Is stoicism really pleb shit or is its reputation just ruined by its followers.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Is stoicism really pleb shit or is its reputation just ruined by its followers.
Is stoicism really pleb shit or is its reputation just ruined by its followers.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
It was ruined when plebbitors and basic dudebros made it all about Meditations. Like that’s their Bible.
This, Meditations wasn't even that relevant until the last ten years or so(academics don't take it that seriously) you can't even learn much from it considering it's a workbook/journal, that's why you get so many people confused about it. Epictetus is well worth reading and can actually teach you how to think better and be a stronger and better person, meditations can be read afterwards but it's not necessary honestly as he just mainly believes what Epictetus taught.
The dudebro types don't even come into consideration for me honestly, philosophy has always been used in some way for the wrong end, Sophists in ancient times comes to mind, don't let these people put you off if you feel like it could improve your life, just avoid shit like Ryan Holiday who is obsessed with rich people for some reason.
Agreed with this. I read everything I could find including Meditations, Epictetus and Seneca.
The most readable and relatable is Seneca - even though he is a great example of hipocrisy since he was a disgustingly wealthy ass-kisser of Nero.
Epictetus would be the go-to for Stoicism, and who even Marcus Aurelius read and followed.
better than bible
Checked and true
>Talmud omitted for some reason.
Why would the Talmud be shown on a chart clearly meant to be focused on the development of Christianity?
It's for people who are dead inside.
This thread convinced me it's more for plebbitors than I had previously thought.
>A healthy society is based on revenge
A healthy society is based on the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
America was founded on such, but has since walked away and everything's turning to hell now: no fault divorce and 50% of marriages ending in divorce, adultery, drug abuse, the education system is a joke, the media is filth and lies and propaganda, the politicians are prostitutes and criminals, the justice department is full of activism rather than justice, and the reprobates openly celebrate their sin without shame or blushing.
Pic related.
>1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
yourself into a mere subject of nature
>You are going to be a subject of nature whether you like it or not, this is reality, no amount of Christian coping is going to change this.
Nature is a subject of me.
God made me in His image, after His likeness; and God gave man dominion over nature.
You heathens worship nature and demand big government, high taxes, and less freedom/rights to "save the planet". God promised the seasons aren't going to stop (Genesis 8:22), but you heathens would rather believe modern academia/science which tells you to trust and obey man, which tells you cars and cow farts are causing global warming (but don't look at industrial pollution or globalist freighting) and that the glaciers would melt by 2020 (they didn't); which tells you boys can become women to sell some pills and surgeries and products. They're still pushing that filth on kids, they're still giving them hormones, they're still giving young adults mutilation surgeries (hopefully never to any kids, but who knows what those quack docs will do); nothing in your anti-Christ worldview has helped in opposing or stopping that demonic preying and attack on kids, you're just a cuckservative if you're not a full-blown liberal.
>You cannot win over nature, it's literally impossible, nature is god.
Yep, worshipping nature.
Worshipping creation rather than the Creator, you're a fool and probably a sodomite or sodomite-enabler/supporter too considering Romans 1. I bet your pro-sodomite argument is claiming man is as a beast of the field, and since beasts sometimes sodomize each other, then man should be free to act like a beast of the field. It's interesting the Bible calls you people brute beasts.
Your definition of good is perverted though, and you conveniently ignored his point about the standard. What's good to you may be bad to another, who's the authority? It's just a fallible man's opinion without authority.
Is it wrong to steal? One man says no, another man says yes. But the Lord God gave the commandment and there's no higher authority.
I like what you just said here, but I have a few problems with religion
1) the problem of hell/evil
I just dont get a god that causes infinite / so much suffering. Not just for humans, but animals too suffer immensly.
2) I cant take the stories seriously
Like, I find it hard to truly believe that some dude came out 2000 years ago as god as a man and then did idk what and died to save us from himself or something.
Other than that, I have to admit that there are very good ethical values in christianity and I wish I can ignore 1) and 2) and pretend to be a follower of god. I guess theres nothing stopping me from adopting such morals without believing in a higher being, but then you face the problem of moral relativism, which leads to cringe things like sodomites and cutting off pps
>Like, I find it hard to truly believe that some dude came out 2000 years ago as god as a man and then did idk what and died to save us from himself or something.
If it sounds too far fetched to believe and breaks the laws of nature and reality, then it probably didn't happen, was there a guy called Jesus and was a some kind of preacher? highly likely, was he the son of some omnipotent being who resides in some otherworldly reality separate to our own? doubtful.
Christian ethics are actually greatly influenced by Stoic ethics, and the Stoic definition of ''God'' is based on what we can see in physical reality all around us, you don't have to have blind faith in some being what you cannot even see and only read about in ridiculous stories, the evidence of some rational force is all around us if we open our eyes. I also think that Christianity condemning people as ''sinners'' before they're even born, when they have done nothing, is cruel and inhuman. While most evil can be explained by one word, ignorance.
Yeah those stories are silly.
But dont you think the stoic god is cruel? We get it, the universe is rational and is driven by reason, physical laws and what not. But it doesnt say anything about ethics. Whats considered good and moral. Why are we here? Why is there so much suffering? This honeslty makes stocism feel a little dry. "Acting according to nature" seems like a vague goal thats done for its own sake.
All the natural events what seem ''bad'' are more indifferent, they're not done out of malice or any ill intent, all mortal things have to perish eventually, so the cycle can continue, it's ourselves who make the judgement that things are good and bad etc. I prefer this explanation rather than some god in the heavens who willing allows evil to exist. Do i know if what i say is true? i don't know, but it's the most logical conclusion to me.
>''Acting according to nature" seems like a vague goal thats done for its own sake
They usually say ''living according to nature'' that means as a rational and social being, and people who don't do so live in a state of ignorance contrary to nature.
Right, so if I kidnap you and I start breaking your legs you'll tell yourself "pffff its actually an indifferent this isnt bad at all"? Come on, thats copium. No sane will person will do that.
>They usually say ''living according to nature'' that means as a rational and social being, and people who don't do so live in a state of ignorance contrary to nature.
Again, that's really ambigious it doesnt say much. Also, I'd argue that ignorant people are still acting according to nature, for if something happens, then it's natrual. You can't not act according to nature.
All the anti-reddit stoics itt:
Can you describe, in detail, an incorrect popular idea of Stoicism, and why it is incorrect?
Moral relativism is not moral nihilism/skepticism
>What's good to you may be bad to another, who's the authority?
This is a nihilist position, that there therefore is no authority
The relativist answer is that you are the authority, but only from your own perspective. That is, a code a man does not accept has no moral weight with him.
Of course, the distinction is irrelevant in light of objective morality (roughly, moral realism) of the christian or randian sort.
Suppose Randall thinks it's morally right to torture pets. The moral realist would say it's inherently wrong to do so, because of God or logic or something else, and both a to stop Randall and probably also attempt to convice Randall that his actions are wrong, because in this view Randall is both immoral and mistaken. The relativist would say that it is wrong in their view (though apparently not in Randall's) and try to stop him accordingly. The nihilist would say there are no moral obligations whatsoever, and may nonetheless act. It would be incoherent, of course, to claim that since our moral judgments differ, moral judgments must not actually exist (nihilism) and based on that make the moral judgment that acting to stop Randall is wrong, but that doesn't stop the masses, as you've both seen
I see more donald sutherland tbh
Not really anti-Reddit, but anti-Modern Stoicism
>Can you describe, in detail, an incorrect popular idea of Stoicism, and why it is incorrect?
Trichotomy of control (which means they didn't understand Epictetus) and the complete neglect of the virtue of temperance.
>Trichotomy of control (which means they didn't understand Epictetus)
Why does this mean that? Because the third category implies nonzero control of the material world?
Realized that I should have explained what I think is wrong with this. Imo, this video incapsulates reddit stoicism or dudebro stoicism, whatever you may call it. Let's go by the four virtues
>prudence
Is it prudent to just stubbornly do something and say "good" in response to anything? I don't believe the Stoics would have agreed.
>justice
50/50. It's always a "me vs them" type thing.
>courage
They get a point for this one.
>temperance
Completely missed the mark. The dudebro stoic does this shit so that he can continue with da grind in the hopes of his new bugatteh.
Jocko is a welfare queen who got soldiers, under his command, killed with his stupidity.
I read Meditations in college about seven years year and accidentally left my copy in the open for my best friend to find. He asked me about it, and I told him the general gist of it and about Aurelius's life.
He took that shit as gospel and became obsessed with stoicism, ended up joining the army and essentially becoming reliant on it for stability.
>years year
years ago*
fpbp
most of those reddit types don't even know who Epictetus and Seneca are
I’m convinced normies never read Meditations, this book is absolutely useless and barely stoician.
The most intersting parts of the book is when he directly quotes Seneca or Epictetus, I’m not even joking.
I like the ideas and philosophy of stoicism but why do people ignore Seneca and Epictetus and suck Marcus Aurelius’ dick so much? Just because he was le emperor?
>I like the ideas and philosophy of stoicism but why do people ignore Seneca and Epictetus and suck Marcus Aurelius’ dick so much?
Probably because studying those two takes time while it takes about 5 minutes a day to read something out of a journal without context. I personally think it comes down to laziness and thinking you already know what it is even if you don't. A large amount of posts on that Stoicism reddit is people asking ''What did marcus mean by this'' and people telling them to study the Discourses first like everybody else did for the last two thousand years.
I think a large, if not the only reason mediations survived is because it was written by an Emperor, If it was written by Agrippus the public toilet cleaner nobody would care.
How can somerhing be ruined by who's following it?
Because it's one of the few genuine books, as it was a personal diary never meant to be published.
>How can somerhing be ruined by who's following it?
Awwww, are you too young to remember hipsters? That's adorable.
What did hipsters "ruin", and why are you allowing them to ruin it for you?
Again, a philosophy can only be judged by itself. Even it presently has morons for philosphers who have corrupted it, shouldn't you judge it by its unadulterated original self?
it got super popular so it's lame. just like my favorite band
NEITHER.
popular "stoicism" generalizes it to mean nothing. if you introduced these people to epicureanism first they'd larp as that instead.
Stoicism is therapeutics for myrmidons. Engage with it if you wish to become a myrmidon that is pushed around by life so that you can mentally accomodate yourself to your passivity and non-agency through stoic platitudes.
What alternatives do you suggest?
Mid to late 19th century French decadance.
Stoicism is placing of yourself under the chain of causation of nature, diminishing yourself into a mere subject of nature, not realising that man properly is outside the order of nature, is an agent that is free to impose his own order, new being and second nature (or grace), upon himself and the world as the creator of new chains of causation. Start with Renaissance humanism and Pico della Mirandola's 'Oration on the Dignity of Man':
https://thavmapub.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/pico_-_oration_on_the_dignity_of_man.pdf
>Stoicism is placing of yourself under the chain of causation of nature
We literally come from nature, are a part of it, not separate from it.
>diminishing yourself into a mere subject of nature
You are going to be a subject of nature whether you like it or not, this is reality, no amount of Christian coping is going to change this.
>not realising that man properly is outside the order of nature
Isn't it true that human beings grow, age, get old and then die like all other beings? if this is true and it is then man is not outside the order nature, he is just another part of it, the difference is Man was given a reasoning faculty by nature, but that doesn't mean he is outside of it.
>is an agent that is free to impose his own order
This is what every Tyrant in history thought, and guess what? all of them are dead. You cannot win over nature, it's literally impossible, nature is god.
>upon himself and the world as the creator of new chains of causation
Nobody said there isn't cause and effect, but the overall will of nature is not something in our power, we are subject to it whether we like it or not, this doesn't mean you have no free choice either, choice in using impressions is the only thing you have, but nature overall is not in our power.
Nature is entirely a product of our minds, and the slavish mind that submits itself to nature alienates himself from his own powers. In your cavern you remain imprisoned, behold to an idol-god you have made.
>Stoicism comes from Cynicism, which is the opposite of passivity
Yes very active to live a dog's life, ho-hum.
Dogs don't pay taxes.
Never understood ''dog'' as an insult personally, they are loyal, content with what they are and what they have, and can generally sense when a person is bad, unless they are on about vicious dogs but there is also plenty of vicious and untamed human beings who are of less value than a tame and loyal canine.
Diogenes' kynes don't pay taxes because they don't work and live in the street. That's why the State hates them.
People who are actually free are always hated by people who are not free.
Would
because you're presumably white and the people who use dog as an insult are brownoids who hate/fear dogs because of their "cultural" moronation
Damn bro why you gotta do me like that.
If you're going to be a passive plaything of external forces at least don't be a dreary one. Aestheticism offers all the therapeautics of stoicism for the character type attracted to stoic argot, whilst saving you from being a dull bore to yourself and others. Start with Pater's conclusion in his renaissance studies that founded the movement in Britain:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2398/2398-h/2398-h.htm#conclusion
Thanks bro
Actually dude you understand the bait I fell for. how old are you?
Based + Plutarch refuted Stoicism
What fricking moron made this image? The israelites are defined by a cult that is in opposition to Baal.
Why do people who have no clue about Stoicism think it encourages passivity?
People these days think it's about disregarding things what are outside of our ''control'' forgetting that there is something always within our power, that is our prohairetic faculty.
Stoic philosophers wouldn't have gotten executed by Emperors if they just disregarded things outside of their power, people also don't know that Stoicism comes from Cynicism, which is the opposite of passivity.
>something always within our power, that is our prohairetic faculty
The stoic diminshes his entire human agency and powers down to a lone ability to tell his eyes they are lying. What a disgraceful mismeasure of man: a beaten clod of dirt who retains the single voluntary power to become deaf and blind.
Nice word salad, but it didn't disprove my point, the truth is very few things are up to us, and trying to change this and trying to have power over things external to ourselves brings frustration and discontent. The goal of every human being is happiness and contentment, this isn't possible if you are frustrated over not having political power, or money, girlfriend or some other things, if you place it in what is yours then it is possible to achieve lasting happiness and contentment.
The only thing a Stoic values is is OWN human agency, he doesn't try exert it over others for no reason, and doesn't see any value in it anyway, it's a persons responsibility to keep is own will in line with nature, something which is in his power alone.
>i just don't see how stoicism would inspire/be helpful to anyone
It teaches you to be happy no matter how many external things you may or may not have, because it teaches you to place the good in what is actually yours. It teaches you also to be a good person because it's in your own nature to do so, not because you may be punished in some mythical afterlife or not have ''salvation'' you should be good for the sake of being good, not for some selfish end so you are not punished when you are dead.
+ it teaches to be apathetic and therefore emotionally repressed/deficient and less human
It teaches you to be a more rational person, what every philosophically minded person should be, and to understand why you may feel certain emotions, that is in the judgements you form about things, it never says you will never feel emotions, and the Stoics were never against positive and beneficial emotions.
Have any of you even read the works in any meaningful way or are you just going by what you have heard on youtube and internet forums?.
>not because you may be punished in some mythical afterlife or not have ''salvation'' you should be good for the sake of being good
if there is no immortality and no all-powerful God, being good for the sake of being good is completely absurd, since there would be no objective standard to measure goodness because morality wouldn't be part of ultimate reality (God), and if everything ends in death anyway, there's no point in being good, since everything ends in nothingness either way and "good" and "evil" are mental delusions from evolution/nothing more than personal taste.
>Have any of you even read the works in any meaningful way
no
>being good for the sake of being good is completely absurd
Being good is beneficial to you and to others, being bad is harmful to you and to others, as bad people will likely face trouble with the law and make enemies for themselves, while good people don't. So being good is a more preferable way of life with less strife and less trouble for yourself.
>no
Why have you formed an opinion of something you know nothing about then, and say it is useless when you don't even know what it is? Ignorance is not a good thing anon.
you said that stoicism is based because it motivates you to do do good for its own sake rather than out of fear for punishment, now you are saying that doing good things is good because it keeps you out of conflict with the law (=to avoid punishment).
i said that doing good for its own sake only makes sense if God and immortality exists, since the very concept of good and evil would be absurd and meaningless otherwise, as everything would end in nothingness either way and evil would go unpunished and good unrewarded.
>Why have you formed an opinion of something you know nothing about then
because i feel a negative/anti-life energy that surrounds stoicism
>i said that doing good for its own sake only makes sense if God and immortality exists
Socrates was talking about the immortality of the soul and how we are reborn a good 400 years before Christianity was even a concept, and how recollection is proof of that. Christianity heavily borrows from so many differing sources that it cannot be called original, god looking almost exactly like Zeus is an example.
>if there is no immortality and no all-powerful God, being good for the sake of being good is completely absurd, since there would be no objective standard to measure goodness because morality wouldn't be part of ultimate reality
Reading them would correct your impression, since their standard (as with many ancient philosophers) was Nature. I predict you'll scoff at that and argue from the modern position that Nature is indifferent, which would be an argument that would misunderstand their position re: Nature. Just go read them, instead of settling on impressions and possibly bad summaries.
Speak for yourself stoic eunuch. Stoicism is the complete mismeasure of man. Man creates the world and nature with his mind, the stoic then enslaves himself to his own creation.
>Man creates the world and nature with his mind
Man may well be able to sculpt the world, create impressive structures, mine fuels from the earth, etc, nobody denies this, but mankind is still subject to the forces of nature. He will age, grow old and die, he will be vulnerable to diseases and the like, and your whole ability to believe in a Christian god was given to you by nature.
I honestly don't know why you are trying to detach yourself from what is all around you and you are a part of, like you are some alien called Vrak from the planet Zod(Even an alien would be a part of nature, seeing as the whole cosmos is nature/god)
>to tell his eyes they are lying
where are you getting this nonsense from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
The prohairetic faculty allows man the power to withdraw assent to your impressions, to tell your eyes that they are lying, to become blind and deaf. The dignity of stoic man is the freedom to become not man-as-flotsam, but vegtable-flotsam, tossed around by the waves of external nature.
>to withdraw assent to your impressions, to tell your eyes that they are lying, to become blind and deaf
On the contrary, withdrawing assent means disagreeing with irrational, habituated evaluations and moving towards more appropriate and accurate ones. It's not the phantasia (sense impression) that is wrong, but the hypolepsis (thought). Your eyes don't lie.
>Man creates the world and nature with his mind
So the moon's made of cheese if I want it to be? Cool.
That’s the complete opposite of stoicism and you’re just as moronic as stoic dudebros
God I hate morons like you
Stoicism is urbanite cringe. A healthy society is based on revenge and honour.
i just don't see how stoicism would inspire/be helpful to anyone, since it contains no salvation.
+ it teaches to be apathetic and therefore emotionally repressed/deficient and less human
Stoicism is only done well when its practioner recognises it is a solo pursuit. When it becomes a social thing, to virtue signal to others, or a 'community of like-minded' individuals it devolves to some petty circle jerk of little arrogant mental wankers who stray off the path because they are more interested in the superficial outward look rather than the inward reflection it should be about.
>Stoicism is only done well when its practioner recognises it is a solo pursuit.
It's mentioned by Epictetus in the Enchiridion that one should never say he's a philosopher. He makes an analogy that a sheep doesn't eat the grass then goes to the shepherd and vomits it up to show how much it ate, but instead grows a thick wool coating as proof.
A 2000 year old piece of "show don't tell" advice.
best answer itt
it was always pleb shid
anyone else see it?
Greeks had MED genes, don't let g*rms tell you otherwise.
>stoicism
What works aresusually paraded as an essential pillar of stoic thought besides Seneca, Epitectetus and Marcus Aurelius (+ Cicero) ?. Rufus was alright but kinda short
I think stoicism is interesting but ultimately more suitable for the classical mind than the modern one.
These two things are one and the same, while technology and understanding of science has changed, the human mind really hasn't at all.
we are still ruled by our desires and aversions, by external things, and by other petty things just like they were back then, that is why it is still applicable today.
Arius Didymus: Epitome of Stoic ethics and Lives of the eminent philosophers, book 7.
The human mind hasn’t changed materially or in nature or anything like that, but when we say this the implication is that somehow means this or that philosophy is agreeable in some sort of sense that appeals to biology when we all know that’s not how philosophy really works. It’s fundamentally cultural and especially religious. Stoicism was highly appropriate for the cult of the body culture, but not so appropriate for the cult of the spirit and power culture, I think. I find that Westerners often find stoicism insufficient and I think this is why. Stoicism will never be more popular in England than Nietzsche or Calvin.
We don’t understand ourselves merely as bodies, not really. And we don’t find solace in recognizing there are things we can control and things we can’t. We want to control everything. Our analogue to stoicism is almost the opposite - to amplify your power until you can bend what you otherwise couldn’t control to your will. That’s basically Nietzscheanism, Marxism, all sorts of modern Western thought. It’s not a coincidence that Nietzsche and Marx thought along these lines and not along stoic lines. Resignation is hardly in the Western vocabulary.
>We want to control everything
Speak for yourself, I'm pretty content in realizing the only thing what is up to me and mine is my faculty of choice, why are you assuming that everyone is power hungry? there is always people who are not so, so the proposition ''Everybody is power hungry'' is not deductively valid.
>Resignation is hardly in the Western vocabulary
So what?
It has some flaws, but you see it as pleb shit because most people skip all their metaphysical worldview, their philosophy of nature and causality. Its basically like judging Buddhism as shit just because of all new age karens that like it.
ive never read philosophy im not smart enough to have thoughts and im not a retvrn person
i see myself as purely a tool for my family. i simply do anything anyone asks me without thinking. im not good at thinking so i let others do it. i know i cant ever find a woman and i have never had aspirations or dreams. I simply wait for someone to need me. i spend most of my time sitting in silence or walking outside for no reason.
am i stoic
No
I'm not a follower of Stoicism anymore, but it is very good. The problem is that of some followers of "Modern Stoicism" who follow watered down Epicureanism. They basically believe in Epicurean metaphysics and have as their objective the absence of pain.
Virtue ends up not having a good solid basis other than "this is what an American Democrat would think is good".
I can't make this sound pithy. But people like stoicism because it already falls in line with their beliefs. Which is :Hollywood movies and a vague sense of cultural Christianity.
Its the most limp dick thing ever to self identify as a stoic. Its meaningless and just shows they're hungry for an identity
God damn all the embarrassing "agnostic" millennial IT stoics with their shrines to childhood nostalgia at home
What? Stoicism is the opposite of Hollywood movies ethics.
Not at all
Here is Musonius Rufus
>Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage.
Here is Epictetus:
>Women from fourteen years old are flattered with the title of "mistresses" by the men. Therefore, perceiving that they are regarded only as qualified to give the men pleasure, they begin to adorn themselves, and in that to place ill their hopes. We should, therefore, fix our attention on making them sensible that they are valued for the appearance of decent, modest and discreet behavior.
How is that in any way similar to Hollywood ethics?
He means Redditations stoicism. Which is a fricking shame, because real stoicism has been overshadowed by normalgays who bastardized it into nothingness. You clearly haven’t met these types, whereas the anon whom you responded to never met the people actually knowledgeable about stoicism. This is what I mean by bastardization. I’ve recommended Epictetus to an acquaintance when I found out he read the Redditations. He came back to me soon after saying he couldn’t understand anything and dropped it. This is the type the majority associate with stoicism today. Fricking pewdiepie shilled Redditations on his channel as some insightful book. It’s so over, it’s not even funny. Have fun trying to have any meaningful threads on IQfy about genuine stoicism. They will always have these two cohorts (redditoics and anti-redditoics) chime in with their worthless posts.
You're such a fricking homosexual holy shit.
>waah waah other people like this too i want to be special
If you truly like it, then engage with it on a meaningful level, you fricking moron. Meditations is not a good source on stoicism, never was, and never will be. If you actually want to understand the philosophy, read actual books with substance to them. Epictetus’ Discourses are basically university lectures. Seneca’s Letters are less about theory and more about practice. Meditations provide none of that. It’s an interesting historical artefact at most. Claiming you’re a stoic if you just read the Redditations is like saying you’re a physicist because you read Newton’s personal dairy.
And I guess you are the arbiter of what is meaningful for other people? Fricking loser
>Meditations is not a good source on stoicism,
Yes it is. Cope more for whatever reason.
>If you actually want to understand the philosophy, read actual books with substance to them.
I have and that's not special get over yourself attention seeking homosexual.
>It’s an interesting historical artefact at most.
It's a near lifelong diary of how the fricking Emperor tried to apply it in his life. How do you even tip this far over in your contrarianism???
>Claiming you’re a stoic if you just read the Redditations is like saying you’re a physicist because you read Newton’s personal dairy.
Do you hear yourself?
>ow wow it’s le heckin’ Emperor, he must know things
spoken like a true redditoic
Kek how do you say things like this and expect to achieve anything other than confirm you're an attention starved contrarian?
I have no intention to cast pearls before swine anymore, so I have resorted to shitposting. If you can't understand that saying "look at this guy's ethos, he must be a great source" is the most anti-Stoic thing one could say, then your supposed reading of the other primary sources is beyond shallow.
>hurr durr contrarian
holy frick, have a nice day
I've seen enough of your "pearls" to not value your opinion on stoicism anyhow so save the effort of trying to teach me how good my reading is.
>If you can't understand that saying "look at this guy's ethos, he must be a great source" is the most anti-Stoic thing one could say
I will hold that telling someone to kill himself for calling you a contrarian after you besmirched Marcus Aurelius as "le heckin' Emperor" is far less stoic and I'm absolutely certain once you calmed down from whatever this is you will agree.
>I will hold that telling someone to kill himself for calling you a contrarian after you besmirched Marcus Aurelius
lurk moar, autismo who can't into obvious shitposting
>oh no my based redpilled marcussy got besmirched? Oh no! I am so Stoic that I provide no reasoning and just resort to kissing ass for my blessed emperino and ad hominems about my opponent being contrarian
Let it all out. The sooner it will be over.
kek
I'm done with this shit thread. My last (You) to You.
>Is a "stoic" who is not a slave to his emotions
>loses control of his emotions and spergs out when his hero and purported life philosophy is challenged
I rest my case
I'm not that Anon and I don't have any kind of ill feelings for the Meditations or for reddit.
That said, it is hard to understand Stoicism based on the Meditations. Aurelius didn't write it for others to understand it. He wrote it as exercises for himself.
My guess is that if someone asked him if one should read the Discourses or his own diary, he would say "read the Discourses".
He would, or would say go talk to a philosopher who will teach you, good luck. Meditations is a decent book once you have studied the discourses, but not before.
Oh I agree it's far more impactful to have a grounding in stoic physics and understand what their ethical applications steem from but that doesn't really invalidate using the meditations as good life advice from someone who can realistically be ranked top 10 humans who earned having their advice taken. You know "le heckin' Emperor" as true redditoics would say.
I'm often surprised about the bastardized view some people have of Stoicism.
Epictetus is not really a hard read. And the Meditations are written in a way that no one should think he has really learned Stoicism by only reading it.
Imagine being so brainfried about Reddit that you dismiss the second most defining source on Stoicism, one large in line with Epictetus, because it happens to be superficially popular on that website you don't like.
>the second most defining source on Stoicism
Seneca? Rufus would be the third btw. And Meditations would come in fourth only because no other primary sources survive. If we were lucky enough to have all the Ancient Greek sources, nobody with serious desire to learn about stoicism would give two fricks about Redditations. And even if that were true, the basic dude bros would still only read Redditations and stop at that. I acknowledge my personal bias against Aurelius, but it stems from this bizzare normalgay behavior that has warped stoicism into something it isn't. Do you know why half of this thread is cringe posts about Hollywood? Redditations.
I would also place before Arius Didymus and Cicero before meditations seeing as Marcus just mainly regurgitates what Epictetus taught with explaining how to learn it which is natural considering it's a journal/workbook. Arius goes deeper into things like virtue etc.
>with
without*
You could have gone more pretentious here by namedropping Didymus, but no, scholarly that's just objectively nonsense, Marcus is immensely important.
Still not sure why you think what Reddit or "dudebros" do is important.
>I acknowledge my personal bias against Aurelius, but it stems from this bizzare normalgay behavior...
A very wise stoic once gave the advice to look at what a thing is in itself, instead of your random accrued emotional associations with it. This would be very helpful for you here.
>Still not sure why you think what Reddit or "dudebros" do is important.
Shit up serious discussions about stoicism with their worthless non-opinions. My problem isn’t with Meditations per se. My problem is with people who read that book and nothing else. It was an interesting read for me, and it has its value. But it’s NOT a good book to lay groundwork for stoicism. It is supplementary material at best. I can look at the thing-in-itself all I want, it won’t prevent normalgays from posting garbage in every thread about stoicism. Nothing I can do about it, but to point it out. Which is what I did.
>Shit up serious discussions about stoicism with their worthless non-opinions.
Point to a serious discussion that has been shit up by redditors' worthless non-opinions. Then we shall compare it to your conduct in this thread.
>Shit up serious discussions about stoicism with their worthless non-opinions.
Reddit / IQfy-types don't turn up in places where serious discussion about these questions happen, so there's minimal danger of this happening.
>But it’s NOT a good book to lay groundwork for stoicism.
Nor is it meant to be, but it's invaluable as a record of practice once the fundamentals are in place, hardly 'supplementary'.
>Marcus is immensely important
I have heard that meditations wasn't actually studied that much or taken seriously academically as it just basically goes over ideas already espoused by Epictetus, it's mainly in the last 10-15 years it has become immensely popular because of people like Ryan Holiday advertising it as some self help guide. I think Marcus Aurelius would say ''why are you reading my work book and why are you trying to learn philosophy from it when there are philosophers and texts what would help you''
Have you actually studied the works in any meaningful way? or are you another person who bases their opinion on what they see on the internet?
>Its the most limp dick thing ever to self identify as a stoic
How is not being a slave to your emotions and not getting affected by every impression you encounter in life ''limp dicked'' it is a sign of mental strength if anything, being a slave to your emotions and getting upset at everything you come across is weakness. It's quite strange how people seem to take pride in their own wilful ignorance, like it isn't something what is utterly shameful.
>Epictetus is not really a hard read
Yeah, especially a more modern translation, i don't even consider myself that intelligent and didn't really struggle with it at all, perhaps it's a sign of modern education.
>It's more like something anyone with a triple digit IQ would figure out on their own
The percentage of the population who believes in this, no matter the IQ range is very small. I don't know where you find natural Stoics.
>I don't know where you find natural Stoics
You don't, being a Stoic is not a natural state for human beings, even quite intelligent human beings.
Those arent redditoics who only read Redditations by le heckin' Emperor. These are people opposed to stoicism. Except 873 and he doesn't shit up anything.
I don't blame Reddit. I think some of the Modern Stoic leaders miseducated them.
For example, take this text from Epictetus
>For this reason, when Florus was deliberating whether he should go down to Nero's spectacles and also perform in them himself, Agrippinus said to him, "Go down": and when Florus asked Agrippinus, "Why do not you go down?" Agrippinus replied, "Because I do not even deliberate about the matter." For he who has once brought himself to deliberate about such matters, and to calculate the value of external things, comes very near to those who have forgotten their own character. For why do you ask me the question, whether death is preferable or life? I say "life." "Pain or pleasure?" I say "pleasure." But if I do not take a part in the tragic acting, I shall have my head struck off. Go then and take a part, but I will not. "Why?" Because you consider yourself to be only one thread of those which are in the tunic. Well then it was fitting for you to take care how you should be like the rest of men, just as the thread has no design to be anything superior to the other threads. But I wish to be purple, that small part which is bright, and makes all the rest appear graceful and beautiful. Why then do you tell me to make myself like the many? and if I do, how shall I still be purple?
Epictetus is basically saying you shouldn't take in consideration external when it is time to make the right decision. One of the main leaders of Modern Stoicism interpreted it as "Epictetus is saying you should choose preferred indifferents".
>One of the main leaders of Modern Stoicism
who?
Stoicism has gotten me through some of the hardest parts of my life, and I've only read the Wikipedia page.
Once you realize how in control you actually are of your emotions, everything just makes sense.
Thoughts on neostoicism?
Stoicism is spiritual castration.
I don't think we control our emotions or even our actions at all anymore. Stoicism is just life denying in the vain hope that by saying no you can believe you have a choice.
If you believe you can't have control your choices, why do you even follow Nietzsche?
when did i say i did?
>I don't think we control our emotions or even our actions at all anymore
Didn't you choose to post this when you could've decided to do otherwise?
i dunno, how would i know? why are you going all debate mode on me
Didn't a thought come into your mind that you should post then you made the decision to post? Or did some mysterious force separate to you force you to post?
who knows
So if it's not you making the choice or it's not some other force? what do you think it is?
i dont know
Interesting
What else do you know you don’t know
Then, how are you so sure Stoicism is wrong?
Stoicism feels like cynicism but you don't want to be uncomfortable
It kinda is in a way as it comes from it, ancient Cynicism in a more developed form with added logic and metaphysics, and made to be more acceptable civilised.I like studying Cynicism alongside Stoicism and if i ever find myself homeless i will try live like a Cynic.
Its too hard to be a cynic. You'll just be arrested forever or human trafficked. And criminals are sociopathic so you.might just be killed for no reason
True, but a true Cynic also isn't concerned with death or being arrested.
its pleb shit always has been. Stop this cope. People arent computers we have feelings. A human is an artist their life their body of work. Stoicism is asking you to not be human and it leads to letting everyone else around you rule over you.
There is a middle ground. You don’t have to go the whole hog. The basic tenets of stoicism are practical and a fine way to deal with adversity in life. Bad things will happen. Stoicism teaches that you shouldn’t let your emotions get the better of you to a degree where you harm yourself. I don’t know where this idea came from that stoicism teaches you to be a robot. It clearly acknowledges that humans have feelings and emotions that are unavoidable. On the ground level stoicism is about not letting yourself overreact or overwhelm yourself
you should let your emotions overcome you. You are an emotional being. Let your rage and happiness and sadness be the torch that burns the system.
>the system
????
systematic opression of the every man. Let it all burn down.
What do you believe about the world
You actually do have to go the whole way, or as close to it as you can. The Sage is the objective. Stoicism is not about turning you into a robot, but in making you live in accordance with nature. It is not about tempering your emotions, but rather about having the correct judgement to have the correct emotions.
(And I'm not even a Stoic, since I don't believe in its metaphysics, I'm a Christian)
Lol
What metaphysics do you believe in
You don't really understand a thing about Stoicism.
Why is there so many people in this world who talk about shit they have no idea about? there has been four in this thread at least. Admitting you don't know anything and being aware of your own ignorance like Socrates admitted is actually massively beneficial, it means you are willing to learn.
litbros...my father's girlfriend bought me this book
the ignorance ITT borders on trolling
read some fricking Seneca you Black folk before you even attempt to comment on stoicism
what an actual frick
>be "stoic"
>get mad when Starbucks messes up your order
Stoicism is good it’s just ruined by people like me
Like christianity and mystery cults and other philosophical schools of the imperial times stoicism largely spread among urbanites trying to cope with their decaying society.
Stoicism spread in Rome by the time they were defeating Carthage with Scipio Africanus.
This guy was literate during ancient times, so not a pleb by default.
The reputation of everything is ruined by its followers. See any ideology. Read it for yourself and only consider high criticism and ignore the slander.