical solution that doesn't involve true mastery of the self? If not keeping chocolate at home helps you not overindulge with chocolate consumption, what's wrong with doing that? Are you suggesting someone should only eat chocolate if they're able to keep it in their house without eating it on impulse?
The nonsensical part for me was that it sounded like you thought it was wrong for people to do "half measures" that work. If you're just talking about your personal preference, that's a different matter. Personally I agree that the optimal solution is to have self control, and I do have a fair bit of self control. However, I don't always have perfect control, so I try not to put myself in situations where I'm likely to do something I don't think I should. The problem is that life can be very stressful, and in general I find it demands TONS of self control. I go to work five days a week, I have to keep my apartment and clothes clean, I have to be polite to people even if I might not like them; in short there's a lot of stuff I have to do that I don't really feel like doing. I find this pressure keeps building as I get older. I don't need some extra source of temptation around to challenge my self control, I already exercise enormous self control just living life.