Is stoicism deeper than its popularity amongst normiedom makes it out to be?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Is stoicism deeper than its popularity amongst normiedom makes it out to be?
Yes, and kinda more worthless than people make it appear. You are probably better off getting in the Christianity autism rabbit hole. Or anything that came after it, considering that you are already familiar with Plato and so on.
Stoicism is about collecting practial wisdom. It's not philosophy in any modern sense. Stoics specifically tell you not to "waste your time" reading physics, metaphysics, or anything you'd associate with philosophy other than ethics. Stoicism is: ignore everything that doesn't make you a better man. That's it.
>That's it.
It really isn't. It's about abnegation of the emotions, and focusing on more rational and responsible decision-making.
This is why I rejected Stoicism, because I actually have a lot of respect for emotions and the genuine insights they can offer.
It's not abnegation, it's taming. If you're nervous about other people's opinions about you, for instance, that signals you're putting validation on things you cannot control, and that only brings misery.
Funnily enough, not caring is what makes you authentic and more likeable.
Yeah but stoicism is like CBT in that it's become a synonym for emotional maturity or healthy emotional regulation. Who would disagree with healthy emotional regulation???
Except, obviously, you can't just decide to be emotionally mature if you have anxiety or anger issues. It doesn't work that way. Stoicism is just repression hoping to achieve a specific end result without the means to reach that end.
>This is why I rejected Stoicism, because >I actually have a lot of respect for >emotions and the genuine insights they can offer.
Since you hold emotions to a high degree of reverence I would like to know what's your distinction between emotions and feelings.
>Emotion: A physical bodily response to a stimulus
>Feeling: The conscious >acknowledgement of that emotion by the subject
Definition from: Antonio Domasio, Professor of Psychology, Philosophy, and Neurology, University of Southern California
>Definition from: Antonio Domasio
He sounds like a moron. Emotion and feeling are synonyms, unless your talking about sensory "feeling" i.e. feedback from the nerve endings.
What defintion do you use?
I've never felt the need for one. Definitions belong to the rational, symbolic function, which is distinct from the emotional faculty.
You know emotions when you feel them. This is part of their value. They impart information which cannot be expressed in symbols/language.
Holy shit, I got quads.
This emotion is definitely indescribable.
I love you anon
Nice quads.
The emotional and rational faculties cannot be separated from one another: if I act rationally I must've desired to do so; desire is an emotion, thus I could not have acted rationally without having used my emotional faculty.
>if I act rationally I must've desired to do so
Disagree. Stocism teaches us that desire and rationality are separate things. Sometimes the rational thing to do is distasteful and undesirable.
Also, consider that all animals experience desire (for food, sex, safety etc.) but cannot be considered rational beings.
Desire and rationality are different things however that doesn't change that they are inextricably tied to one another;
rationality requires the conscious desire to act rationally.
Animals have emotions but they cannot consciously acknowledge the stimulus and process it with any complex form of narrative casual and chronological relation because they do not have the necessary brain structure to do so.
I'd call it a will to act rationally, rather than a desire.
Desire is a primal urge. Will is a conscious choice.
Ok, how do you make a choice, what compels you to make one and not the other? What is this oumph that makes it all move?
>what compels you to make one and not the other?
Often there are contrary compulsions, in which your desire and will are opposed.
You might desire to screw your friend's wife, but it's your willpower that stops you.
Pretty sure the rational is consciousness while the emotional is the subconscious and they frequently have conflicting aims for people with mental issues
>the rational is consciousness while the emotional is the subconscious
Jung argues that this is true for men, but the reverse is true for women. Meanwhile, academics seethe about it ...
>It's about abnegation of the emotions
that's what most normies get wrong about it. there used to be a lot of jokes about stoics trying to be emotionless buttholes back in ancient Greece
Stoicism is about letting the Praetorean Guard run train on your wife and letting you bastard son disrespect you.
Another idiot anon
Stoicism had metaphysics and even logic so I don't know what are you talking about.
>Stoicism is: ignore everything that doesn't make you a better man
No, it is not. Its goal is to achieve inner peace and live in accordance with nature.
Incorrect, the stoics taught logic, physics, and ethics. They always taught them all, some of them even taught ethics last.
>They compare philosophy to a living being, likening logic to bones and sinews, ethics to the fleshier parts, and physics to the soul. They make a further comparison to an egg: logic is the outside, ethics what comes next, and physics the innermost parts; or to a fertile field: the surrounding wall corresponds to logic, its fruit to ethics, and its land or trees to physics.
>No single part, some Stoics declare, is independent of any other part, but all blend together. Nor was it usual to teach them separately. Others, however, start their course with Logic, go on to Physics, and finish with Ethics ; and among those who so do are Zeno in his treatise On Exposition, Chrysippus, Archedemus and Eudromus.
- Diogenes Laertius 7.1.40
>Stoics specifically tell you not to "waste your time" reading physics, metaphysics, or anything you'd associate with philosophy other than ethics.
>he is unaware of stoic logicians
>he is unaware of stoic metaphysics
>he has no idea what he is talking about
Only Seneca focused exclusively on ethics, Greek stoics placed it on equal level with logic and physics. That said, Greek homosexuals liked to waste time unlike Romans, so reading Seneca is the best approach to stoicism
>Only Seneca focused exclusively on ethics
You haven't read Seneca. Seneca has sections devoted to Platonic theoretical philosophy, Peripatetic philosophy, and the Stoic metaphysics of soul and God. He definitely emphasizes virtue ethics over everything else, but it's not all he writes about.
Stoicism is basically Buddhism with fewer steps
>Daoism
No
He's right though, what's the difference between following the laws of "Logic" vs the Dao.
Both are just "Do what feels right, bro."
Doaism is mystical nonsense meant to confuse you, buddhism and stoicism are protosciences
t. doomed to struggle against the universe
>eternal struggle
What is life/suffering?
You can see why doaism imploded once buddhism was invented
Is that pic about the legend of King Monkey? Because there wasn't any ass-kicking female protagonist in that story.
>mfw Buddhism has gone woke
Taoism isnt on that gay cuck shit.
You get what you put in.
What popularity of stoicism in normiedom do you guys keep referring to exactly?
Do people in your area just casually quote Epictetus between football games or discuss Seneca during their Fortnite games??
Because where I live they fricking don’t, they surely understand the word “stoic” and can vaguely guess what a philosophy named “stoicism” could be about but that’s really it.
Yes. Normie yuppie shitheads associate stoicism with masculinity. They're larping as Romans it's really sad. This is also why women despise Roman history, they think Roman = meat head.
Obviously it goes without saying no gym bro or yuppie homosexual has read one page of epictetus or senaca in their pointless vacous lives
Yes, this is what somewhat saddens me, because Seneca is actually decent, yet people go for Marcus Aurelius collection of tweets...
What yuppie bourgeoisie homosexual doesnt want to be emperor?
Well I have yet to meet them
The second founder died laughing.
That says everything about it to me. A big joke.
Bump btw not one of you homosexuals mentioned FRONTO. I'm going to guess this is because you are fake and gay homosexual Black folk who haven't read him. Good day.
>you have to read the whole shit
It is worthless, just look at what you are supposed to get with some critical sense.
What is my philosophy?
t. Hamlet
I don't know, this thing will never get me, because in the end what you get is something like G. W. Bush immediate reaction to 9/11. Most people would leave it, because you would feel the adrenaline and the urgency of the whole thing.
>noooo you can't just feel emotion!!!!!!
there is an entire branch of Stocism that deals with logic in autistic detail that was later continued by the medieval philosophers and most lately by the modern mathematical logician schools
Thomism wasnt an incel cuck movement.
which was built upon Aristotelian logic
One of stoicism’s main principles is following nature. It is also about coming to terms with death. I can’t remember which book it was from (meditations, letters of a stoic, or golden saying of Epictetus) but they basically say that you were already dead before you were alive, for eternity you have been dead and then you were born and you will return to that place you were before you were alive. It is about living a life without taking heed of pain or pleasure. They also tell you to believe in god.
My genuine opinion is that stoicism is good for most commoners. Most commoners are better off not worrying and not putting themselves into the world.
However noblemen like Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc should operate under some Nietzschean principles and mold the world.
The deepest and best parts of stocism were absorbed into Christianity. Modern self-professed stocis and stoicists are onions. Orthodox (and orthodox Catholic) Christians are the real stoics.
If Catholics were Stoics they wouldn't need to confess so much.
What's with westerners and orthodox larp?
Believe me, if you experienced orthodox church for your whole life, lived in a country where it is dominant you'd find words that you said hilarious.
There’s a difference between monks on Mt Athos and the yiayias at your local parish
The similarity of Stoicism to Epicureanism is underrated. Both are rather profound, and hardly normal.
>virtue is purely internal, a man can train himself to be happy and virtuous while being tortured
Stoicism is pure turbocope
Stoicism got deboonked by nietzsche
It's even more superficial than that, tbqh...