/lit/ - Literature

>>10195531
>Stoic presuppositions
Such as?

>>10195540

That Nature is a good measure of truth and morality.

>>10195547
>Nature is a good measure of truth
That is axiomatic, unless you're one of those simpleton analytics who presupposes Nature -- including humans -- is an unreliable narrator and no observation can ever be confirmed.

>and morality
This is trickier. You humans are preoccupied with morality, but a few animals have morals too (though you deny it).

Regardless, you don't need to agree to find value in other Stoic meditations. E.g. that philosophy teaches what is good, or desirable, and what is a balm for or inoculation against suffering.

Nietzscheism meshes better with the unique combo of pretensiousness and insecurity that a lot of this board shares

>>10195650

>that philosophy teaches what is good, or desirable, and what is a balm for or inoculation against suffering.

I don't necessarily believe that anything is inherently good or desirable; I alone impart these values on the object as the subject.

>and what is a balm for or inoculation against suffering.

Why should I want avoid suffering ? Why should I not want to embrace it instead ?

marcus was a poppy fiend

>>10195650
>You humans

>>10195667
I did not say avoid; suffering is unavoidable. Intended connotation being to endure. And by enduring, become a more sublime expression of the human experience.

>I don't necessarily believe that anything is inherently good or desirable
I did not say inherently. Good or desirable are of course as you say, assigned values. Stoicism is a doctrine that exists to realize the individual, and thereby also benefits the polis. It is a voluntary moral instruction, metaphysical questions exist of course but are unnecessary.

>>10195698
Problem, Alex?

>>10195739
I'm onto you 5th dimensional psychic vampire AI pedophiles.

>>10195531

Stoicism is cuckoldry.

>>10195669
Suffering is inescapable in the animal kingdom. Even an Emperor can get the blues. The difference between suffering and suffering well is whether you allow your coping strategy to change you into a penniless addict alcoholic living out of doors, or you emancipate yourself from your grief by according yourself to a virtue and exerting control over your days. That is the essence of Stoicism. It is not a mask. It is, at bottom, an honest endeavor and expectation of oneself.

>inb4 but Diogenes lived in a barrel, isn't that more virtuous/harder?
Diogenes rejected his society. Stoics by definition embrace their time and place.

>>10195749
Pic related.

>>10195531
>high IQ

>>10195781

You are assuming that becoming a penniless addict alcoholic is fundamentally inferior form of being than being virtuous and you are also assuming that people can choose their and don't necessarily become what they already are and must be.

>>10196252
The driving force of capitalism is not a new thing; the polis rejects that which has no social utility or wealth-generating capacity. A culture and state is a projection of the individual. Order is the goal of an ordered life, anon. Those unable to work or meet social norms due to severe personal failings may be given neetbux in our day, but it was not so for much of human history (outside of a shunned, sin-eating shaman caste). In the eyes of the polis, which makes civilization and for whom the Stoic doctrine is written, a wastrel life IS objectively inferior.

*tip*

>>10196252
>You are assuming
Yea because this is 4chan and not an academic paper. If he didn't assume he would first have to set out the groundwork for virtue ethics among other things. He would have to write a 30 page essay before he could say that sentence.

>>10196252
In essence, stoicism poses reactionary lifestyles against proactive lifestyles. The value determination can be up to you if you want to make it, but they took a stance because you can't just live in between. It would be the philosophical equivalent of being a skinny-fat shitlord at the gym doing circuit training crossfit twice a month as if it does anything. Pick one.

You also say this as if stoicism has any interest in convincing you and that is simply not the case.

>is stoicism actually BAD?
>lol I disagree because it makes me view my life in an uncomfortable way

>>10195531
The Greek you should follow and start with is Justin Martyr.
Read his dialogue with Typhro, and read his "Hortatory address to the Greeks"

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01281.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0129.htm

The stoics pale in comparison.

>>10197422
Christcucks get out.

>>10199260
Christianity is supeior to all greek philosophy,

>>10199999
checked

>>10199999
wtf I love Christianity now!

>>10199999
wew

>>10199999
holy shit, i am converting right now

>>10199999
It's true now
It's true now
It's true now
It's true now
It's true now

>>10199999
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee...

>>10200054
bugs...easy on the nihilism

>>10195667
>I don't necessarily believe that anything is inherently good or desirable
Isn't stoicism more about living as intended?

>>10195760
t. brainlet

>>10200054
>>10200051
>>10200046
>>10200038
>>10200032
>>10200026
>all this superstition and numerology and idolatry
>not being aware that Christianity IS Greek philosophy

You'll be right at home in the Catholic Church, anons.

>>10199999
PRAISE THE LORD

>>10195531
Stoicism is basically just not being a fucking angsty edgelord or drama queen faggot about everything that goes wrong in your life and just stop being a pussy and accept shit and move on. How can someone with a high IQ not see the value in that mindset?

>>10195531
>not going full Evola instead
come on anon, i know you want it

>>10200260

>>10200257
Please leave the board, thank you

>>10200271
wait fuck, i didn't see the "not" before that

>>10195739
>>10195698
evil is always defeated though, because good is so much stronger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

>>10199999

Christ was just Socrates for the masses.

okay how do i become a stoic?
what is a stoic?
will it make me a better person?

Stoicism is Christianity, or the school of Christianity that won the head of the church. Greek philosophy after Plato was composed of stoicism on the one side, Epicureanism on the other. The former rejects pleasure, the latter welcomes it. Platonism was in the middle, the middle way, using the good aspects of both of the philosophies of the extremes. It was conservatives vs. liberals back then too. Conservatives were the stoicism. Plato write (I think in Laws) about how there would always be this divide in the population, it is human nature, or psychology. Anyway, the conservative sects of the early church (the motherfuckers who ran around burning and murdering platonists and Christians that tried to be more liberal or less authoritarian (the best sects were actually communists, succeful communist groups back then) were on the stoic end of the spectrum (as was the major philosophical institution during this time period, of the middle platonists) because it was easier, under the rule of stoic thought, to control people. Sure, stoicism has its advantages, but it also gives you a repression factory as a soul (Plato wrote about repressed feelings storming the citadel of the mind long before Freud). Stoicism won't bring you to the 'place' that Platonism will in the same way that Confucianism won't bring you to the same 'place' that Taoism will. This opposition repression and pleasure-seeking doesn't have geographic borders. It has always been the operating mechanism of society it just takes on different names.

>>10195531
Holy shit cunt just synthesise what is useful and agreeable, and move on. You don't need to be a stoic to derive benefit from the stoics.

>>10200275
lmao

stoicism is a tiny genre of philosophy that is overrated by teenage boys who mistakenly conflate the common understanding of stoicism (ie the John Wayne archetype) with the philosophical discipline of stoicism

>>10202497
>pick-and-choose consumerist philosophy
what could go wrong?

>>10199999

>>10202191
>Greek philosophy after Plato was composed of stoicism on the one side, Epicureanism on the other
It really wasn't. Epicureanism was a fringe philosophy. If you are going to mention such a fringe group you might as well add the Cynics. You are also ignoring Skepticism and Aristotelianism.

>but it also gives you a repression factory as a soul
Only if you misunderstand the philosophy.
>Stoicism won't bring you to the 'place' that Platonism will
What "place"? The philosophies are trying to do two different things. Of course Stoicism isn't going to get where Platonism will, that's the point.
>This opposition repression and pleasure-seeking doesn't have geographic borders
Stoicism isn't against pleasure.

>>10199999