/lit/ - Literature

>>10834367
as far as being a "true" Stoic, I would say yeah, you have to believe the pantheistic / metaphysical / epistemological aspects of the philosophy.

with that being said, it's clearly still possibly to find other justifications to follow their ethics. as far as I'm concerned, that's all that really matters. if you DON'T believe in their justification for how they reach their ethical ideals, don't force yourself. like I said, being a "true" Stoic or not doesn't mean you can't by in large act like one.

>>10805017
>>10805056
I would agree. Meditations is a good entry point as it's easier to digest, but Epictetus has more substance in my opinion. Seneca is last of the major known classical Stoics, but some have suggested he's the least Stoic out of the three, seeming almost Epicurian at times. I can't say from experience since I haven't read him yet. But I would definitely recommend either Meditations, Discourses & the Enchiridion, or both.

>>10789656
i agree, their thoughts are of their own and only you choose to identify and hold and attachment to them, that is of course if you are subject A
in >>10789624 post. If not, then well what can i say you deserved it and now you have the chance to learn from your actions.

Either way, i wouldnt be fased, embrace the impermanence of their presence and continue doing what you are doing OP

>>10789242

>>10746223
has anyone stated their philosophy is complex? I think your average Stoic fan would admit Stoicism is rather practical, and by proxy simple.

as far as being overrated, it depends on what you look for in ethical philosophy. is not being a slave to your emotions overrated? is doing your duty overrated? is doing all that you can, being the best person you can possibly be overrated?

I think if you truly want to be in complete control of who you are, and not have a weak will that succumbs to pointless emotions, then it's not overrated.