/lit/ - Literature

ever*

>>10679283
If all values are ultimately without objectivity, choose the values you like best, the values that make your life the most fulfilling and meaningful.

>>10679303
Thank you for your quick response. Will you believe me, that no value of mine will make my life fulfilling and especially meaningful?

>>10679303
And I can prove to you that YOUR value is absolutely meaningless and especially unfulfilling. What is your value?

>>10679311
That's your own problem that you must deal with.

>>10679283
>needing logic to follow something
Someone is a little too spooked, I’d say

>>10679323
The one who is quick to follow is spooked, I and reason would say.

>>10679319
>And I can prove to you that YOUR value is absolutely meaningless and especially unfulfilling
God.
Objectively, sure. I cannot prove my values are objective, but they make my own life meaningful to me.

>>10679283
stoicism was never supposed to be about ultimate knowledge, it's a path to ataraxia (mental tranquility). Stoicisms goal is to deal with suffering, and nothing more than that. The goal isn't to figure out who shot you, it's to pull the damn bullet out and tend the wound.

>>10679333
I am sorry, God is no value. God is nothing, he is an idea in your mind to filter and silence all the questions you don't have answers for.
There is no logical consistency to debunk here.
Anyone else here to share his logical consistency as to why he is a slave?

>>10679358
>stoicism has nothing to do with your motivations and goals
No. All Seneca speaks about is how stupid have men spent their time.

>>10679364
>am sorry, God is no value. God is nothing, he is an idea in your mind to filter and silence all the questions you don't have answers for.
Prove it.
Good luck.

You must an r/atheist autist if you think an ancient philosophy is going to have “logically consistent arguments” or needs them to have validity for people.

Stoicism’s main texts have all been lost (no, Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus aren’t main texts - they’re late era practical cliffnotes; trying to understand stoicism through them is like trying to reconstruct Christian theology from Joel Osteen). We don’t know how Zeno demonstrated the importance of virtue or fire’s supremacy over the other three elements.

But it doesn’t matter, either. Stoicism’s popularity endures because it provides a framework for people to endure difficult times, not because it’s logically rigorous.

>>10679370
I will need luck, because tending to the mind of a believer, especially an old one, is really, really hard.
So I will try to escape from the trap of "b-but you don't have prove that he d-doesn't exist, HA HA!!!!!"
How can God, who we know absolutely nothing of, not even his name, let alone his rules or values, be of any relativity as to how you should live your life?
How can God be of any use as to what is valuable or not, what is right or wrong, when we can't even prove that he exists, we have never had any direct or indirect evidence of him.

>>10679376
>enraged stoic
I know it's hard to admit that you are listening to other men telling you what to think and feel, even when they don't make any sense, lol.
By the way, the pursuit of reason will take you do Diogenes, so take a few looks at his quotes.

>>10679283
Stoicism is for pseuds as you can see in this thread it breaks down quickly into trying to feel good and other appeals to emotion. Its totally bankrupt morally and its ontology is almost nonexistent besides copying the earlier Greeks blatantly. It was memed hard on reddit to bug men who work long hours and get cheated on and made its way onto here as Aurelius’ Meditations was being shilled for the holidays. It has absolutely no substance and is one of the most embarassing philosophies ever assembled, Epicureanism for all its small-souled wretchedness is more honorable than Seneca’s teachings

>>10679385
So you have no objective basis for not believing in God and have to rely on the exact same thing for your disbelief that I rely on for my belief: your own subjectivity.

>>10679369
You didn't even try to read what I wrote, did you? preoccupation with action is central to stoicism. This is because the things people do often make them miserable. What this does not mean, however, is that through the removal of harmful practices that "true" values come to light. Stoicism is a negative practice. You can shed the bad things away, but you are only left with the negation. stoicism has never been a project about finding out the capital t Truth.

>>10679396
It was a pleasure to read this, thank you.

>>10679396

>>10679396
t. Plutarch

>>10679396
I guess I'm a pseud now

>>10679396
>using flowery language and throwing in the word ontology into my whiny emotionally driven paragraph will sure convince people I'm making an argument.

>>10679396
Can you suggest anything further than cynicism, by the way. I am legit interested in your opinion.
>>10679400
You didn't answer and/or understand my questions. How can something that you can't prove that even exists, let alone what it is, be of value? What exactly do you value? How would your value system be of any difference than having completely no value system, when the basis of your value system is something that doesn't exist (in our dimensions and senses)?
>>10679403
You make sense, but you have clearly not read Seneca recently.

>>10679429
>You didn't answer and/or understand my questions. How can something that you can't prove that even exists, let alone what it is, be of value? What exactly do you value? How would your value system be of any difference than having completely no value system, when the basis of your value system is something that doesn't exist (in our dimensions and senses)?
My value system is Christianity, with a bit of stoicism thrown in.

>>10679415
>>10679423
>>10679425
>>10679405
3x ad hominem
1x straw man
>absolute state of stoics
>>10679440
Thank you for identifying. Now I can prove your God isn't real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjHk9nKUNNs

>>10679283
you should be stoic because it's better to be one

>>10679429
im not your priest, and i don’t care if you suffer
>>10679425
enjoy being happy cattle

>>10679454
Why? I don't see how it's better to indulge in practice of will power, i.e. mental/emotional suffering, for no reason at all.

>>10679456
If you are the anon that bashed on stoicism as well, then just for your own please, do you have a value system and can you explain it?

>>10679463
I had never been more happy than now thanks to Stoicism

>>10679452
>Thank you for identifying. Now I can prove your God isn't real
You're the worst reddit tier pseud I've seen on here in a while. You can't disprove God. Nor can I prove the existence of God. It's a matter of faith and subjectivity.

>>10679463
because it's better for the development of human civilization if more people are stoic.

>>10679456
>obese neckbeard that can't do 5 pull ups calling others cattle
I could snap your neck and fuck your corpse if I wanted to and there's nothing you could do to stop me.

>>10679476
This clearly proves that you have never been happy, you were always miserable. Stoicism, as obviously a philosophical coping mechanism, simply reduced your suffering to an extent. But you are still suffering. (and have no arguments but solipsism)
>>10679478
I did disprove it, Christianity has the same dates as any other paganistic religion throughout the globe, it's scriptures and methods of personification clearly prove that it's all about the Sun.
Btw, you still have no arguments, only ad hominems.

>>10679493
>This clearly proves that you have never been happy, you were always miserable. Stoicism, as obviously a philosophical coping mechanism, simply reduced your suffering to an extent. But you are still suffering.
I know, I'm okay with this

>>10679487
First of all, you couldn't. Because you don't know who or where he is. Second of all, he can always shoot you in an theoretical case of fight between the two of you. You just deducted yourself to a monkey, an animal. He, being smarter than you, will shoot you in 5 seconds, casting your willpower and discipline into inexistence.

>>10679493
>I did disprove it,
No you didn't. You're utterly delusional, men infinitely more intelligent than you have been dealing with these problems for thousands of years, you cringy autist. You can't objectively prove or disprove the existence of God.

>>10679504
I did. Both verbally and with video. The evidence that Christianity is a work of human is right there.
You have got quite a foul mouth, for a christian puppet.

>>10679501
A gun needs to be pulled out, set up, and aimed before it can be used. Try doing that when you're being choked out into a week long hospital stay.

>>10679514
You look quite serious in your statement in that picture, I'll have to be ware of you to shoot you before you come to me.

>>10679507
>every philosopher has failed to do it and it is acknowledged by everyone with a modicum of philosophical learning that's it's impossible
>I did it bro
You have to be over 18 to use this website.

stoicism isn't a philosophy, it's a frame of mind. the reason it makes sense is because it keeps you sane and functioning properly and in a healthy way when life fails you. as i said it's not a philosophy so it can be paired up with any philosophical system that upholds morality and virtue but i think stoicism is the most compatible with traditionalism

>>10679473
to you? fuck no, who the fuck do you think you are?
>>10679487
lol at you

>>10679487
>internet warriors

This is not a Stoic thread anymore, please be good to others.

>>10679500
Take the next step, anon.

>>10679526
I disproved Christianity, not God. Your reading comprehension is a bit underdeveloped.
>>10679528
>the reason it makes sense is because it feels good
This is no reason and it most definitely doesn't keep me sane. As you can see in this thread, stoics are insane. They are following a frame of mind that encourages the practice of will power, i.e. mental suffering and emotional suffering, i.e. suffering, for something that they have no reason or meaning for. How is this sane? This is insane. If there is nothing to live, then cynicism and hedonism and nihilism make WAY more sense and are way more sane. And surely feel better too.
>>10679540
ok

>>10679560
I like how Seneca speaks about Epicurus but I'm not following his philosophy.

>>10679396
Is there anyone who would take stoicism truly as it is represented in the writings of the stoics, and adhere to that version completely? Philosophy is the ideology of the philosopher expounded.

>>10679562
>cynicism makes sense
surely you're not stupid to the degree where you don't realize the ironic position cynicism is in?

>>10679576
Everyone should take stoicism truly. Yet few are philosophers to actually do that, outside of their ego-inflated simple mind's perceptions of what full understanding means.

>>10679562
Stoicism + Idealism = Ascension

>>10679589
My premise was that it makes more sense than cynicism.
How is it in an ironic position?

>>10679514
That's a rare Sadler

>>10679596
My premise was that it makes more sense than stoicism ****
fixed

>>10679591
Stoicism + Idealism = Insanity

>>10679596
the ironic position being that cynicism will cancel itself out, necessarily, based on its own belief system

Stoicism is midwit-tier. Neoplatonism is Highbrow.

ITT: Teenage redditor just read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

>>10679528
stoicism is literally a philosophical system with its own physics, logic and ethics

>>10679376
>You must an r/atheist autist if you think an ancient philosophy is going to have “logically consistent arguments” or needs them to have validity for people.
the stoics have been heavily influenced by aristotle who is literally the father of logic

>>10679562
>I disproved Christianity, not God. Your reading comprehension is a bit underdeveloped.
>I disproved a value system when there are no objective values

>>10679638
This makes absolutely no sense. Try again.

>>10679626
Most people only care about Stoic eithics and behavior. Why do you that feel you must adopt the whole of a philosophical system (which was created by imperfect humans)?

>>10679651
Cause Is based in something divine (reason)

>>10679651
Because humans are imperfect in the sense of willpower and sin, a statement given by spiritual industries.
We are perfect in logic, and stoicism or any "value" should make sense, imo.

>>10679644
>objective values exist

>>10679487
Seems like we got a big boy here.

>>10679283
IMO Stoicism is pretty alogical and that's the point, as it admits that human society isn't wholly logical-- if everything in our society was wholly logical we would have no need for philosophy.

>>10679651
>Why do you that feel you must adopt the whole of a philosophical system (which was created by imperfect humans)?
I don't. I was refuting a false claim about there not being a stoic philosophical system.

>>10679736
But then we do need philosophy and since stoicism is illogical, I don't udnerstand why are 2018fags buying into it.

>>10679452
>posts zeitgiest unironically
wew lad

>>10679767
Stoicism is exactly the same as every other philosophy because it provides us answers to questions. Philosophy is comforting-- makes us feel stronger, more important. In a Post PoMo world of no real truth these sort of ideas grow because they create truth, or highlight it, or however you want to think of it.

>>10679493
>thinks proving Jesus never lived would make anyone give up Christianity
I'm not even religious but you are a fool if you actually believe this. Religion does not depend on historical accuracy to be meaningful. Would proving Buddha never existed take away from Buddhism? What about Arjuna and Hinduism? The only people that argue about this shit are bible belt fundies and reddit tier atheists. You obviously don't understand religion in the slightest.

>>10679782
>ad hominem is as far as stoics can get ITT
>>10679790
Stoicism provides 0 answers to any existential dilemma.

How could the world be if everyone was a Stoic?

ITT: Brainlets that don't know that stoicism, as we have it, is incomplete. We are missing all the central works of stoic thought.

>>10679790
Although I shouldn't be so reductionist-- Stoicism specifically is a call-to-arms. You perform your duty for a multitude of human reasons. A lot of young men are attracted to it because most of us are starved for purpose, as we've been told most of our lives that stuff doesn't matter and we've, unfortunately, internalized that.
I have a theory-- the reason PoMo ideology worked and was successful for so long is that it was an alternative to meaning. Pieces like Infinite Jest were fun and novel because we had the frame of reference to things that mattered. Now the entire culture is steeped in PoMo ideas but there are young men who didn't grow up with that old sincirety, so they have no point of reference. Stoicism grants them base level meaning with which to build upon with other Philosophical ideas.
>>10679823
Which brings us here-- Stoicism does not deal with existential problems because that is not what it is designed for in the same way that you wouldn't use your legs to fly. I believe that modern Stoicism is a good foundation that needs to be built upon.

>>10679562
>be stoicism
>be a philosophy solely dedicated to the reduction of human suffering
>be misunderstood by high school kids who hear words like "discipline" and REEE till they're raw in the throat because they literally equate self-control with suffering
activated my almonds and then some

>>10679823
>thinks posting a literal meme like zietgiest is a better argument than saying "wew lad"
you're so far behind I bet you think you're in first place, don't you?

>>10679644
If there are no objective values, you can't objectively disprove a value system as you yourself are arguing from position of own subjective value system, you complete brainlet.

>>10679819
>Asks a question but ends it with "."
>remembers only the historian argument
Mate, my argument in this thread and the zeitgeist video not only prove that Jesus didn't exist based on the historians living at that time. Watch the video and then try to have a conversation or an opinion of it.
>>10679841
Thanks for admitting that your school of philosophy is retarded and blaming it on missing texts or some shit,.
>>10679856
ad hominem

>>10679870
Still no logically consistent argument to explain stoicism, but only ad hominems.
>>10679872
I can't disprove it, but I can disprove Christianity which you said is your religion and God. Sucks to be you, lol.

>>10679876
>Thanks for admitting that your school of philosophy is retarded and blaming it on missing texts or some shit,.
It's not my school of philosophy and it's no more retarded than any other philosophy.

Things I've learned about you
>16 - 21 years of age
>recently started reading some books, now believes he's an expert on things he doesn't understand
>visits reddit.
>probably fat and physically repulsive

>>10679892
>but I can disprove Christianity
Stop saying things you don't understand dummy. You can make an argument for why Christianity is less likely to be true at best, but you can't disprove Christianity. You are the worst kind of psued.

>>10679896
It's definitely more retarded than some schools of philosophy.

Things I've learned about you :
>You can't stay on topic
>You are projecting your own insecurities

>>10679910
You and I, we both know how full of shit you are.

>>10679876
>my argument in this thread and the zeitgeist video not only prove that Jesus didn't exist based on the historians living at that time.
shit tier sentence, but I think you're trying to tell me to watch zietgiest again. I watched it years ago in high school when it was edgy and cool. Then I grew up, got a degree in philosophy, and realized shit like that is actually embarrassing to take seriously. Also there is no question ending in a period in the comment you responded to. Are you ESL?

>>10679925
>no arguments
I'm glad you've finally accepted you're clueless.

>>10679926
English is my second language, burger. Now go watch it again and then tell me that you think Christianity is truthful.
Why is it so hard for people to simply follow the truth, for fucks sakes....?

>>10679935
>had plenty of arguments
Am met with a wall of moronic answers that only keeps asking the same questions over and over again. It's pointless to argue with a man that doesn't even listen to his own reason, let alone mine.

>>10679876
The view of Christianity in zeitgeist is false and not historically accurate. The Christ myth theory is a fringe view not supported by any credible historians.

>>10679283
Why are dumb faggots so angry at stoicism? What is so offensive to you?

>>10679915
>no denying what I said
Which reddit board do you use?

>>10679957
it reddite lole

>>10679957
>another ad hominem stoic cuck that lacks any logic
>>10679956
Prove your statement is true.

>>10679957
They are scared of personal responsibility and hard work.

>>10679965
r/watchpeopledie actually

>>10679940
Not American, actually. My original argument had nothing to do with Christianity being truthful. My argument was that your criteria for truth (e.g. historical accuracy) is not a decent criteria to deal with religion. Proving Jesus never lived, or that he's a representation of Horus, or the Sun, or whatever interpretation you have does nothing to take away from 'the Christian religious experience' writ large. Have you ever read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? There is a really nice parallel in there but I won't go into it if you haven't read it.

>>10679969
>Prove your statement is true.
You have google available to you, fat boy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Scholarly_reception

>>10679984
You're right about that, but Jesus was historically a real person, in so much as all the evidence leads us to believe. The question about Jesus is not whether he was real, it's whether he was the son of God. The former is not disputed by any reputable historians on the subject.

>>10679303
>>10679321
>>10679323
>>10679333
>>10679358
>>10679370
>>10679376
>>10679385
>>10679392
>>10679400
>>10679403
>>10679404
>>10679405
>>10679415
>>10679423
>>10679425
>>10679429
>>10679440
>>10679452
>>10679454
>>10679456
>>10679463
>>10679473
>>10679476
>>10679478
>>10679479
>>10679487
>>10679500
>>10679501
>>10679504
>>10679507
>>10679514
>>10679524
>>10679526
>>10679528
>>10679540
>>10679542
>>10679546
>>10679560
>>10679562
>>10679569
>>10679576
>>10679589
>>10679590
>>10679591
>>10679596
>>10679597
>>10679612
>>10679613
>>10679616
>79616▶
>>>10679596 (You)
>>10679619
>>10679623
>>10679626
>>10679638
>>10679644
>>10679651
>>10679664
>>10679671
>>10679724
>>10679736
>>10679747
>>10679767
>>10679782
>>10679790
>>10679819
>>10679823
>>10679824
>>10679841
>>10679852
>>10679856
>>10679870
>>10679872
>>10679876
>>10679892
>>10679896
>>10679910
>>10679915
>>10679925
>>10679926
>>10679935
>>10679940
>>10679946
>>10679957
>>10679956
>>10679965
>>10679968
>>10679969
>>10679977
>>10679984
>>10679990
>0 arguments to support and explain stoicism reasonably
To all the christ cucks that agreed with me that Christ didn't exist but it's still not a reason enough to dump christianity - how more self-denying can you get?

>>10680006
>>10679852
I did a pretty good job tbfh

>>10680006
You you'd me several times but I've already told you I'm not religious...

>>10680019
The premise of stoicism is more than being call to arms. I stopped reading your message at that point because it's pointless.
>>10680022
Then you are not some of the christ cucks.

>>10680006
Who ITT said Christ didn't exist? The only one that did was the teen that linked zeitgeist, which promotes a version of the Christ myth thoery. The Christ myth thoery is not supported by any reputable historians on the subject. Jesus was a real person. Was he the son of God and did he really perform miracles? That's a matter of faith.

>>10679283
Stoicism is founded on praxis, not logical proofs

QED

>>10680035
Lurk moar, everybody agreed he didn't exist.

>>10680047
No they didn't.
All the best historians on the subject believe he did exist. I'll take their view over the view of some obese atheist virgin on the internet.

>>10680054
Just go watch Zeitgeist and then kill yourself. The historian argument is especially abundant and concrete that Christ didn't exist.
I can't believe what kind of a moron unironically believes that Christ existed, LOL. /pol is down the hall

>>10680032
again, I think you are approaching the question starting on the wrong foot. If tomorrow, there was proof that was released that Jesus never lived, there would be no reason for Christianity to even change. It (like all religions) are not built on, or towards empirical truth. It's like proving mathematically that ice cream tastes bad. as long as it tastes good to you, what does the math matter? Same with religion. If you have a personal relationship with Christ (whatever that may be in reality) the experience of it is the whole of it. There is no higher arbiter by which people must justify religious experience. It's just that and nothing more, religious experience.

>>10680073
If Jesus, the Son of God, didn't exist I would guess that it's reasonable for Christcucks to btfo, but then again, why am I expecting reason from religious people anyway...?

>>10680081
>why am I expecting reason from religious people
the problem isn't that you're expecting it from people, you're expecting it from the religion itself. You want scientific validity and historical truth from a text written before science and history. That isn't the point of the text or the religion as a whole.
I'll ask again, do you think it would hurt the Hindu faith if they found out Arjuna was not a real historical prince?

Why are you guys discussing if jesus existed?

>>10680098
Their faith? Yes. Their ability to hamster reasons to continue their denial? No.
>>10680109
Anons are straw-manning me to death because I challenged their blind belief in stoicism.

>>10680070
>I can't believe what kind of a moron unironically believes that Christ existed
/Tips fedora
Everyone knowledgeable on the subject, who studies this question for a living, believes he existed. Jesus is confirmed as a real person by several non-Christian sources, including Greek and Roman sources.
But keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better.

>>10680121
>who studies this for a living
>for a living
Really activates the almonds.

>>10680120
>Their faith? Yes.
Then you just simply do not understand religion. again, I'm not a "christcuck", I'm not a believer of any religion; I'm just deeply fascinated with theology and the psychology of religion. The only people your arguments have weight with are uneducated deep south fundamentalists who probably never read the bible in full anyways.
Then again, you missed the point of stoicism entirely as well so I don't think this is an anomaly. Willful ignorance is probably closer to the truth. If not, idk enroll in your local uni and take some classes on religious studies and greek philosophy. Also please never cite zeitgeist again, that's some cringe I hope you come to understand one day.

>>10680139
They're called historians and scholars.

>>10680177
I know very well that modern religion followers are all about hamstering sideways to still follow the books and interpret in different ways. That's still baseless. Zeitgeist at least makes some premise with logical arguments, following and adding your own value to an ancient writing through interpretation of your own liking is more cringy. I hope you grow to see it some day.

>>10679303
my values are to smack ur bitch ass titties

>>10679626
>stoicism is literally a philosophical system with its own physics, logic and ethics
they arent universally agreed upon, some stoic believe in a god, mulitple gods, no gods, heaven after life, reincarnation, resetting of the universe and so on. the best possible stoic position is agnosticism, you should be moral and unmovable as a rock because its objectively good. if there are gods they would want you to be good, if there arent, still be good. if you worship them they still would care more about you if you were a moral individual, if they want you to be bad, then they are bad and don't deserve praise and authority over creation.

basically whatever is up there, whatever happens down here
>bee a good man XD

>>10680300
Yes, philosophers have different ideas. Especially those who wrote anything and were remembered. In philosophy that's why you write and that's why you're remembered. I think you're confusing philosophical schools with religions or even some small cults that have literally everything dictated by dogma that's accepted by each and every member.

>>10680376
you're retarded, i said exactly that

>>10679319
big if true

>>10680006
mass replying should be an instant ban.

your will is the only thing you can control
sensory pleasure gives you nothing of value, because it does nothing for your will, virtue does however

am i doing this right? trying to get into Stoicism.

>>10681322
Who the fuck are you? The etiquette police?

>>10680006
>shouting at random people
Remember to mention this episode to your therapist.

>>10679562
Are you implying that facing your own mind leads to mental suffering? If so then you must be so wracked with mental issues that the only philosophy that will help you is inside a psychologist’s pamphlet

>>10680006
You're unironically the biggest brainlet I have ever seen on here. Your wisdom stat is in the gutter. I don't even know an author that could pull you out of it, you may just be a lost cause. Live well, anon.

>>10679283

Read the physics in the Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, everything would make more sense. In a deterministic universe, everything that happens to you and will happen to you throughout identical circles of life in eternal recurrence does not really matter - you have no power over it. The point is whether you align your will with that of god/the cosmos or not: this is what distinguishes the good life from the bad life, and evil people from good people.

People often read only Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus for Stoic philosophy: that is a mistake. If you are into the Stoics, you should at least take a look at Long-Sedley The Hellenistic Philosophers to get an idea of the other parts of their philosophical systems.
Ethics was just the surface, and resulted from thinking about everything else (logic, ontology, physics) beforehand.

>>10679283
Isn't Stoicism a Greek philosophy about controlling ones emotions in order to make more rational decisions? Why is this so controversial and why are people arguing about Christianity in this thread?

>>10683623
Don't forget it's fatalistic and you need to accept everything like a little bitch to maximise your own happiness, in fact it's not even about happiness, you get that by doing the right thing, living virtuously, so the charicature is a sad cunt that does the right thing and doesn't complain. It's the perfect slave ideology, and the product of a dying society.

Much of the focus is on things you cannot control, -- Acceptance is encouraged in this case -- and things you can control and do something about. So the previous paragraph is definitely an exaggeration.

>>10683685
>Don't forget it's fatalistic and you need to accept everything like a little bitch to maximise your own happiness, in fact it's not even about happiness, you get that by doing the right thing, living virtuously, so the charicature is a sad cunt that does the right thing and doesn't complain. It's the perfect slave ideology, and the product of a dying society.
Except all of that is a strawman.
Nowhere do stoics say accept everything like a little bitch or cut yourself from the world. Marcus was an emperor and Seneca was wealthy and an adviser to an emperor. Stoicism doesn't tell you stop earthly pursuits, if that's what you want, but to keep those things in perspective and not let yourself be controlled by your emotions.

>>10683696
>Except all of that is a strawman.
Yeah, I kind of pointed it out in the post.

>Marcus was an emperor and Seneca
They aren't good examples. Seneca pretended to be virtuous for public approval. Marcus was a sad cunt that did his duty, and probably cried when he was alone.

>>10683685
>>10683735
Just because you made your audience aware that something you said was a strawman does not mean it's ok to use it. It's still dishonest.

>>10679364
I am sorry, skepticism is no value. It's just a tool to silence all the answers to important questions. There is no logical consistency to debunk here, only negative rationalist epistemology.
Praise utility.