[ 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: 75 KB, 419x505, bugboy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17709668 No.17709668 [Reply] [Original]

What are some good arguments against Stoicism? I have yet to encounter any decent ones that actually attempt to debunk it

>> No.17709678

>>17709668
Use the fucking catalog nigger

>> No.17709681

>>17709668
Sextus Empiricus and I think Cicero criticise the Stoic conception of nature as an unsubstantiated dogmatism.

>> No.17709692

I have yet to see any internet arguments debunk stoicism either and I have seen at least 5 infographics that convince me that stoicism has not been debunked. I know this is /lit/ so I am prepared to watch ANY youtube video of ANY streamer debating whether stoicism can be debunked. I may be willing to read a tweet thread if it's by a twitter philosopher trangender person but ONLY if it's under 10 posts and ONLY if they are ALSO a streamer. Convince me that stoicism is wrong /lit/ I have never seen it debunked even ONCE and I have watched over 500 Vaush videos and five hundred debunkings of Ben Shapiro's debate with the great H3H3.

>> No.17709695

>>17709668
I don't get it when people refer to an entire ideology and ask
>What are some arguments against it?
Nigger, it's a lot even to answer
>What are its main arguments?
That's true of most ideologies. Anyways, stoicism is based if you ask me. There has been a Nietzschean refutation but honestly I disagree with it. Not an expert on Nietzsche though so whatever.

>> No.17709700

>>17709678
Are you impervious to humour anon?

>> No.17709716

>>17709692
>>17709681
Bros I'm obviously joking. I would never take the bugpill, I love life too much

>> No.17709728
File: 109 KB, 714x877, 2476EAF8-F8DC-4D1E-AAF5-514A070783A0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17709728

>>17709668

>> No.17709744

>>17709668
None.

>> No.17709767
File: 8 KB, 250x245, b5c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17709767

>>17709728
>beyond good and evil

>> No.17709796

>>17709728
>im a page :O
Cute desu

>> No.17709808
File: 28 KB, 569x512, 1604507507644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17709808

>>17709728
self tyranny is self mastery. if you act upon yourself as tyrant, how can you be a slave? if you assume the role of someone as yet unmastered and unliberated, how can you NOT be a slave at the same time? with greatest freedom comes greatest bondage.

>> No.17709844

they are not living according to nature.
trying to act like stoics is like trying to move things with your mind: you cannot change you psyche by rationality

>> No.17709855

>>17709808
yes but stoicism is just a ‘make my own religion’ bc I dont ‘like’ mainstream God

its just the past equivalent and/or root of your average positive life-affirming agnostic teen who reads camus and talks about how you dont NEED God for morals like I have to go ask God for morals but le smart agnostic teen knows that he doesn’t want to kill bc of his euphoria and not bc some phony baloney said so

>> No.17709863

>>17709668
Stoicism preaches indifference to external conditions, it is hinged on the idea that you can fundamentally control your attitude. To hold this belief you have to have an extremely high ego, human is no more than an animal, and his brain is a part of that, the things you feel and the thoughts you have are not yours, they are chosen for you.

>> No.17709875

>>17709728
>almost everything underlined
Classic Nietzsche. Just sheer brilliance pouring out of the book, from every sentence.

>> No.17709878

>>17709863
You're going too far to the other extreme. We may not be God but we aren't worms.

>> No.17709880

>>17709855
>you cannot change you psyche by rationality
So basically everything from Heraclitus onward has been a waste of my fucking time?

>> No.17709882

>>17709863
Humans can still be conditioned by stoic (or other similar) practices. Doesn't matter if free will exists or not. One might be glad they were exposed to them and inwardly moved to take it on.

>> No.17709885

>>17709880
Yes. Return to monke and be free.

>> No.17709909

>>17709882
To what degree? If it is not a full conditioning of the mind, where the host is equally indifferent to his eyes are being pierced or having an orgasm, then it is irrelevant.

>> No.17709919

>>17709909
Why irrelevant if it makes tangible decreases to stress and suffering - at least of the kinds one is likely to encounter in daily life? And there are extreme feats of endurance people perform, like those Buddhist self-immolaters. I'm saying this as someone who is generally critical of Stoicism btw.

>> No.17709923

>>17709668
>Arguments against stoicism
What do you even mean? It's an ethical system. Why would you need arguments against it? Either you accept it, or you don't.

>> No.17709927

>>17709885
based

>> No.17709928

What arguments do you need? The philosophy of
>I am 13 and life is hard but I'm harder
was debunked for me when I first heard it and burst out into laughter

>> No.17709938

>>17709923
I guess I over-estimated lit's ability to detect sarcasm.

I think stoicism is a toxic doctrine that only appeals to sexual-frustrated bugmen who don't understand the systems they live under or human nature. I want nothing more than to frolic amongst the monke's anon

>> No.17709951

>>17709923
>Why would you need arguments against it?
>Either you accept it, or you don't.
are you retarded?

>> No.17709985

>>17709668
There are no arguments against stoicism.

>> No.17710109

I want Stoicism without it's moral faggotry. What do I look for?

>> No.17710120

>>17710109
Stirner. Aisle 5, next to the Nietzsche.

>> No.17710137

>>17710120
What philosophy does Stirner follow?

>> No.17710151

>>17710137
Psychopathy

>> No.17710876

>>17709728
Cringe. What a retard

>> No.17710886

>>17709875
Retard.

>> No.17710910

>>17709844
>>17709855
Why are neetchfags so retarded. You haven't even read an introduction to the stoics.

>> No.17711531

Stoicism is a poor philosophy to base your life on because it's only focus is avoiding pain, not achieving any sort of peace or happiness.

>> No.17711553

>>17710886
>>17710910
>>17710876
You will never be a woman

>> No.17711584

If a critique of stoicism isn't attacking the particular metaphysics of particular thinkers or the assumption that virtue is the highest good then you can be almost 100% sure that the person doesn't know what they're talking about. Be wary of anyone who confuses stoic indifference with detachment or disinterestedness.

>> No.17711842

>>17709716
Wow, thank you for outing yourself as an unironic bugman.

>> No.17711849

>>17711553
and you will never be a women and never be able to have a half decent discourse.

>> No.17711945

>>17711531
I got the impression that Soics placed great emphasis on attaining peace. They are similar to Buddhist monks with their austerity.

>> No.17711952

>>17711849
>Calls everyone a retard
>Urr durr you´re not able to have decent discourse!!1

kys

>> No.17712653

>>17709668
If you want an argument against it in modern times, just say It was created by a slave first and foremost.

>> No.17712665

>>17711945
Reading the writings of Marcus Aurelius, you'd be hard pressed to call him a happy man, or anything he writes being uplifting in any way.

>> No.17713206

>>17712665
Well yeah, partly because he's writing to himself. Who expressed joy in their own diary? Secondly, "Joy" is what the stoics call the affective state of the virtuous person who has the right belief that only virtue is good, while other things have a different kind of value. For a stoic to claim they feel joy in the technical sense would be tantamount to claiming they're a sage, which no real stoic would do.

>> No.17713239

>>17709728
Based

>> No.17713299

>>17709855
Yes anon, Zeno (450BC), Epictetus (100AD) and Seneca (60AD) were stoics because they were in rebellion against the values of your european judeo-christian God
Read the Greeks and virtue ethics, they don't require divine guidance

>> No.17713317
File: 53 KB, 746x599, 7CE629EE-B04E-4F72-B7B0-FB6B87B519C7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17713317

>>17709668
>What are some good arguments against Stoicism? I have yet to encounter any decent ones that actually attempt to debunk it
You can’t really argue against a simple life philosophy. It isn’t something that can be debunked. All life philosophies have grains of truth and great advice for the living. You’re mistake here is thinking that anybody has or will bother to ‘debunk’ a life philosophy. It is like debunking a parent who tells you to clean your room and get out of your rut.

>> No.17713387

>>17710910
not an argument. which part do you regard to incorrect about stoicism? 1) only you can cause pain to yourself. 2) therefore anything mental or physical is ultimately is ultimately controlled by your reflective mind 3) virtuous life the where enduring pain and avoiding hedonistic pleasures is achieved in this way (1,2)

>> No.17713405
File: 163 KB, 433x706, Nietzsche on Epictetus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17713405

>>17709728
It's a critique of Stoic metaphysics which were always an antiquated and crude attempt to explain reality which everyone is already aware of. You don't see even Seneca appealing to the idea of a "rational universe guided by Jupiter", this doesn't at all address the value of virtue or the Stoic estimation of external goods which is the centrepiece of their ethics

>> No.17713503

>>17709668
The implicit premise upon which their philosophy relies - that virtue and control are inseparable and identical - is not the case. Stoicism is an attempt to conquer experience. The reason the early stoa like Rufus and Chrysippus were fixated on the problems of fate and fortune is because they were desperately trying to find a way to inoculate the individual from the instability of time. This tends to get lost in popular expositions. But the control of rational judgment by itself can be used to subordinate experience to ill effect. Francis Bowen, writing in the latter 19th century, made the observation that stoics and epicureans in the late roman empire were able to use their philosophy to justify throwing lavish parties before slitting their wrists in bathtubs and that stoicism is a decadent force that emerges only in declining civilizations.

This only makes sense when you recognize that quite apart from being a philosophy of limits, it demands the destruction of limits in its adherents. Just read Epictetus on the relationship between stoicism and cynicism. It's not the life you want for yourself or your community, not really.

>> No.17713565

>>17713503
>stoics and epicureans in the late roman empire were able to use their philosophy to justify throwing lavish parties before slitting their wrists in bathtubs and that stoicism is a decadent force that emerges only in declining civilizations
Those types of people aren't "stoics" or "epicureans" anymore than crusaders, Italian/Russian mobsters and paedophile Catholic degenerates are actual "Christians"
Decadence by definition contradicts with Stoic asceticism, take the passage from Seneca's epistulae as an example, "As much as you can, withdraw from it now and from all pleasure except that which is linked to the necessities of embodied life."

>> No.17713651

>>17713565
>Decadence by definition contradicts with Stoic asceticism, take the passage from Seneca's epistulae as an example, "As much as you can, withdraw from it now and from all pleasure except that which is linked to the necessities of embodied life."

Seneca also tells you to kill yourself if you suffer an indignity you cannot bear, which I imagine is how those withering people got to that point. Decadence is a possibility contained within stoicism. Its fatalism enables one first and foremost to control experience, which by itself is a neutral canvas that the individual can use either for "asceticism" or indulgence. It encourages the destruction of limits in the individual which is why Diogenes's cynicism is described by Epictetus as the stoic's natural evolution and end point.

You can of course ignore this and say this isn't what a stoic believes, but it's obvious they overlooked the fact that control of rational judgment, and thus human experience, is not axiomatically virtuous. The philosophy rests on a mistake

>> No.17713822

>>17713651
It's less so about the "destruction of limits I think and rather about doing away with a reverence for social 'protocol' and reaching a true indifference towards how you are perceived and conducting yourself purely according to virtue and reason. I will agree that the Cynic is the end-point of the Stoic's journey, although few ever have the courage to get to that point I suppose. I wouldn't describe cynicism, or Diogenes, as decadent or indulgent, in fact there would have to be nothing more diametrically opposed

>control of rational judgment, and thus human experience, is not axiomatically virtuous
No it isn't, but the Stoics argued that, as with Platonic virtue ethics, that virtue brings the highest good and joy to a rational being's life (Platonic argument of internal justice & happiness, the just prisoner is more truly happy than the rich and immoral tyrant etc.). The ultimate goal of Stoicism is eudaimonia, naturally, and asceticism and the control of rational judgement, was only a tool to that end.
There is no way I see the kind of indulgence you describe in any way in line with any actual Stoic advice

>> No.17713868

>>17713822
>>17713651
Just to add onto this, the Stoics only considered rational control inherently good to the extent that it was more conducive to a life of virtue and stable contentedness, yes, as you say, otherwise it was a neutral

>> No.17714061

>>17713822
>>17713868
I would never take issue with the supposed substantive ends of stoicism, and I take them at their word that they seek to promote virtue. But compare Diogenes's behavior or Crates of Thebes's sketches of a cynic state with that of Plato's utopia and you'll find a world of difference. The cynic life isn't quite conducive to a stable harmonious community. The relaxation of "social control" is just as likely to get you a Dorian Gray as it is a Diogenes. Both are coming from the same place. Both are a threat to virtue. Rational control of emotion must be balanced with a care and concern for restraints imposed outside of the individual. In freeing themselves from this restraint, the stoic's desires are limitless.

This is without considering Nietzsche's argument against the identification of stoic ethics with that of nature, but I would say it follows nicely from the points above.

>> No.17714231

>>17714061
>The cynic life isn't quite conducive to a stable harmonious community
Ah, but this is outside the purview of Stoic apatheia and indifference to externals, he doesn't care for achieving this "stable harmonious community", he retreats from the world and all its affairs, it's a purely individual journey to eudaimonia which doesn't depend on anything material either permitting or obstructing it

I agree that indifference to restraints and social control has the capacity to be dangerous, if it is used to throw off the chains of social morality and to follow a Dorian Gray-like route. I think you are wrong however to say that this is a threat to virtuous living, would you rather a stable mediocrity, perhaps social 'morality' is a safeguard against those that would otherwise disappear into an endless pit of decadence, but it also obstructs the likes of those Cynic examples and others from reaching the heavens. As you say with indifference to social protocols, I think social control is also a neutral, conducive to neither virtue nor decadence (although the 'virtues' of the mob are hardly virtuous, especially in our time, perhaps it leans slightly towards decadence currently)

I agree with your criticism of Stoic nature metaphysics, it is pure 'cope' as it would be described in 4chan terminology, and a dishonest shaping of reality, but I think plenty in the Stoic school were aware of this. For example, I don't recall Seneca ever appealing to this idea that everything that occurs is rationally and guided by Jupiter etc.
I would say that Nietzsche's issue with the term 'nature' is pure semantics, the Stoics make clear the difference between man's dual natures (animal and rational, lower and higher), and that acting in accordance with man's true nature (i.e., the higher), rational philosophical intervention is required to attune himself with nature and achieve indifference, with emotion, passion etc being attributed to man's bestial nature (the lower).

>> No.17714251

>>17709668
believing in god is retarded

>> No.17714306

>>17709668
it's just cynicism with social insecurity and half in - half out mindset

>> No.17714434

>>17714231

>it's a purely individual journey to eudaimonia which doesn't depend on anything material either permitting or obstructing it

Yes. It's individualistic, selfish, and inward-directed. It is the conquest and retooling of the self. I have little doubt this plays no small role in stoicism's modern appeal to the discontented here and the therapeutically inclined elsewhere.

I don't like using the nature cudgel against stoicism because I find it to be am obvious line of attack and frequently misunderstood. You're right that stoics at the very least don't (((mean))) to encourage us to live like animals and instead to be more aware of the nomos-phusis distinction. But virtue ethics in a vacuum is pointless. If you're not inculcating morality in the population, you end up with Aristotle's morally excellent man. Alone and atomized. If the end result is to live like Diogenes, shitting in the streets, living in jars, and throwing our dead out into the wild to be consumed by animals, where is the great distinction between man and animal? If rational control leads you to emulate a state of nature, then there is something wrong with rational control.

The virtue ethics of Plato, Aristotle and the stoa all converge in their agreement that the most virtuous men are separate from the rest. The stoics diverge in saying that this quality does not oblige them to lift their fellow man. It is only the stoics who place themselves in opposition to the world. Their virtue ethics becomes the means by which to subordinate all external restraint and internal resistance. This is how you arrive at decadence, even if this wasn't their intention.

>> No.17714759

>>17714434
Yes, it is selfish and inward-directed, is not the goal of all philosophy (none I can think of are otherwise) an individual journey of the self?

>But virtue ethics in a vacuum is pointless. If you're not inculcating morality in the population
Why do you so vehemently oppose being alone, is man's struggle not ultimately his own? Virtue can never exist in the population, among the masses, the Greeks recognised this and realised that trying to make it so was a futile and impossible task, man must tend to himself.

>If the end result is to live like Diogenes, shitting in the streets, living in jars, and throwing our dead out into the wild to be consumed by animals, where is the great distinction between man and animal? If rational control leads you to emulate a state of nature, then there is something wrong with rational control.
What is wrong with Diogenes' eudaimonia, his undisturbed peace, undisturbed by anything external or by anyone else's action. What do all those things you list matter, are any of them obstructions to a life of virtue and eudaimonia, what need do you have of a toilet even, or treating the empty husks of a dead to an arbitrary rite? The only difference between Diogenes and Plato and the Stoics is that he did not tolerate social protocol in order to aid himself in breaking away from the arbitrary values of culture and society, by returning to only what is actually necessary (even a meagre shelter as a barrel is all man truly needs), it furthered his independence and ability to attain unblighted virtue and assisted in breaking away from herd convention. As a result Diogenes achieved a true purity which has been admired by all, I think, ever since

>where is the great distinction between man and animal?
The distinction is in the mind, the estimation of things, not in the superficial things you obsess over. Look at some of the instinctive-driven, unthinking decadents of our species and societies, are they truly any less beast, are they any higher because they defecate in a ceramic basin with water or because they live within a grand home and eat off of plates made of gold? The distinction between man and beast lies only in the mind, rationality is what separates us from beasts, not toilets or homes

>The stoics diverge in saying that this quality does not oblige them to lift their fellow man
It doesn't oblige them, no, but Stoics are happy to do so (they consider it virtuous after all to help other souls attain the joy they have achieved). Even Diogenes spent his life trying to uplift the masses, what do you think he intended by his blustering criticism and constant harassment of others, albeit his approach was more intending to shock people to virtue by pointing out their faults, rather than to coax them, as the others would instead.
I'd say it's the same as with Plato and Aristotle, the philosophy doesn't depend on uplifting fellow men, the goal is only inward and personal, but it was regarded as an act of kindness

>> No.17714783

Stoicism refutes itself

>you are just an actor in a play, you role is decided, you cannot change your role
>if you act against your role, and cast yourself in a new one, was that not the decision of the director, are you not following an act
So basically,
>if you are poor remain poor it isnt your place to change it
>if you are poor and through your free will decide to gain wealth, that was your role too
Its fucking stupid.

>> No.17714848

>>17714783
No the stoics would say that whether you are poor or not doesn't matter, man attains happiness through virtue & reason and nothing material will deliver it

>> No.17715066

>>17714759
>is not the goal of all philosophy (none I can think of are otherwise) an individual journey of the self?

No, I wouldn't say so. The Greeks made it pretty clear that there was an inescapable connection between the harmony in the individual soul and harmony in the city. The stability of Plato's republic mirrors the virtue and stability of the soul. Aristotle's account of moral excellence in Nichomachean Ethics is used as the basis for his Politics, which is why the latter picks up from the former and which is why the virtues are promoted in the citizenry by the polis. The demands and obligations outside of ourselves are an integral part of virtuous living.

>What is wrong with Diogenes' eudaimonia, his undisturbed peace, undisturbed by anything external or by anyone else's action. What do all those things you list matter, are any of them obstructions to a life of virtue and eudaimonia, what need do you have of a toilet even, or treating the empty husks of a dead to an arbitrary rite?

Besides not being conducive to stability, order, harmony, and community? It is more like anarchy if anything, and highly destructive to the social fabric necessary for human flourishing. His "purity" is an unburdening of things he finds unimportant (the ritual manifestations of human emotion, organization and expression) but which are far more "natural" to people than anything a stoic might preach.

>The distinction between man and beast lies only in the mind, rationality is what separates us from beasts, not toilets or homes

This would place us in the unfortunate position of having acquired rational faculties so that we may live in a manner identical to beasts without them.

>> No.17715322

>>17715066
>The Greeks made it pretty clear that there was an inescapable connection between the harmony in the individual soul and harmony in the city. The stability of Plato's republic mirrors the virtue and stability of the soul
I don't think that's true at all, did Socrates' actions not undermine social order, did he not aim to virtue at the expense of that very social cohesion?
Also, the Republic-Soul allegory serves to illustrate that what is beneficial to the city is the same that which is beneficial to the soul also (justice).
But the Republic is not a testament to the central-importance of a virtuous society, it's a mental exercise as to what that would constitute. Socrates inquired as to the meaning of justice for his own benefit. The goal of Platonic philosophy is eudaimonia, it is a personal and selfish goal, it is quite literally one's own joy and uplifting your fellow men, society and all else is auxiliary.

>Aristotle's account of moral excellence in Nichomachean Ethics is used as the basis for his Politics, which is why the latter picks up from the former and which is why the virtues are promoted in the citizenry by the polis.
Okay, similar point, no philosophy is against instilling virtue in the public, but that is not it's primary goal. The goal is one's own virtue and joy, indeed, that is the entire purpose of Nicomachean Ethics, to achieve eudaimonia through virtue and that old Platonic idea that true joy is achieved through contemplating thought and philosophy to attain a 'god-like state' of ecstasy brought about by reasoning and thought.
Beyond that, was it not also in the Ethics that he argues that virtue is dependent on external goods, does that not entail already giving up on much of the poor, downtrodden and impoverished of society?

Just a few holes, but the more general point is that Aristotelian happiness does not depend on the state of society, happiness is obviously achieved by one's own virtue, not anyone else's. Regardless of some of the ancillary aspirations of philosophy, it's prime and central concern is the journey of the self towards virtue and knowledge, if you still contest this obvious and self-evident truth there is really little point in further back-and-fourths

> "natural" to people than anything a stoic might preach
Those are "natural" in the sense of the lower, instinctive half of man already discussed, it's also natural to rape the woman you have an instinctive attraction towards and to murder the man who you hate, and yet the higher curtails the lower
The natural state, or 'true', of man is eudaimonia, which is brought about by the supremacy of the higher (rationality) and the defeat of lower instinct, the conflict between the two is what deprives man of content (and since we're not animals, we can't live unburdened by thought and reason if you'd ask why not afford the lower supremacy instead)

>> No.17715363

>>17715066
>>17715322

>This would place us in the unfortunate position of having acquired rational faculties so that we may live in a manner identical to beasts without them.
But it's not identical, again, you're obsessing with superficial appearances, the true difference is internal, within the soul. Reason is what separates us from the bestial world and it is only truly that, that is why the Stoics (and Cynics) argue that man's true nature and purpose is the complete fulfilment of this ability to reason

>> No.17715564

>>17715322
>I don't think that's true at all, did Socrates' actions not undermine social order, did he not aim to virtue at the expense of that very social cohesion?

I don't think it's quite as self evident, either in this case or in the case of the Republic. Separating the dialogic point from the historical context in which Plato was writing and Socrates was operating would be a mistake. Remember that Socrates and his young entourage were admirers of Sparta. The entire ethos of that polis was subservience to the common good. Socrates was undermining an order that he and those around him saw as already destabilized and weak, a democracy that enslaved people to their own whims and passions. Difficult not to see the same concerns evident in platonic ethics. The philosopher-king returns to the cave out of obligation.

> The goal is one's own virtue and joy, indeed, that is the entire purpose of Nicomachean Ethics, to achieve eudaimonia through virtue and that old Platonic idea that true joy is achieved through contemplating thought and philosophy to attain a 'god-like state' of ecstasy brought about by reasoning and thought.

In Politics, Aristotle does identify the happiness of the individual and the state as identical. The happy life is obviously the virtuous one. The opening pages of Ethics describes politics as "the science of the good", not to mention the oft-repeated quote about man being a political animal. Yes, in Book X of Ethics he describes the ends of man as intellectual contemplation, but while the excellence of a good man and citizen may not be identical there can be little doubt that he views political society as existing for the sake of noble actions and a good life. The Greeks are always positing an intimate connection between private and public virtue. It is so evident that it becomes the basis for republican thought in Rome, Venice, Florence, England, and the early American republic.

>Those are "natural" in the sense of the lower, instinctive half of man already discussed, it's also natural to rape the woman you have an instinctive attraction towards and to murder the man who you hate, and yet the higher curtails the lower

It's also natural to engage in mutual aid, to grieve and mourn, to follow mores and codes, to display care and concern, to invest yourself in the world in which you are imbedded instead of retreating into the stoic inner citadel, which again in earlier stoic thought is used as a refuge from fate/fortune.

> Reason is what separates us from the bestial world and it is only truly that, that is why the Stoics (and Cynics) argue that man's true nature and purpose is the complete fulfilment of this ability to reason

And again I must say stoic philosophy is a failure if man's end is truly indistinguishable from that of an animal in the state of nature. If that is all rational control gives us, we must look elsewhere.

>> No.17715744

>>17715564
>stoic philosophy is a failure if man's end is truly indistinguishable from that of an animal in the state of nature. If that is all rational control gives us, we must look elsewhere.
I am not the guy you were debating with, but:
But, I don't care about my end. I am here and stoicism helps me go about in a hostile world. When I am no longer here, well - I don't care because I am no longer here, so why care about my end as long as I lived, according to myself, a virtuous life?

>> No.17715773

>>17715744
I mean his final cause. His telos. His reason and purpose for existing. I agree that it ought to be virtue. I just think stoics go wrong when they identify control of rational judgment with virtue for the reasons enumerated above

>> No.17715780
File: 28 KB, 474x438, cuppa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17715780

I started as a stoic but I graduated as a Taoist. The only difference is that I get drunk more and women are evil.

>> No.17715809

>>17711849
>a women
You will never be white or a woman

>> No.17715838

>>17711849
>you will never be a woman!
>no you will never be a woman!
It's not even rent free, at this point trannies just own your brains

>> No.17716092

>>17709668
It's a self-help philosophy. Do this, act this way, etc. etc. Why? ”idk“ Well the fuck off. Nihilism wins once again.