Philosophy. What is your take on Stoicism?
control freak ascetic losers who hate fun
I prefer Epicureanism
>>411251
you want eudomania kill yourself
Commendable pursiut
All this style of life philosophies are Cosmopolitan tier. Only metaphysical truth can provide answers.
>>411224
Maligned by hedonists. It's simple, in a good way, and correct.
> If you are unhappy it is your fault
> Fatalism means that everything is Fate's fault
Well. I guess Stoicism isn't real after all.
>>411251
How are they different?
>>411224
Yeeeeeeesh. Stoicism is about how LASTING happiness comes from effort and not going nuts all the time, and is placed in contrast to many of the other philosophies with ultimately offered paths to small instances of TEMPORARY happiness. All that crap about not engaging, or not caring, or lying to yourself, does not represent what stoicism is actually about. You're supposed to deny yourself temporary crappy bursts of happiness to cut down on how often that stuff pops up, so that you can work on lasting happiness.
>>411320
>What do you mean?
It can't be correct if it contradicts itself. Fatalism attributes all actions to Fate. So nothing is your fault. Not even your happiness because you are also just a another slave to Fate.
>>411385
>a crude list made by some fag represents the whole of a philosophy
>>411304
They're basically polar opposites.
>>411385
Maybe it's "fatalism" in regards to taking a fatalistic attitude towards life, so as not to rebel against the situation into which you've been "put" or where you've ended up in?
"We cannot choose our role in this play, but regardless of the role we are assigned, we must play it to the best of our ability. ...If we want our life to go well, Epictetus says, we should, rather than wanting events to conform to our desires, make our desires conform to events." ("A Guide to the good life" William Irvine)
Perhaps it's realizing things we have control over, things we have no control over, and things we have some control over?
>>411479
What about the way they live their life? Everyday ways of "being"?
Regarding goal of life?
-and were Stoics really about suppressing strong emotions and desires than the following...
"...I knew that the dictionary defines a stoic as "one who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain." I therefore expected the uppercase-S Stoics to be lowercase-s stoical - that they would be emotionally repressed individuals. I discovered, though, that the goal of the Stoics was not to banish emotion from life but to banish negative emotions." ("A Guide to the good life" William Irvine)
Plotinian Platonism is a far better philosophy of life.
>>411609
What's the difference?
>>411385
Fate decides the act and you decide your reaction. Therefore to decide to be unhappy from an act not controlled by you is illogical.
>>411224
I'm not into philosophy but god damn that image is very similar to my way of thinking-living.
>>411320
>What do you mean?
The Stoics are correct that there are only two kinds of things: those things within our control and those things not in our control, and that the only things within our control are our reactions to what happens. They are correct that to upset ourselves about something we can not control is nonsensical by definition because there's nothing to be done about it and upsetting ourselves doesn't right it, and they are also correct that to be upset about ourselves over something we did or thought is nonsensical because we can accept our past errors, learn from them, and correct ourselves in future conduct and thinking. They are correct that we live in a material universe of change and that there is nothing wrong with this, but even if there was there's nothing to be done about it.
What turns people off from Stoicism is that they think it means "being a robot" but this is the exact opposite. No one can stop having emotions, and no one should stop having emotions. What stoicism offers is only the knowledge that emotions are powerful forces that, left unchecked, are dangerous, not only to others but to ourselves. Apatheia (not apathy) allows our minds to be balanced in the thick of everyday life. Stoicism is also criticized for having an upper-class leaning that justifies status quos, and this is a safe historical criticism, but this ignores that Stoicism is not a political platform but a guide for personal meditation and reflection. One of Stoicism's greatest teachers was a slave, Epictetus. Epicureans want a material balance in their lifestyles but they think they can find internal peace through this, as if indulging in gardens and wine (in moderation!) isn't an extremely class oriented ideal. The Stoics are a more complete materialism: beginning with the world -as it is-, regulating themselves, and then returning this regulation to the world.
>>411849
a sensible, erudite post about stoicism on 4chan. thank you sir
>>411791
> to be unhappy from an act not controlled
You will be pretty unhappy when someone tortures you. I don't really believe that you can decide your reactions more that your actions. If you can't really blame yourself for feeling pain you shouldn't blame yourself for feeling unhappy. Actions and reactions can both be under your agency or just being result of circumstances and other events. Basically there is false guilt that fall on unhappy peoples, because nobody has all control over their feels and emotion.
>>411224
I believe that it is the best philosophy; I believe that living in perfect accordance with its principles will almost certainly bring about a happy, successful, and respectable state of being, and is more likely to achieve this end than most any other approach.
That said, I don't adhere to it myself.
>>411849
Great post
>>411862
It was a better-than average post but 'erudite' is pushing it.
>>411849
Thank you for clarifying. Then again, I didn't understand a one thing.
//What turns people off from Stoicism is that they think it means "being a robot" but this is the exact opposite.//
- You meant that people think Stoicism is about being a robot, but it [Stoicism] is actually the opposite?
Isn't the goal actually reflected in... :
"...I knew that the dictionary defines a stoic as "one who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain." I therefore expected the uppercase-S Stoics to be lowercase-s stoical - that they would be emotionally repressed individuals. I discovered, though, that the goal of the Stoics was not to banish emotion from life but to banish negative emotions." ("A Guide to the good life" William Irvine)
>>411880
Unhappy? - Not sure. Being tortured surfaces our instincts, impulses. Does experiencing torture - possibly severe pain - result in unhappiness?
If it's quick and temporary, then ... I would doubt it, but I cannot say for sure. Can you?
If it's long term torture and daily, then perhaps you'll be unhappy, but can do something to ease it... escape if you can or change you attitude (if you can't change the situation).
//If you can't really blame yourself for feeling pain you shouldn't blame yourself for feeling unhappy//
- In some cases you can and in some cases you can't. Difference is self-awareness & realization that some of the things in life that you experience are or have been ... you sort of being on autopilot.
If you argue that even self-awareness has to do with fatalism (free will agenda and such are related) then we can assume that nothing we do is ours... and maybe "we" don't even exist... or we do but there's no "we"? ... I'm way over my head in this one...
>>411836
> It makes sense.
Sometime you decide the acts and reactions. But sometimes all acts and reactions are decided not by you but by fate. There is no pure fatalism of all external world with total control over internal world.
>>411960
Free will problem. Aren't we way over our heads with this one?
>>411911
Erudite for 4chan
>>411862
>>411909
Thanks, glad you liked it.
>>411954
>You meant that people think Stoicism is about being a robot, but it [Stoicism] is actually the opposite?
What I meant was: people think being a stoic means being a robot (i.e.: having no emotions). This isn't the case. In fact, I'd say what Stoicism actually accomplishes is being able to experience emotions more fully, because the stoic is not controlled by them but in control of them. Your quote from Irvine is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>411954
> I discovered, though, that the goal of the Stoics was not to banish emotion from life but to banish negative emotions.
I would prefer to be unaffected by emotions in the rational sense. You can be logical and analytical even in joy, grief, pleasure, pain, terror, hate, etc.
With goal to banish negative emotions you will be just slave to them. You should accept negative as part of life and learn how to efficiently live with and maybe despite of pain, sorrow and other emotions.
>>412024
Perhaps I phrased it wrongly [Goal is to banish negative emotions].
Perhaps it's better said that the goal is to have "right goals" and banishment of negative emotions comes as a natural side effect. How about that? I know it sound utterly vague.
>>412065
Seems to be close to the deal.
>>412065
The only "right goals" in Stoicism is virtue in the sphere of your control. Everything else is an indifferent, though there is such a thing as a preferred indifferent.
>>412091
Preferred indifference? Elaborate.
As far as moralistic philosophies go, I like it. It provides a handy framework with which to reflect your circumstances though to better deal with them. That said, it's still not something to hold ahead of yourself.
>>412103
You can't control the weather, that is an indifferent. But if it was up to you, you'd rather it be sunny than raining. That's a preferred indifferent. Much like someone mugging you on the way back from work an unpreferred indifferent.
It's just a semantic sleight of hand to soften the fact that, in a very strict sense, the death of a Stoic's relative would be merely be an "indifferent", when the truth is that a Stoic prefers and is aversed to all kinds of things, he's just training himself to not be as affected by them.
>>411281
But there is no metaphysical truth.
Stoicism is good, but ultimately it should lead to Cynicism. There is nothing Stoicism has that Cynicism has, and Cynicism has it without being tainted by people who wanted to keep their comfortable life and their power over others by saying "Just a preferred indifferent" and "We should all play our roles, it just so happens mine means I can beat you and force you to work for my comfort"
>>413148
What a sophomoric understanding of Stoicism. A Stoic would argue we are social creatures, and as a citizen of our community and the universe, we must conduct ourselves properly in the social arena. Where do you even get this idea of Stoicism as a philosophy only for the elite? One of the greatest Stoics grew up a slave for fuck's sakes
>>411224
I don't get it.
What if your entire family gets raped and murdered.
What the fuck are your shitty "well that's just how things go might as well be happy" beliefs do you any good?
With that said I think Stoicism is the best outlook on life, better than Buddhism.
>>413168
I realize that, and I never said it was only for the elite, I said it was tainted by them. And them using the excuse of the social contract to justify their supremacy and with keeping the status quo makes perfect sense. They say we are all equal yet some men have the privilege to rule over others; they don't even have the excuse that the men deserve it because of what they did in a past life.
Cynics are also concerned with virtue and with virtuously treating their fellows citizens of the world, yet they are actually consistent with their belief that all men are equal.
>>413193
>They say we are all equal yet some men have the privilege to rule over others
There isn't a single piece of textual evidence that supports this as a Stoic tenet. Of course, they accept that it is the case they are ruled by tyrants and unjust men, but the whole point of the philosophy is to accept and come to grips with the injustice of the world. Aurelius was a Stoic, and by all accounts, was a pretty decent fucking guy and emperor.
>>413204
It's not just accepting that the world is shitty, they say that the world is necessary to be that way, what with the excuse that we are all actors with a part to play, and you can either play it well or badly. Epictetus talks about how even if one's father is vicious, ignorant, etc. that one should still obey him and serve him because he is your father. I believe he mentions that it is the same duty of a slave to its master.
Aurelius was indeed a decent man and ruler for his time, yet he still had slaves, still allowed the gladiatorial games, still waged wars against non-Romans, etc. You could say that he was an imperfect man, or that even he couldn't destroy the system, but he makes no mention of wanting to free his slaves or to fix Rome because Stoicism justified his actions.
>>413237
Epictetus always stresses the need to gently remind others where they're going wrong, an if they don't listen, then fuck 'em, not your problem - literally.
Stoicism isn't for pussies, desu (not aiming this at you, it applies to me as well), since honestly a Stoic the caliber of Epictetus would welcome a shitty parent since it would be great practice for his philosophy.
I also see no mention of the world "needing" to be a certain anything. it just is what it is.
>>413181
>What if your entire family gets raped and murdered.
Indeed, what if this happens?
>>413257
Except they didn't say it is what it is, they said you are to play the social rule you have been born into. Here is the quote:
>Duties are broadly defined by social roles. This man is your father: the relationship demands from you support, constant deference and tolerance for his verbal, even his physical, abuse. ‘But he’s a bad father.’ Look, nature has endeared you to a father, not necessarily a good one.
It's pretty clear he is saying you are to follow your social role regardless of anything. This implicitly supports tyranny and makes you indirectly commit vicious actions by continuing to support a vicious man.
>>413319
You couldn't live a redeeming, happy life.
stoicism = realist ascetic = inferior holiness
the closest most will ever get to the greatest we may ever become, but also far short
>>413344
Why not? If one has control of ones thoughts and feelings, then why should one allow something bad cause further harm in harming ones mental state?
>>413326
Implicitly, maybe. I don't necessarily disagree. I see Stoicism as the ultimate "fuck it, Ima do me" philosophy, everyone else be damned. All you can do is what's already in front of you, anyways. Not everyone's meant to save the world.
What's a good version of The Emperor's Handbook?
>>413358
But what you're describing is basically Cynicism, which goes back to my first comment. Now, there's not many Cynic texts so you kinda have to depend on the surviving Stoic texts, but I think it's a more complete and consistent philosophy.
>>413357
>If one has control of ones thoughts and feelings
>then why should one allow something bad cause further harm in harming ones mental state?
That's the problem. Would you really want to get up in the morning all jolly and happy after hearing that your entire family got wiped out? The dilemma is that being happy is one of the main objectives besides being moral and fulfilling goals, but you do not want to be happy.
And we can't control all our emotions, depending on the individual. In this case, I would say the majority of people would not be able to simply control their emotions on command. if something traumatic happened.
>>413375
Why wouldn't I want to be happy after my family has died? Obviously I wouldn't be happy because of that, but why would I want to allow their demise to cause me to be unhappy? That's just irrational and self-destructive.
>The dilemma is that being happy is one of the main objectives besides being moral and fulfilling goals, but you do not want to be happy.
No, the only goal is to be happy, to have eudomania, virtuous action is the way to gain it. You still want to be happy even after your family is gone, you just believe that you cannot be, that their demise has to automatically make you unhappy.
>And we can't control all our emotions, depending on the individual. In this case, I would say the majority of people would not be able to simply control their emotions on command. if something traumatic happened.
That is true, that is why Stoicism is concerned with training one to be capable of doing that.
>>413326
>It's pretty clear he is saying you are to follow your social role regardless of anything.
I disagree. Its about the duty inherent to a position and the response you give in relation to that. Your duty as a son is to listen to your father, and you should do so, but them being a cunt isn't an excuse to be a cunt to them too. See:
>Is a brother unjust? Well, keep your own situation towards him. Consider not what he does, but what you are to do to keep your own faculty of choice in a state conformable to nature.
>This implicitly supports tyranny and makes you indirectly commit vicious actions by continuing to support a vicious man.
No it doesn't. Stoicism doesnt beholden one to give up their morals because of duty.
>>413467
It's not about being a cunt to them, it's about realizing you don't have some obligation to them just because you've been born into an arbitrary system.
>No it doesn't. Stoicism doesnt beholden one to give up their morals because of duty.
One doesn't have to directly do something immoral to support a tyrant. By simply tilling the fields of your evil master, you are supporting him in his vices.
>>411224
it is too rationalist (on cosmology) but at least they hold equanimity as a principle. they do not gave a manual to reach equanimity, contrary to the dharma which explicitly says how to achieve equanimity.
buddhism>>epicurism>>>>stoicicsm
>>413502
>It's not about being a cunt to them, it's about realizing you don't have some obligation to them just because you've been born into an arbitrary system.
Hold on; Are we talking specifically about Epictetus' passage, or stoicism in general, 'cause i think i missed your point somewhere.
>One doesn't have to directly do something immoral to support a tyrant. By simply tilling the fields of your evil master, you are supporting him in his vices.
That doesn't negate what i said. If one serves under a tyrant they find to be unjust, then surely they would believe it to be immoral to support them, no? Serving under a tyrant may be ones duty, but a stoic would not necessarily prefer duty to morals.
>>413553
>Hold on; Are we talking specifically about Epictetus' passage, or stoicism in general, 'cause i think i missed your point somewhere.
You're saying Epictetus is saying don't be a cunt to your father, I'm saying you don't need to be a cunt, you just need have to obey him. Epictetus is saying you should obey him regardless.
>That doesn't negate what i said. If one serves under a tyrant they find to be unjust, then surely they would believe it to be immoral to support them, no? Serving under a tyrant may be ones duty, but a stoic would not necessarily prefer duty to morals.
Stoics believe doing your duty is a moral; if morals are open to interpretation and they sometimes conflict, they're not a very good set of morals.
>>413577
you just don't need to obey him*
>>413577
I think i get where we are now.
>Epictetus is saying you should obey him regardless.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
The passage isn't expressly about obedience, its just using that as an example, which is why he says:
>" Is anyone a father? *If so, it is implied* that the children should take care of him, submit to him in everything, patiently listen to his reproaches, his correction..."
He's just saying that its assumed that, due to the relationship between the two, the son is expected to listen and obey the father. He's using that to set up the next part:
>"But he is a bad father. Is you naturally entitled, then, to a good father? No, only to a father.
And here it's just talking about how you aren't entitled to (a) good anything. Its a really roundabout way to, what I think it the actual meaning of the passage:
>...Is a brother unjust? ...Consider not what he does...,For another will not hurt you unless you please. You will then be hurt when you think you are hurt.
>Stoics believe doing your duty is a moral; if morals are open to interpretation and they sometimes conflict, they're not a very good set of morals.
I think it boils down more to what would be more virtuous.
>>413676
So, do you deny that the Stoics supported the contemporary social system and the status quo?
>>413708
>So, do you deny that the Stoics supported the contemporary social system and the status quo?
Somewhat. I'm skeptical of the way you think they supported it.
>>413577
>if morals are open to interpretation and they sometimes conflict, they're not a very good set of morals.
Isn't that the vast majority of moral systems that isn't some ridiculous absurdity like Kant's categorical imperative?
>>413098
I agree.
>>413148
//Stoicism is good, but ultimately it should lead to Cynicism.//
- Why should it? I read your explanation but I still don't entirely get it... In view that we can't necessarily change people - that whether we are high up and comfortable or beggars, that we shouldn't, as it is rational, expect other people to be according to... maybe I misunderstood.
Care to elaborate?
>>413181
I don't know either. I'm just someone who desires understand Stoicism, especially since I'm new to it. I would assume you would first react and suffer a time, but eventually (perhaps several weeks, months or a few years later) would recognize that there is nothing you can do about your past. Perhaps you wouldn't be happy, but the goal would nevertheless be to rephrase your goals (with the side effect of minimizing negative emotions).
Other than that, why would you think it's better than Buddhism?
>>413319
Read above.
>>413346
//Far short// Why?
>>413375
I guess it would be then better rephrased not by what we want or don't want, but rather that it either
A: Doesn't seem or isn't natural for us to quickly bounce off such severe negative events. - Response: Who says we have to do it quickly?
B: We naturally react by suffering. This is natural to us. We likely still would suffer. Being a stoic we could still grieve and naturally react. We don't always have to be unfeeling, not that it's the ultimate purpose of stoicism anyways, or so I've come to assume.
>>413534
Too rationalist? Are you saying Buddhism is better than Epicureanism, which is better than Stoicism? If so, depends which Buddhism. Zen Buddhism would have you practicing sitting still and removing thought. Could it then be concluded that philosophies can be as if items in a box what everyone can subjectively choose?
>>413181
Yeah why not? You don't gain anything by whining
>>412023
nice picture
>>413877
>It just seems to align with their teachings about everyman having to play the part assigned to him.
Well, yes, but consider this passage:
17. Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If it is his pleasure you should act a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your business, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is another's.
I think its more about adhering to the role you reside in, that you came about due to happenstance, to remain tranquil. For example: Say you were a wealthy man due to a large inheritance. Should something happen to your wealth and you were to become a poor man or a beggar, than your new role, that of a beggar, is one that you did not willingly choose, but despite that you should accept it. When I say accept it, I don't mean accept it and never try to change it, but to remain tranquil and to avoid negative passions that would upset your peace.
Stoic bump.
It's life on Fun Mode
>>413181
Then either bitch about it and feel worse, or get over it and accept what you cannot change.
>>411880
Epictetus, a stoic, was once a slave. He has stated that the freedom of a man is not bound to his current physical condition. Saying that a slave may just as free as anyone else. "You may kill me, but you will never harm me"
>>413181
Marcus Aurelius states that at anytime one must be aware of the misfortunes which may befall him and be prepared with the knowledge that these acts are out of one's control. He gives the example of his family members death. They will die eventually, and if you did not kill them then when they die is out of you control and therefore you should not feel sadness.
>>416857
and that is exactly the problem with this philosophy, feeling sadness is crucial for maintaining humanity and morality, you can't just say fuck it, you need to get sad, angry, but you must also stay virtuous and eventually after long hard work you will regain happiness, but to simply ignoring or avoiding sadness is a recipe for a dystopian society or just general personal mischief.
If I were the dictator of the world, I would have everyone learning about stoicism.
I don't think there is anything that would improve society and make people happier than this.
People think happiness is found on sexual relationships and other kinds of pleasure or in other people. And end up miserable. As is the case of a cousin of mine. She thinks she always has to have a boyfriend and end up with assholes. Then, it all blows up and she gets miserable, drinks and so on.
Or the case of those Sex and the City style feminists, that eventually find out their life was empty and become bitter, lonely and unhappy.
Or PUAs, that think happiness is found on having sex with plenty of women and eventually become wrecks.
>>417164
It's not ignoring sadness, it's not indulging it more than you need to.
My only 'problem' with Stoicism is that it offers very little in terms of pragmatic advice.
In Buddhism there's the Eight Fold Path, with meditation (Right mindfulness/Right Concentration, Vispanna/Samatha) being a big thing that helps you gain insight and help you reach states of mind (jhanas) that in turn help you with insight.
Stoicism is basically 'just deal with it bro', and that's just not enough.
Stoicism combined with meditative practices would be pretty top tier.
>Tenants of self-control
>detracted from an understanding of the socios
YOooooooooooooooooooooooooo only in the 21st century can you fucking white kids have an ahistorical material philosophy now that history has ended. This is the "fucking white people" philosophy of the 21st century - except it's not white kids, it's black esperanto females who "fight" for their quasi religious cause. The people who follow this shit are as mindfully indebted to the metaphysicians as they are their deniers.
SOCIOLOGY OF PRAXIS NOT ECOLOGY OF PRACTICE.
Praise theory of bloom (but not in an ahistorical way)
>>417496
It's true there's no single thing like the Eight Fold Path, but mediative practices are mentioned throughout, like negative visualization and mindfulness. But the main thing they talk about and the most important is the right mindset to have and the philosophy behind it; if you don't rationally believe why you should think a certain way, meditating isn't going to help.
>>417585
What the fuck are you even saying m8?
>>417618
>What the fuck are you even saying m8?
Yo I got banned yesterday so my original post got lost but holy fuck have you read some of the posts in this thread they may as well have invented a type face called middle class and been formatted in that.
The entire stoic philosophy exists as a religious bedrock.
>>414641
>Epicureanism, which is better than Stoicism?
those two do not say how to achieve the principles that they advocates.
do clearly the dhamma is superior
>>417618
>rationally believe why you should think a certain way,
faith his an hindrance and displays only your ignorance which is only dispelled after stream entry
>>417496
My only 'problem' with Stoicism is that it offers very little in terms of pragmatic advice.
What? The Enchiridion is full of pragmatic advice:
>1. ...Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." ...if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.
>3. With regard to whatever objects give you delight...tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed.
>11. Never say of anything, "I have lost it"; but, "I have returned it."...
Hell, The Meditations is nothing but pragmatic advice.
>Stoicism combined with meditative practices would be pretty top tier.
Thats what Negative Visualization is for.
>>418576
what's that you say
memekids on an andorran data entry board don't know what the fuck they're talking about
say it aint so
>>418576
>And then he said: practical knowledge is formally distinct from the theoretical!
In a lot of ways, I think the Stoics were fairly forward-thinking and their concepts of morality, while somewhat restrictive seem pretty sound (even if I don't abide by all of them). I'm especially keen on their conception of pantheism, as I think it's probably the most plausible conception of the divine.
if that pic is what stoicism is all about then fuck stoicism
self-control, restraint, and patience for a higher goal is cool and all but humanity never benefits much from "staying in their place"
>>419218
This is a good point. Same problem you run in to with Buddhism. If you succeed in desiring nothing, then you will just sit quietly until you expire from lack of food or water, or from exposure.
Of course, they would ask you why progress through adversity and acquisitiveness was such a good thing, and if everyone achieved enlightenment, then it would be fine if all of humanity died the next day. They'd move on to something better.
Stoicism is kind of a middle road. Try not to be too acquisitve and grasping and ambitious, accept what you can't change (knowing what can and can't be changed is the trick), learn to be happy with things only you control.
But you know, still DO stuff. Desire isn't inherently bad, just learn to manage your desires so they can reasonably be fulfilled.
>>419285
>Go find your holy proletariat and practice that.
lmao go jack off to the contours of your existing-non-existent holy cow.
>>419340
Doesn't that suffer from the same problems as achieving some form of enlightenment or spiritual satisfaction?
There is no ambition or innovation.
Where the Buddhist would expire, the Stoic would wind the clock each day.
His goals are tempered by realism, and he never strives to do the impossible.
He believes he knows the limits of his environment, something which is unknowable in totality, and in tempering his ambitions so that they never even attempt to challenge that boundary he dissuades exploration and conquest.
>>419720
Implying the totality isn't implicit in the action of his self-construction of the environment.
you've got the wrong end of the stick retard here let me hit you with it.
>>419728
How can he innovate while keeping his goals "entirely within his control"?
>>419735
Why are the two mutually exclusive when both are constituent of the other
>>419737
It's not innovation if the outcome is known.
The outcome is known if the situation is under his control.
It's not in his control if he doesn't understand all factors and variable.
He doesn't understand all factors and variables if he doesn't know everything.
>>419753
wow sick double duality nerd except perfect knowledge of the thing is not in itself knowledge but is the thing in itself i.e. as being - forms of "innovation" are as much an extension of one's knowledge even if the outcome is expectation - hence being as control is innovation even as the everything is known (in relation to itself, what you're calling the everything is one fourth of your fucked up platonism).
Like what the fuck you don't even believe what you're writing. Separate control as being from being as control and consider the external materiality in relation to the structure of the thing not as independent of it. the idea of outcome as separate from the thing is dumb-in-itself
>>419781
>Like what the fuck you don't even believe what you're writing.
I feel like you've probably studied philosophy, and I wandered into the thread with my stem degree asking innocent questions and now you're tossing around idioms to hide your buttmad or something.
I was barely able to interpret your first two responses, and now it's double dualities and other morrison-esque fauxjargon.
Oh wait, I get it, it's a joke.
You got me, funnyman.
Your singular modality unimorphic logic model is undermining itself by rotating along a adeistical grammar.
You've failed to incorporate a pseudo-realist physically based syntax into your self-sensory cognate-external-establishment of "knowledge".
In this sense "knowledge" is in fact a perfected totality as expressed in the pentapremise.
To know absolutely requires knowing knowledge of the known and unknown.
Even Tarantino knew this.
>>419813
sick here's to hoping you're not being sincere
>>416065
Best summary. Stoics realize that life is what you make of it, and should change both your actions and thoughts to make it better and happier.
>>411224
it's faggot shit
>>416828
Didn't Epictetus end up differently though?
Isn't that's why there is no another philosophy called Epicureanism?
>>417164
We can't eliminate these feelings you spoke up, and they are necessary. We are why and who we are because of evolution, and how we are serves a purpose.
Also we are flawed. We can be subject to crippling memories and trauma - events that are long past and you can do nothing about serves no use to anyone, and will then become the opposite of what you told us. It then doesn't maintain but wrecks one's productivity and ... so on and so forth.
I claim that to try and reduce or eliminate negative feelings about past events you can't do anything about (emphasis on can't do) is a good thing, because fretting over "spilled milk" (be it however severe an event) will rather than helping anyone damage you and possibly other people (your productivity, moods, and maybe lead you to depression or worse - suicide).
>>419878
actually, most faggots tend to be hedonistic. I don't think I've ever met or read about a truly stoic faggot.
>>417239
Why not Buddhism? Buddhism teaches that expectations are the root of suffering.
Also, you could have people learn about biases and fallacies because everyone commits them. Some more, some less. Fallacies and biases are one big reason in why humanity is so fucked up idiotic the times it is ... fucked up idiotic.
>>418225
Stoicism has a list of practices to achieve the goals, does it not? There's negative visualisation along other "ways to live" or methods.
>>419218
I wouldn't say it's all about that. I just found the picture quickly on Google. Didn't find a better one in that time frame. Stoicism has certain advice on what to do in case your life isn't going well. End goal is to be satisfied with it.
I do get your point - that we shouldn't entirely be satisfied and that would drive us. Indeed, good point. However, stoicism also advises us to carry out our duties. To live and work to our maximum... sort of as a side effect or directly as a practice to become as productive as we can.
This is reflected by ancient stoics who accepted life as it is but also reached very far: to becoming an emperor, to teaching several schools, to having great wealth even without seeking it much... or so it has been written.
>>419952
>negative visualisation
indeed, but the jhanas settles equanimity explicitly, but temporarily, when doing jhanas for the jhanas.
stoicism is really intellectual and it is not assured to reach equanimity by pure will.
>“By contemplating the impermanence of everything in the world, we are forced to recognize that every time we do something could be the last time we do it, and this recognition can invest the things we do with a significance and intensity that would otherwise be absent . We will no longer sleepwalk through our life. Some people, I realize, will find it depressing or even morbid to contemplate impermanence. I am nevertheless convinced that the only way we can be truly alive is if we make it our business periodically to entertain such thoughts.”
stoics should meditate and contemplate, just like the followers of the dharma.
>>419970
>stoicism is really intellectual and it is not assured to reach equanimity by pure will.
Pic related
>Lol Stoicism doesnt tell you how to achieve what it advocates.
>90% of its written works are NOTHING but telling you how to respond and how to respond to maintain your inner tranquility
>B-B-BUT ITS NOT GUARANTEED TO WORK
>>419218
>if that pic is what stoicism is all about then fuck stoicism
>>419720
There is no ambition or innovation.
>I have read nothing on stoicism but an image macro, but i feel knowledgeable enough to speak on it and dismiss it.
Go read up on preferred indifferents, and then Cicero's On Duty, champ.
There's nothing stopping a Stoic from being ambitious in anything.
Consider say, a competition; They would not avoid entering it because it leads to a prize or fortune, they would see it as a preferred indifferent. Its not something that furthers them being virtuous, but it is something that would be pretty sweet to have. Following that, they go into the competition with the mind set to do their absolute best, and not to when. If you go with the former and lose, you wont be disturbed, because you did everything in your control to win, (practiced, trained, dieted, etc...), but if you go with the latter, then you're setting yourself up to be disturbed because it hinges on things out of your control (someone just being plain better than you, a bad call from a ref, etc...).
>>420194
And not to win*
>>420194
>but it is something that would be pretty sweet to have
then you are not equanimous and do not even tend to it
>>420165
found the butthurt
>Live according to nature
Nitzesch already shot that dumb train of thought down.
>>420684
Its almost like you ignored the preceding sentence.
>>420165
compare their works with the suttas.
>“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
>“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.
>>420744
>“Again, with the stilling of applied and sustained thought, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the second jhāna…Again, with the fading away as well of rapture, a bhikkhu…enters upon and abides in the third jhāna…Again,a with the abandoning of pleasure and pain…a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhāna, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.
>“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent…as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element…This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.
>“Again, with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite,’ a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite space.
>“Whatever exists therein of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent…as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element…This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.
>“Again, by completely surmounting the base of infinite space, aware that ‘consciousness is infinite,’ a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite consciousness.
>“Whatever exists therein of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent…as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element…This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.
>“Again, by completely surmounting the base of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing,’ a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of nothingness.
>>420746
>“Whatever exists therein of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.”
What is with this weak as fuck Buddhist shitposter?
>>411849
Most of this is wrong, and a poor reading of some Cliff's Notes or the like. Also many of you are conflating ancient stoicism with the new stoicism advanced by Justus Lipsius.
> there are only two kinds of things: those things within our control and those things not in our control,
Nothing outside of a person is within that person's control, and not just because Stoicism was ultimately deterministic. Read Bobzein's book.
>They are correct that to upset ourselves about something we can not control is nonsensical
Stoic emotional theory is rooted in their psychology. The short run of it is only virtue is actually good and only vice actually bad, while everything else is indifferent (either preferred or dispreferred). Virtue and vice are actual shapes or configurations that the soul, which was physical, would take when someone assents to an impression (a technical term) to do something. The only way to become virtuous (as in assenting to impressions that are virtue) is to recognize through experience what is virtuous. Moral wisdom is thus equated with knowledge. For a simple of understanding of virtues, one may seem them as an element in decision-making that makes things go well.
The objective is not to see things as out of one's control, but to orient one's wishes and desires with things that are brought about by virtue. The idea is that this will allow one to become immune to the whims of Fate,
>>420883
>No one can stop having emotions, and no one should stop having emotions.
The stoics did not see the whole spectrum emotions as an essential part of the human experience. Only the positive ones (eupatheia) are needed for a good life. There is no consideration that one might only be able to consider something 'good' because of past experiences with something less good, or bad. This is because the only good is virtue, and it is an absolute kind of good. That is to say: good things must be good in and of themselves. Virtues are not able to be compared to things people would usually think are good (i.e., preferred indifferents) because these things are not unconditionally good.
>Apatheia (not apathy) allows our minds to be balanced in the thick of everyday life.
No. It is the realization that only virtues are good, and only vices can cause personal harm. Getting bitten by a dog is not a bad thing. Your wife cheating on you is not a bad thing. Being homeless or a slave is not a bad thing. Becoming angry/jealous/fearful (passions) is a bad thing because it derails the inherent rationality in the souls of all men. And when we lose our defining quality, virtue cannot happen.
Having the tendency to
>>420694
And MacIntyre show Nietzsche down
>>420194
>but it is something that would be pretty sweet to have
No, it is something that enables oen to follow virtue better.
>you wont be disturbed, because you did everything in your control to win
No, you won't be upset because losing the competition did not derail your ability to follow virtue and be virtuous.
At least read this before you idiots start being wrong
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism
>>420967
or just cheat and download Long and Sedley's translation of the basic sources.
>>420883
I was actually thinking way newer: William B. Irvine.
Irvine improved the in control-not in control system by adding things we have partial control over. What's Bobzein's book about?
Do you think what you stated in the end allows one to become more or less immune to the whims of "Fate"? Also, what is your opinion on Stoicism, then?
>>421648
Bobzein's book is 'Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy (Oxford, 1998)—a scholarly work, not for popular audiences. It deals with how the Stoics justified universal causal determinism, how they squared it with ideas of freedom and moral responsibility, and what challenges they faced for it in the ancient world.
I've not had reason to read Irvine's book, but it's got pretty positive reviews in academic journals. The problem with this idea of rebooting ancient Stocism, for me, is that one can't truly obviate the natural progression which Stoicism would have taken between the time of Marcus and now. This is also true for, LC Becker's 'A New Stoicism' (Princeton, 1998).
>>421648
I don't personally buy into Stoicism, because I do not believe in the existence of the soul.
I also think there is a possibility that writing moral philosophy is in itself isflawed: words might not be able to convey what it actually is that humans think/feel when they make employ ordinary morality.
>>411301
Slightly misinterpreted it anon, the stoic interpretation is closer to:
>events caused by fate
>whether or not we are happy with them is our choice
>can't change the event, only how you interpret it
Hope that cleared the stoic view up a little.
>>421784
You don't believe in a physical soul or you don't believe in the concept of a soul?
>>421738
//one can't truly obviate the natural progression which Stoicism would have taken between the time of Marcus and now//
- Exactly right.
In his book Irvine however said "I wrote this book with the following question in mind: If the ancient Stoics had taken it upon themselves to write a guidebook for the twenty-first century individuals - a book that would tell us how to have a good life - what might this book have looked like? The pages that follow are my answer to this question. (A Guide to the Good Life, Introduction chapter)
>>421784
I somewhat buy into Stoicism, but not because of my opinions on the existence or non-existence of "the soul". Why does whether a soul exists or not have strictly to do with a philosophy? I don't believe in the existence of a soul either. Would you think all ancient Stoics believed in souls? ... or why would you make such a conclusion:
"No souls, ergo no Stoic".
>>423945
>The pages that follow are my answer to this question.
at least he acknowledges that he speculates.
>>424106
>>424106
>>424170
>>424170
from the dharma, the reason of suffering is ignorance of things as they are, the ignorance leads to craving.
>>424352
>>411890
Pretty much how I feel as well. If I have to choose an employee or a business partner, I will always go with a stoic, reliable people achievers, they get shit done.
However, I am not one myself, and I prefer the cheap, simple, low effort pleasures of good meals, good music, good films, good books, good video games and a good rest.
A lack of danger, lack of stress, lack of pain and some form of entertainment is all I need to be satisfied and happy, and feel fulfilled.
>>424434
>A lack of danger, lack of stress, lack of pain and some form of entertainment is all I need to be satisfied and happy, and feel fulfilled.
all of these things that you appreciate depend on your income. if you cannot get those things, you will crave them and be in despair
>>425020
They do depend on my income, but they are also very cheap. Its not hard to be safe and comfortable nowadays.
>>425133
>>425135
What a rebel.
>>422742
Either. But there has also not yet been a solution to Descartes' mind-body dualism problem. So who knows, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the conscious self is the product of electricity or the like running through meat and water.
>>423945
>Why does whether a soul exists or not have strictly to do with a philosophy
>Would you think all ancient Stoics believed in souls?
The soul is not, of course, integral to a philosophical system of ethics. Shelly Kagan's books 'Normative ethics' and 'Beyond Morality' are some good recent examples of that; and, for being academic philosophizing, quite easy to read.
All ancient Stoics did believe in a soul. The existence of a physical, uniform soul (as opposed to the Platonic soul which has different parts which conflict with one another) is at the heart of their moral philosophy. Every Stoic had to believe in the soul for them to agree with the conclusion that virtue is sufficient for happiness, and that the only good is virtue.
That said, their take on formal logic and dialectics and natural science don't directly involve their more metaphysical beliefs. But it all does come back around to living according to nature/secunda naturam.
>>423945
>In his book Irvine however said
The thing with that, which he would of course know, is that no doctrinal Stoic text has survived in its entirety or even majority from antiquity.
There are, of course, Seneca's Dialogi, his essays, his the letters to Lucilius, and other sources. But these only reflect later interpretations of what original Early Stoa thinkers wrote. And most of the stuff known from Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrisippus and Possidonius comes from sources which are critical of their thinking.
In short: it's hard to write as if you were an ancient Stoic because their explanations for the various principles and criticisms do not exist.
>>425084
>Its not hard to be safe and comfortable nowadays
But is being comfortable the same as being happy? Shouldn't true personal welfare be an internal distinction, as opposed to being relative to something external?
We've all had moments like this: I'm happy because this food I'm eating is really delicious; and I think this food is really delicious because it tastes better than things I've had previously.
If one's happiness at that moment depends on a thing's relative goodness, are you actually happy for yourself or only because of the food?
Or so the Stoics might ask.
>>411224
Any good, comprehensive works on Stoicism?
>>425135
Stop screwing with my head. Jokes aside, good comic. Are you trying to say something with the comics?
Who was the woman and why does she say "This game is fun" in the end?
>>425316
//The existence of a physical, uniform soul is at the heart of their moral philosophy//
-This is interesting. I did not know this. I wonder why they concluded virtue from the existence of a soul... if they would've been the same even if they knew soul not to exist.
Any references...sources for your claim? I'm just new to Stoicism, so...
>>425330
Then how would we call this of what we are (more or less) talking about this thread - this which we currently call Stoicism?
It certainly isn't "preference/enlightened hedonism"... or is it? Or something else entirely?
...What are we dealing with, then... exactly?
Or more exactly, what do we know about actual ancient Stoics?
//it's hard to write as if you were an ancient Stoic because their explanations for the various principles and criticisms do not exist//
- You mean that they didn't give explanations for why they advised certain people to act certain way in certain situations?
>>425392
>virtue from the existence of a soul.
Virtue *is* the soul when it taken on a certain configuration; and that is why they claim that virtue and vice are actual living things.
Virtue isn't some abstract idea or utilitarian concept of what is best. It is literally the soul moving into a certain shape (or, more accurately, a state of tension) after it has received an impression and assented to it, out of which comes an action.
>Any references...sources for your claim?
For sources, Long & Sedley is what most papers cite, since its most of the good stuff and its translated.
http://bookfi.net/md5/51FDDDF58C1519235AD87664161A8668
>>425392
To expand on the whole virtue being the soul thing
Example:
If a rabid dog is running at me, my soul (which includes the five human senses. aspects of the soul are others the language processing part, the procreative part, and the ruling part) will take in that visual data. Depending on how my particular soul is configured, the hegemonikon (the ruling part) will create an 'impression'. This is instinctual and completely out of my control, and therefore immune from moral judgement.
Let's say that the impression I get is 'this is a threat to me'. The next thing to happen is called 'assent'. This is deemed to be an active process in control of the conscious mind. I have the option of either assenting to the impression or denying it. One problem is that the physiological reaction that come in hand with an impression of fear (eyes dialating, adrenal system kicking into gear, increased heart rate. And these are also immune from moral judgement because they are instinctual), these symptoms often confuse one's judgement. Thus, because my body *feels* like the dog is a threat, I might be inclined to agree with that impression and assent to it, and so run away from the dog.
>>425392
Simone de Beauvoir.
>>425762
If, however, I deny this impression that the dog is a threat, then my mind will come up with another impression. Let's say that the second impression is 'this dog must be neutralized', I assent to it, and then tackle and pin the dog down so that it doesn't bite anyone.
When my soul offers up the second impression, it has begun to take a form that is close to the virtue of bravery. When I assent to it, the physical reconfiguration that my soul has taken is said *to be* the virtue of bravery.
The whole schtick with the Wise Man is that he does not get 'the wrong impression'. His soul would be configured in such a way that he would not have to think about the dog being a threat (because the dog itself is not a vice, nor is getting rabies and dying; and only vices are unconditionally bad). The thought would literally never have entered his mind: the first impression (in the technical sense) he would get from the dog is the one informed by bravery.
>>425381
John Sellars, 'Stoicism' (2006)
Margaret Graver, 'Stoicism and Emotion' (2007)
FH Sandbach, 'The Stoics' (2nd ed. 1989)
The biggest most comprehensive single account would be the several volumes by Terry Irwin, 'The Development of Ethics'. But that covers everyone.
All these books can be found on libgen and the like
>>425392
>Then how would we call this of what we are (more or less) talking about this thread
This thread primarily hits on Stoic emotional theory, but without any grounding it in their theory of ethics. Stoicism endorses nothing like the early Christian ascetics, who go out of their way to deprive themselves of life's various goods.
One might also mention that the three fully-approved jobs for an ancient Stoic were: being a teacher; advising a king; being a king.
>>425358
I'm no expert, but this seems a misrepresentation.
>>425859
I don't get how or why soul belief was central to Stoicism, if it at all was.
- and if it was, then why should it matter...? Couldn't we just say they were wrong about that part and still accept the rest of philosophy (without soul part) as Stoicism?
>>426874
Why are 'souls' wrong?
>>426882
I mean, what does it matter that they believed in the existence of souls? Can't Stoicism still be Stoicism without the souls part?
>>426937
>>426874
Without the soul you lose the rationale to make your decisions 'secunda naturam'/according to nature. The soul is conceived of as being inherently rational. This is because it is made out of the divine pneuma (which is also characterized by logos/rationality).
How could you otherwise but Stoically describe the conscious self? A side effect of the brain? What, then, would the basis be for saying the human mind is inherently rational if it is not derived from something that is also inherently rational? You'd have to think up another way to argue why humans are characterized by logicality, and therefore it is appropriate for them to make decisions in line with what will happen (i.e., in line with the divine logos).
Give this (the ethics section) a read through for a better explanation:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Eth
>>427057
Or, you can, you know, just recognize that the belief in souls is not rational in the first place.
>>411224
Essentially my go to mindset, so it's good. Only issue is, if you try to help others gain the same knowledge, they look at you like your crazy, at least in the west.
This was evident when I began making a pair of wajari out of hemp rope about a week ago, and despite only finishing one sandal so far, I've been met with nothing but mockery. Worst off is even when I do say my peace they blow it off. I just equate it to it hitting to close to home, and the hard reality that is faced when confronting those truths.
>>427079
>Or, you can, you know, just recognize that the belief in souls is not rational in the first place.
rationality is itself a faith/belief.
>>425796
Ok, so we can somewhat define a virtue, but what of vices? Is it in similar regard as a virtue as far as being the manifested actions of our consciousness? If so, what is to distinguish a vice from virtue?
>>427079
Agreed. Drop the souls, "living in accordance with nature" and assertions that man is inherently rational and you have an excellent philosophy.
>>411479
What?
>>419952
I've never understood that. If I actually thought I was going to die tommorrow I wouldn't bother going to work, and thus I'd never work.
>>429834
if you thought that you would die, you would cease to be an hedonist and accept your fate. pains and pleasures concerns only the hedonist.
this is what nietzche understood.
only the eternal return changes your life since it means that as soon as you accept samsara, as soon as you stop despising life, as soon as you stop being a nihilist, your existence changes in accessing a different perspective on existence. the eternal return is a surrender, an abdication of your self before your sufferings and joys stemming form your failure to fulfil your wish to live in hedonism, in avidity towards pleasures and aversion towards pains. once you abdicate, you destroy hedonism.
existentialism is a nihilism since it despises life so much that he tries to change it.
>>432472
How would t go about changing it?
... and why did I reply that to him... what are you implying?
>>432472
>implying I don't want to enjoy myself before any "final moments"
>implying a hedonist wouldn't go for one last romp
>>433761
it means that your imagination/rationality rarely does change you.
to think that you will die tomorrow and your hedonism would not stop is like being an only child and imagining.rationalizing that it must be great to have a sister, typically through an incest fetish, whereas Sisters are different from how you seem to think. Its like being next to a woman who is attractive by all means, but then having none of the thoughts you normally would about that girl.
your stance is that your imagination gives you an accurate account of what would happen if you embrace such or such position.
my stance is that imagination does not give anything of value since I do not dare, contrary to you, to equate my deliriums with my direct experiences.
>>432472
>if you thought that you would die, you would cease to be an hedonist
This kind of depends on the person I think. I know I wouldn't
>>413181
Seneca uses the example of Stilpon:
>For Stilpo, after his country was captured and his children and his wife lost, as he emerged from the general desolation alone and yet happy, spoke as follows to Demetrius, called Sacker of Cities because of the destruction he brought upon them, in answer to the question whether he had lost anything: "I have all my goods with me!"
"Omnia mea mecum sunt"
Stoicism is for those not motivated enough to enact their will upon the world.
>>435547
>Stoicism is for those not motivated enough to enact their will upon the world.
Not really. A stoic would actually always do his best. Laziness is not virtuous.
>>435641
>Fatalism
>Be satisfied with your current situation
>Live in accordance with nature
>>435701
"Be satisfied with your situation" does not mean you should not work hard.
>>435799
There's a difference between working hard and working to reshape the world.
>>435886
That does not mean one will not induce the other. Besides, by the very virtue of being we are enacting our will upon the world whether we intend to or not.
Not to mention satisfaction does not mean stagnation.
>>419900
Two different people my native family member.
ok
>>421784
>I don't personally buy into Stoicism, because I do not believe in the existence of the soul.
It's possible to follow stoic practices for a life philosophy without believing in the supernatural parts of it. You can use practical stoicism to help deal with the stresses of life.
>>411224
>Not Epicureanism
I just want to enjoy my life, friend.
>>434611
But it's not entirely like this either, is it?
(This >>425358)
But what does this even mean //existentialism is a nihilism since it despises life so much that he tries to change it.// ... despises life?
Veritasium phrased that we can only live (optimistic nihilism?) because of nihilism. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKR-HydGohQ ]
//your stance is that your imagination gives you an accurate account of what would happen if you embrace such or such position. //
- Sorry, a little slow and tired today hence I didn't get it. I'll re-read it later, but ... did what I say imply that my imagination would give me an accurate account of what would happen [in those cases]?
>>435886
Maybe you don't work hard "for something". Maybe you work hard according to your principles?
>>437847
Can we call such a person who does exactly that also a Stoic?
>>438701
I'll never understand why people seem to think nihilism is such a depressing notion. I agree with the guy in that video; it's an incredibly liberating idea.
>>437859
What do you mean?
>>439262
He means he wants to enjoy his life. What's there not to get? Stoics tend to be pretty anti-pleasure.
>>411224
It's simplistic.
>>413098
Thats the truth Emil!
>>437859
The sane man's philosophy.
ok
>>411224
i thought stoicism was just a philosophy of a balanced life. what the fuck?
>>439274
How are Stoics in any way anti-pleasure?
>>442126
Body pleasure is petty and temporary.
>>411224
Stoicism is probably the closest philosophy has ever come to determining how to live a "good life".
The metaphysics are useless but the ethics are hard to argue against imo:
Strive for the four virtues:
-Wisdom
-Justice
-Courage
-Moderation
And do so according to your own nature.
>>442126
You're supposed to neither seek pleasure as a good, nor avoid pain as an evil.
>>443068
Look, a faggot.
>>411224
I consider myself a Stoic in training, so I find Stoicism to be one of the best outlooks on life. It also helps strengthen me in my religious pursuits.
>stoics have no fun
All memes aside, there's nothing in Stoic philosophy that's anti-fun. Hell, compared to Buddhism and other ascetic philosophies Stoicism is pretty relaxed. You're fully allowed to drink and enjoy some wine, for example, as long as you don't form attachment to the wine and always keep in mind that is is just a material object and should be treated as such.
With that being said, trainees are encouraged to avoid things like wine and other hedonistic pleasures until they've trained their willpower and can partake in those things responsibly.
And as usual, if anyone has any questions I'll be lurking this thread a while so feel free to ask.
>>443056
life in general is pretty and temporary, so might as well
>>425822
I've already read Epictetus, most of Seneca, and Aurelius. Would any of these still be worth checking out?
>>411224
>read marcus aurelius
>read seneca shortness of life
>realize my job is a fucking waste of life
>spread the word, life is short, quit and live your life
>people say I'm trying to make everyone quit
>get transferred out and quit because practice what preach
>years later doing exactly what I want
Careful, Icarus.
>>411224
good in some ways, I can respect anti-hedonism but I reject fatalism despite determinist beliefs- what is the point in not fighting? Life is a fight, to get better- but only if it improves oneself'
I can appreciate the satisfaction thing but one must strive for better things- not for personal gain but development
>>443757
>All memes aside, there's nothing in Stoic philosophy that's anti-fun. Hell, compared to Buddhism and other ascetic philosophies Stoicism is pretty relaxed. You're fully allowed to drink and enjoy some wine, for example, as long as you don't form attachment to the wine and always keep in mind that is is just a material object and should be treated as such.
toplel
what matters is ''why do you want pleasure to the point of seeking it and dwell in it''
>>427046
http://existentialcomics.com/
>>411224
Jesus christ that is literally me.
>>411320
>"You're supposed to deny yourself temporary crappy bursts of happiness to cut down on how often that stuff pops up, so that you can work on lasting happiness." ... elaborate?
It's like living in a box versus building a shack.
one keeps you out of the rain for maybe a night, the other lasts a lot longer but takes more work.
>>445914
>That first comic
>>443860
You could read William B. Irvine's "A Guide to the Good Life" and subjectively compare the philosophy. It's supposed to be the same.
>>443874
Is that greentext consistent with your actual life and if so, how long did it take after quitting to get to where you wanted to get and what did you really want to do?
>>443958
//what is the point in not fighting//
Are you assuming that Stoics upon concept of fatalism renounce themselves to fate and don't fight?
>>445932
Cheers!
>>445941
I don't exactly know what the person meant with that sentence, but I don't think the box-shack analogy applies. I would assume a Stoic could and possibly would live in both a box and a shack and find some joy in both of them, because after all he might be doing way worse.
I would assume crappy bursts of happiness would then be...
Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the highest form of good, or even the only form of good. ... I guess with Stoicism the idea is that maybe pleasure isn't highest good or in the focus as much as having correct goals is? To some degree then I would assume then that pleasure part of hedonism (without clinging to pleasure) is compatible with stoicism.
Anyone? Am I right?
>>411224
yet another will defying philosophy
>>446407
How does it defy will? What will?
>>411224
Is temporariness itself temporary?
>>411265
Ataraxia, actually.
>>411479
Bollocks. They were considered rivals schools of thought, but weren't polar opposites at all. They share some beliefs.
>>411304
Not sure of specific details, but Stoicism covers living a virtuous and resilient life, while Epicureanism covers attaining inner tranquility by spending more time with friends, self-reflection, meditation and simplicity.
I need to read up on them more.
to bad that the stoicts and the epicurists do not know how to meditate and go into the jhanas.
>>446994
Accepting your fate when you could have been doing everything fighting against it is how. It lulls you into a habit of indifference.
>>411320
what does he mean by this
>>418225
Anyone have difficulty getting a meditation/mindfulness practice started? Any suggestions? Just seems like a great idea that I never have time for or put off unnecessarily.
>>447652
the point is to become a phenomenologist: study what occurs through you, with as much equanimity/ataraxia/equipoise/upekka as possible and always benevolence
see https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S7475103#p7478018
watch ajhan brham for a good introduction
https://www.youtube.com/user/DhammalokaMeditation/videos
>>419218
what I read so far in this thread is that many people somehow take those rules way to literal and as written in stone. I see myself close to stoicism and I understand it as being a self-reflected human being looking for long-term happiness instead of short-term hedonistic happiness and came to many of the stoic conclusions before I ever read Aurelius. And so would anyone else.
>>417239
And I agree with this one. One thing that affects everyone is on how to find happiness and sense in our lives. And never was society so free and never were young people released into the void like today. It would give solace to many if the young people of today would know that they are not the only one and have a "guideline" on how to lead a "good" life.
