Hello /lit/. What are some recommended stoic pieces?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
>>7671593
seneca's letters from a stoic is pretty great
>>7671593
on my to read list is "Meditations" by Marc Aurel which is apparently to develops and introduces some ideas of stoicism
>>7671593
>Happiness
>Virtue
>Reason
>Ethics
Happiness itself is a departure from soticism because it is by it's nature an elation of the blood. There is little biological difference between the nervous system buzz of anger, fear, and happiness, only our immediate perception of that exact moment. The true stoic can only find a certain necessitated state of contentment with being. To smile and be within all time and through it is the end, not the word we call pleasure. To laugh is too much for the condition.
Aurelius advocates paternal love, but even the pride that comes from watching their first steps may bring our danger. Happiness. The abandonment of peace in favor of the fluid human emotional complex.
>>7671925
>Implying that the things you're here identifying as spooks aren't the supposed rewards of calling all things spooks.
The stirnerfag requires reason to begin his philosophy of ownership. You need it to understand your position, and is an a priori term. It's as implied as your term for your own understanding.
The strinerfag is rewarded with his own ethical system through his doubt and resultant ownership. It is a 'spook' that he himself invests in. That which he, with a certain sense of superiority, rewards himself. The same can be said of virtue, which is primarily one's relative investiture/progress in an ethical system.
Lastly, happiness. You call it a spook. The idea of the creative nothing's ownership of all is only a supposed path to this reward. To call it a spook is to invalidate your own pursuit of it. Funnily enough, Stirner, through ignoring a priori knowledge and calling all things spooks, invalidates the rewards of his own idealogy.
>>7671593
The Golden Sayings of Epictetus.
NO NO NO NO NO
NONE OF THAT INNER CALM BULLSHIT
SUFFER MARTYR, POETS, AND TAKE UP THE LYRE
A PATHETIC EXISTENCE IS WORTH A THOUSAND QUIET LIVES
>>7671593
>Atheists see 'dictates of reason' and think Stoicism sounds pretty good
>They don't realise what Logos meant to the Stoics
To be honest I would reccomend skipping the classical stoics until you have read a couple of works of contemporary scholarship. The amount of things you are going to misunderstand will be so great that you really aren't learning much about stoicism by reading the classic.
I would suggest to read Becker's A New Stoicism. He his a brief account of what stoicism might look like if the stoa was never closed and the school could have responded to and grown with the evolution of philosophical and scientific thought. Then I would suggest Irving's A Guide to the Good Life. It is a book that is presented to the lay person interested in trying to live a stoic life. There are exercises and things to be done in the book, which makes perfect sense since you stoicism is a series of practices and not a set of knowledge.
I would recommend Irving's book A Guide to the Good life.
>>7672362
Read Hume and realize that you cannot really live your life according to the dictates of reason
Google "is ought problem"
>The stirnerfag requires reason to begin his philosophy of ownership. You need it to understand your position, and is an a priori term. It's as implied as your term for your own understanding.
Stirner uses reason as his property, he doesn't subjugate himself to it as the stoics do.
>The strinerfag is rewarded with his own ethical system through his doubt and resultant ownership. It is a 'spook' that he himself invests in. That which he, with a certain sense of superiority, rewards himself. The same can be said of virtue, which is primarily one's relative investiture/progress in an ethical system.
Spooks are the fixed ideas we subjugate ourselves to. You cant subjugate yourself as you cannot place yourself above yourself.
>Lastly, happiness. You call it a spook. The idea of the creative nothing's ownership of all is only a supposed path to this reward. To call it a spook is to invalidate your own pursuit of it. Funnily enough, Stirner, through ignoring a priori knowledge and calling all things spooks, invalidates the rewards of his own idealogy.
Stirners philosophy isnt about rewards, the man even confesses in his book he is just writing it because he wants to.
>>7673777
what did he do?
