Is stoicism the perfect /fit/ philosophy?
>>36653685
The best /fit/ philosophy is 'Lift more, move more and eat sensibly'. You're not a Warrior because you pick things up and put them down in a cozy gym you tard.
>>36653722
Stfu bitch I'm bigger than you
>>36653722
Stoicism isn't about being a warrior you retard, it's about living life to the best of your abilities while accepting that which you have no control over.
>>36653731
I know what Stoicism is and Marcus Aurelius is the least interesting Stoic. Zeno, Seneca and Epictetus are far superior. Your definition is so simplistic and empty that it leads me to believe you haven't studied the real Stoics.
>>36653744
>le real stoics
>>36653773
I mean the people who actually made original contribution and not some guy influenced by them who wrote a diary for himself. If you know nothing about Stoicism beyond 'live life to le full xd' then don't posit it as our boards philosophy.
>>36653805
>being this much of a buttblasted faggot
>>36653811
I'll take this as a concession, read more philosophy before you decide which one is yours. You evidently don't read anything beyond snappy little pics.
>>36653811
And I am completely calm whilst I am typing to you. I am not trying to hurt your feelings I am just informing you of your mental poverty, much as we don't beat around the bush with fatties. You can improve it.
>>36653825
>>36653831
>>36653685
Depends, what's it stance on boipussy.
>>36653843
All good
>>36653843
Conflicted. Zeno was a homosexual and made no remarks upon sexuality besides his notion that continually indulging in pleasure was contrary to a healthy virtuous and intellectual life; whereas Cicero was extremely suspicious of sex in general and believed that it was something that should be reserved for procreation, otherwise it would become an obsession and distract one from virtue. Your choice I suppose. No boipussy or some boipussy?
>>36653744
The problem with the Meditations is that he was talking to himself, reflecting and so on. He has already internalized everything he is writing down, so some of his writings may appear to be kind of devoid of actual meaning and substance like OP pic.
>>36653908
I know this, his philosophy is entirely unoriginal. It's interest is purely aesthetic and historical.
>>36653744
>>36653914
I completely agree. I never got much out of Aurelius. As a philosophical guide, I found Epictetus to be miles ahead (probably because he was an actual teacher).
>>36653685
Well if we are being realistic OP. Tell me if there is a school of philosophy which concentrates on: Self pity, vanity, and shitposting.
Some form of post-stoicism could be the best /fit/ philosophy, but only as an ideal. In reality people here are mostly just sad and retarded.
>>36653988
>Tell me if there is a school of philosophy which concentrates on: Self pity, vanity, and shitposting.
We could make it happen
A real /fit/ philosophy
>>36653997
Are the zyzz posts and videos the fragments of Zyzzus?
>>36653835
But what if being alive is not a privilege but a suffering for one? What is one, then, supposed to do when he wakes up?
Should one remain in bed, void of all emotion and happiness, goals and determination?
Should one remain as such only to disappear, to die?
Or would it be better to live a life forged by despair and revolt, to rebel against the nature, against the man alive who finds pleasure in living, and strive for life just to fulfill a mad man's wish of happiness, wish so foreign to one that he cannot understand it?
>>36653871
where can I find a big, comfy barrel these days though?
>>36654037
Then you're a genetic failure my friend. Don't pass on your depressing genes.
>>36654040
Pottery barn
>>36653988
>>36653997
>>36654018
our philosophy lives on in our memes.
it is only when future generations find these dank scriptures, that their true wisdom will be understood.
then people will finally learn...except for manlets.
>>36654044
>tfw my homegym doesn't fit in there
>>36654071
Do pullups on a branch
>>36654058
>then people will finally learn...except for manlets.
>>36653685
Get, get money, fuck bitches, fall drunk asleep. Fly around the world, meditate and you will be able to choose by yourself what is the best for you
>>36654110
>Fly around the world
bird poster detected.
get the fuck out of here you winged devil.
>>36653744
This
Aurelius is a good emperor and stoic but the meditations were a dairy. They're just self reminders of what a stoic should do. Epictetus was trying to teach people, explaining his reasoning and giving them real life examples like getting cheated on.
>>36654224
>meditations were a dairy
So it isn't vegan?
>>36653837
Still waiting for a Stephanus page reference for this passage, /fit/
...
>>36653870
DL 7.33-34? Chrysippus talked about a "community of wives and families", DL 7.188.
>>36654291
I only gave two example to show there is conflict. Stoicism isn't a political ideology of course.
>>36654291
>Still waiting for a Stephanus page reference for this passage, /fit/
>...
How do you know about Stephanus and not Xenophon?
>>36653811
wow, he totally owned you.
Nice arguments there kid.
Pls try more.
>>36653805
>>36653744
kudos,.
>>36654410
Shit, is it from Xenophon? It's my secret shame, so many ancient authors I have never read: I am an ignoramus. Thanks very much!
>>36654314
>Zeno was a homosexual and made no remarks upon sexuality besides his notion that continually indulging in pleasure was contrary to a healthy virtuous and intellectual life
DL reports that Zeno wrote a book on erotics, so he probably covered sex there. Chrysippus and Zeno both talked about family relations, and Chrysippus explicitly about incest. I am not doubting there was lots of disagreement within the Stoa, tho.
>>36654514
>DL reports that Zeno wrote a book on erotics, so he probably covered sex there. Chrysippus and Zeno both talked about family relations, and Chrysippus explicitly about incest.
I know, but I state correctly that Zeno believes constantly indulging in sex (being a slut, basically) is contrary to a disciplined virtuous life. This does not mean that you musn't ever have sex.
>>36654079
This, the world is your home gym
>>36653685
No, it's not even very well developed. Also no one philosophy has all the answers because no one philosophy has a position on every topic. For example, what is Stoicism's position on causality?
>>36654544
Gotcha.
>>36654760
>it's not even very well developed
It was thoroughly developed in Ethics, Logic and Physics. It just happens that the surviving writings of the Stoics are mostly to do with Ethics, so Stoic positions on a lot of things remain unknown to us.
>>36654037
If you had actually studied your "real stoics" like Seneca you would know what do.
“Can you no longer see a road to freedom?
It’s right in front of you. You need only turn over your wrists”.
>>36653811
Not very stoic fampai
>>36653843
You get it
>>36653685
Anybody have any good books/readings about stoicism?
>>36653871
Diogenes is the man
>>36653685
No, dandyism is the primary ideology of fit. People here are vain and almost exclusively concerned with appearance and what people think.
It's hilarious really because fit LOVES Stoicism, but is terrible at actually practicing it. Knowledge versus understanding perfectly personified. They have the knowledge of the ideas, but do not truly understand what it actually means to be Stoic.
From worrying about hair loss, to threads on asthetics, penis size, the butt mad fat hate threads, complaining about what someone did at the gym, and even going so far as to use DNP and sterons to look a certain way. This is all totally contradictory with Stoicism.
>>36656744
>fit LOVES Stoicism
/fit/ isn't a single hive-mind - I agree it is repeatedly brought up but that only takes one dedicated NEET.
>>36656798
It basically is, but assuming it's not, my point stands that /fit is most certainly not a place for Stoicism, as evidenced by the threads.
>>36653685
You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders!
>>36656879
In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.
JK Stoicisms pretty based
Meditations is a great book
>>36653936
if you can't find much from Aurelius you aren't doing much with your life.
his advice is to someone who is actively making, committing, and otherwise producing every single day.
>>36653854
This is one of the best pictures i've seen in my entire life.
>>36656879
>>36656896
>Anno Domini MMXVI
>Posting the rantings of a mentally deranged German
>>36653837
>Socrates
>stoic
>>36656879
>Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power
>projecting this hard
>Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different?
Not if you're a Stoic, Friedrich. Have you even read Marcus Aurelius?
>>36656946
His advice is to someone heavily socialised, with strong internalised standards - it isn't about producing, making, committing although those may be characteristic of someone highly socialised.
>>36657171
>mentally deranged
>implying
If you can't understand him that's your trouble, he can't understand you either! But he doesn't try to put the blame over on you when his cigarette doesn't light, or something doesn't work right.
>>36657171
>2016
>ad personam
>>36653936
My only issues with the early stoics are that they accept shit that they can change as something fate has ordained. Like if your house is taken from you by a corrupt politician. Don't fight, accept it as the fate ordained to you and move on. That to me is weakness in an otherwise strong philosophy.
>>36657418
>That to me is weakness
You might look into Nietzsche's treatment of "amor fati" (which I think is originally Cicero so might be a Stoic concept originally as I think Cicero has been mentioned as a Stoic a couple of times in this thread), especially where he talks about it in Ecce Homo. There is a solid reasoning behind it, and Nietzsche has a different concept of strength which if you can understand it might open up some further possibilities for you. I would recommend Ecce Homo (the first few chapters at least) but Nietzsche is hard to really understand, the way he writes and explains himself is very terse (in that book at least).
>>36657418
I get your point but is there really anything you can do hold your own against someone much more powerful than you? You could sue and lose a lot of money, you could threaten or even kill him and lose your life entirely or you could accept it and move on. Depending on how you look at it I'd even say accepting it is a lot harder and requires a lot more strength than getting mad.
>>36656879
>>36656896
Wouldn't a stoic simply disagree with his premises?
I'm not very well versed in philosophy, but it seems like Nietzsche is coming from an entirely different (and obviously unfalsifiable) outlook on nature altogether.
Can someone with better understanding than me explain?
>>36657504
It's entirely circumstantial like you said
>>36657508
>Wouldn't a stoic simply disagree with his premises?
If the anon who mentioned it earlier is right, no-one knows what Stoicism was like as a world-view outside the ethical side of it.
I think it would depend on the Stoic as to whether they disagreed with Nietzsche's premises. I also don't think Nietzsche has premises in that sense, if you read his philosophy he seems to talk against having a foundation or a consistent system.
>>36657343
Its so clear that people here haven't got a clue about the stoics. Marcus Aurelius meditations isn't really considered to be a stoic text of any merit or a good representation of how the stoics thought. Just because Marcus Aurelius was a stoic and the text contains a lot of stoic thoughts, it dosnt make it a primarily stoic text.
When Nietzsche says they use indifference as a power he is completely right. The stoic in a nutshell says that "all that matters is virtue", and as long as the stoic has virtue is indifferent to everything, because all that is needed is virtue. It does not matter if he loses his whole family, his home and everything, because he has virtue. Virtue is the ultimate thing in life and all that is needed to be happy. They even say you can't have happiness without virtue. So they sit there and say that they can take all the suffering and pain in the world and does not matter because they have virtue. And then there comes up this thing that you find also in Buddhism where they ask if anyone has TRULY become enlightened. The stoics ask if there was anyone that was TRULY virtues. It becomes a bunch of bullshit and fedora tipping
>>36657656
>Its so clear that people here haven't got a clue about the stoics.
>Marcus Aurelius meditations isn't really considered to be a stoic text of any merit or a good representation of how the stoics thought
>selffulfillingprophecy/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1ePglWee8U
>>36657501
How much does it suck to not be able to understand the german language when it comes to discussing philosophy?
>>36657656
Seems pretty detached in that light
A philosophy of reaction rather than action
>>36657656
>When Nietzsche says they use indifference as a power he is completely right.
But he's saying they aren't - he's saying that if they were consistent they would be.
You're agreeing with me, Stoicism IS about what Nietzsche is criticising it for not being. He's saying it's inconsistent when it's really exaclty what he's saying it should be.
>>36657854
I haven't noticed any issues. If we're only talking about discussion I don't think most people understand it either.
>>36653988
>Self pity, vanity, and shitposting.
does being liberal count as a philosophy?
>>36656935
I wish I could filter trip fags on mobile
