/lit/ - Literature

>>4332122
Having hope is basing part of your happiness on hypothetical future events, which is quite an unstable foundation. Only the present and your memories belong to you. The future is mere speculation. Not something to place your bets on from an Epicurean perspective. As he said:

"Don't spoil what you have by desiring what you don't have; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for."

Ultimately it's better to do away with both pessimism and optimism if you want peace of mind of course. And getting too involved in politics and the faith of the mankind is a sure way to end up miserable either way.

>>3681713
>what about a sense of accomplishment / purpose?
I feel pretty accomplished when I tend to the garden or read a good book or go for a walk in the woods or cook a nice meal. It's these simple little things that provide the best bang for your buck as it were. Great goals often come with a lot of illusion, disappointment, struggle and suffering. They stem from great vanity and a misguided worldview as far as I'm concerned. "It is the privilege of the gods to want nothing, and of godlike men to want little."

>aren't you constantly keeping a sense of complete worthlessness at bay with simple childish escapism?
I feel like I've overcome the need to have worth. There is no escapism, but mere acceptance of a life spent in delicious leisure. If anything, the need to have worth itself denotes some sort of lacking self-esteem to me.

>do you have zero feelings for other people? do you not at least feel the need to try to create a world that is not so hopeless in your eyes?
I'm a pretty decent and likeable guy, I just don't do eight hours of labour a day any more. Which is probably part of the reason why I'm likeable and not dangerous. Changing the word on any grand scale doesn't seem like a realistic endeavour. I guess I can fulfil a sort of counterweight function to the people around me that their Sisyphean endeavours aren't the only way to go through life.

>>3557716
Obligatory Cynic library share: http://www.mediafire.com/?zp2ppnxjwj28c

It's all secondary literature though, not much remained of what the Cynics wrote. Are you interested in Epicureanism as well? It's often seen as the opposite/rival of Stoicism, but they had a lot in common and I find I benefit from both schools. It's worth looking into. Epicurus is also interesting because his own writings have survived, something that can't be said for other founders like Diogenes or Zeno. This site is always worth mentioning:

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-principles
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-ethics
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-gods-death
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/lucretius
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/warren-epicurus

It also offers an extensive treatment of Stoicism. And as far as Stoicism goes, you could always read Seneca of course.