[ 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: 169 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15231527 No.15231527 [Reply] [Original]

A new one from /lit/'s favorite youtuber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinMGtpTud0

>> No.15231542

Le stoicism

>> No.15231561

you're right, i don't actually mind pewdiepie

>> No.15231584

Stoicism is reddit

>> No.15231626

Stoicism is a good start, Cynicism is the final redpill.

>> No.15231634

>Retards will start glorifying stoicism after pewdiepie made a video on it

>> No.15231638

stoicism is a gateway philosophy

>> No.15231669

stoicism
cringe
this video
cringe
graduate from your entry level reddit shit

>> No.15231687

There's very few things I find more pathetic in modern internet culture than literal kids and teenagers spamming this e-celebrity everywhere.

>> No.15231693

>>15231542
>>15231584
>>15231669
Is their any specific reason any of you dislike stoicism, outside of its popularity?

>> No.15231701

>>15231693
to be honest, no, not really. I saw anons here shit on it and decided to follow the herd.

>> No.15231718
File: 20 KB, 332x443, images(68).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15231718

>>15231687

>> No.15231735

>>15231527
I'm a fan of Stoicism and I'm fine with that. It is a good thing that Pewdiepie is promoting Stoicism. Of course he won't give a perfect account of Stoicism, but if it leads to more people studying it, I'm happy.

>>15231584
>Stoicism is reddit
Reddit is not into Stoicism. They believe there is nothing wrong with being mega hedonistic, promiscuous, etc.

>> No.15231745

>>15231735
>>Stoicism is reddit
>Reddit is not into Stoicism. They believe there is nothing wrong with being mega hedonistic, promiscuous, etc.
And that's why stoicism is so important and high culture to them. They haven't gone beyond that dichotomy.

>> No.15231762

>>15231745
>And that's why stoicism is so important and high culture to them. They haven't gone beyond that dichotomy.
I don't get it. Could you explain?

>> No.15231765

>>15231745
I don't understand? What do you mean?

>> No.15231778

I've found stoicism to be less of a system then say Taoism

>> No.15231793

>>15231745
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Stoicism can be a big help for the average neurotic hedonistic boy man. It's not peak culture, but its definitely a great stepping stone for people who are starting out or just want something practical.

>> No.15231800

>>15231735
>but if it leads to more people studying it
It won't. It'll just lead to more people talking about stoicism like they know what it's about because their favorite twitch memester explained it poorly.

>> No.15231802

>>15231527
wahooo epic barrels yeehee!!
t. le funny swedish yootoober
>>15231693
>Is their any specific reason any of you dislike stoicism, outside of its popularity?
Stoicism is and has always been COPE. The wife of Marcus Aurelius was getting dicked down by literally everyone in Rome and so he adopted a cope philosophy lmao. Not much has changed, the epic online stoic 2014+ is either
1. redditor art of manliness tier goober
2. skinnyfat guy who lifts and tries to COPE because he's 25 and a virgin
3. /pol/tard trying to mentally disassociate from the trauma of reading interracial crime statistics daily since he was 15
that is literally it

>> No.15231815

>>15231527
2 minutes in and he hasn't said anything of any substance

>> No.15231833

>>15231802
>The wife of Marcus Aurelius was getting dicked down by literally everyone in Rome
That's a claim made by some Roman historian that she had a fight with or something and he might have made up her infidelity. If you want to attack Marcus Aurelius, I suggest the Commodus route.

>> No.15231843

>>15231800
>It won't. It'll just lead to more people talking about stoicism like they know what it's about because their favorite twitch memester explained it poorly.
Dunno about that. I think that the average Pewdiepie fan is more open minded than the average redditor.
They are not the mega intellectual young people who go to that Italian Latin school in their vacation, but they are not worse than average.
Even /lit/ has some retards. Take a look at >>15231802

>> No.15231858
File: 10 KB, 650x650, 1585819790006.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15231858

>>15231802
>Stoicism is and has always been COPE
>Implying philosophy as a whole isn't.
Any actual complaints?

>> No.15231872

Stoicism: https://psyarxiv.com/6rtny/

>> No.15231875

>>15231802
>>15231858
that begs the question, how to separate the philosophy from the philosopher?
any books about this? genuinely curious

>> No.15231877

>>15231875
Are you really taking that shitpost seriously?

>> No.15231879

>>15231527
>momento mori
lol

>> No.15231886

>>15231843
It's not about being open minded. It's about investing the time to do the work. People aren't going to actually read anything if Pewdiepie just tells them what he thinks stoicism is all about.

>> No.15231892

>>15231877
refute it nigger. Stoicism in practice historically (when it was real) and today (when it was rediscovered on wiki by /fit/ and /pol/ around 2014) has always been about looking at a shitty situation and going "and now I will pretend I don't care."

>> No.15231904

Why does he call Don Quixote “Don Keyshawn”?

>> No.15231912

>>15231886
He has hundreds of millions of fans. If only 1% of them start reading it, it is already a pretty significant number. Compare him to other celebrities. E-celebs, TV celebs, etc. They promote hedonism, they promote materialism, they promote things like lip injections.
Pewdiepie is promoting literature and philosophy that promotes virtues.

>> No.15231913

>>15231877
>>15231892
I mean the way a philosophy is invariably shaped by the philosopher's own condition
can you really understand the reasons of a philosophical work without understanding the man's life?
I also think all philosophies are a cope, they're just coping for different things

>> No.15231919

>>15231762
>>15231765
Having always chased pop culture and hedonism, the prospect of restraint feels like ultimate wisdom to these people. And now, they get to feel 'cultured' because they consoomed 20 pages off of 'Meditations'.

>> No.15231926

>>15231875
>that begs the question
How?

>>15231892
You did so yourself.

>> No.15231930

>>15231815
1 post in and anon hasnt said anything of substance

>> No.15231945

>>15231919
That tracks. I still believe it's a half-way decent starter philosophy. It's a shame more people don't discover it earlier, and develop it from their.

>> No.15231946

>>15231892
Your first post >>15231802 is empty of content. This is basically the "great argument" of feminists to whoever disagrees with them. Do you disagree with abortion? "It is because you are a virgin loser". Do you disagree with affirmative action? "It is because you are a virgin loser".
You didn't say anything about Stoicism. You basically said "people who like Stoicism are a bunch of ugly losers" without any evidence of this.

And Stoicism is a good way of life, for bad and for good times. It was particularly popular in Rome among its elite when it was at its peak of prosperity.

>> No.15231952

>>15231527
pewdiepie is such a dog whistling retard

>> No.15231964

>>15231913
>I mean the way a philosophy is invariably shaped by the philosopher's own condition
>can you really understand the reasons of a philosophical work without understanding the man's life?
Yes. You just read it.

>I also think all philosophies are a cope, they're just coping for different things
I frankly think this "cope" thing is dumb and that you shouldn't take it seriously.

>> No.15231981

>>15231919
>the prospect of restraint feels like ultimate wisdom to these people.
Redditors think restraint is "a silly prejudice of middle eastern goat herders". They don't think restraint is a high culture. They think it is "stupid medieval shit".

>> No.15232006

>>15231802
me at 3.

>> No.15232027

>>15231945
>I still believe it's a half-way decent starter philosophy.
The problem is that most of these new 'stoics' just meme their way into this and stay stuck in there. They make of it a vain display of 'virtue'.
>I have overcome being a consumer, now I am better than others. I am content with myself.

>> No.15232031

This video does seem just like a school report, but he does seem to be genuinely interested in Greek and Roman philosophy. I hope he continues reading and presenting these ideas to millions of young people who maybe have never thought on them before. If he can inspire one zoomer out of the self-absorbed, tictok dominated world they’re becoming adults in, and into an interest of stoicism, I say that’s worth it.

>> No.15232043

>>15231693
I like stoicism honestly, but I feel its being misused in modern times as a form of accepting the shit system that late stage capitalism is.
It is a system build on empathy and understanding other human beings, which is very good. Its not supposed to be a tool for the already self absorbed modern neoliberal ideology to make us think only about ourselves all the time and our own emotions constantly.
Overall it has very good lessons and everyone should know of it, but it should really be supplemented by other branches of philosophy as well.

>> No.15232045

>>15232027
There is nothing wrong with remaining a Stoic. People who were wiser and with a much better knowledge about Classical philosophy than you have remained Stoics their entire lives.
Get some humility and stop looking down on others.

>> No.15232047

>>15232031
based

>> No.15232063

>>15231964
>You just read it.
Read what? Have I missed something?

>I frankly think this "cope" thing is dumb and that you shouldn't take it seriously.
Yea. Cope is just a buzzword. It's now meaningless. I was hoping >>15231802 (anyone for that matter) would quantify why cope through stoicism is any worse than cope through any other philosophy. I'm expecting little and less, if anything at all.

>> No.15232076

>>15232063
>Read what? Have I missed something?
You read the works of the philosopher and you try to understand his philosophy. It doesn't matter if it was written by a magnate or a poor person. You look at it and see if it makes sense.

>Yea. Cope is just a buzzword. It's now meaningless.
It was always meaningless.

>> No.15232088

>>15231527
The quote from Aurelius is not that correct if I'm not mistaken.

>> No.15232095

>>15232088
Yeah. He also posted a picture of Epicurus in the Epictetus quote (and Epictetus was not really a fan of Epicurus).

>> No.15232097

>>15232043
agreed

>> No.15232102

I'm >>15232095
but overall, I still think it is a good thing that he has made a video on it.

>> No.15232103
File: 43 KB, 298x450, 9780385468718.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15232103

>>15231527

He needs to read the Beevers translation of Abandonment to Divine Providence -- which takes something not unlike stoicism and infuses it with the spirit of Christ.

/pewdiespam

>> No.15232105

>>15232076
>You look at it and see if it makes sense.
that's my point though, it will make sense to you if you cope on the same level as the philosopher himself

>> No.15232112

>>15231527
You faggots need to understand that this video is not for you. He's presenting entry level philosophy to a large audience that doesn't know what philosophy even is, and that's actually good.

>> No.15232117

>>15232076
Oh. I misread your post. Thought you typed "read" as past tense.

>It was always meaningless.
No. It has it's uses. It just has to be used in the correct context.

>> No.15232124

>>15232095
>He also posted a picture of Epicurus in the Epictetus quote
That caught me off guard and I thought I had things wrongly sorted in my head.
>>15232102
It is.

>> No.15232135

>>15232105
>that's my point though, it will make sense to you if you cope on the same level as the philosopher himself
Can you explain what you mean by "cope"?
And I doubt anyone is here is nearly as successful in his life as any of the authors of the surviving Stoicism threads are.

>> No.15232145

>>15232135
>authors of the surviving Stoicism threads are.
Meant
>>authors of the surviving Stoicism books are.

>> No.15232166
File: 119 KB, 716x520, 1588194631914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15232166

>>15231634
FUCCCCCCCCCCCK

>> No.15232192

>>15232095
He also spelled and pronounced "memento mori" as "momento mori"

>> No.15232193

>>15231634
If he makes more vids there may be retards that are into philosophy in general.
If you're correct, that is.

>> No.15232244

>Xenophobe

>> No.15232279
File: 362 KB, 512x288, seal1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15232279

psa: all anti-stoics are larping pseuds worth less than dirt and can be ignored, especially anti-aurelians

>> No.15232286

>>15232279
thats not very stoic of you bro. in the words of marcus aurelius "dont masturbate and you'll get magic powers"

>> No.15232291

>>15232279
>and as I stared into the gaping maw, it stared back

>> No.15232329

>>15232045
>There is nothing wrong with remaining a Stoic
Yes, there is. Because they become vapid virtue signalers such as yourself.
Read more.

>> No.15232386

>>15231527
Le stoicism changed my life

>> No.15232389

>>15232329
>stoicism
>virtue signaling
These are not synonymous. One does not imply the other.

>> No.15232402

>>15232329
You have too much arrogance.
You are not superior to someone like Chrysippus or Epictetus. Or to someone like Cicero who while not a Stoic himself admired and respected Stoicism.

They thought there was nothing wrong with following Stoicism for life. Compared to them what are you?

>> No.15232403

>>15231904
that's how people actually pronounced it back in the day

>> No.15232411

>>15232389
It is just someone trying to be edgy.

>> No.15232414

>>15231802
Coping well is the secret to a long life though. You don't let anything get to you and you live to 100 easy. You get bent out of shape all the time and you die in your 50s from a heart attack, and you enjoy those years less than the easy going person. Who is really the loser there?

>> No.15232477

>>15232402
You think being a good stoic makes you superior. See what I'm saying? Who is being arrogant now?
Being a stoic is not about being better or worse than others, is it? That would be vain. But it seems, to you, that it is.

>Compared to them what are you?
I'm flesh and bones, just like them.
You feel there are superior beings (those who practice stoicism). I don't think I'm better or worse than a stoic.

>> No.15232478

>>15231892
Yikes that is a huge misconception about stoicism.

>> No.15232487

>>15231701
based and herdpilled

>> No.15232505

>>15232477
>>15232414
Your both autistic. Congratulations.

>> No.15232523

>>15232505
And you're not very good at grammar.
This is a literature board, anon, step up.

>> No.15232539
File: 110 KB, 720x960, 1573598496183.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15232539

>>15232523

>> No.15232541

>>15232523
your*

>> No.15232559 [DELETED] 

>>15232477
>I don't think I'm better or worse than a stoic.
Yes, you do. Take a look at the arrogance of your posts, on how you say there is something wrong with being a Stoic, instead of moving to another philosophy of life.
And I'm comparing knowledge. Epictetus, Chrysippus and Cicero knew much more about philosophy as a way of life than you do. And you treat an opinion of theirs on philosophy of life as absurd.

That said, this is an anonymous internet board and I don't know who you are, but... Chrysippus, Epictetus and Cicero were superior people compared to you.

>> No.15232572

>>15232541
It would be "you're", no?

>> No.15232584

>>15232572
your're

>> No.15232598
File: 105 KB, 1024x1000, 1572149364060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15232598

>>15232584
that's not a word, anon...plz stop gas lighting me

>> No.15232603

>>15232477
>I don't think I'm better or worse than a stoic.

Yes, you do. Take a look at the arrogance of your posts, on how you say there is something wrong with being a Stoic, instead of moving to another philosophy of life.

And I'm comparing knowledge. Epictetus, Chrysippus and Cicero knew much more about philosophy as a way of life than you do. Or will you debate this?

That said, this is an anonymous internet board and I don't know who you are, but... Chrysippus, Epictetus and Cicero were superior people compared to you.

>> No.15232676

>>15232572
Hooked

>> No.15232704

>>15231912
>If only 1% of them start reading it
I think it's more likely none of them will, or if they start, they quickly burn out once Pewdiepie starts promoting the next thing.
>They promote...
Maybe moralize on how debased promotion is.

>> No.15232712

>>15232031
>>15232112

No, he's just going to inspire more retards to pose with philosophy books to look deep.

>> No.15232722

>>15231527
This thread is kind of putting the cart before the horse. Pewdiepie isn't promoting stoicism (or anything else) to an impressionable audience; he's building his brand around what his audience currently likes. When /lit/ et al. gets over their current fascination with stoicism, Pewdiepie will move onto the next thing to continue the parasocial relationship.

>> No.15232724

>>15232603
Okay, anon, I really don't care.
But I think you're pretty cringe and would benefit from further reading.

>> No.15232732

>>15232712
Half of /lit/ does that already too. I'm talking about the few kids who will actually check out those books he's talking about instead of indulging into mindless redditor activities.
One can only hope, anon.

>> No.15232741

>>15232732
Look at the comments in the video
>Wow so deep xd!
>Pewdiepie is like my therapist
It's just another bumpersticker factoid for them.

>> No.15232752

>>15232732
>Half
Far, far more. Nearly all. And those few kids who actually pick up those books will put them back down almost immediately.

>> No.15232765

>>15232741
>>15232752
A man can dream, though. A man can dream.

>> No.15232780

>>15232712
>>15232752
>>15232741
You are too negative.
And Pewdiepie is trying to help.

>> No.15232788

>>15232765
"The right dreams for a man in peril were dreams of peril and all else was the call of languor and of death."

>> No.15232795

>>15232043
I wonder, how big is the overlap between Stoicism and Petersonism

>> No.15232837

>>15231527
vanilla and bluepilled

>> No.15232842

>>15232795
In that Venn diagram, the Peterson circle would be entirely subsumed within the Stoicism circle.

>> No.15232880

>>15232043
Same reason why I agree with zizek on his stance on whitewashed buddhism or corporate spirituality to be even more provocative. Stoicism and buddhism focus on individual struggles and ignore politics and society at large, atleast when studied naively. Those philosophies are not only no threat to capitalism but even its catalyst.

Just look at the various "I woke up at 5:00 to train and meditate so I can be a better slave from 9-5 (more like 9-7)" motivational videos. I always found these perverted. I am not lazy but this glorification and devotion to your slavers is astonishing. The attitude that your boss is an antagonist and work nothing but a necessity is slowly being corroded by reddit stoicism. I get the hate. But for oneself the stoics can be useful

>> No.15232993

>>15232047
Thanks for taking the only reasonable position in the thread. How else do people expect to learn? A YouTuber might not be the best teacher, but at least he's not using his platform to promote anti-intellectual or damaging pursuits.

>> No.15233393

>>15232741
>underage audience
>superficial comments
Relax, you hyper autist.

>> No.15233454

>>15231718
Heh hehe meme

>> No.15233462

>>15232993
>Thanks for agreeing with me.
What a faggot you must be.

>> No.15233470

>>15232842
Stocism is basically a coping mechanism that doesn't threaten the oligarchs. That's why feds like Richard Spencer push it so heavily. If they were actually being helpful, they'd tell them to read Augustine.

>> No.15233541

>>15231912
But if he gets normies interested then I won't feel super special anymore...

>> No.15234469

>>15232192
that bothered me a lot

>> No.15234524

>>15231634
Hah, if only. It would probably get a lot of the stupid shit going on in politics and the news and grind that to a halt.

>> No.15234888

>>15234469
worst is he had an image up with the right spelling as he was saying it but at the end he says it like four other times wrong, does he even watch his own videos?

>> No.15234960

>>15231527
I hope he really isn't right-wing, because his wife will be his downfall. It is the poetry of social media as well as history
>Eve
>Cleopatra
>Deliah
>Idubbz girlfriend
>That Carson guy

>> No.15234967

What’s up bros my name a poodipie!!!

>> No.15234979
File: 317 KB, 750x1000, Antisthenes Pio-Clementino Inv288.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15234979

Yes, yes. Well done, Stoicism. Well done, Stoicism. HOWEVER...have you tried Cynicism?

>> No.15234981

>>15231527
>For e.g
Brainlet confirmed

>> No.15234984

stoicism is a really good philosophy when you have a lot of or zero money, too bad 98% of the world is in the middle

>> No.15235023

Daily reminder that the Platonists BTFO the sto*cs that they never recovered past the 3rd century. Meme philosophy exclusively for people who do not use their brains.

>> No.15235060
File: 607 KB, 891x597, 1580383573633.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15235060

why celebrities started getting into philosophy recently

>> No.15235070

Most people who superficially engage with philosophy only care about the ethics part. Just look how many distill down Kant to nothing more but his categorical imperative.
If that is everything they care about then they might as well stick with the stoics.

>> No.15235114

>>15234960
attractive does not equal whore

>> No.15235118

>>15232603
Appealing to authorities? How about you justify stoicism yourself?

>> No.15235126

he's honestly pretty dumb

>> No.15235162

>>15231693
it's just shitty taoism

>> No.15235184

>>15231527
Hegel's criticism of Marcus Aurelius is kind of funny. Stoicism means withdrawing from external reality into the wealth of one's own spirit and finding satisfaction therein. It's therefore a kind of slave philosophy, the consolation to which someone without agency turns. But Marcus Aurelius wasn't a slave, he was the emperor, the one person in whom all power was concentrated. He was literally the only one in Rome for whom Stoicism was entirely inappropriate. He apprehended his position in the hierarchy of state as something external and confronting him, when in actuality it was there at his disposal.

>> No.15235196

>>15235114
tats kinda do

>> No.15235280

>>15231527
Based. One step closer to getting him to review Guenon and Evola one day.

But for real, thanks pewdiepie. I hate swedes with a passion (t. dane) but you're alright.

>> No.15235302

>>15235280
So he can tell people to LARP and eat their own cum?

>> No.15235304

>>15235184
121 replies in, and we have actual criticism of stoicism.

>Stoicism means withdrawing from external reality into the wealth of one's own spirit and finding satisfaction therein
I don't necessarily agree with your first statement. Stoicism simply employs we focus on externalizes that we can control, rather than ruminate on those that we can not. What am I missing that Hegel didn't?

>> No.15235306

>>15235023
Platonists literally used "The Discourses of Epictetus" as their "Ethics Textbook" in that era, you damn retard.

>> No.15235311

>Title is "how to be happy"
>Nothing about finding truth or understanding, just being happy
More midwit self-help garbage

>> No.15235319

>>15231527
The effort is respectable ,but he got the wrong crowd.

>> No.15235360

>>15235304
As I understand it those two statements converge. We withdraw from a reality confronting us (i.e. one over which we have no control) to a world over which we have control. This movement is from the objective to the subjective, that is, from the object considered in its most articulated form (society comprehended as a rational whole) to spheres of lesser degrees of universality. The last and final sphere's of external reality only comprehend caprice (shall I have tea or coffee for breakfast) and is no longer concerned with the structure which backgrounds these choices. The last sphere, the one even behind capricious choice, is simply the movement of spirit stirring within itself.

The problem with Marcus Aurelius is that he failed to properly analyse his situation: he looked for satisfaction in this purely subjective inner world, taking the political edifice to be something outside himself, when, says Hegel, he should have recognised that this edifice was posited by him in his capacity as emperor, and that he therefore could have reached out and acted upon this edifice, and find satisfaction in the work on the object, rather than just these subjective stirrings.

So, he argues, it might have been appropriate for the Stoic philosophers (they didn't have a say in how the state was run) but that for Aurelius, it was entirely backwards.

>> No.15235370

>>15232043
>late stage capitalism
Just me and my bernie, hanging out I got pretty hungry so I started to pout He asked if I was down for something yummy and I asked what and he said he'd give me his delegates! Yeah! Yeah! I phonebank! I facebank! I spam /r/politics It makes bernie happy so it's my only goal... Harder bernie! Harder bernie! 1 primary, 2 primaries, 3 primaries, 4 I'm bernie's supporter but I'm also a karma ! He makes me feel politically active!He makes me feel progressive! He makes me feel everything a bernie supporter should!~ Wa-What!

>> No.15235383

>>15235184
I don't know anything about Hegel, except for "meme knowledge", such as "Marx was influenced by Hegel" and "most confusing philosophy writer before the 20th century".

But this criticism of Stoicism is not really that good, in my opinion. The Stoics didn't say "happiness is not in externals" because they were poor men who couldn't get most things, so they had to find a way to console themselves. They really do believed that wealth and power over others was not important to happiness and that virtue was. I think there is this kind of belief by some people that "wealth, pleasure, status" are obviously goods and if you think you can be happy without them you are just pretending.

>> No.15235413

>>15235360
That makes more sense. I've yet to take on Hegel, so some of what he posits confuses me without further explanation.

I can't say I agree with his take on stoicism, but it's entirely possible I don't have the full picture.

His analysis of Aurelius is interesting nonetheless.

>> No.15235414

>>15235360
>The problem with Marcus Aurelius is that he failed to properly analyse his situation: he looked for satisfaction in this purely subjective inner world, taking the political edifice to be something outside himself, when, says Hegel, he should have recognised that this edifice was posited by him in his capacity as emperor, and that he therefore could have reached out and acted upon this edifice, and find satisfaction in the work on the object, rather than just these subjective stirrings.
No matter how poweful you are, you can only achieve real peace of mind by working on your virtue. It doesn't matter if you are Aurelius, Louis XIV or Stalin.
This is not something that only Stoics believed. Plato, the Cynics and even Epicurus agreed with this.

>So, he argues, it might have been appropriate for the Stoic philosophers (they didn't have a say in how the state was run) but that for Aurelius, it was entirely backwards
Seneca was "Prime Minister" of Rome and the mentor of Nero. Epictetus was professor and friends with Hadrian. Arrian was friends with Hadrian, Senator and a governor of important Imperial border provinces.

>> No.15235423

>>15235383
Well, that's the point upon which Hegel argues. By externals he doesn't mean the enjoyment of things, but rather he thought that the highest form of satisfaction came from a transformative exercise of power over things, or in a word, work. He saw stoicism as a kind of consolation, and as that it had its place, but that fundamentally we should turn ourselves away from our inner worlds (Hegel was an anti-mystic) and turn ourselves outward. Not, just to reiterate, take pleasure in the enjoyment of wealth, flattery, and so on, but to transform ourselves by engaging in a creative process.

>> No.15235447

>>15235414
This is an interesting conversation and I would like to continue. Alas, I'm no Aurelius and the duty of work calls. I'll return afterwards if this thread is still up.

To answer in just a sentence Hegel would have argued that even this inner peace is something from which we should turn. It amounts, he thinks, to a kind of vague and hazy trance, lacking all definition, which does not point beyond itself.

>> No.15235455

>>15235447
Take care, anon :)

>> No.15235518

>>15235423
>he thought that the highest form of satisfaction came from a transformative exercise of power over things, or in a word, work.

How would this work? And how would he define the "good"?

>> No.15235740

>>15231527
>How to be happy
>Le Stoicism
I know I'll hate it, I won't even watch it.

>> No.15235785

>>15231693
most modern day stoics have never actually suffered otherwise they'd realize what a shitty philosophy it is, most are well off, well dressed, good looking and popular

>> No.15235897

>>15235785
Stoicism is not only for the rich.
The Stoic lifestyle works for those who are less fortunate too. A large part of the problems of the lower classes is because of hedonism. Hedonism leads to promiscuity and destructed families, hedonism leads to drugs and alcoholism, etc.

>> No.15235912

>>15235897
I've met a lot of less fortunate people and can confidently say it's not helped any of them

>> No.15235958

>>15235912
Stoicism is not exactly popular in the lower classes.

>> No.15235963

>>15235958
What experience do you have with lower class or less fortunate people?

>> No.15235986

>>15235963
Not much, to be honest. But you can just look at statistics and studies to see that other than some Christians, their lifestyle is not very Stoic.
Some of the people who work for me do live in poorer neighborhoods and they often talk about the kind of lifestyle that is common there.

>> No.15236022

>>15235958
Because they're mostly morons.

>> No.15236059

>>15235986
can you link the studies or statistics? I'd be doubtful that any exist also if we're pulling out anecdotal claims I was homeless for nearly a year and spent a fair amount of time in mental hospitals which I think counts as having exposure to lower classes and less fortunate people

>> No.15236065

>>15231527
I am not a follower of Stoicism but I have to ask to the Anti-Stoics.

What do you propose as the replacement? What is the true redpill?

>> No.15236074

>>15236059
Will do so in a hour when I get into my computer.

>> No.15236080

>>15236074
cheers

>> No.15236098

There's no bigger bite for mental weaklings than stoicism on this planet. Even literal nazis are more self aware, for at least they have a purpose, no matter how stupid or misguided it might be.

>> No.15236121

>>15231638
Exactly. When I was fresh out of high school, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius was the first philosophy book I read. Stoicism is modern gateway philosophy and is helpful to our youths.

>> No.15236301

>>15231527
disappointed he mentioned memento mori but not amor fati

Both have really helped me deal with crippling regret in life.

>> No.15236485

>>15236059
Here
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/family-structure-the-growing-importance-of-class/

One thing that maybe will interest you:
https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-status-symbol-for-rich-americans/

>A former classmate from Yale recently told me “monogamy is kind of outdated” and not good for society. So I asked her what her background is and if she planned to marry.
>She said she comes from an affluent family and works at a well-known technology company. Yes, she personally intends to have a monogamous marriage — but quickly added that marriage shouldn’t have to be for everyone.
>She was raised by a traditional family. She planned on having a traditional family. But she maintained that traditional families are old-fashioned and society should “evolve” beyond them.
and
>This luxury belief contributed to the erosion of the family. Today, the marriage rates of affluent Americans are nearly the same as they were in the 1960s. But working-class people are far less likely to get married. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock birthrates are more than 10 times higher than they were in 1960, mostly among the poor and working class. Affluent people seldom have kids out of wedlock but are more likely than others to express the luxury belief that doing so is of no consequence.

>> No.15236515

Tell me why I should give a single fuck about virtue.
The most epic stoic of all time Marcy Marc sounded like a huge prick.
>these people are all vile and driven by jealousy, not like me who only values virtue
>pull yourself together Marcus you can do this, don't forget it's your divine duty nobody else is as virtuous and capable as you

>> No.15236521

>>15231802
>The wife of Marcus Aurelius was getting dicked down by literally everyone in Rome
thots have always existed, your point ?

>> No.15236616

>>15236515
>Tell me why I should give a single fuck about virtue.
What do you care about:? What do you think will give you a good life?

>> No.15236657

>>15236616
Didn't your mom teach you not to answer a question with a question?

>> No.15236669

>>15236616
>>15236657
But to answer anyway for now I am satisfied with not suffering. I know it's boring and 'pathetic' but that's how it is.

>> No.15236705

>>15236669
>for now I am satisfied with not suffering
And how do you diminish your suffering?

>> No.15236706

>>15232880
You can make the same argument for all ancient philosophies since back then there wasn't any concept of humanizing slaves. You were born a slave then you were a slave and that was it. They didn't even have the concept of universal human rights.
Since the virtues of the stoics were based on that time's societal struggles, today one stoic might need to assess that liberty is a virtue and must be maintained.

>> No.15236715

>>15236706
>one stoic might need to assess that liberty is a virtue
The Stoic concept of liberty is different from the modern one.

>> No.15236729

>>15236705
Are you trying to pull a Socrates on me? Usually I avoid suffering by avoiding things that have reliably made me suffer in the past. Think of not touching a hot stove or not eating for 3 days or not staying up late etc.

>> No.15236734

>>15236729
not not eating for 3 days*

>> No.15236738

>>15236729
>Usually I avoid suffering by avoiding things that have reliably made me suffer in the past. Think of not touching a hot stove or not eating for 3 days or not staying up late etc.
But surely anon, you would agree that not all suffering is physical. Would you agree with me?

>> No.15236744

>>15236715
Read Seneca. In one of his letters he basically asserts that one must evolve his concepts of virtue, something along the lines of: "If you find a better road than your master then follow that one, don't be a shadow to him forever" or something. If the concept of modern liberty is better as a virtue, then the stoic should follow that.

>> No.15236784

>>15236738
Yes I do agree with you however I believe that mental suffering arises due to material circumstance.

>> No.15236792

>>15231634
>tfw there will be a wave of stoicposting in the following weeks after this video

>> No.15236823

If stoicism is only appropriate for the suffering, the it appropriate for everyone in most Western nation as the social dynamics have become very dysfunctional. They have fewer friends than their parents, less sex despite the taboo being completely removed, more people have never had a romantic partner, and large shares of people go with a nagging feeling that some of their friends have evolved into a stazi following them around.

>> No.15236825

>>15231693
I haven't studied Stoicism in depth but what I heard about it is that the goal of their philosophy is to annihilate the passions, which, if true, is a stupid goal to have because the passions are what move us to virtue.

>> No.15236847

>>15236784
Think about the promiscuous guy who broke down his marriage because he cheated on his wife. He would be happier if he had the virtue of chastity (not even to mention the effects that promiscuity has on the brain)

>> No.15236852

>>15236744
What do you mean by liberty and why would it be a virtue?

>> No.15236853

>>15231527
Reminder that there is no Stoicism without corporealism and the idea of god as an immanent intelligent body blended with matter at every level of existence.
Read Long and Sedley the Hellenistic Philosophers, instead of circlejerking the usual Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.

>> No.15236893

>>15236825
>goal of their philosophy is to annihilate the passions

What the Stoics meant by passion is not what you think they meant. What the Stoics meant for passion was an emotion caused by faulty judgement.

Think of some poor teenage boy who feels depressed because he feels that "sex is the greatest good and I'm missing on it" and "not having sex means I'm inferior as a male than others". The feelings of sadness caused by those beliefs is a passion.

>> No.15236896

>>15236847
yea true but I thought we were talking about me here. Some guy not being an asshole in one major instance doesn't really convince me that virtue is the highest good at all times.

>> No.15236904

>>15236853
I would rather believe in Epictetus, someone who spent his whole life studying and teaching Stoicism (while it was a live philosophy), who had contact with all the main materials of Stoicism than you.

>> No.15236914

>>15236852
>What do you mean by liberty
Liberty in the context of slavery
>And why would it be a virtue
Liberty as a virtue in realising that you should probably try to stop whatever social oppression is affecting you or others.

>> No.15236931

>>15236896
Virtue will give you peace of mind and prevent you from suffering. That's why virtue is virtue.

Take Epicurus, for example.

>Sometimes we treat the good as an evil, and the evil, on the contrary, as a good. Again, we regard. independence of outward things as a great good, not so as in all cases to use little, but so as to be contented with little if we have not much, being honestly persuaded that they have the sweetest enjoyment of luxury who stand least in need of it, and that whatever is natural is easily procured and only the vain and worthless hard to win. Plain fare gives as much pleasure as a costly diet, when one the pain of want has been removed, while bread an water confer the highest possible pleasure when they are brought to hungry lips. To habituate one's se therefore, to simple and inexpensive diet supplies al that is needful for health, and enables a person to meet the necessary requirements of life without shrinking and it places us in a better condition when we approach at intervals a costly fare and renders us fearless of fortune.

>When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of merrymaking, not sexual love, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest disturbances take possession of the soul. Of all this the d is prudence. For this reason prudence is a more precious thing even than the other virtues, for ad a life of pleasure which is not also a life of prudence, honor, and justice; nor lead a life of prudence, honor, and justice, which is not also a life of pleasure. For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them.

>> No.15236936

>>15236893
Yes, but wouldn't you agree that reflecting on those passions is an important factor in moving us towards virtue?

>> No.15236943

>>15236914
>Liberty in the context of slavery
I... don't get your point...

>Liberty as a virtue in realising that you should probably try to stop whatever social oppression is affecting you or others.
Aren't you a little bit confused on what virtue means?

>> No.15236968

>>15236936
>Yes, but wouldn't you agree that reflecting on those passions is an important factor in moving us towards virtue?
What do you mean "reflecting on those passions"? Improving your judgement is moving towards virtue.

>> No.15236981

>>15236943
>I don't get your point
Then read my posts in the context of who I was replying to
>Aren't you a little bit confused on what virtue means?
Behavior showing high moral standards. Being free in all kinds of contexts is a quintessential stoic virtue.

>> No.15237033

>>15236981
>Then read my posts in the context of who I was replying to
Liberty (in the sense of abolition to slavery) is not a virtue, in the same way that universal suffrage isn't. I'm not saying they are good or bad, but virtue refers to a different kind of thing.

>Behavior showing high moral standards.
That's circular reasoning.

>Being free in all kinds of contexts is a quintessential stoic virtue.
You really need to read more on what virtue means

>> No.15237058

>>15237033
I literally gave you the definition of virtue, something you can look up the first thing on Google dude.
I said liberty AS IN being free, I already cleared that up for you once.

>> No.15237088

>>15237058
You are just trying to get your political opinions as virtue when it makes no sense.
It is like sayin: the 5 virtues are courage, temperance, prudence, justice and the free market.

>> No.15237100
File: 224 KB, 1080x1438, 27.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15237100

>>15237088
Dude you don't know what virtue means. Stop being so bad faith please and read Seneca.

>> No.15237127

>>15237100
Are you really using a circular dictionary definition when arguing this?
Your political positions are not virtue.

>> No.15237141

>>15236968
No more than what the word already says: looking back on your past actions and finding a more correct path for your future self.

>> No.15237178

Stoicism is the philosophy of Redditcucks and YouTube drooling retards.
kill yourselve subhuman scum for making these shit e-celeb threads

>> No.15237182

>>15237141
In our case, you eliminate the passions by improving your judgement (which includes developing good habits).
The passions are not something that makes you look for virtue, they are the result of faulty judgement (a lack of virtue). If you don't have the passions (in the Stoic meaning), you don't need to correct your path. You are perfectly virtuous, you are a sage.

Of course, you are right that when you are trying to improve yourself, you reflect on your passions (and the passions of others). But if you don't have them, you don't need them.

>> No.15237189

>>15237127
Again, you don't know what virtue means. A virtue as a concept always presupposes that it is inherently good.
I would like to hear your definition though.

>> No.15237232

>>15237189
The virtues are internal. Virtue is the knowledge of how to live life well.
You are confusing things.

>> No.15237250

>>15237232
Virtue is the knowledge of how to live life well.
>how to live well
So you agreeing with my definition.

>> No.15237269

>>15237250
>So you agreeing with my definition.

I don't think so. Virtues are internal. You are confusing two different meanings of liberty. Think about promiscuity.

Liberty in the meaning of being free of promiscuity = virtue
Liberty in the meaning of society allows you to be promiscuous = not virtue

>> No.15237308

>>15237269
So what was wrong about my previous example:
>Liberty in the meaning of being free of being oppressed.

>> No.15237320

>>15237308
Do you mean "being oppressed by your desires" or "being oppressed by things that are external to you"?

>> No.15237341

>>15237320
Being oppressed by a system, people or oppressing other people.
Slavery is sern today as inherently immoral.

>> No.15237611

>>15237341
Then, liberty in your meaning, is not a virtue.

>> No.15237674
File: 196 KB, 1200x1200, sid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15237674

Felix comes off as such a lost, confused, insecure and hateful person who exists inside his own mind, that mind being an unsettled and whimsical one. I remember him talking about Buddhism too in one of these essay videos that get spammed, and how much he said to have liked it. I watched 1/3rd of one of his normal videos and I couldn't get through it, he seemed to take nothing to heart or practice anything that Buddhism teaches most likely misunderstanding it like how a 'soccer mom' or some corporate executive does. There's so much useless garbage clotting his mind in those regular videos that he gives out is simply an interpretation and repetition of that information, often in such a loud way too.
I can appreciate him trying to get better, but continuing with his mind poisoning videos, clotting other minds with his own accumulated sludge and then giving out these wikipedia style summaries to contrast it when he feels what I presume being regret for what he has been a part of, damaging people around the world and specifically the youth with youtube videos.
His reading of Diogenes was even purely materialistic. Just because he sits on the floor now while shouting and creating an identity around sitting on the floor does not mean any change to his screaming monkey mind.

>> No.15237719

>>15237611
Applying your definition of virtue, can you live life well if you are oppressed?
How being a proponent of liberty or freeness (as in the context of subjugation or oppression, inherently immoral things) cannot be seen as a virtue when virtue is ultimately about how you direct yourself morally in this world?

>> No.15237852

>>15235280
>tfw når man er både svensk og dansk

>> No.15237866

>>15236065
Egoism you retarded faggot

>> No.15237875

>>15231527
>follows up reading of the intro section on stoicism's wikipedia page with a self-shilling ad for a pokemon knockoff app
yes incredibly based bros lets make three more threads about this

>> No.15237894

>>15237875
threads like these thankfully remind me this site is overrun by 17 year olds larping as post grad ironicposters

>> No.15237903

>>15231634
>Retards will start glorifying stoicism
They're already do, and they're colloquially known as 'anglos' around here

>> No.15237934

>>15231527
Cannot wait when Pewdiepie will post a video on esoteric nationalism when he reaches Evola ^_^

>> No.15237946

>>15237866
Egoism is society tier.

>> No.15238689

>>15237875
Felix isn't a very good person, taking advantage of dumb kids with iPads like all other you-tubers.

>> No.15238750

>It's another lit thread where all the plebs misinterpret and strawman stoicism because about 90% of the people on this board don't actually read any original texts and are just as stupid and braindead as NPCs

>> No.15238776

>>15231802
>>15231946
yup, surprise: people into self-help ideology from 2000 years ago tend to be pretty nerdy. history attracts those folks

>> No.15238791

>>15232103
>not unlike stoicism and infuses it with the spirit of Christ.
literally just early Christian monastics. stoicism transformed into monasticism when the persecutions stopped. heresy started and God needed monks.

>> No.15238798

>>15238689
I mean, wouldn't you?

>> No.15238806

>>15237866
My impression from the few Stirner fans that actually have read him is that he is not an alternative to Stoicism.
He doesn't give a way of life or say "this is the good".

>> No.15238816

>>15237719
>Applying your definition of virtue, can you live life well if you are oppressed?
Yes. Have you really read Seneca?

>> No.15238828

>>15238776
Are you sure you quoted the right posts?

>> No.15238865

>>15231527
Please keep e-celeb threads off /lit/. Felix must be cringing every time he has to scroll past threads like this one.

>> No.15239117

>>15238816
You still haven't answered my question.

>> No.15239194

>>15239117
>Applying your definition of virtue, can you live life well if you are oppressed?
Yes

>How being a proponent of liberty or freeness (as in the context of subjugation or oppression, inherently immoral things) cannot be seen as a virtue when virtue is ultimately about how you direct yourself morally in this world?
A political opinion is not virtue.
We can't even be sure that liberalism is the best political system.

>> No.15239279

>>15239194
>A political opinion is not virtue
What? A basic modern human right? You don't know what you are talking about. Being a proponent of liberty and ensuring that you will not allow yourself or others to be oppressed is a virtue (going by the definition).
I'm not making any political opinions here, I'm just going by the academic definition of virtue and applying it to the modern concept of liberty.
Like I said previously, virtues depend on morals and if slavery and oppression are considered immoral in a society, being against them will be considered a virtue, just like other forms of virtues (goodness as opposed to villany, selflessness as opposed to greed, calmness as opposed to anger).

>> No.15239674

>>15232539
monky

>> No.15239874

>>15239279
No matter how much you try to make your political opinion a virtue, this is not happening.
Just like fetch never happened.

>> No.15240759

I dislike stoicism, but I will admit it's a sort of personal bias on my part. It reminds me of psychologists, whom I actively despise, and my time being domestically abused by someone who continuously asserted that I needed to learn how to be stoic as justification for abusing me. I understand that stoicism is more about "not letting your weaknesses control you" than "life is shitty and instead of trying to change life you should cope" but the two are easily conflated, the latter often masks itself as the former.