>You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realise this and you will find strength
/his/ seems to like stoicism, so lets have a Stoicism General.
I'm trying to read Meditations daily, just a little bit, to focus my mind before getting into things during the day, it's a great aid for that kind of stuff.
all self-help philosophy is trash
Stoicism is avoiding pain instead of confronting it, it's pretty disgusting in all honesty
>>998837
If you ever get the time, try to read the Enchiridion by Epictetus.
>>998837
He could surely have controlled his succession though, what a fuck-up.
>>998886
RUINED IT
>>998877
Looking into it now, any recommendations for a translation?
Marcus is a great starting point, but as he was a student of stoicism rather than a stoic thinker per se, I'm interested to read people like Epictetus to get a different perspective on it
>>998855
t.untermensch
>>998866
How so? Stoicism doesn't appear to flee from pain like hedonism. How does one confront pain?
>>998855
>all philosophical ethical system are trash.
This is what you're saying. Which is retarded. No ethical system is as practical as stocism. This has been proven time and time again in practice since its founding and up to the modern day.
It's also proven by the fact it was a large influence on the development of cognitive behavioural therapy.
>>998866
But that's wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RwosCDOwRHQ
>>998837
Is that Marcus Aurelius?
I forget which Roman Emperor was known for Stoicism
>>998926
Confronting pain means introspecting, actually figuring out where your inner pain and dread comes from, all stoicism does is suppress your gut reactions to things, it actively denies an essential part of the human experience.
>>998955
It certainly wasn't that pussy bitch Hadrian
>>998955
Yup, Marcus Aurelius.
Think there were actually a few stoic emperors, but he's the most known for it
>>998866
T. Someone that doesn't know anything about stoicism. There's always a fag like you in these threads. You barge in here thinking you're making some profound comment when you're just embarrassing yourself by showing your lack of knowledge.
A stoic accepts pain as a normal human experience, just like happyness or any other feeling. But that doesn't mean a stoic would go out seeking pain. The majority of human pain is caused by the way we think, by irrational thoughts. Stoicism is about mastering the way you think to avoid needless problems.
Epictectus was a slave for the first quarter of his life and was beaten by his master nearly into a cripple.
>>998986
>pain is caused by the way we think
Feelings don't necessitate thought
>>998986
A stoic also assumes that the universe operates in a rational fashion, when we know this is patently false
>>999024
The universe DOES operate in a rational fashion, it's only at a subatomic level that quantum uncertainty is a factor.
>>999000
>double trips
>unchecked
I apologize for myself and everyone else in this thread
>>999024
The workings of the universe set the definition of rational.
>>999044
Isn't what happens at the subatomic level the basis for everything? If the bottom of a pyramid phases in and out of existence how does the rest stay perfectly still?
>>998956
You're confusing stoicism with something else.
Pain doesn't come from the inside. It comes from your interpretation of outside events. An event occurs, you ascribe some positive or negative value to it, which elicits an emotional response.
Most emotional pain comes from wanting to control what you can't control, things which are not your own. For example, reputation, social status, health, property, and people are not in your control. The only things in your control are your opinions, pursuits, desires, and aversion (basically things you don't want to do).
If you stake your identity into pursuing things outside of your control, you're only asking for disappointment, anger, pain, and other negative emotions.
>>999064
The problem there is that by avoiding disappointment and heartbreak, the stoic also never feels the joys of falling in love
>>999061
Yes, but despite this, at everything except a subatomic level, the universe appears to function along observable patterns. For all intents and purposes besides subatomic research, the universe is a structured, ordered existence.
This is why classical and quantum mechanics exist alongside each other, one didn't replace the other.
As for the how, go ask /sci/, they'll give you a fuller answer
>>999024
It is rational otherwise we wouldn't be doing science or anything consistent. By definition it has to be rational in order to do science.
>>999024
The universe sets the standards (ex. life/death cycle, laws of physics) which human beings confront daily. They are fundamentally irrational because they can't accept or don't understand them.
>>999074
Baseless assertion. I've been in love and have had relationships.
Epictectus and Marcus Aurelius were both married. There's nothing contradictory. You can fall in love and have children. If you break up, accept that it's a normal thing and accept that what you're feeling is a common human experience.
>>999074
There is nothing prohibiting a stoic from falling in love. Stoics don't avoid actions that can lead to disappointment, they just perform those actions knowing that they do not have full control over them. So if something doesn't go as planned, you don't become depressed, or whatever, because from the get go your were aware that it was something outside of your control.
As I mentioned previously. Your health is not in your control. But does that mean you should never take care of your health? Of course not. You should exercise and eat well, however, that does not change the fact your health is ultimately outside of your control. You can't control diseases, genetics, or aging. You could be the fittest man on the planet, yet still develop cancer a year later.
>>999000
I'm talking about emotions. Has a man ever been depressed without ever thinking?
>>998837
Do you genuinely believe in an objective virtue and way of nature? If yes how do you justify this?
>>998889
I find it hard to take stoiicsm seriously because of this.
>>999238
>discrediting an entire philosophy because a student of it, one of the best rulers in history, who ruled during a golden age, made a poor choice for his succession
>>999238
Stocism has existed since nearly 300bc, way before Aurelius.
And to be fair to Aurelius, his son never showed his true nature UNTIL his father died and he gained power. Nobody suspected he was the way he was.
>>999194
I would advise you to read these two articles to get an idea of some of the contemporary debate.
http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2014/11/26/the-debate-do-you-need-god-to-be-a-stoic/
http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/07/12/providence-or-atoms-atoms-donald-robertson/
>>999074
Wew, moving the goalposts AND strawmanning? How come your mom lets you have two shit arguments?
>>999194
not OP: way of nature basically means "everything out of your control". In effect, it's the laws of the universe. The universe appears to have laws, and they operate sans human intervention, ergo there are laws of nature / way of nature.
If you mean that nature is intrinsically good, that's a more philosophic question than semantic, if you know what I mean.
>reading meditations
>walking home one night, feeling depressed
>remember what i've read, think to myself about how my mental state is entirely my choice and i can choose to be happy instead
>remember the passage where he talks about the beauty of nature and imperfection, with the example of cracked bread and such
>start listening to the sounds of the insects and the wind, and look at the tall trees and leaves (foresty area)
>feel better
Guys, I think this stuff is actually working.
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Is it garbage? I feel like it conflicts with Stoicism. Is Stoicism self-actualization and thus only capable of being appreciated when all other needs are met?
>>999587
I'll give you a practical example.
Vice Admiral Stockton was a stoic in captivity in a hanoi prison during the Vietnam war, for over 6 years. 4 years were spent in complete isolation. Torture was a frequent experience throughout his stay. He credits his survival entirely to Stoicism. He didn't lose his dignity or will because that's the only thing that was truly his.
Where would Maslow put him in the hierarchy of needs in that prison?
>>999587
The fact that Maslow equates sex with food is probably a decent indicator of its quality
>>999647
He probably didn't even have his physiological (food, water, sleep) needs met a lot of the time, meaning he had nothing in the pyramid. I guess Epictetus could also be a good example but I'm not sure how much of a Stoic he was before he was free.
I guess I might be looking at it wrong. People whose needs are not being met rarely care about philosophy, but it would be helpful in perservering.
>>999676
>persevering
sorry
> You have power over your mind, not outside events.
This statement is factually wrong. In practice you have some degree of power over outside events. Contrary some things about your mind can't be controlled. For example all your experience depends on outside world and you can't just fall into perfect illusory reality and delude yourself to feel one way and not another. Why anyone would even bother with stoicism is beyond me.
>>999734
>This statement is factually wrong. In practice you have some degree of power over outside events.
This is a strawman.
No stoic says you can't control outside events. You can, to various extents, but can you completely control them? No.
>Contrary some things about your mind can't be controlled. For example all your experience depends on outside world and you can't just fall into perfect illusory reality and delude yourself to feel one way and not another.
This is another straw man.
Stocism is about choosing how you respond to outside events, not trying to live in some illusory world.
>Why anyone would even bother with stoicism is beyond me.
Yes, having an elementary understand of stocism seems to be beyond you.
>>998855
It's the only good kind desu
>>999769
> This is a strawman.
Nice try but it is a direct quote from original poster.
> but can you completely control them?
You have a power over outside events. Maybe not absolute. But your power over mind isn't absolute either. So... What exactly a point of such counter argument?
> not trying to live in some illusory world
Well... Other poster claimed that the only things in your control are opinions, pursuits and desires. All the subjective factors basically. Meaning that your interactions with the world more focused on virtual reality created in your head.
>>999074
Aside from the fact that the love you speak of is merely a chemical reaction easily replaced with other things and not true divine love, I agree with what you're saying. However, neither confronting nor running away from your pain are effective philosophies. Instead, one should welcome their pain with open arms, as pain is the only thing that helps us bloom.
Does anyone know if the "Stoic Six Pack" books are any good? Like the physical copies.
>>999829
>Nice try but it is a direct quote from original poster.
I am the poster you replied to. And your post is a strawman and demonstrates you don't even have a basic reading of the stoic thinkers or an understanding of the ideas you're arguing against.
What I said was a paraphrasing of a paragraph from Epictetus' discourses. When stoics say something is "outside of your control", they don't necessarily mean you can't influence this thing to some extent. Generally you can influence outside events (do you honestly think someone would argue otherwise?), but can you completely control them? Influence and control are not the same thing. I can influence someone's opinion about me by being polite and respectful, but do I have complete control over what they think of me? No. They can still not like me for whatever reason.
>You have a power over outside events. Maybe not absolute. But your power over mind isn't absolute either. So... What exactly a point of such counter argument?
It's a counter argument that corrected your misunderstanding of the stoic position.
Disregarding illness or influence by drugs, you have absolute control over your mind. You can choose what to think or not to think.
1 of 2.
>>999829
>Well... Other poster claimed that the only things in your control are opinions, pursuits and desires. All the subjective factors basically. Meaning that your interactions with the world more focused on virtual reality created in your head.
Yes, the only things that are absolutely in your control are your opinions, pursuits, and desires. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. What is in your mind is going to be something that is in reference to something outside of yourself or some abstract variation thereof, the point is that any value judgment you apply to it are entirely up to you.
For example (I will simplify this for time sake). Your wife dies. You can either break down and cry, fall into depression, consider suicide, blame the world, ask "why me?", or whatever else. Or you can accept it's an unfortunate event, but one is that entirely in line with nature: people die and that is simply how the universe is structured. Instead of lamenting, interpret the event in a different manner. Accept that your wife dying is an event outside of your control. You can even view it in a positive manner and be thankful that you have the strength and will power to deal with such an event.
2 of 2
>>1000108
It's a collection of the main surviving works from Epictetus, Aurelius, and Seneca. You'll be set for life with these.
>>100000
>>1000000
>>999485
Good job, anon. What's got you down?
>>999485
>remember what i've read, think to myself about how my mental state is entirely my choice and i can choose to be happy instead
Contradicted by modern psychology and even other ancient thinkers.
You can choose how you respond to feelings which in turn influences those feelings but you cannot simply change feelings as you see fit anymore than you could choose to make pain feel like pleasure.
>start listening to the sounds of the insects and the wind, and look at the tall trees and leaves
Just basic mindfulness
>>1000318
>You can choose how you respond to feelings which in turn influences those feelings but you cannot simply change feelings as you see fit anymore than you could choose to make pain feel like pleasure.
No stoic writer claims you can switch of feelings like a light switch. The chap you're responding has some misconceptions.
>>999485
Marcus Aurelius was the emperor of Rome, and one of the best emperors in Roman history at that.
If we're applying 'you will know them by their fruits' to stoicism, it's hard to pick a better example than Marcus
>>999587
Surely stoicism has a hand in almost every stage of the hierarchy.
Self actualisation is certainly a goal, but it's not like it's the only aspect of the philosophy, it's actually pretty down to earth
>>1000186
> You can choose what to think or not to think.
Can you prove this? For example choose to come up with solution to Riemann conjuncture?! Let me guess, you can't. Because you lack knowledge in abstract algebra or experience in such field. Even if you by some miracle have that, hundreds years ago you couldn't acquire both. Mathematic wasn't even here. Mind is limited by world where it exists and by what it can directly experience. In the end, all of your mind is reflection of outside world and if your mind is free from external reality. Guess what there is useful word for that mental state. Insanity. Human perspective, decisions, behaviors and logic are limited. There is no absolute control over mind.
>>1000248
> Yes, the only things that are absolutely in your control are your opinions
How it works? Can you for example decide like for a day that stoicism is absolutely wrong? Not play devil advocate, not merely pretending or such but plain and simple decide that your honest opinion on stoicism for tomorrow would be that you can't agree with it? There shouldn't be a problem if you are in total control of your opinion. But I just can't believe that any human being can plan to change opinions like that. Such idea even sounds absurd but act should be possible under absolute control.
>>1000262
> hesrightyouknow.jpb
My favorite porn actress!
>>1001740
Your argument is a strawman.
Your thoughts are in your control, but what you can think about depends on your socialisation, experience, and environment. No stoic is saying you can think of something you don't have any knowledge of.
You can choose how you respond to things outside of yourself.
deep sadness and self-destruction, as well as other paralyzing extremes are important parts of the human experience.
>>1000248
I don't see a real problem with crying over dead people. What you feel and sense is something that you shouldn't control. Feedback is base of every rational decision. You don't really need to view everything in positive manner. You need to know how deal with world even in most negative mental states possible. Mind is only a mediator between how you control world and how can be you controlled by all world. To be in control you need to know what you can realistically control. For this reason I doubt any claim of absolute or total control over anything. It is wishful thinking born from unclear understanding of boundaries.
>>1001783
> You can choose how you respond to things outside of yourself.
The point here is that you can't control your choice in the end. It is simple to prove. To control some of that choices you need to made other choices all of them also need to be under your control. Basically infinite introspection is impossible and your choice of highest order must be somewhat arbitrary. Your mind can't be under absolute control in the end so some choices are just here, free from any control from your consciousness and such.
>>1001836
Do you not have absolute control over choosing to count to 5 instead of 6? What about responding neutrally to someone doing a wrong to you, instead of becoming angry and starting an argument?
>>1001865
I'm not following your argument. It doesn't make sense and some of the things you are saying are not defined.
>>1001800
Okay. How is that an argument against stocism?
>>1001880
stoicism lessens what it means to be a human
>>1001874
> over choosing to count to 5 instead of 6
Yes. Does it means that you can control anything in you mind? I wouldn't generalize that result. Just imagine how well you can control counting instead to 5 billions or 6 billions. Control over like bunch of trivial mental tasks is far from absolute control. To be honest this is far even from reliable.
>>1001890
Your argument is based on a misconception of stocism. The idea that stoics are unfeeling is a stereotype and not an accurate assessment of the stoic position.
In fact the position that you've stated is exactly what a stoic would say. They are part of the human experience. The difference is that a stoic would argue you that you should not be ruled by them. Accept the experience as a human experience, but do not let it rule you.
>>1001915
Yes, if you were counting to 5 million, you could forget where you were and mess up. But that doesn't change the fact that ultimately you decided to count to 5 million.
You have also convientently missed my other example.
>>1001879
> I'm not following your argument
To made any choice is to give up control over your mind. Idea that you can freely control your opinion is counter productive if you try to adhere to one. If you don't try then your opinion just doesn't matter.
>>1001918
No, the idea of how stoicism approaches these feelings is what lessens the experiences.
Notice I used words such as "self-destruction" and "paralyzing".
>>998837
Hello is Neostoicism allowed here?
>>1001938
Chopping your arm off is also a human experience. Why don't you do that, you're denying human experience by not doing it.
Your counter argument mite be that, "chopping your arm off is self-inflected". So is depression and misery, they are festered by the way you think about events. So why is depression and misery more valid than chopping your arm off?
So your argument is self evidently nonsense.
>>1001924
> ultimately you decided to count to 5 million
Counting is still a mental task so being able to mess up or forget step is evidence of its limits. Intent may be here but other things matter too.
> You have also missed my other example.
I don't see any dilemma here. You can be angry but still answer neutrally. Maybe not? If you like really fucking angry. It wasn't a simple question. People learn how to act neutrally under anger or other strong emotions. But learning is not some kind of magical power with unlimited potential so you should counter both people who can control themselves and who aren't. It is possible but not guaranteed. There are thousands of such mental challenges and there is no any universal solution.
>>1001979
Basically you say that hedonism is right?
>>1001979
Because depression and misery are pleasant, fulfilling experiences, while chopping your arm off is not.
Screaming like a little bitch after having your arm chopped off is 10/10 though, we're designed to do that, that's how we cope.
>>1001989
>Because depression and misery are pleasant
By definition they are not.
>>1001988
No, where did I say that?
>>1002079
Fair enough. They are DESIRABLE then.
>>1001983
>Counting is still a mental task so being able to mess up or forget step is evidence of its limits. Intent may be here but other things matter too.
No stoic claims that you can perform some mental task without failure. You can set yourself a goal and still fail. But ultimately you decided that goal and ultimately, regardless of whether you fail or succeed in your task, the value you ascribe to it entirely up to you.
You can set yourself the task of solving skills complex thermodynamics problem inside your head. Does that mean you have guaranteed success? No. You may not succeed and if you don't, you can decide how to frame it. You could say "this means I'm not smart, I'm never going to an engineer, I'm a total failure!" Or you could frame it in more neutral terms "there are many engineers that can't do this inside their heads, etc".
How you respond will elicit a different emotional response.
>>1002092
Why would being a slave to emotions be desirable?
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 endeavoring 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! 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?
>>1002191
. . . 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
>>1002191
>>1002194
And so Nietzsche wields his philosophical hammer against the Stoics. But does the hammer smash the clay feet of Stoicism or impact impotently against straw?
"Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words!"
In the above quote Nietzsche neatly exposes the somewhat vacuous nature of the famous Stoic slogan 'living according to Nature'. Humans are part of nature. How then can we not live according to nature? Why make a principle out of "what you yourselves are, and must be?". Living according to gravity for example is not a useful principle because we cannot do otherwise. This is what Nietzsche calls a fraud of words.
When Stoics say 'living in accordance to Nature' they are articulating their concept of the good life which brings peace of mind and tranquility. Stoics believed we humans are part of Nature, a small apart of the whole and because of this we are naturally attracted towards things appropriate to our nature both as humans and as individuals. So Nature in this context is a mixture of objective facts about the physical world merged with subjective facts over our individual characters. It must also be remembered that what matters to a Stoic is the judgement he makes in response to events because this judgement is responsible for our emotional state and our future actions. Stoics are more concerned with forming correct preferences and responses than with making a correct choice between available courses of action because such choices are deterministic in nature and therefore beyond our control. This approach is frequently confused for free will.
1 of 2.
>>1002216
Nice copy+paste ;)
>>1002223
That's exactly what you did. Why can you copy and paste and I can't when there's perfectly valid rebuttals out there?
>>1002191
>>1002194
However Nietzsche is still swinging his hammer. How can they do differently he still demands? Why claim the authority of nature to justify their own desires? "In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself ".
Agreed; we cannot do differently says the Stoic but we can control the judgments we form in response to events and actions. We can train our character through philosophy to act in accordance with Nature to the best of our experience and our knowledge. What you, Nietzsche, call self-tyranny, we call freedom because freedom is the removal of desire, not its indulgence. Our will is not towards the "creation of the world" but to understand the order by which the world operates. We are rational creatures by nature and our character is to inquire into such matters. How can we do differently?
2 of 2
>>1002228
I was only complementing you ;) no need to get upset ;)
>>1002160
>slave to emotions
Emotions are all impulses. They are the only way we can experience existence. to deny the greatest, most powerful and dramatic emotions is to lower the way we experience reality.
Emotions aren't some factor in your life, they ARE your life. To say you're a slave to them is a terribly shitty way of looking at it. without emotions, nothing else can have any meaning, and all other things have meaning because of the emotional response they evoke
>>1002252
I'm not upset.
>>998866
>I am using the pop-culture definition of a philosophical term on /his/
Get out.
>>1002260
But you are a slave as you give control of yourself to things outside of yourself. Emotions do not come from within, they are internal responses to the outside world.
If you lose your job, declare yourself a loser, become depressed, you've become a slave to your emotions and things outside of your control. You've allowed an event outside yourself to affect your ability to reason and lead a good life.
>>1002305
>emotions do not come from within, they are internal responses
>>1002358
>>emotions do not come from within, they are internal responses
You cut out the most important part: ''responses to the outside world''. The distinction shouldn't be hard to understand. Emotions do not spontaneously arise from within a vacuum, they are responses to the way you think about the outside world.
>>998956
Stoicism requires that introspection.
You're supposed to identify what you find painful, rationalize why, and if you realize something outside your control is hurting you for stupid reasons, to either dismiss it (if you can, IE getting pissed about politics) or accept it (if you can't IE you're in prison or some shit).
You just need to categorize your life into what things which are causing you harm are within your control to address and which aren't.
Has anyone read this book? What do you think of it?
I'm reading my way through the classics first but I've seen this book come up a few times as a more modernized treatise on applying the philosophy.
>>1002483
No idea bud. I've only read the main sources. Get the book and read it, you'll find out!
>>1002483
Would be interested to know myself
Buy it and review it for /his/
>>1002216
>Nietzsche
>Aspie loser whose mustache supposedly scared women
>Wrote about the perfection of humanity while basically being Anon: 19th Century Edition
>His philosophy is now standard cirriculum for edgy teenagers and fedoras
>Marcus Aurelius
>One of the greatest emperors of the most important empire in Western civilisation
>His reign was an era that has been called one of the most happy and peaceful in history
>Had a luxurious beard that likely got him all the bitches he wanted
>Was dutiful and noble, refused to take absolute power
>Stoicism used by military personnel and successful people to this day
>You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
>So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
>>999000
>T. Person with no idea how brains work
>literally every argument against stoicism in this thread was based on misconceptions
>>1002191
Nietzsche is arguing against a strawman here.
The stoics ask you to live in accordance with nature because it is possible to NOT live in accordance to nature. And not living in accordance to nature is only asking for disappointment and needless suffering. If you become depressed and suicidal because a loved one has passed away, you are not living in accordance to nature: you have become depreased and suicidal because you are incapable of accepting death, a process of nature.
>>998886
>>1003654
>Marcus Aurelius' reign was peaceful and happy
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. He wrote the Meditations while fighting the Marcomanni and Quadi along the Danube. It's the fact that his daily life was so concerned with war and strife that makes the Meditations such a poignant work.
>>999647
Well, if he's not dead afterwards he must have had some food and not gotten beaten by harsh storms too badly.
>>1004309
>literally every argument against stoicism in this thread was based on misconceptions
Somehow, there are some people here that:
a) Absolutely hate Stoicism
b) Have almost no knowledge of it.
Is that because of Nietzsche?
>>1005378
Even slaves got fed
>>1005402
Yep. They are most likely edgy Nietzsche fags that read beyond good and evil and uncritically accepted what he said.
>>1005402
To be fair most of arguments for stoicism are based on deep misconceptions about how human psychology works.
>>1002382
> responses to the outside world
Mind as a whole is response to the outside world. It is main function of your brain to form responses for what is around you. Mind that can't be affected by outside events is completely useless one.
>>1007005
Is that why the number 1 treatment in psychology is a watered down version of Stoicism?
>>1007059
There is no #1 treatment in psychology like there is no #1 treatment in medicine.
>>1007005
This is again a misconception and a very old argument based on that misconception.
Cognitive behavioural therapy is literally secularised stoicism. And CBT absolutely works, I'm not aware of any other theory in psychology with as much empirical evidence as CBT.
>>1007056
Okay. And how is that an argument against stoicism?
(it isn't.)
>>1007089
> secularised stoicism
Like chemistry is secularised alchemy?
>>1007099
Are you denying that stocism influenced the development of CBT? Because if you are, you don't know anything about CBT.
And your analogy is terrible. Alchemy has no practical uses whatsoever, whereas stoicisms practical uses are not even debateable at this point; they've been proven time and time again through out history. And to tie into my previous example, it's uses are exemplified by the fact it's the primary influence on the development of CBT.
CBT is secularised in the sense that the main assumptions of stoicism are it's starting point. CBT is stocism without the pantheism.
>>1007086
> This is again a misconception
It isn't a misconception. In this very thread you can see people who argue for stoicism and say that emotions do not come from within people. Like anon before me I only evaluated arguments here. No need to believe that everything is some kind of misconception, perhaps even conspiracy against stoicism.
Stoicism breaks the grip that emotions have on your thoughts and behaviour and allows you to fulfill your full human potential.
It is not a doctrine of passivity in the face of unfavourable circumstances. It empowers you to face up to any challenge without being weakened by fear, anxiety or anger. It is encourages you to take responsibility for your experience of life. Being depressed or angry about anything because of a belief that 'it's a function of your brain and thus inevitable' is cowardly and servile.
>>1007121
Emotions don't magically come from within. This is not an idea taken seriously in psychology any longer. The stoic view of emotions is the same view of emotions taken by CBT.
So again, misconception born out of your outdated ideas of psychology.
>>1007117
Being influenced is one thing. Being some kind of logical extension is another. Medicine adopted or refined traditional methods that worked in practice but that doesn't mean that it relies on such things or even on traditional justifications behind them in modern times. I just trying to be careful here from jumping from one idea to another like they are the same and equal.
Yep. The idea that stocism is a philosophy of passivity is another common argument, which also based on misconceptions.
In stoic philosophy there is an idea called "preffered indifferents". While stoics aim to remain indifferent to things outside of their control (health, money, status, etc), they do would prefer to be wealthy to being poor, being healthy instead of unhealthy, etc.
There is no contradiction in a stoic earning worldly success. The distinction is that the stoic doesn't identify himself with the things, he remains indefferent because he knows they are not truly his and could be taken away at any moment.
A non-stoic millionaire that lost his wealth in a financial market crash would crumble into depression and maybe even commit suicide. A stoic millionaire will accept that it was never truly his to begin with, because it's not in his control, and continue with his life.
>>1007153
Now you've deviated from your initial position. Your first argument was that stocism wasn't in line with human psychology, but I showed you it was as both CBT and Stocism share the assumption that irrational thinking causes negative emotions and the majority of our personal problems.
>>1007138
Yes. There exist complicated mechanism behind how emotions born into existence. Doesn't mean that they are things outside of yourself and such.
>>1007175
Nobody has made the argument that emotions are things outside of yourself. What they have said is that emotions are reactions to things outside of yourself. E.g - something occurs in the environment, you attach some value to it, and you receive an emotional response of some kind.
Which is exactly what CBT theory and Stocism state. I'm not sure why that distinction is so confusing.
Nietzsche's Übermensch is the Stoic ideal. Do you think such a man would cower before emotions like melancholy or anxiety? Would he let himself be pulled around by anger? Of course not.
The Übermensch savours the whole spectrum of human emotion as it befits him. He doesn't submit to emotion, because he has stripped it of its 'seriousness'. When emotions do arise in him, he can playfully indulge in them or cast them away as he pleases. He reigns over emotion like a childish king. Consequently, he can handle any external circumstances with full command over his own internal faculties. This is the Stoic ideal.
>>1007171
> Your first argument was that stoicism wasn't in line with human psychology
Maybe you should read my arguments again? My position wasn't as much against stoicism as it is against arguments for it here. I have no problems in accepting legit argumentation from therapy like CBT and its effectiveness. But other justifications here are very speculative at best and some being ever denied by other people who support stoicism.
>>1007185
> I'm not sure why that distinction is so confusing.
Distinction between internal and external just isn't as simple as it seems in general. It is one of most basic abstractions here and therefore very hard for straight forward analysis. Hard enough to destroy classic principles of logic just on its own actually.
>>1002092
>depression and misery are desirable
???
>>1007267
He's an edgy romantic probably and cares about his feefees.
