/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12586256]

STOP PURSUING THAT WHICH IS NOT IN YOUR CONTROL.

[Anonymous No.12586271]

In what is in my control?

[Anonymous No.12586285]

>>12586271
Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12586291]

>>12586256
Only if it brings me displeasure.

[Anonymous No.12586298]

NO

[Anonymous No.12586390]

How can I determine what is in my control if I don't pursue it?

[Anonymous No.12586707]

>>12586390
Everything outside of yourself is outside of your control.

[Anonymous No.12586714]

>>12586256
I could outsmart this guy and beat him 1v1 in halo 2

[Anonymous No.12586720]

>>12586714
based

[Anonymous No.12586722]

>>12586291
You seem to live in a constant state of displeasure.

[Anonymous No.12586732]

>>12586707
But Scharia Law allows me to control my waifu

[Anonymous No.12586741]

>>12586256
No, because according to you the only thing that is within my control is my sphere of choice, and the proper conception of the good is my ability to make proper judgements on the impressions that are presented to me. Sounds nice in theory, but in reality you're telling me to surrender myself to fate, to surrender people, places, things, all that makes life meaningful, to accept that what is "natural" is what is hard and difficult and painful. I don't see why I should accept any of this

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12586748]

>>12586722
Shows what you know. I’m actually pretty good considering I still live in a state at all.

[Anonymous No.12586756]

>>12586741
Follow it and achieve eudaimonia. Reject it and you will suffer.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12586761]

>>12586741
I don’t think you’ve got that right at all.
What are you, some kind of free will-ist?

[Anonymous No.12586763]

>>12586256
What if my life isn't within my control.
>ocpd

[Anonymous No.12586769]

How do I know what is or is not in my own control? How do I know if anything is in my control? How can I even be said to be in control of myself as an entity subject to causality?

[Anonymous No.12586776]

>>12586707
There are many things outside of myself. The coffee cup I bring to my mouth to drink from is outside of myself, yet I still control it.

[Anonymous No.12586777]

>>12586285
so I shouldn’t lift weights?

[Anonymous No.12586786]

>>12586756
I refuse to believe that "living according to nature" means refusing clothing and dying out in the cold when I could just as easily seek shelter or that one should kill themselves if surrounded by insufferable individuals or circumstances. And I question the preconception of nature that Epictetus presents as being the correct one because it is not at all evident that it is the truth.

[Anonymous No.12586799]

>>12586761
Well you think wrong because that's literally the position Epictetus lays out in his handbook

[Anonymous No.12586802]

Dicks are so cute omg ( •ω• ) when you hold one in your hand and it starts twitching its like its nuzzling you(/ω＼) or when they perk up and look at you like" owo nya? :3c" hehe ~ penis-kun is happy to see me!!(＾ワ＾)and the most adorable thing ever is when sperm-sama comes out but theyre rlly shy so u have to work hard!!(๑•̀ㅁ•́๑) but when penis-kun and sperm-sama meet and theyre blushing and all like "uwaaa~!" (ﾉ´ヮ´)ﾉ: ･ﾟhehehe~penis-kun is so adorable (●´Д｀●)・::・

[Anonymous No.12586808]

>>12586802
*jabs fist deep into your cunt*
omae wa shinderu?!

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12586819]

>>12586799
Oh. I see the problem now. The file name in OP is Epictetus, but this is a bust of Epicurus.
Carry on

[Anonymous No.12586845]

>>12586819
fug, I meant to post Epictetus...

[Anonymous No.12587008]

>>12586285
>in one word
>follows is by 6 words
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12587442]

>>12587008
>in a word == in one word
No

[Anonymous No.12588179]

>>12586777
Should?
Do what you will, you are 'free' to decide what you do. Unless, that is, you depend on the opinions of others to dictate your life.

[Anonymous No.12588194]

>>12586776
you don't even control your own body. it will break down and die like everything else. the only thing you can control is your reasoning faculty.

[Anonymous No.12588201]

So, stoicism is just cuckoldry made into ideology, right?

[Anonymous No.12588206]

>>12588201
no

[Anonymous No.12588222]

>>12588194
You don't control your reasoning faculty, any damage to the physical brain will affect your reasoning capacity, or you will fall to the dementia of old age. So, should I just give up on action altogether? Even breathing seems out of my control, it's a reflexive motion of the body after all.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12588241]

>>12588206
Concede. Marcus Aurelius‘ wife ‘cheated’ on him

[Anonymous No.12588283]

>>12588222
no you shouldn't give up on action altogether. as long as you possess your reasoning capacity you can use it to make correct decisions. breathing is outside of your control, because as you say, it's part of your body.

[Anonymous No.12588301]

>>12586786
That’s not what Epictetus teaches at all. If you’re standing out in the cold you’re free to seek shelter and he even talks about dealing with insufferable people, he certainly doesn’t imply that suicide is the solution. He simply says that you should seize control over what you desire and what you are averse to and realize that the only thing you have absolute control over is your soul. So if someone is being insufferable you remember that they are another soul and that their soul is outside of your control so you shouldn’t worry yourself over it. Or if it’s cold outside you should first realize that it is your body that feels the cold not the soul and then you can respond to the situation. Seek shelter for it is in your control but that is all, you have no control over the outcome and it is very possible that you may not find shelter. This should be accepted as an indifferent as it is out of your control at that point. Stoicism is about doing what you can and exercising your will as much as you deem fit in the pursuit of virtue. After a point though you will not be able to control what happens to you or the world around you so you should accept that and be content to live a virtuous life. Epictetus is suggesting a very practical mode of living here.

[Anonymous No.12588363]

>>12586714
he would spread your ass-cheeks apart and anally rape you.

[Anonymous No.12588714]

>>12588301
He does, on numerous occasions, imply that if one truly cannot stand their circumstances, or, crucially, if one suffers misfortune even as they live "according to nature", then it is clearly the providential will that signaling that it is your time to depart and that you should take your leave. Similarly, he extolls the virtues of Diogenes and refers many times to his struggling with illness and the elements on the street as emblematic of the stoic ideal. It's a death cult and beyond the surface level self-help is a disagreeable metaphysics; there is no reason why the "good" and "nature" should be equivalent to reason and the exercising of "proper judgements" (proper to him, of course), nor can he avoid making the mistake he admonishes others for doing - living according to preconceptions about certain concepts (good, nature) and constructing an ethical system from these questionable assumptions. It is all quite frankly wrong

[Anonymous No.12588991]

>>12586786
>I refuse to believe that "living according to nature" means refusing clothing and dying out in the cold when I could just as easily seek shelter or that one should kill themselves if surrounded by insufferable individuals or circumstances. And I question the preconception of nature that Epictetus presents as being the correct one because it is not at all evident that it is the truth.

Living according to nature doesn't mean refusing clothing and dying out in the cold, anon.
I don't think you understand what Epictetus had in mind when he thought about nature.

[Anonymous No.12589010]

>>12586741
No matter what philosophy you follow, you will face hardships. No matter if you accept them or not, you will face them You will face hardships if you follow Stoicism, you will face hardships if you follow Epicurus, you will face hardships if you follow Nietzsche, you will face hardships if you, like most people, follow what modern journalists tell you to follow.

[Anonymous No.12589041]

>>12588714
>Similarly, he extolls the virtues of Diogenes and refers many times to his struggling with illness and the elements on the street as emblematic of the stoic ideal.

Diogenes was not a sickly man who struggled with illnesses. What the Stoics admired about Diogenes was not his "struggles", but rather how he didn't struggle with what people consider to be hard and how he set up to live as an example to others on how you don't need external things other than the bare minimum to live a happy life.

>It's a death cult and beyond the surface level self-help is a disagreeable metaphysics; there is no reason why the "good" and "nature" should be equivalent to reason and the exercising of "proper judgements" (proper to him, of course)
The good being virtue is not something exclusive to Stoicism and there are reasons on why it should be considered as the sole good.
It makes a whole lot more sense than considering things, places and bodily pleasure as the good.

>nor can he avoid making the mistake he admonishes others for doing - living according to preconceptions about certain concepts (good, nature) and constructing an ethical system from these questionable assumptions. It is all quite frankly wrong
The term nature doesn't mean what you think it means. Given some of your posts, this is obvious.

[Anonymous No.12589206]

>>12586256

Quick reminder that you cannot have any understanding of Stoic Ethics withou engaging with their physics beforehand according to all major Stoics. Go read pic related and come back.

[Anonymous No.12589212]

>>12586256
This, just become a cuckold and die for communism.

[Anonymous No.12589226]

>>12586256
GO BACK TO YOUR GARDEN YOU OLD GAY FART

[Anonymous No.12589250]

>>12589206
#teamlongsedley

[Anonymous No.12589264]

>>12586256
Marcus Aurelius is better, more sophisticated and consistent with his meditations

[Anonymous No.12589267]

>>12589264
except that part where he quotes Epictetus over and over right?

[Anonymous No.12589269]

>>12589267
Quoting the masters was a virtue in the ancient past

[Anonymous No.12589401]

>>12589206
Of the 3 Stoics whose work survive, Seneca doesn't mention physics, Epictetus pretty much says it doesn't matter and Marcus Aurelius follows Epictetus.

>>12589264
Marcus Aurelius was a "follower" of Epictetus.

[Anonymous No.12589411]

>>12589401
see>>12589269

[Anonymous No.12589867]

>>12586707
>sharia (law) law
hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.12589888]

>>12589401
>Thinks Stoic Ethics makes sense without the psychology, which is based completely on the Stoic theory of causes and materialism.
>Thinks any of Seneca’s time theorizing makes sense without the Stoic concept of time being a subsistent incorporeal and their theory of how things mix works.

The Stoics were Heidegger-tier autists at reappropriating common words, and I imagine all of us are reading in translation which puts us an extra degree farther removed.

[Anonymous No.12589947]

>>12586285
I would make further short-term and long-term distinctions. Aversions, desires, etc. are in our long-term control but not our short-term control. However, we always have the control to entertain our aversions and desires.

[Anonymous No.12590498]

>>12589888
The first and most necessary topic in philosophy is that of the use of moral theorems, such as, "We ought not to lie;" the second is that of demonstrations, such as, "What is the origin of our obligation not to lie;" the third gives strength and articulation to the other two, such as, "What is the origin of this is a demonstration." For what is demonstration? What is consequence? What contradiction? What truth? What falsehood? The third topic, then, is necessary on the account of the second, and the second on the account of the first. But the most necessary, and that whereon we ought to rest, is the first. But we act just on the contrary. For we spend all our time on the third topic, and employ all our diligence about that, and entirely neglect the first. Therefore, at the same time that we lie, we are immediately prepared to show how it is demonstrated that lying is not right.

[Anonymous No.12590505]

>>12587442
>a word == one word
yes

[Anonymous No.12590898]

>>12589401

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#History

Those are two exponents of the late Stoa. The early Stoa laid the foundation of the physics and despite not having any text directly from the authors there are enough indirect material to reconstruct what their doctrines actually where. There are literally three volumes worth of fragments and passages summarizing early Stoa theories (SVF):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicorum_Veterum_Fragmenta

So, there is actually more material for the Early Stoa than there is for Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius (who by the way was eclectic, nor purely Stoic according to most critics, and also regretted not having had the time make his philosophical foundations more solid by studying physics and logic).
Not knowing Greek or Latin is also not an excuse as part of the SVF has been translated in the Long and Sedley book.

You cannot learn about Stoic Ethics without engaging with the physics, as the latter is the foundation of the first according to all Stoic sources, including Epictetus, Marcus (who regretted not studying it exactly for this reason), Seneca (whose Naturales Questiones are heavily influenced by Stoic physics). The knowledge of how the world is (physics and metaphysics) justifies how to act in the world (ethics): this was shared by all ancient philosophers.
Studying Stoic ethics without engaging with the physics means not to engage with their philosophical system and is barely above reading self-help.

[Anonymous No.12590906]

>>12590898

*four volumes

[Anonymous No.12590950]

>>12589041
>The term nature doesn't mean what you think it means.

Not that guy, but nature in a stoic sense refers to a grand cosmic nature, in which everything operates in a deterministic, divinely ordained fashion, or as a matter of inherent nature (e.g. as it is in the inherent nature of fire to move upward). They believed the cooperation and virtue were the inherent nature of man which man regularly ignored in pursuing lives of vice or hurting each other. But in so doing, and describing this as man's inherent nature, they selectively ignore all the other components of man's nature that are just as inherent to him.

[Anonymous No.12591173]

>>12590898
>The issue is this: given that the Stoic themselves insisted that the study of physics (and of logic) influences how we understand ethics, and given that they believed in the providential nature of the cosmos, does that mean that only people who accept the latter view can pursuit eudaimonia? The generally accepted answer is no.
...
>Gregory Vlastos (referred to in Schofield 2003) convincingly argued that what he called the “theocratic” principle does affect one’s conception of the relation between virtue and the order of the cosmos, specifically because it tells us that being virtuous is in agreement with such order. Crucially, however, Vlastos maintains that this does not change the content of virtue, nor does it affect one’s conception of eudaimonia. This is so because although the “physics” (which, remember, is a combination of natural sciences and metaphysics, and hence theology) does inform the ethics, it does so in what modern philosophers would call an underdetermined fashion: while ethics is not independent of physics (or logic), in the Stoic system, it also cannot be read directly off it. Stoic ethics is naturalistic, and thus very modern in nature, but it—to put it in rather anachronistic terms—does not simplistically erase Hume’s is/ought divide.
...
>Indeed, it is because of this and other passages that Ferraiolo (2015), for instance, concludes that: "metaphysical doctrines about the nature and existence of God, and a rationally governed cosmos, are rather cleanly separable from Stoic practical counsel, and its conductivity to a well-lived, eudaimonistic life. Stoicism may have developed within a worldview infused with presuppositions of a divinely-ordered universe ... but the efficacy of Stoic counsel is not dependent upon creation, design, or any form of intelligent cosmological guidance."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/

[Anonymous No.12591194]

>>12586256
who's she?

[Anonymous No.12591309]

>>12591173
If I'm following correctly, the argument here seems to be that even without the physical/metaphysical basis, Stoic ethics are still effective, correct? Wouldn't this be ultimately an appeal to the utilitarian value of the ethics?

[Anonymous No.12591345]

>>12588241
yikes

[Anonymous No.12591436]

>>12589041
>Diogenes was not a sickly man who struggled with illnesses. What the Stoics admired about Diogenes was not his "struggles", but rather how he didn't struggle with what people consider to be hard and how he set up to live as an example to others on how you don't need external things other than the bare minimum to live a happy life.

Okay pedant. My point is simply that the stoic ideal is something akin to Diogenes, wherein if circumstance dictates that you must die on the street in the cold, then you're expected to take that in stride and die, and you will supposedly be happy simply because you can control your judgment of the situation. I see no reason, in that instance, why it would do me worse to rage against the Gods, or against nature.

>The good being virtue is not something exclusive to Stoicism

Of course it isn't. But what constitutes the good and what constitutes virtue for the stoic is unique to the stoic.

>The term nature doesn't mean what you think it means. Given some of your posts, this is obvious.

What does it mean? Because for Epictetus nature means the rationally-ordered cosmos imbued with the providential will, and man's duty is to live according to the divinely-bestowed gift of the rational faculty that separates us from lowly animals - hence "godlike" Diogenes. To live "according to nature" is to make use of this faculty in service of arriving at proper judgments. That's a pretty clear link between stoic (meta)physics and ethics, whatever the IEP might say.

But what separates us from animals is also what allows us to ascribe meaning to places, people and things. To be a stoic is simply to torture oneself. I'm willing to believe that Diogenes existed and behaved as it is said he did, but I do not envy him.

[Anonymous No.12591502]

>>12586256
>stop dreaming and setting goals
What fucking gay faggotry is this?

[Anonymous No.12591587]

>>12591309
Ethics was always about its utilitarian value.

[Anonymous No.12591626]

>>12591436
>Okay pedant.
It is not pedantry when you completely missed the point on why they admired Diogenes.

>My point is simply that the stoic ideal is something akin to Diogenes, wherein if circumstance dictates that you must die on the street in the cold, then you're expected to take that in stride and die, and you will supposedly be happy simply because you can control your judgment of the situation. I see no reason, in that instance, why it would do me worse to rage against the Gods, or against nature.
You are going to die anyway. Getting mad and depressed won't really help you. It will only make you die miserable instead of dying satisfied.
And one day everyone dies.

>Of course it isn't. But what constitutes the good and what constitutes virtue for the stoic is unique to the stoic.
Not really.
The good for the Stoic is the good for Socrates. What Plato identifies as the good and what the Stoics identify as the good are the same thing but with different words.

>What does it mean? Because for Epictetus nature means the rationally-ordered cosmos imbued with the providential will, and man's duty is to live according to the divinely-bestowed gift of the rational faculty that separates us from lowly animals - hence "godlike" Diogenes. To live "according to nature" is to make use of this faculty in service of arriving at proper judgments. That's a pretty clear link between stoic (meta)physics and ethics, whatever the IEP might say.
You said here >>12586786 that
>"living according to nature" means refusing clothing and dying out in the cold when I could just as easily seek shelter
You can't really say you know what they mean about nature when you say something so bad

>But what separates us from animals is also what allows us to ascribe meaning to places, people and things. To be a stoic is simply to torture oneself.
The second part doesn't come from the first part.

>I'm willing to believe that Diogenes existed and behaved as it is said he did, but I do not envy him.
Of course you don't. You don't really understand his philosophy. But Diogenes was happier than you are.

[Anonymous No.12591641]

>>12591502
Stoics did have objectives.

[Anonymous No.12591651]

>>12591502
Epictetus was was fine with reasonable goals.

[Anonymous No.12591657]

>everyone opposed to stoicism itt doesn’t actually understand what it is
Educate yourself lads...

[Anonymous No.12591684]

>>12586285
>mind is the result of physical phenomena which are out of pur control
>therefore, emotions are out of out control
>the realization is out of our control
The only thing we have control over is our reaction to an emotion or a mental state. We can choose to condition ourselves negatively to them, thus continuing the cycle of negative emotional states, or nourish that which brings such states about.

The human cognitive functions are multifaceted and can be explained from an infinite amount of directions. Just as light can reflect off an infinite number of points on a sphere, so to does emotion reflect into our awareness. We can choose to see the source as something within our control and thus create new meaning, or see the source as without of our control and behave in a manner that leads to wisdom and joy upon the consecutive realizations of such phenomena.

[Anonymous No.12591740]

>>12587442
> a word
First occurrence in this thread is your comment.

[Anonymous No.12591810]

>>12591626
>It is not pedantry when you completely missed the point on why they admired Diogenes.

Ideals aside, Epictetus's discourse on cynicism describes him lecturing an individual who inquires about living like a cynic. Epictetus finds valor in the training and self-discipline one must impose on themselves to live like Diogenes. To reach that point is to struggle, and Epictetus fully expects you to constantly be on guard to ensure that your judgments are correct and "good". You're supposed to endure physical and emotional hardship in order to sharpen your judgment. The struggle is integral to reach the ideal.

>You are going to die anyway. Getting mad and depressed won't really help you. It will only make you die miserable instead of dying satisfied.

In the end, stoicism is but one possible response to fatalism, and not a particularly good one. I don't find satisfaction in reducing my range of concern to my sphere of choice. I don't find living without meaningful connections to place and people to be a satisfying life.

>The good for the Stoic is the good for Socrates. What Plato identifies as the good and what the Stoics identify as the good are the same thing but with different words.

I shouldn't have to explain to you that the Form of the Good is very, very different, both metaphysically and ethically, from the idea of the good as living according to rational judgment.

>You can't really say you know what they mean about nature when you say something so bad

It does, in fact, follow from their physical and ethical theory that if circumstance points towards your demise, you should not begrudge the point and concede your life, since it is external to your rational faculty and not of any concern to you. You can imagine the catastrophe that would follow if everyone behaved this way.

>The second part doesn't come from the first part.

It absolutely does. It's not just our ability to "make proper judgments" that separates us from animals. Finding meaning outside of ourselves is just as human and just as natural.

>Of course you don't. You don't really understand his philosophy. But Diogenes was happier than you are.

And you will never be like him. Give it up

[Anonymous No.12591826]

>>12591657
Stoicism is woefully misunderstood on this website for some reason

[Anonymous No.12591837]

>>12591587
But that's hardly true. Stoicism for instance rests very strongly on a premise similar to divine command theory.

[Anonymous No.12591851]

>>12591657
What did I get wrong? >>12590950

I'm not actually opposed to Stoicism for the record, I just think it's baseless as are all ethical systems.

[Anonymous No.12591918]

>>12591837
>But that's hardly true.
Yes, it is.
You can find it in Plato, you can find it in Aristotle, you can find it in Epictetus, you can find it very explicitly in Epicurus.

[Anonymous No.12592048]

>>12591810
>Ideals aside, Epictetus's discourse on cynicism describes him lecturing an individual who inquires about living like a cynic. Epictetus finds valor in the training and self-discipline one must impose on themselves to live like Diogenes. To reach that point is to struggle, and Epictetus fully expects you to constantly be on guard to ensure that your judgments are correct and "good".

This is another post where you show how you didn't really read Epictetus. What he admired in Diogenes was the result of his training, not his training. He openly criticized people who made a show of asceticism.

> You're supposed to endure physical and emotional hardship in order to sharpen your judgment. The struggle is integral to reach the ideal.
>You're supposed to endure emotional hardship
Again, you are showing you haven't read Epictetus. In this case, this was shown very badly. Emotional hardship comes from a lack of virtue. It doesn't train you.
Tell me, why do you criticize a philosophy if you don't understand the bare minimum of it? Taking a look at this post, taking a look at this >>12588714 >>12586786, it is quite clear that your understanding of it is pretty weak.

>In the end, stoicism is but one possible response to fatalism, and not a particularly good one. I don't find satisfaction in reducing my range of concern to my sphere of choice. I don't find living without meaningful connections to place and people to be a satisfying life.
You didn't really answer my point. Your opinion, the opinion of someone not trained in Ethics is not really an answer.

>I shouldn't have to explain to you that the Form of the Good is very, very different, both metaphysically and ethically, from the idea of the good as living according to rational judgment.
For both Plato and the Stoics, virtue was the Good. Virtue is knowledge of the good. Right judgement comes from knowledge of the good.
I doubt you have read Plato considering your opinions on what is the good.

>It does, in fact, follow from their physical and ethical theory that if circumstance points towards your demise, you should not begrudge the point and concede your life, since it is external to your rational faculty and not of any concern to you. You can imagine the catastrophe that would follow if everyone behaved this way.
You are again misunderstanding the Stoics.
"circumstance points towards your demise" does not mean "it is cold and I will die if I don't take shelter". If it is cold, take shelter.
"circumstance points towards your demise" means "the Roman Emperor will execute me" or "I will be executed if I don't act unjustly".

>It absolutely does.
It doesn't. Your hippie post doesn't lead to the conclusion that "To be a stoic is simply to torture oneself."

>And you will never be like him. Give it up
Maybe not. But I will be happier being more like Diogenes than by being more like you, who take your values from CNN/NYT/school teachers

[Anonymous No.12592060]

>>12591810
>Ideals aside, Epictetus's discourse on cynicism describes him lecturing an individual who inquires about living like a cynic. Epictetus finds valor in the training and self-discipline one must impose on themselves to live like Diogenes. To reach that point is to struggle, and Epictetus fully expects you to constantly be on guard to ensure that your judgments are correct and "good".

This is another post where you show how you didn't really read Epictetus. What he admired in Diogenes was the result of his training, not his training. He openly criticized people who made a show of asceticism.

> You're supposed to endure physical and emotional hardship in order to sharpen your judgment. The struggle is integral to reach the ideal.
>You're supposed to endure emotional hardship
Again, you are showing you haven't read Epictetus. In this case, this was shown very badly. Emotional hardship comes from a lack of virtue. It doesn't train you.
Tell me, why do you criticize a philosophy if you don't understand the bare minimum of it? Taking a look at this post, taking a look at this >>12588714 >>12586786, it is quite clear that your understanding of it is pretty weak.

>In the end, stoicism is but one possible response to fatalism, and not a particularly good one. I don't find satisfaction in reducing my range of concern to my sphere of choice. I don't find living without meaningful connections to place and people to be a satisfying life.
You didn't really answer my point. Your opinion, the opinion of someone not trained in Ethics is not really an answer.

>I shouldn't have to explain to you that the Form of the Good is very, very different, both metaphysically and ethically, from the idea of the good as living according to rational judgment.
For both Plato and the Stoics, virtue was the Good. Virtue is knowledge of the good. Right judgement comes from knowledge of the good.
I doubt you have read Plato considering your opinions on what is the good.

>It does, in fact, follow from their physical and ethical theory that if circumstance points towards your demise, you should not begrudge the point and concede your life, since it is external to your rational faculty and not of any concern to you. You can imagine the catastrophe that would follow if everyone behaved this way.
You are again misunderstanding the Stoics.
"circumstance points towards your demise" does not mean "it is cold and I will die if I don't take shelter". If it is cold, take shelter.
"circumstance points towards your demise" means "the Roman Emperor will execute me" or "I will be executed if I don't act unjustly".

>It absolutely does.
It doesn't. Your hippie post doesn't lead to the conclusion that "To be a stoic is simply to torture oneself."

>And you will never be like him. Give it up
Maybe not. But I will be happier being more like Diogenes than by being more like you, who take your values from American media or school teachers.

[Anonymous No.12592339]

>>12591740
Anon...that’s a direct quote from epictetus. Literally like the first line.

[Anonymous No.12592447]

>>12592339
You mean a translation of Epictetus. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.12592886]

>>12586256
How tho?

[Anonymous No.12592992]

>>12589947
Adding here, if you’re willing to poke through some of the fragments, some of the modern Stoic “debates” have solutions. For example, Here’s the trichotomy bullshit btfo by Didymus:

>”They also say that there is a difference between what is worth choosing and what is worth acquiring. What is worth choosing is stimulative of an impulse which is complete in itself, while what is worth acquiring is what we select circumspectly.

In the same degree as what is worth choosing differs from what is worth acquiring, so what is worth choosing for itself and what is worth acquiring for itself differ and so the good differs from what merely has value.”

[Anonymous No.12593086]

>>12586256
I don't understand the difference between Epicurean and Stoic ethics, they seem pretty much the same. Sit around and ignore painful things.

[Anonymous No.12593334]

>>12593086
From Seneca
>“The difference here between the Epicurean and our own school is this: our wise man feels his troubles but overcomes them, while their wise man does not even feel them. We share with them the belief that the wise man is content with himself. Nevertheless, self-sufficient though he is, he still desires a friend, a neighbour, a companion. Notice how self-contented he is: on occasion such a man is content with a mere partial self – if he loses a hand as a result of war or disease, or has one of his eyes, or even both, put out in an accident, he will be satisfied with what remains of himself and be no less pleased with his body now that it is maimed and incomplete than he was when it was whole. But while he does not hanker after what he has lost, he does prefer not to lose them. And this is what we mean when we say the wise man is self-content; he is so in the sense that he is able to do without friends, not that he desires to do without them. When I speak of his being ‘able’ to do this, what I am saying in fact amounts to this: he bears the loss of a friend with equanimity.”

[Anonymous No.12593403]

>>12593086
Epicureans were usually less active in wordly affairs (but some Epicureans did held political posts and some Stoics did live quieter lives) and actively searched peace and quiet.