Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is overrated.
Discuss.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is overrated. Discuss.
Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is overrated.
Discuss.
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Pretty much no one here likes Stoicism so not sure who this is directed at.
I like stoicism and I feel personally attacked, although I prefer Epictetus over Marcus Aurelius.
t. pewdiepie
>although I prefer Epictetus
thats how it should be
marcus is just a parrot and hes only famous because he was an emperor
He quoted him several dozen times in meditations lol
Stoicism is for when you're an old fart in a nursery home.
>nursery home
IQfy doesn't like stoicism because it requires putting in the work, rather than just reading a bit and pretending you understand.
Notably, stoicisms guideline to stop b***hing, is difficult for a lot of anons.
WHO'S GONNA SWALLOW THE LOADS?
YOU DON'T KNOW ME SON
Stoics are pigheaded and relatively hylic-adjacent in comparison to Platonists and Peripatetics. Stoicism does not have a reason, internally justified, which should be compelling to a rational animal to abide by its own maxims. Platonism and to an extent Aristotle's ethical theories are able to overcome Stoicism's failures and present a coherent ethics and metaphysics which is not internally contradictory. Hegel may have also glimpsed this fact in his own muddle headed way.
What's not coherent about stoicism? It's all explained by their Logos.
Their logos is incapable of providing logically necessary ethical precepts. Many important Stoics like Seneca tended towards a kind of (implicitly) transcendent principle in their writings as a consequence of their, probably instinctual, awareness that much of the doctrines in their old metaphysics simply do not connect at all to the ethical precepts, which is not the case with Plato. Why hold onto a life one has no interest in, as the Stoics claim we should? Because it's in accordance with logos/virtue. Why act in accordance with logos/virtue? Because it is the honourable thing to do. That is, simplified, the Stoic answer to that question and other similar ethical ideas. But Plato would equate that answer to the answer given to the warrior class of his republic. They are just good fighting dogs, pigheaded like I said, who are only interested in honour and consequently in not breaking under duress. But it's so easy to rebut the entire Stoic school by simply saying that honour at the cost of anything is not necessarily good, or worth it. Plato spends so much time attempting to establish a universal and transcendent principle, because he is so clearly aware of how flimsy ethics is if it is not grounded in something absolutely solid and necessary. Nothing like mere honour. The general point is that the Stoics are the, albeit well-meaning and hardy, rejects of the genuinely intellectual philosophical schools of antiquity. The Stoics have plenty of good ethical maxims, so long as one does not think too hard about why one should be applying them.
How do I become so well learned as you in philosophy?
I respect stoics but I agree, humans need a vent to feel some semblence of emotional equilibrium. Virtually noone can work through his or her emotions and impulses just through calm, rational thought and meditation alone. b***hing is as old as time and simply works much better to work through negative feelings.
Professional non b***hing person here. AMA
How do you not burst out expletives when you step your toe or get an electric shock?
Most people only know of stoic ethics and not their philosophy of law elements or metaphysics or epistemology.
The issue with stoicism is that you can’t b***h or whine. So basically the whole internet hates it.
>So basically the whole internet hates it.
It is THE most espoused philosophy on R*ddit lmao
Most people who describe themselves as stoic don't even know what stoicism is. They just think that if you're an emotionless shell that never does anything fun and only works for their entire lives they're stoic, in reality, they're just moronic and depriving themselves of basic human shit that they need.
For maximum effect you should have posted this on /fit. Meditations is a good book, stoicism itself is enjoying a popularity boon so it makes sense to see the contrarians are still out there. Stoicism to me is low effort, people who claim to adhere to it either give it up eventually or evolve into epicureans. Due to its low effort and low bar to pass in terms of entry it will remain popular for a while though.
>people who claim to adhere to it either give it up eventually or evolve into epicureans
Epictetus mentions this kek
Really lol. What passage?
It’s somewhere in his lectures and he mentions it more than once. Basically as a way of teasing his students
>i know all y’all b***hes be sayin’ you Stoics n shiet but be actin’ like Epicureans fr fr on divine Providence
That’s funny, but in that way it seems he was sort of blind to human nature and why they would drift to Epicurus.
That’s a fair point. For a philosophical school that claims to be ‘natural’ one has to do a lot of effort to follow it. Stoics would say the cause of this is vice, but it’s a weak argument imo.
I agree with you, I think it’s partly why it never became totally popular. It doesn’t give answers people need whilst not saying that it can’t.
Why is it enjoying a popularity boon? IME it's mostly wagies coping with their miserable existences and nothing else. Mostly through podcasts and that one YT channel.
I like the idea of stoicism, but I think the masses lack direction, not a coping mechanism.
>but I think the masses lack direction, not a coping mechanism.
You're not wrong, but stoicism is both.
Is OP a homosexual? Discuss.
It absolutely is and I've read it twice in Greek. The only interesting thing was his description of sex and that's mostly because of the vocabulary.
I thought the most interesting part, and one of the most refered to, is when he talks about how external pain is only as strong as your estimate of it, and that you are in control of how you react to impulses. Unfortunately, he doesn't write very much about this topic at all and instead goes on and on about acting according to your nature. I understand Meditations wasn't meant as a selfhelp book, or any "book" at all, but it left me unsatisfied when the interesting parts where so far and few between and most of it is just rambling about decay and the uselessness of fame and wealth.
>It was never meant to be a book
>It sucks that it isn't a more interesting book
Interesting piece of work* then you pedant.
I don't think there's anything pedantic about judging a work by what it is. You don't judge a home movie by Hollywood directing standards. Meditations is closer to a diary than anything else. By diary standards, it is insightful.
Why roman period is just moral shit?
Because all the great thinkers and philosophers were Greek. The ancient Roman elite were all fluent in koine Greek (including Marcus Aurelius, whose books were written by him in greek since it was the language of philosophy, the same as German used to be the language of science, or Italian of music etc, before it all turned to globohomosexual English).
It was rated just fine until Ryan Holiday exploited it over and over for his precious sheckels.
I read it in Translation and really enjoyed it.
I recently bought a course in Latin for 1800 dollars so I could read it in its original language
Saved up for a year and a half for it.
This is obviously bait
But I believe it
Hook, line, sinker
(You) a Pisces, anon?
Overrated in the sense that it's treated like a central text of ancient stoicism and manual for modern living, underrated as an excellent personal historical document of one man dealing with a particular set of circumstances. Some of the most fulfilling moments of learning history are these moments described in The Hostory Boys, seeing thoughts you've had put down by someone centuries ago
>And it's as if a hand has come out, and taken yours
It's not great because it's a lifehack, it's great because since stoicism has been an undercurrent of western culture for so long, we get to see ourselves in the past.
Accretions, man - get it?
Not an unpopular opinion
>everyone likes this guy
>hate him for that very reason
>know there's more to it
>people keep shilling him
>look deeper
>he did indeed lead a war
Believe it or not, there is many facets to a man’s character and actions. If you were relating him to a Jesus or Buddha type figure, that’s your own fault. Meditations has many good thoughts to keep in the back of one’s mind, see the bigger picture, and not let good or bad feelings overwhelm them. You don’t have to buy into a philosophy wholesale. There are many shades and what you pick is up to you. If you want to turn the stoics into a caricature and straw man a lot of there thoughts, fine, but they have a lot that is very applicable
It's someone's personal journal. I would say there's no ethical basis to publish it.
The book is a decent historical curiosity, anyone who thinks that this book's advice should be taken seriously is a pretentious undersocialized midwit though
>anyone who thinks that this book's advice should be taken seriously is a pretentious undersocialized midwit though
Why do you think that?
I wouldn't call it "overrated" but it is certainly one in a long list of cringe beta-male self-help literature that also includes
>Art of War
>Kybalion
>How to Win Friends and Influence People
>Atomic Habits
>12 Rules for Life
But all those books are interesting and helpful... except Art of War, which doesn't really lend itself to much use on a day to day basis.
Habits
Atomic habits helped me a great deal! Especially the 3 layers of changing habits (Identity > Process > Outcome) the book helped me realize I was doing it the wrong way.
It has the Tolstoy problem. Nothing is easier in the world than to espouse the values they did when you belong to the top 0.1 percent of society, or in the case of Marcus, when you are literally the most powerful person on Earth in the latter half of the second century.
They are also philosophically repulsive, of course, as preachers of the gospel of passivity, cowardice, and weakness.
>passivity, cowardice, and weakness.
Explain.
Stoicism is the definition of false consciousness.
How so?
Stoicism is philosophical defeatism. You have no choice in the world, you just have to accept the fate the logos has set out for you. Not living according to that is against your nature. Ambition is le bad, better get comfy with the shit card you've been dealt.
If one's fate has been decided by a higher power, and the logos has dictated what we must do, then we must live our lives accordingly. But Stoicism is not about surrendering ourselves to a fixed fate. Rather, it is about living in accordance with the logos, and finding peace in the way that things are. It teaches us to accept reality and work with it, rather than against it. There's no fault or defeatism in that.
He spent most of his life in a military camp and led several campaigns. Sure not fighting on the frontline, that would be moronic, but hardly passive, weak, or cowardly. If he wanted he could've just hung out in Rome and had his dick sucked 24/7 like a lot of emperors did.
I mean being a commander historically always meant sending poor fools into the meat grinder by the hundreds or even the thousands while you hung back in the safety of your camp, all in order so that you could get even richer and more powerful after a victorious campaign.
And, you know, ensure the safety of your empire. It isn't JUST about le evil oligarchy. Not every military conflict equals vietnam. Plus it's not like those soldiers weren't paid handsomely with money and land in return.
You serve in the military? You wanna be a soldier? You wanna defend a country? Do you wanna participate in unnecessary wars?
>Plus it's not like those soldiers weren't paid handsomely with money and land in return.
Well, yeah, that's it if you're alive or haven't lost a limb or your sanity
>preachers of the gospel of passivity, cowardice, and weakness.
You don't know a thing about stoicism.
Yeah I hated this book, it’s just a bunch of platitudes
>says meditations is overrated
>posts overrated actress
You WILL date the brown girl.
You WILL lick her pussy.
You WILL let her drain your wiener.
You WILL sire her mixraced children and you WILL be happy.
Oh no haha, well I guess I better take one for the team.
I agree that it is overrated, but I would say there's a lot to learn from it. It is good, normies just happened to discover it and now it's too mainstream.
why is the media trying to convince me she's beautiful
She looks a lot better with make-up on.
Ya, she goes from a 4 to a 6.5.
>brown
>simian facial features
>pube hair
Lol
She's mogged by the average white woman.
Cute!
I don't wanna read anything written by slaveholders.
Hideous mutt
Hating stoicism just outs you as a pseud. You only hate it because it's popular now
No, I just don't find anything it proposes very interesting. Like others said, you have to denounce way too many pleasures for basically no gain other than uncomfortable numbness and passivity, it's just not in line with human nature imo.
But by all means, if you think you got what it takes to be a true stoic then more power to you.
I'm not a Stoic, but I think Stoicism is underrated and that most people who hate it have no clue what it is about.
Also dislike the "Modern Stoicism" movement. It just devolved into a watered down version of Epicureanism mixed with liberal politics.
>Also dislike the "Modern Stoicism" movement. It just devolved into a watered down version of Epicureanism mixed with liberal politics.
I don’t think you even know what both really entail
All philosophy after the Peripatetics (save for skeptics, perhaps) is low quality platitudinous pseudery.
gay.