/lit/ - Literature

>>20642085
Rubbish transcendental arguments right out from Epictetus' ass.

Epictetus was a disgusting spiritual-cuck slave. If that wasn't a book on loan or that Lucretius shared the same volume, it would've been burned. Absolutely infuriating.

>"The propositions which are true and evident are of necessity used even by those who contradict them: and a man might perhaps consider it be the greatest proof of a thing being evident that is is found to be necessary even for him who denies it to make use of it at the same time."

A fucking transcendental argument! "You depend on x to negate x." But since when is relating negatively, relating against, dependence? In what meaningful sense does a camp guard depend on an inmate to kill him? You do not depend on women to rape them.

>Man what are you doing? are you refuting yourself every day; and will you not give up these frigid attempts? When you eat, where do you carry your hand to? to your mouth or to your eye? when you wash yourself, what do you go into? do you ever call a pot a dish, or a ladle a spit? If I were a slave of any of these men, even if I must be flayed by him daily, I would rack him.

That is, analogy. The transcendental game can also be played by Epicureans. In your source for the analogy, you speak of a material hand, a mouth, an eye, a pot, a dish, a ladle, a spit, of slaves and of flaying. You then transfer this meaning to "beyond", somewhere else. Such is all analogy.

> Then those who talk thus, marry and beget children, and employ themselves in public affairs and make themselves priests and interpreters. Of whom? of gods who do not exist: and they consult the Pythian priestess that they may hear lies, and they report the oracles to others. Monstrous impudence and imposture.

Yes, and?

>Grateful indeed are men and modest, who, if they do nothing else, are daily eating bread and yet are shameless enough to say, we do not know if there is a Demeter or her daughter Persephone or a Pluto; not to mention that they are enjoying the night and the day, the seasons of the year, and the stars, and the sea and the land and the cooperation of mankind, and yet they are not moved in any degree by these things to turn their attention to them; but they only seek to belch out their little problem (matter for discussion), and when they have exercised their stomach to go off to the bath.

Because it was Aristotle who formed logic, not Athena. It was Plato who formulated the Good and none other. Bread and the cosmos came first and they came after.

> "...but to say that this is an evil is something which must be added to it externally, and falsely added. For this reason we must not get rid of poverty, but of the opinion about poverty, and then we shall be happy."

Cuckoldry. If there physically was not poverty, there would be no talk of it. The most worthless happiness, the negation of all struggle and vital contradiction.

Ten thousand deaths is not enough for this Phrygian presuppositionalist. But then again, it would be redundant for he is already infinitely so!

Why is Epictetus so underrated? I never see him talked about, I started reading his discourses yesterday and they are very good.
What do you think about him?

Is anyone else too paranoid to post their work on lit? I have this suspicion that if I post a text I'm working on, another anon might try to steal it and claim it as their own. I might be too arrogant in assuming that my work is worthy of theft; it likely is not. Though, my skepticism is still unshakable.

Is anyone else too paranoid to post their work on lit? I have this suspicion that if I posted a text I'm working on, another anon might try to steal it and claim it as their own. I might be too arrogant in assuming that my work is worthy of theft; it likely is not. Though, my skepticism is still unshakable.

>Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates
What kind of fucking justification is this?

‘The upshot is that it is not anti-social to be constantly acting in one’s own self-interest. We do not expect someone, after all, to be indifferent regarding himself and his welfare. It’s the basis of our principle of appropriation, the instinct that drives everyone’s behavior. Consequently when people are mistaken in the views they hold about things outside the will - thinking that they are good or evil - they naturally are going to grovel before tyrants.”

This quote is troubling me. What exactly did he mean by this?

What should I read to learn more about self improvement/introspection /lit/? I've begun reading discourses and selected writings but any further advice would be appreciated.

Epic titties

For those of you who have read his Moral Discourses, what do you think of Epictetus?

>>17095730
>Because why should anyone take life advice from someone with a hellish existence?

I spend all my time on the degen boards. I'm ready for fitlit life. I thoroughly believe that rational emotional behavioral therapy and logos therapy are the daddy Chad versions of virgin-cuck Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. How can I apply Epictetus and Marcus to my life. I'm aware and believe it's the path to take, but in the moment of a decision, I forget about stoicism and revert back to degen behavior like wasting days on YouTube or being afraid to interact with people because of "anxiety/depression".

How can I integrate stoicism into my soul to become a fitlit?

Typing on phone. Forgive errors please.

what does /lit/ think about this?
http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html
any other recommendations in this direction except the obvious ones