[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 28 KB, 846x362, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13871851 No.13871851 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.13871861

>>13871851
It's a good philosophy for people who live hard lives.

>> No.13871864

>>13871851
no. go back to study now.

>> No.13871872

Essentially, yes.

>> No.13871904

>>13871851
No.
And Marcus Aurelius' wife was likely not a slut. She was actually a bitter enemy to a very influential guy who was the master of the people who would later write history.

>> No.13871918

>>13871851
slave morality

>> No.13872038

>>13871851
Stoicism is homegrown "mindfulness" cuckoldry. So yes.

>> No.13872052

>>13871918
Compared to the men who wrote the surviving Stoic materials, Nietzsche was a huge failure at life.
Seneca was a very powerful politician and the prime minister of Rome for a while.
Arrian (who wrote the Discourses of Epictetus) was a governor of multiple provinces and a successful general who stopped an invasion against Rome.
Marcus Aurelius was not only the Roman Emperor, but one who was acknowledged as being pretty good at it.

>> No.13872055

>>13871851
Not unless you read everything disingenuously.

>> No.13872057

>>13872052
Every single one of those people owe their success to being born into the right families lol.

>> No.13872081

>>13872057
Plenty of people were born in the right families and they happened to excel above the mean

>> No.13872110

>>13872057
So master morality?

>> No.13872111

>>13872057
Seneca was from a rich family, but he rose to power due to his political ability.
Arrian was one of the first Greeks to rise to the highest rankings of Roman politics.
Marcus Aurelius was chosen when he was a teenager to be the future Emperor by Hadrian.

>> No.13872124

>>13872052
they were all larping bc they could afford to. stoicism is slave morality at its roots.

>> No.13872200

>>13872057
>childhood circumstance determines the value of your life's accomplishments
what an absolute pleb

>> No.13872269

yes and it's a cope, but there's nothing wrong with that sometimes

>> No.13872293

>>13872269
all philosophy is cope

>> No.13872723
File: 365 KB, 2048x1661, aurelius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13872723

>>13871851
real tired of this meme

>> No.13872973

>>13871851
I do find the notion that the universe has a great plan in motion (logos), which is inherently good and should be trusted to be somewhat cucked.

The universe is indifferent. It is entirely up to us to determine the relative goodness/badness of things. We should embrace this bias because it is our very nature, a nature which protects its own interests. Although I agree with the deterministic outlook of Stoicism, I do not see the wisdom in second-guessing the role our biases may play in influencing the future.

The worst example is the Stoic idea that a person who harms you is only injuring themselves -- that the harm they do to you is only a matter of your perception. I don't know how seriously they took that idea, but it seems like the archaic precursor to 'If you kill your enemies, they win.'

Stoicism does have good elements (strive for objectivity of perception, respect natural order), so I would advise cherry-picking that and leaving most of the passivity stuff behind.

>> No.13872986

>>13872973
I don't get to wrapped up in logos. I think it's the fruit of their time - with the lack of empirical evidence. I consider logos to be logic, reason, empiricism lite and used as a framework to exist in reality. It's not a replacement for meaning or a guide through life, merely the tools you can use to best exist within the confines of the world.

>> No.13873171

>>13872973
Stoics were not passive. Arrian and Marcus Aurelius were military commanders.

The idea of "no one can harm you, unless you perceive so" is not about being passive, but about how you view externals. If someone attacks you, you will defend yourself and you will try to win the fight. That's the virtuous way to act. But if you lose the fight, you are not harmed, since you don't consider "losing a fight" to be an evil. You will not feel bad about it.

It is a little bit hard for most modern people to understand this, since they consider the good to be pleasure (and whatever brings material goods and status) and also consider the bad to be the opposite of this.

>> No.13873185

I'm>>13873171
And just to be clear: if you win the fight it is not a good either. The good is on how (and why) you act and what are your judgements about it.

>> No.13873304

>>13872973
>>13873171
To add on to that. It's the perception of action that determines the good or bad. If you take the action of inflicting harm onto another and that person who receives harm is mindful to think that what has been bestowed upon him is from the weakness of others, then in the sense they have harmed themselves for not paying their own mind to their actions. They have inflicted a greater bad or the only bad thing to themselves.

>> No.13874328

>>13871861
/thread/

>> No.13874346

>>13872052
How about Epictetus tho

>> No.13874375

>>13871851
No. Stoicism is a Very Stable philosophy and if you start there you can move into Plato easily, into Kant, and from there understand reality.

>> No.13874377

>>13872038
How is mindfulness cuckoldry? You seem confused.

>> No.13874392

>>13871861
There are no easy lives.

>> No.13874520

>>13874377
Cuckoldry is simply things people don't like, anon.

>> No.13874523

>>13871851
YES

>> No.13874530

>>13874520
Cuckoldry is when you passively let external things, whether they be other agents or nature itself, needlessly take advantage of you.

>> No.13874575

>>13874530
But that's not what stoicism is

>> No.13875083

>>13874392
Being black is hard life.

>> No.13875089

>>13875083
It’s a stupid life

>> No.13875145

It's defeatist.

>> No.13875202

>>13874346
Went from a slave to an influential person in the Roman Empire who was friends with Hadrian. He was never rich, but he had a pretty big status in Rome.

>> No.13875252

>>13875145
How is it defeatist?

>> No.13875290 [DELETED] 

>>13871851
."dont let Tyrones big black john-sen invading your wife's womb bother you,instead push on to e a better man,develop a society that hill support there new found family"

>> No.13875316

>>13875290
Faustina was likely not a slut.
A Stoic would likely divorce a cheating wife (considering her to be worthless due to being a slut) but without becoming overly emotional about it (since he lost nothing of value).
What would be a better way to react to it?

>> No.13875344

>>13875252
not him, but probably because it looks like you're just accepting other people pressuring you, taking advantage of you, maybe even attacking you, letting the system have it's way because "just don't react it doesn't matter lol"

>> No.13875374

>>13875344
But you will defend yourself. Likely in a better way than others, since you will have a cold head, instead of being whinny or angry about it.

>> No.13875476

>>13871851
Nietzsche's criticism was correct. The Stoics made a principle out of something that can't be turned into a principle, or at any rate is a completely arbitrary one at the end of the day, because you're following your way regardless of what you do—suffering and all. The Stoics lacked the foresight to realize what value lies in suffering for life. A life free of suffering is not any more in accordance with itself than a life full of suffering; the idea that suffering is the mark of losing your way is an unscientific one.

>> No.13875480

>>13875476
isn't that epicureanism, not stoicism?

>> No.13875504

>>13875480
It really applies to both.

>> No.13875554

>>13875504
did I just misread a whole school of philosophers
epicureanism: suffering bad, have less of it
stoicism: suffering is neither bad or good, it is natural

>> No.13875565

>>13875554
Stoicism is about reducing suffering in the world just as much as Epicureanism.

>> No.13875569

>>13875476
A life free of distress is better than a life with it. Epicurean ataraxia is better than suffering.

>> No.13875575

>>13875554
I think he is not talking about physical pain. My impression is that he believes that anxiety and unhappiness are good.

>> No.13875596 [DELETED] 

>>13875581
A "son who bravely dies in battle" is held in a lot more esteem by Stoics than "a wife who sleeps with other men for pleasure"

>> No.13875610

>>13875596
yes but to the emotion part the amount of action shown is often the same, war over a kings son put down by his own doing i can agree with the stoics but when the tides of war crash against my shore the blades will raise in anguish over my first born

>> No.13875619

>>13875569
Not true if you have great ambitions and want to achieve them.

>> No.13875628

>>13875610
k

>> No.13875634

>>13875619
If "great ambitions" lead to suffering and distress while the opposite leads to ataraxia, "great ambitions" are something you have to cut out of your life

>> No.13875643

>>13875634
so stocisms conditioning of mechanical lifestyles

>> No.13875656

>>13875643
mechanical conditioning

>> No.13875697

What is the stoic way of fixing my life if I'm a 27 khv impotent manlet?

>> No.13875725

>>13875697
a shotgun shell to the skull with no hesitation

>> No.13875743

>>13875565
no, stoicism is about accepting suffering because it is inevitable and often beyond our control

>> No.13875751

>>13875697
Stoicism will not teach how to pick up girls. Stoicism will teach you on what you should value and how to live a better life.

>> No.13875778

Stoicism is only triggering to certain people because it suggests that they are mostly to blame for how shit their life is

>> No.13875788

>>13875751
Exactly, I don't want to pick up girls, I just would like to have the possibility to experience love and maybe have a family one day.

>> No.13875822

>>13875788
what you're looking for is female romance literature lemao

>> No.13875848

>>13875788

Why do you want a family?

>> No.13875891

>>13875788
Read the books. At least they will help you cure your anxiety that is likely what makes you "bad" with dealing with women

>> No.13875923

Stoicism is basically a philosophy for pseud normies popularized by pseud coach businessmens who wanted to have a intellectual background to sell some bullshit about life.

>> No.13875924

>>13875788
at the baseline stoicism allows you to realize that the suffering you incur is just another aspect of being human, and you shouldnt apply undue value to it.

>> No.13876148
File: 522 KB, 726x508, baudril.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13876148

>>13875891
My anxiety is derived from my post phimosis hypersensitive penis and my short stature, and the consequential detachment from the woman. The deep disquiet that this has brought to me made me unable to enjoy life and being happy.

>>13875924
I don't unvalue my suffering, it made me a better person and with higher goals, but I don't want it it characterize my entire life.

>> No.13876327

>>13873304
Seems like mental gymnastics to me. I appreciate the advantages of perceptual re-framing, but I think injecting delusions about the benevolence of the universe or the priority of perception over result is going too far.

>> No.13876455

>>13876327
You can have Stoicism without a "benevolence of universe" framework. It is just another argument on why virtue is the greatest good.

On the issue of perception, Stoicism is not wrong. Stoicism is not a hedonistic philosophy. And it is better for it.

>> No.13876631

>>13875476
Really depends how you define suffering. Stoics don't hide from the rough parts of life, they relax and embrace them like the Buddhists. It's honestly just a really simple and effective trick. When you stub your toe or some shit after you tense up in pain if you consciously just relax it will go from really painful to barely bothering you at all, same principle applies to basically anything in life. Have to clean up some really disgusting mess? Instead of focusing on how gross it is just don't be a faggot and tell yourself it's not a big deal. Nothing in life is worth cringing, crying, whining or moaning about

>> No.13876713

Do the Stoics enjoy music? Would they enjoy something like Zappa?

Thanks to whoever answers. I have never read any stoic philosophy. I find it repressive.

>> No.13876728

>>13876713

No, they're more into Captain Beefheart. Long story

>> No.13876736

>>13871851
>stoicism - the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint
Yup, that's slave morality.

>> No.13876746

>>13876713
>Do the Stoics enjoy music?
I don't remember any of the Stoics mentioning anything about if you should enjoy music or not. That said, Epictetus did mention musicians in some of his examples.

>I find it repressive.
It liberates you from your desires.

>> No.13876751

>act in accordance to principles of nature
>just supress yourself and what makes you human bro
Into the trash it goes

>> No.13876758

>>13876751
In your opinion, you should try to achieve all your desires?

>> No.13876764

>>13876758
Yes. Even if it costa everything.

>> No.13876765

>>13876764
Are you a moron?

>> No.13876778

>>13876751
Suppressing yourself is literally a huge part of what makes you human though. The prefrontal cortex is willpower central

>> No.13876791

>>13876765
Do you have an argument?

>> No.13876798

>>13876778
Cherishing shackles of society around your neck does not make you a human.

>> No.13876799

>>13876455
Believing in a grand order to the universe (as opposed to an indifferent/capricious structure) is a fundamental pillar of Stoicism. If you dismiss it, you don't have Stoicism but rather the favourable bits you've picked from its carcass.

Modulation of perception has its limits. Results must be given primacy, or you'll end up perceiving yourself into irrelevancy.

>> No.13876806

>>13876791
Not all your desires are good for you. If you follow all your desires, you will end up a trainwreck.

>> No.13876808

>>13871851
Yes

>> No.13876811

>>13876798
>Cherishing shackles of society around your neck does not make you a human.
Having rationality guide you instead of living like an animal does.

>> No.13876818

>>13876806
That could very well apply to base, lower, animalistic desires akin to sex drive, the need to feed oneself and the rest. But who stands as authority on "good" and "bad" desires when it comes to individual's whim? You? God? Society?

>> No.13876821

>>13876799
>Believing in a grand order to the universe (as opposed to an indifferent/capricious structure) is a fundamental pillar of Stoicism. If you dismiss it, you don't have Stoicism but rather the favourable bits you've picked from its carcass.
Stoic Ethics can be independent of it. Marcus Aurelius said so explicitly in the Meditations. If you look at the Discourses, Epictetus usually didn't think too much about it (if at all, I don't remember him caring about this) and focused on the dichotomy of control.

>Modulation of perception has its limits. Results must be given primacy, or you'll end up perceiving yourself into irrelevancy.
Sorry, could you repeat this in different words?

>> No.13876822

>>13876811
Define rationality.

>> No.13876824

>>13876798
t. libertarian
>"she consented, why isn't it ok for me to fuck my own preteen daughter? fucking statists"

>> No.13876831

>>13876818
>That could very well apply to base, lower, animalistic desires akin to sex drive, the need to feed oneself and the rest.
Do you now agree that you should not try to achieve all your desires?

>But who stands as authority on "good" and "bad" desires when it comes to individual's whim? You? God? Society?
It is not a matter of authority. It is a matter of not following all your desires blindly.

>> No.13876841

>>13876824
t. Sheep who can't issue a description without adhereing to terms and archetypes not of his own creation

>> No.13876848

>>13876822
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rationality

>the quality of being based on clear thought and reason, or of making decisions based on clear thought and reason:

>> No.13876857

>>13876831
It stands as an obvious fact that repressing one's baser desires is not only good, but neccessary for one's own survival, considering the fact that we trult are social animals.
But beyond that? Where is the blurry line and definition drawn? It all boils down to subject's own whim.

>> No.13876860

>>13876824
>its okay that the entirety of the human race is oppressed as long as nobody fucks children

>> No.13876867

>>13876848
What is defined as clear thought and reason? Would you assert that the standards and qualities of this reason to be held, are universal and cohesive for all?

>> No.13876873

>>13876857
>It stands as an obvious fact that repressing one's baser desires is not only good, but neccessary for one's own survival, considering the fact that we trult are social animals.
OK. So, you agree with me.

>But beyond that? Where is the blurry line and definition drawn? It all boils down to subject's own whim.
That's where philosophy comes in. By thinking about what is the good, what is worth of desiring you reach your conclusions, instead of saying "whatever I desire or whatever society calls good is good".

>> No.13876874

>>13876860
>my pipe dream utopia is better than your realistic ideal

>> No.13876882

>>13876874
Not an argument.

>> No.13876884

>>13876867
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reason
>reason
>the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts:

>> No.13876894

>>13876882
neither is "i was a gold prospector and went to a prestigious acting school and wrote novels" yet molymeme the narcissist with mommy issues repeats that shit ad nauseum

>> No.13876900

>>13876884
I will paraphrase my question, taking your definitions in due considerarion. Would you say all thought and judgment is universal in its application and qualities?

>> No.13876906

>>13876894
Do you have an actual critique of anarchism or not?

>> No.13876912

>>13876873
>instead of saying "whatever I desire or whatever society calls good is good".
This is a fallacious statement. It implies the existence of a third party to bring judgement on the matter.

>> No.13876918

>>13876906
Plenty, but it's impossible to convince people of anything in a 4chan argument so I'm just killing time

>> No.13876933

>>13876900
Could you explain where are you going to and how it relates to "having rationality is one of the things that makes you human"? Because it just looks like you want to "win by tiring out the other side".

>> No.13876950

>>13876912
I'm saying that you should use your brain to analyze if your desires are good or bad.

>> No.13876951

>>13876933
No, I am merely trying to lay down common ground for us to discuss upon. I am asking of you to define and elaborate on your claim, considering its vague nature.

>> No.13876953

>>13876918
Ok, so you don't. Got it.

>> No.13876960

>>13876951
No, you aren't. You are just trying to sidestep the discussion.

>> No.13876978

>>13876950
Then you would not find fault with hypothetical individual judgment "All my desires are good".

>> No.13876981

>>13876960
Twice you've been presented with a question that you failed to answer or even adress in any capacity. Which one of us is truly unwilling to participate in discussion here?

>> No.13877021

>>13876978
You have yourself said that "All my desires are good" is false.

>> No.13877028

>>13876981
You are the one doing so, by trying to sidestep the debate to some meaningless bullshit.

>> No.13877051

>>13876981
>>13877028
Both of you seem unwilling to participate in discussion. Just go ahead and kiss or something.

>> No.13877079

>>13877051
I'm saying that using your rationality instead of living solely by your instinctual desires makes you a human being, instead of the opposite (suppressing yourself making you no human, as he claims).
He knows full well what I mean and is trying to sidestep this point by bullshiting.

>> No.13877087

>>13874392
Being a woman is

>> No.13877102

>>13877021
And that very well applies to myself. Not neccessarily to others. It is not a universal standard of measurement.

>> No.13877106

>>13877079
Many use rationality. Or at least they are under the impression that they are. You failed to come up with a universal to define the practice you describe.

>> No.13877148

>ITT: Retards equating stoicism to a repression of feelings and pleasures
Why is /lit/ so retarded?

>> No.13877176

>>13877148
>Not allowing yourself to be controlled be desire, pleasure, fear, pain etc. the primary principle of stoicism doesn't equate to repression of such sentiments
Why are you so retarded?

>> No.13877203

>>13877102
It is funny how you went from the super absolutist "you should try to achieve all your desires, no matter the cost" to "yeah, like, maybe you should suppress some of them, but it is just like, my opinion man, maybe someone disagrees", except you write pretentiously trying to sound smart.

You went from super absolutist to super relativist when your point was beaten.

>> No.13877209

>>13877106
Other than those that have very serious issues all humans use rationality.

>> No.13877303

>>13877203
It's funny that you haven't the clarity nor intellect to perceive I do not necessarily advocate one stance or the other. I am merely pinpointing and indicating the relativistic nature of the topic, as a reply to YOUR absolutist sentiment.

>> No.13877343

>>13872057
Yes, but incomplete. In Seneca's case, for instance, he could have easily become an hedonist but choose that way of life. He was austere even for eating. So they owe their success for being born in the right families but also acting completely the opposite of what a person in those circumstances would do.

>> No.13877391

>>13877303
Let's find out the truth. The answer you gave to the question of "should you try to achieve all your desires?" was >>13876764
>Yes. Even if it costa everything.
That doesn't look very relativistic. That sounds quite absolutist.

But eventually, you recognized I was right and you were wrong >>13876857
>It stands as an obvious fact that repressing one's baser desires is not only good, but neccessary for one's own survival
That doesn't sound relativistic either.


But now, for whatever the reason you went to a very relativistic take on this. Why? Because you lost the original debate but disliked the taste of it? I'm not a relativist. I just found funny how you changed to a relativist after you lost.

>> No.13877402

>>13872057
Poor people should be shot

>> No.13877442

>>13876818
>But who stands as authority on "good" and "bad" desires when it comes to individual's whim?
The world. By observation, you can understand the inherent rules of life, and what is considered good and bad. There is an intrinsic morality in the essence of any entity.

>> No.13877453
File: 15 KB, 528x434, 1305523587250.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13877453

>>13877391
>after you lost

>> No.13877465
File: 58 KB, 748x460, ad_211771285.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13877465

>>13877453
You did lose. Picture related. I'm dabbing on you.

>> No.13877484

>>13877465
I am not the guy you've been replying to.

>> No.13877528

>>13871851
Stoicism ignores the power of emotion and ultimately cripples people who do it from learning.

>> No.13877553

>>13877391
>look at me mom im winning debates hahaha
Not that guy, but you're just autismo tier of lame lol

>> No.13877584

>>13877553
Maybe so.
But how else would you describe what happened in that exchange other than "he lost and now changed his position"?

>> No.13877616

>>13877584
For having a winner or loser there must be a competition first. That's a guy who just changed his mind or is not very well at connecting ideas.
If you like winning, please go to reddit so you can get upvoted and all that shit.

>> No.13877640

>>13877616
Take a look at what happened in the discussion. Maybe instead of "losing" call it "fell in contradiction and tried to change drastically his point to avoid the embarrassment".
And if you look at his tone the entire discussion, you will see what was his mindset on it.

>> No.13877663

>>13877640
I won't, because that would take time I don't want to spend on such a thing. I am simply pointing out that you are on an anonymous board, so chilling out and not being a square around here could be good for you.

>> No.13877669

>>13877528
It does not ignore emotions nor the 'power' (whatever you mean by that) they hold. It just says that one should not indulge in emotions but should instead focuss on what is virtuous.

>> No.13877680

>>13877663
Aren't you taking too seriously a "lol, you lost" post?

>> No.13877681

>>13877442
Prove it

>> No.13877685

>>13877680
Prob butthurt because he didnt actually win shit

That playing chess with a pigeon meme comes to mind

>> No.13877688
File: 165 KB, 742x900, -marie-therese-durand-ruel-sewing-pierre-auguste-renoir1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13877688

>> No.13877700

>>13877680
>try hards to prove his authority on an anonymous board
>''lol xd are you really taking my 'you lost' post seriously hahahaaha"

>> No.13877707
File: 106 KB, 818x931, aaadadsadadsd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13877707

>>13877680
Are you actually asking me that after you taking an anonymous board like a debate club?
Yes, I took it seriously, whatever suits you my man
>>13877681
>pic related

>> No.13877715

>>13871851
>>Stoic
>>Cuck
>>Philosophy

if you need to COPE with your wife/girlfriend getting slammed by BBC, just use ROPE instead

>> No.13877720

>>13877700
Who tried to prove authority?

>> No.13877725

>>13877707
Yes, you did. You clearly got mad over this.

>> No.13877743

>>13877681
Oh, sorry, I didn't see what you were quoting.
Well, take life, for instance. You can't control life. You can't create it from nothing, neither annihilate it (reproducing is not creating life, is starting a process completely uncontrolled by parents / suicide is not annihilating life, because you need a 3rd help to terminate it, like an instrument, but you can't think yourself to death / also using annihilation like the technicality, "returning an entity to the nothingness"). From this observation, you have a set of rules about suicide, euthanasia, eugenics. You can't decide over what you can't control, because there is an evident fact (doesn't need prove) in life, who can also be determined by observation, which is that who cannot do the least, can't do the most.
>>13877725
Yes, you win.

>> No.13877907

>>13877720
This guy >>13877391

>> No.13879060
File: 30 KB, 580x386, hqOTA1d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13879060

What other stoic writings remain from ancient times, besides the big three (Epictetus, Aurelius, Seneca)?

Every time I look up well-known stoics on Wikipedia it says no writings remain or only one or two fragments remain.

>> No.13879073

>>13876799
Like I said before you can separate the idea of Logos

>> No.13879097

>>13877176
>not allowing yourself to be controlled is the same as never experiencing
Are you really this dense?

>> No.13879212

>>13879060
Musonius Rufus has some

>> No.13879301

>>13875743
Accepting it as something inevitable and beyond our control is a type of reduction of suffering.

>> No.13880679

>>13874392
But there are lives easier than others.

>> No.13880831

What were the stoic criticisms of cynicisim?

>> No.13880836

Ask the guy who runs the Youtube channel "Cuck Philosophy". He is the expert on the matter.

>> No.13881244

>>13880831
Stoicism kind of evolved out of cynicism. Basically they thought it is more important what happens inside of you rather than what you do with yourself outside of your mind. The purity of Diogenes and Crates is unnecessary though maybe desirable. In the big scheme of things society won't work if everyone is Diogenes. A stoic can handle money, structure and possessions as long as he understands them as mostly indifferent externals and does not let them control him. This way a stoic can be an emperor of rome and still be in line with nature. Also they did not take that "in line with nature" thing so literally. They did not thing being in line with nature meant you have to live like a dog in a pack with no social structure beyond what arises from instinct. Building societies and handing down information to the next generations is part of the human nature. The human mind is a spark of the gods.

tl;dr Stoicism is practical cynicism

>> No.13881285

>>13877087
Only until your ovaries stop working

>> No.13881537

>>13871851
It’s only cucked to people who haven’t read it, but make assertions based on vague ideas of what stoicism seems to be to them. Doesn’t help that it’s been co-opted by business entrepreneurs and motivational speakers, but more than likely those guys are reading modern interpolations rather than the source texts.

It’s basically the uncuck yourself philosophy

>> No.13881749

>>13871851
It's really a therapy more than anything, I agree with a lot of it until you get to Epictetus literally applauding people going to be executed etc. this is where it ceases to make sense as I fail to see the honor of being wrongly executed/killed by someone in the wrong, in this sense it seems to me that Epictetus' stoicism is taken to its logical extreme of where you seem to just take everything coming to you, if one applies this philosophy to an entire society of people you would basically guarantee their leaders would be against them and exploit them as they would get away with everything due to the population being completely disinterested in fighting back in any shape or form as the abuse is just external; back to Epictetus' story, sure success is out of our hands as a guarantee but why accept defeat when you have control of your body? This is what fails to make any sense to me, either someone mistranslated Epictetus, I am misunderstanding him or his brand of Stoicism truly is one for the slaves.

>> No.13881750

All philosophies except realism are coping

>> No.13881801

>>13881749
The point of that wasn't that you shouldn't fight back, just that the threat of death or pain should not prevent you from doing what you think is right. Epictetus applauds that man for not being controlled by the threats of others, he is fearless of death because he knows death comes to everyone eventually and it is not in your control to decide whether or when you will die. If you expect that death can come at any time at any day then the prospect of being killed is not scary to you because it was already an expected eventuality. The point of that lesson is the state of mind you should be in when facing death, not that you should just lay down and let yourself be killed without a fight. Assuming fighting back would do any good.

>> No.13881933 [DELETED] 

>>13871851
Yes. I would add that the few Roman Emperors that came right before the "5 Good Emperors" strongly disagreed that the Stoics were an easy opposition.
People who care more about acting right than wealth or things like that are much harder to control.

And for a ruler to please a Stoic, it takes much more than it does to please a modern person, who will rate the government by how much it increases GDP.

>> No.13881935

>>13881801
Yes. I would add that the few Roman Emperors that came right before the "5 Good Emperors" strongly disagreed that the Stoics were an easy opposition.
People who care more about acting right than wealth or things like that are much harder to control.

And for a ruler to please a Stoic, it takes much more than it does to please a modern person, who will rate the government by how much it increases GDP.

>> No.13881985

>>13871918
A term invented by idiots.

>> No.13882995

>>13879212
Neat thanks

>> No.13883077

>>13877402
Not very stoic

>> No.13884350

>>13876799
>Believing in a grand order to the universe (as opposed to an indifferent/capricious structure) is a fundamental pillar of Stoicism. If you dismiss it, you don't have Stoicism but rather the favourable bits you've picked from its carcass.
Stoics believe there is a grand order to the universe, but it is not benevolent, it can't be determined by man or grasped fully so it's random for us. Gods are de-attached from humankind and any person is just a mere forgotten speck of dust in the eternal span of the universe.

>> No.13884383

>>13871918
>>13872052
Stoicism was used to justify slavery
btw Marcus Aurelius watched his wife fuck a gladiator

>> No.13884472

>>13884383
Spoken like a true /lit/ intellectual, full of absolute non sense you are

>> No.13884489

Stoicism is anti art, anti passion, anti human. A live denying the fall off the edge is a poorly lived life

>> No.13884491

>>13872200
>whole life's circumstances determines the value of his accomplishments.

>> No.13884496

>>13884489
I’m always amazed at how someone so ill informed and ignorant can speak with such zeal and confidence.

>> No.13884510

>>13872052
>Nietzsche was a huge failure at life.
The man literally became one of the most famous and ahead of time philosophers, which inspired a whole new branch of philosophy. And even contributed more to philosophy than any of the stoics.

>>13872057
Also this. Its also not his fault that he got brain cancer aswell.

>> No.13884516

>>13884496
I'm always amazed by how buttblasted stoics get when people accurately criticize stoicism. Someone that doesn't let emotion and passion control them might as well be a robot. Denying pleasure and pain at their highest extremes is the most unaesthetic lifestyle possible

>> No.13884532

>>13884489
>>13884510
>>13884516
>>13884383
Obvious samefag

>> No.13884538

>>13884496
Name me one single stoic who accomplished anything of value. There are none. You can not achieve something big without passion, without major disturbance of your very being.

>> No.13884549

>>13884532
Only >>13884516
And >>13884489
Are me but that's fucking obvious

>> No.13884557
File: 6 KB, 416x132, 3146a3028a79de03c2605df0c086dc44.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13884557

>>13884532
You lost your bet

>> No.13884564
File: 1.48 MB, 2112x2816, Friedrich_Nietzsche_drawn_by_Hans_Olde.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13884564

>>13884538
Outside of his work on philosophy, Arrian was considered the best historian of his era and had a brilliant political career. He was a Roman senator, governed at least two Roman provinces (including an important border province) and became consul by the end of his career. He also successfully commanded two legions to stop an invasion of Rome.

Outside of his work on philosophy, what exactly Nietzsche achieved in his life? Other than becoming insane, that is.

>> No.13884565

god i fucking hate first year philosophy pseuds that come to /lit/ after having babbies first introduction to philosophy class
stop shitting up this board with your smoothbrained questions about plato, socrates, aristotle, epicurus and stoicism

>> No.13884587

>>13872057
Marcus Aurelius was a prospective military youth ADOPTED into Emperorship, he wasn't born into it

>> No.13884610

>>13871851
Yes, it is.

>> No.13884709

>>13884565
>pseuds
>babbies
>smoothbrained
This is cringe bro. You just posted cringe man. Think about your actions.

>> No.13884738

>>13884709
>cringe
you and me both brother

>> No.13884804

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0Zs3oNx4SOq

>> No.13884820

@13884804
My friend this is cringe of the highest order and for that reason I will have to deny you a (You). Also you sound like a faggot. Agree with your point tho.

>> No.13884879

>>13884564
You forget that you have people that literally followed "Nietzschean values" before Nietzsche being born that achived way more than those stoics right? Not to mention even people that didnt follow any of those and achived a lot more also.

Nietzsche himself was already intelligent and great enough to go from a son born out of farmers to becoming of the best students that would be invited to study at the best universities for free. He dedicated himself a lot to his passion and made most of his life around his philosophical work.

>> No.13884925

>>13884879
>You forget that you have people that literally followed "Nietzschean values" before Nietzsche being born that achived way more than those stoics right? Not to mention even people that didnt follow any of those and achived a lot more also.
Goalpost status: moved
Let's see what you have asked:
>Name me one single stoic who accomplished anything of value.

>Nietzsche himself was already intelligent and great enough to go from a son born out of farmers to becoming of the best students that would be invited to study at the best universities for free. He dedicated himself a lot to his passion and made most of his life around his philosophical work.
But anon, you didn't answer my question: outside of being an academic philosopher, what exactly has he accomplished? Surely, if being influential among students of philosophy was already enough of an accomplishment for you, you wouldn't ask that anon to name a single stoic who accomplished anything of value, since many of them were very influential for students of philosophy as well.

>> No.13884989

>>13884925
You see, i didnt read the posts above and im a diferent anon. I thought you were simply being a dick about who did more in life as if it was some valid criticism.

I honestly dont get these threads and the amount of larping to stoicism and Nietzsche threads full of people who havent even read his books.

>> No.13885007

>>13884989
>I honestly dont get these threads and the amount of larping to stoicism and Nietzsche threads full of people who havent even read his books.

Out of curiosity, do you think the Nietzsche fans in this thread that are criticizing Stoicism have any knowledge of it other than a strawman?

>> No.13885090

>>13884564
>Outside of his work on philosophy, what exactly Nietzsche achieved in his life?
Besides being the most-read philosopher from the 19th century, he was academically successful and he managed to become a part of Wagner's private life for many years. Not who you were replying to, by the way; I don't agree with the notion that there was never an influential Stoic.

>> No.13885111

>>13885007
Honestly cant bring myself to read this giant ass of a thread and pick the ones that are with Nietszche's thoughts or not. But the people bragging about slave morality are obviously speaking out of their asses.

Nietzsche critiques the stoics in Beyond Good and Evil in the aspect that they tried to redefine "nature" and "living according to nature" to make themselves more virtous and their philosophy as some obligation.
But in the very same book he also praises them in various ways aswell.

Im not very well read in stoicism, but i've read a few works and listened to some philosophy degree youtubers talk about it.
My take is that Nietzche liked stoicism in the self discipline sense and triumph of the will, the fact that Nietzsche says that the only things we should take virtue in are not based on morality, justice or "good will" but simply the things which we worked the hardest to achive. What he probably doesnt like is the fact that stoicism still wants you to obey morality and the status quo while castrating certain instincts to make yourself obey to that which is very anti-life. Not only that but also the frequent prespective that life is something painful and depressive that needs to be dealt with with that you can even see with majority of people that promote stoicism.

Thats my half baked take on it. Im also very tired and its getting late, if you are going to reply i may only see after i have a few hours of sleep.

>> No.13885367

>>13875316
This, if she behaves that way she wasn't worth having in the first place, not worth reacting over. Needless to say though she has lost any chance of being with you and sharing your life or property.

>> No.13885410

>>13871861
Barracks cope for canon fodder.

>> No.13885566

>>13884516
but seneca said its fine to drink wine and fuck boys sometimes. You should MAINLY focus on your inner developement, doesnt mean you have to go full diogenes.

The best stoic is fucking schopenhauer, I am not joking. His aphorisms are heavily influenced by stoic philosophy, but he did it better in many ways. He is a lot more cynical which appeals to me because I am a pessimist and I hate women

>> No.13885779

>>13872052
>Nietzsche was a huge failure at life
yeah, he only:
-met, befriended, and overcame his biggest influence
-massively shifted humanity away from Christianity, proclaiming the death of god
-obliterated every major philosopher that came before him
-was regarded as "noble" by everyone who ever met him
-is the founder of modern psychology (Freud and Jung took all of their best ideas from Nietzsche, the former saying Nietzsche "represented a nobility he could never reach", Jung taking Dionysus Apollinian Hellenic distinction from him)
-is the founder of all philosophy that came after him (every relevant post-modern philosopher (Derrida, Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, etc.) wrote a book on him and spent their whole careers dissecting him)
-caused massive fascist world leaders to rise up out of the ashes incorporating Nietzschean ideals to justify will to power (even Stalin inherited these ideals from proliferation of Nietzsche in russian circles before his books were banned)
-discovered and comprehended quantum mechanics before the quantum mechanists
-was a master scholarly philologist for years
-made himself famous by sending his book to famous professors near the end of his life knowing it would cause a massive rift in thought
-predicted he would be "born posthumously"
-influenced art through philosophy like only one man has done before (Schopenhauer, who he also overcame)
-affirmed all of life through love of fate, exposed morality, influenced the genealogical method,
-all radical political schools of thought incorporated Nietzschean ideals while misunderstanding them
-eternal reoccurrence proved scientifically
-idea of cause and effect, first cause, platonism laughed at
-created the most famous philosophy book of all time (TSZ), that only 5-6 people who have ever existed could understand entirely without misconstruing
-destroyed every relevant philosophical figure of his time
-exposed the psychology of various artists, conquerers, nations, peoples, etc.
-continued Schopenhauers idea of will as will to power
-saw how democracy would engender decay
-exposing decline in areas of the european
-influence is still crawling everywhere, and it will make another reoccurrence very soon
-and more, I could write for hours on his massive influence

And Nietzsche... was a failure "at life"? Are you fucking retarded?

Ohhh... it's because he never got married, which is of course your idea of being successful at life because it is precisely what YOU consider a successful life because... you are not married.

>> No.13885797

>>13885779
>created the most famous philosophy book of all time (TSZ), that only 5-6 people who have ever existed could understand entirely without misconstruing
and let me guess, you're one of them?

>> No.13885819

>>13872081
Causality isn't assumed. It's a strong correlation.

>> No.13885828

>>13885797
nope

>> No.13886299

>>13883077
But very utilitarian

>> No.13886572

>>13884350
You're wrong. They viewed the logos as inscrutable, but necessarily good (even when it didn't appear so).

>> No.13886581

>>13885566
What's important is not just to be happy, but to be so in an uncontrolled manner, as in, literally out of your control.

>> No.13886613

"No. One can be insensible to cold as to every other pain. Marcus Aurelius says: 'A pain is a vivid idea of pain; make an effort of will to change that idea, dismiss it, cease to complain, and the pain will disappear.' That is true. The wise man, or simply the reflecting, thoughtful man, is distinguished precisely by his contempt for suffering; he is always contented and surprised at nothing. "

"Then I am an idiot, since I suffer and am discontented and surprised at the baseness of mankind."

"You are wrong in that; if you will reflect more on the subject you will understand how insignificant is all that external world that agitates us. One must strive for the comprehension of life, and in that is true happiness."

"Comprehension . . ." repeated Ivan Dmitritch frowning. "External, internal. . . . Excuse me, but I don t understand it. I only know," he said, getting up and looking angrily at the doctor--"I only know that God has created me of warm blood and nerves, yes, indeed! If organic tissue is capable of life it must react to every stimulus. And I do! To pain I respond with tears and outcries, to baseness with indignation, to filth with loathing. To my mind, that is just what is called life. The lower the organism, the less sensitive it is, and the more feebly it reacts to stimulus; and the higher it is, the more responsively and vigorously it reacts to reality. How is it you don't know that? A doctor, and not know such trifles! To despise suffering, to be always contented, and to be surprised at nothing, one must reach this condition"--and Ivan Dmitritch pointed to the peasant who was a mass of fat--"or to harden oneself by suffering to such a point that one loses all sensibility to it-- that is, in other words, to cease to live. You must excuse me, I am not a sage or a philosopher," Ivan Dmitritch continued with irritation, "and I don't understand anything about it. I am not capable of reasoning."

"On the contrary, your reasoning is excellent."

>> No.13886618

>>13886613
"The Stoics, whom you are parodying, were remarkable people, but their doctrine crystallized two thousand years ago and has not advanced, and will not advance, an inch forward, since it is not practical or living. It had a success only with the minority which spends its life in savouring all sorts of theories and ruminating over them; the majority did not understand it. A doctrine which advocates indifference to wealth and to the comforts of life, and a contempt for suffering and death, is quite unintelligible to the vast majority of men, since that majority has never known wealth or the comforts of life; and to despise suffering would mean to it despising life itself, since the whole existence of man is made up of the sensations of hunger, cold, injury, and a Hamlet-like dread of death. The whole of lifelies in these sensations; one may be oppressed by it, one may hate it, but one cannot despise it. Yes, so, I repeat, the doctrine of the Stoics can never have afuture; from the beginning of time up to to-day yousee continually increasing the struggle, the sensibility to pain, the capacity of responding to stimulus."

>> No.13886740

>>13886613
>>13886618
Anton Chekhov can suck a dick. It's such a small brain take. Stoicism is easy to understand, one just has to read the actual texts, of which there aren't exactly many remaining. The only people who don't get it base their opinions of it on a single quote or the depiction of Star Trek vulcans in TV. Stoicism was practiced by slaves and emperors alike. And the ideas are certainly not dead, over thousands of years stoic ideas have been adapted and incorporated into newer ideologies. Christianity borrows heavily from stoic ideas. Modern cognitive behavioral therapy in psychology is basically just repackaged stoicism. Recognizing what emotional responses are rational and which are irrational does not turn you into a robot. Keep whining emotional wrecks. Feel free to overdose on drugs so we don't have to deal with your whining and uselessness.

>> No.13886984

>>13885779
>-discovered and comprehended quantum mechanics before the quantum mechanists
Too kek.
>-eternal reoccurrence proved scientifically
It's one of the few instances of something being btfo by empiricism. Eternal recurrence is impossible in an irreversible universe.

>> No.13886992

>>13885779
>created the most famous philosophy book of all time (TSZ)
I really want to know the source on this. it would be perfect to put in my homework.
But anyway I'm pretty sure it's The Republic

>> No.13887111

>>13885779
You forgot
>created the idea of the internet decades before it happened
>invented an early form of plasma TV

>> No.13887665

>>13871851
i will eat donuts and sleep in a comfy bed, fuck off

>> No.13887976
File: 2 KB, 383x80, Screenshot_2019-09-26 lit - Is Stoicism a cucked philosophy - Literature - 4chan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13887976

>>13884532
nope

>> No.13888581

This thread was moved to >>>/his/7303328