/lit/ - Literature

>>16208241
>Show me a perfect man who has never had any vices
This is not what the Stoic ideal is. This is either a desperate strawman or you haven't really read anything on Stoicism beyond Aurelius' diary. It's often quite a good idea to read more of the actual source material before trying to make sweeping (and inaccurate) generalisations about the philosophy

>That's what I said
No it isn't, you suggested that the state was unattainable. What I am telling you is that, while the Stoic sage is, by its nature, attainable (unlike perhaps the Nietzschean overman), even beginning to walk in a good direction is considered a good all in itself.

However, to satisfy your demand, a notable example of the Stoic sage would've been Socrates, although it really would have been anyone who lived in a state of eudaimonia, unaffected by the external world, in love only with virtue and reason

>>16208241
>Show me a perfect man who has never had any vices
This is not what the Stoic ideal is. This is either a desperate strawman or you haven't really read anything on Stoicism beyond Aurelius' diary. It's often quite a good idea to read more of the actual source material before trying to make sweeping (and inaccurate) generalisations about the philosophy

>That's what I said
No it isn't, you suggested that the state was unattainable. What I am telling you is that, while the Stoic ideal is in its attainable (unlike perhaps the Nietzschean overman), even beginning to walk in a good direction is considered a good all in itself.

However, to satisfy your demand, a notable example of the Stoic sage would've been Socrates, although it really would have been anyone who lived in a state of eudaimonia, unaffected by the external world, in love only with virtue and reason

>>16023216
Not to be presumptuous but it seems to me that your view of Stoicism is limited to the hard line view of Aurelius, Stoicism is made up of a fairly broad spectrum, from Epictetus to Rufus to Aurelius (albeit only an amateur philosopher) to Seneca and even to Cicero. So, your judgment of Cato and Socrates' deaths as 'un-stoic' based off a brief quote from the Meditations is unwarranted.

>Socrates dying for wisdom and excellence of the soul is a false perception of glory
This would not have been the common Stoic position, at all. This was possibly the highest ideal of the 'good death' of Stoic virtue and reason which could be offered up.

Regardless, Aurelius' emphasis on duty was not actually a common Stoic value, this was the result of Roman culture and ethos more than anything philosophical. The Stoics would certainly not have endorsed compromising on your ideals, especially concerning virtue, because you have some kind of familial connection left in the world, it's a far higher concept.