/lit/ - Literature

>Can we all agree
no

also that's a pretty extreme application of stoicism. consider that epictetus was using hyperbole for effect, you simmering poof.

>boring
yes you are

>VALIDATE MY UNEDUCATED OPINION
good thread

Everyone who thinks stoics condemn 'emotion' haven't actually read the stoics.

>>11522164
>>11522172
>>11522177
>>11522399
>>11522620

I like to think the guy shitting on stoicism every single day is the same guy, it must be right?

>>11522631
>>11522620
>>11522399
>>11522177
>>11522172
stoicists eternally assblasted

>>11522164
Practice stoicism in increments. You don't need to go whole-hog, just apply it to a few aspects if yourself. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

its commodification is psued, the real thing is not though

>>11522164
hesiodos is not a stoic, he was a prephilosophical man-animal

>>11522164
>stoicism means becoming numb and unemotional
When will this meme end? Stoicism is about using reason to separate the world into things subject to your individual will and things not subject your your individual will. And then spending your energy contending with the stuff that's under your control.

The prototypical stoic act was Julius Caesar refusing to panic after being kidnapped by pirates, going so far as to treat his kidnappers like friends. And once his ransomed was payed and the Caesar was freed, he came back with his army and executed them.

>>11522164
Stoicism is inoculating yourself to the pain that at the time had no possible solution. It became popular during a really chaotic period in Roman history. It was really the only means of coping.

>>11522620
/thread

>>11522631

>>11522631
>>11522177
>>11522399
>>11522620
>>11522923
>>11522993

you dont seem to have an argument, just bitching. not very "stoic" of you

>>11523100

I myself am not a Stoic (it is not easy to apply to your life the precepts of the wise, be it Christ, Buddha, the Stoics, Socrates, etc.: you learn to do it gradually), but what that Anon wants to tell you is that if you read any Stoic manual, you will soon realize that they do not preach inaction and tolerance to all evils and abuses.

It seems to me that many people imagine Stoics (and it is curious how /pol/tards see the Stoics with bad eyes, as soft candy-asses, but call themselves Christians, where the doctrine of "turn the other cheeck" would be even more passive than anything written by any stoic) as submissive people who tolerate all insults of the world. Actually the Stoics say that you must act to correct mistakes whenever you can act, but if there is nothing you can do to solve the problem, then it is better to tolerate this situation with peace of mind, since in any case you will have to live with it.

>>11523159
good post

>>11522164
>doesn't understand stoicism
>feels validated by his ignorance

If you think stoicsim is "numbing yourself to pain" you are a fucking idiot. It's about grasping what is and isn't under your control and to not lose focus and waste energy on things which are outside of that control. Numbing yourself to pain is reserved for drug addicts. Stoicism is a direct confrontation with reality and your limits within it.

>>11523159
>turn the other cheek
>passive

Jesus fashioned whips, entered temples, kicked over tables and denounced Jews as sons of Satan and so on. 'Turn the other cheek' is a shortened phrase that people use to indicate passivity and meekness and non-violence. They ignore the time and actual meaning of the phrase.
Jesus lived in a right-handed world where left hands were reserved only for unclean tasks. The person striking you would have to use their right hand. The only way to strike someone on the right cheek with your right hand is a backhanded slap. Such a blow connotes an insult, not a fistfight, and was a normal way to reprimand someone over whom you had power (e.g. masters to slaves, husbands to wives, Romans to Jews). To strike your equal in such a manner was socially and legally unacceptable, carrying with it a huge fine.
So if you are the oppressor and strike someone, you expect your slave/lower class to slink off and fall in line. If they 'turn the other cheek', you cannot give them another backhanded slap without using your left hand, which would admit your act is unclean. You could also hit them on the left cheek, but then you would admit they are your equal as well. You can order him beaten or abuse him, but they have already proven their point - they are human and your equal or better and money and status does not give you power over them.
This has been misconstrued as passivity in modern, Judaeo media and propaganda and destruction of Christianity. The teaching of Jesus now goes from a non-viloent acceptance of evil into a challenge to resist oppression and domination and assert their humanity and God's love in unique and creative ways.
Of course, most people have not read the Bible nor examined the various translations (Jew or 'from Judea', the area, and many other deliberate mistranlsations). They do not know the context of words and trust in modern interpretations and whatever the media tells them to think.

>>11523268

You do realize that the gospels were written by people who lived after the time of Christ and are documents that contain different philosophies and different visions about him (not to mention the the apocryphal gospels that were not approved by the state machinery of Rome at the time of the adoption of Christianity)?

And you're doing bizarre interpretive juggling to try to put that biblical passage in accord with your creeds. If you read the passage in context:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other too. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

- Jesus Christ, English Standard Version (Matthew 5: 38-42)

It is obvious that Christ is preaching a kind of nonviolence.

>>11523305
The go two miles part is related to Roman laws. The Roman law called lex angeria which allowed a soldier to compel a civilian to carry his pack for one milion – 1,520 paces. This is known as a Roman mile. But the soldier was required to take the pack again at the end of the mile. He would be subject to punishment if he tried to make the civilian carry the pack further.

It is a non-violent act of rebellion. It shows your dedication to Jesus and Christianity and that you will do more for your God than any Roman would for Caesar.

>>11522164
>You are such a pussy that you numb yourself to pain which in turns numbs every other aspect of life. You just become a worthless, unemotional robot until you die.
But this is not even true.

>>11522164
CAN WE ALL AGREE THAT NOW THAT THE DUST HAS SETTLED IS THAT AESTHETIC FEEL /OURGUY/??

>>11523317
Interesting, what about the tunic one?

>>11523268

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place… for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

>>11523345
The setting for this story is a debtor being dragged to court by their creditor to pay up. In Deuteronomy 24:10-13 we learn that creditors who go to collect on their loans may not enter someone’s home and take whatever they want, but they must wait outside and receive the debtors outer cloak as collateral. The cloak, however, must be returned at night so the debtor is not literally left out in the cold.

Again, this addresses the poor masses of the area. Jesus' parables are full of debtors struggling to save themselves from usury. Palestine in the 1st century suffered under Roman laws and taxation. They also taxed their own and the wealthy dont like being taxed. Similar to today, they tried to hide their wealth by owning non-liquid things - land, specifically in Palestine. One of the first acts of Jewish revolutionaries was to burn the treasury that stored the debt ledgers in 66 AD or First Roman-Jewish War.

Here’s the significance of the tunic and cloak action. Nakedness was taboo in Judaism, and shame fell less on the naked party than on the person viewing or causing the nakedness (Gen. 9:20-27)…There stands the creditor, covered with shame, the poor debtor’s outer garment in the one hand, his undergarment in the other.

The tables have suddenly been turned on the creditor. The debtor had no hope of winning the case; the law was entirely in the creditor’s favor. But the poor man has transcended this attempt to humiliate him. He has risen above shame.

At the same time, he has registered a stunning protest against the system that created his debt. He has said in effect, ‘You want my robe? Here, take everything! Now you’ve got all I have except my body. Is that what you’ll take next?'

It's similar to the cheek and roman mile. It's true its non-violent, but it's not passive. It's not accepting intolerance and evil. It's outright defying it. There's a big difference between meaning and what media has portrayed and perpetuated for public consumption.

>>11523384
>Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

Blessed is in regards to happiness or fortunate. esus mentioned in this list, “the poor in spirit,” “those who mourn,” “the meek,” etc., obviously could not be products of Pharisaic righteousness. The Pharisees were concerned primarily with external qualities, but the qualities Jesus mentioned are internal. These come only when one is properly related to God through faith, when one places his complete trust in God.

εἰρηνοποιός eirēnopoiós; gen. eirēnopoioú, masc. noun from eirēnopoiéō (1517), to make peace. Peacemaker. The one who, having received the peace of God in his own heart, brings peace to others (only in Matt. 5:9). He is not simply one who makes peace between two parties, but one who spreads the good news of the peace of God which he has experienced.

It's taking God into your heart that will bless you with happiness and good fortune and make you Sons of God (you could argue it is taking communion, bread/wine and accepting Jesus and God and everything related to Christianity).

>>11523402
Where did you learn this? Any books I can read?

>>11523268
>This has been misconstrued as passivity in modern, Judaeo media and propaganda and destruction of Christianity.

Let me guess: Jesus would be proud of a neoliberal state with low taxes and no concern for welfare or efforts to provide the same opportunities to everyone.

>>11523457
he made it up

>>11523384
>Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28

http://www.academia.edu/15326755/The_Meaning_and_Misuse_of_Love_Your_Enemies_in_Matt._5_44

It is far too difficult to explain this one in so short a post. It requires a lot of background knowledge. This essay sums up a lot of it. I have my own interpretations from other readings and study, but this is a thorough account of it and how it applies mainly to Roman occupation of Palestine and the conditions and time period. Most is ideals set to strive for and not a catch all love everyone and let evil go unchecked as portrayed today. It's been co-opted to turn Christianity into something it never was and is a relatively recent trend.

>>11523503
Pretty impressive if true desu

>>11523519

Dude, you're just trying to make things more comfortable for you. The figure of Christ that emerges for those who read the Bible is much more similar to something like a Gandhi than with Templar Knights, cruzaders, the warrior popes of the past and wall-street neoliberals.

Virtually the entire history of the masters of power applying Christianity is the story of people ignoring what Christ has taught, perhaps thinking that it was enough for them to repent later.

>>11523519
>Jesus explicity says to "do this."
> Scholars say "what he actually meant was 'if you did this it would be good but you don't have to.' "
Why scholars gotta turn our Lord and Saviour into the fucking Riddler?

>>11523550
Not him, but there are many Bible passages which portray Christ in a non-passive role (namely the Book of Revelations), so it's not nearly as clear-cut as you say it is.

It depends entirely on how you define 'love'. I believe Bishop Robert Barron did a great video on this, about the difference between 'love' and 'tolerance'. To love someone is to will the goodness in them. This often requires you to be charitable and merciful - far more so than is typical in today's society - but it also requires you to be willing to administer tough love. If a friend or family member is doing something terribly wrong, it would not be loving to condone or implicitly allow the behaviour; sometimes you have to put your foot down in order to get them to change. What is best for someone is not always the easiest path, but if you truly love someone, then you need to be willing to guide down the harder path. This is the kind of unconditional love that Christ advocated, not toleration of immoral behaviour.

If you properly understand this distinction, then it is clear how you should act towards others.

>>11523550
This is a very Jewish view of Christianity, Christ, and the Bible.

>>11523610

Then it must be in the right track, since Christ was a jew himself

>>11523613
He was not. The term Jew refers to Israelites of Judea and Galilee who followed the Pharisees after the Diaspora. Jesus was an Israelite, a Judean, and a Galilean but not a Jew.
>You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jewish views of Christianity should be the first that are discounted and ignored.

>>11523613
Jesus explicitly rejects everything related to Judaism, calls them money lenders (a horrible thing at the time, still is, but not the same negative connotations as then - they were literally viewed as theives and lowest people), sons of Satan, etc.

Modern Judaism originates 100's of years after Christianity. When the Romans destroyed temples, the main offenders left and eventually migrated towards the Khazar Empire. They came back with the Talmud and modern Judaism, which is completely different from Jesus' time. Modern Jews hate Jesus Christ. They hate him so much, they refuse to use the + symbol in Israel because it looks like a cross. They use ﬩ despite universal acceptance of + for plus.

They also state Jesus is burning in Hell and that Mary was a whore. Judaeo-Christian, although the term first appears in the mid 19th century, it only gained its current implication – that of a shared value system and morals – in the 1940s. President Eisenhower made the concept a household term when he connected it with the Founding Fathers in a 1952 speech:

>“all men are endowed by their Creator.” In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men created equal.”

His statement seems bizarre in light of the balance of Jewish-Christian relationships. There is practically no precedent for understanding they share a common core of beliefs, practices, or morals. There’s a good argument to be made that the entire foundation of Western civilization is based on opposition to Judaism and it’s values. The overwhelming history of Christian religious violence against Jews, from antiquity to today, including such highlights as blood libels, the Crusades, pogroms, expulsions, and book-burnings, all testify to the deeply ingrained rejection and revulsion of Jews by Christians. Chrysostom’s infamous Adversus Judaeos contains the following gem:

>“The Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.” … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.” [Luke 19:27]”

Advocates of the use of ‘Judeo-Christian’ as an acceptable adjective fail to acknowledge that the very core of their argument – that Judaism and Christianity share essential values – is simply untrue.

>>11523610
>t. non-believer
Any believer in the trinity should know, Jesus was present from the time of creation. Were Jews present at the creation? No. Jesus preached among the Israelites, but Jesus is Lord.

>>11523457
exodus 22:26-27 tells you about this.

http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-26.htm

If you look into other history texts and bible related studies, you will find more information. This link has some general commentary and further readings on it, though I'd advise reading deeper on the topic for a more thorough understanding of the time period and laws that were being preached regarding tunics and cloaks.

>>11523661
>>11523646

>>11523661
>Advocates of the use of ‘Judeo-Christian’ as an acceptable adjective fail to acknowledge that the very core of their argument – that Judaism and Christianity share essential values – is simply untrue.

>what are the commandments
>shared creation myth in Genesis, original sin and the fall
>equating Christ with that Creator in John
>what are the Psalms
They share a lot and you fucking know it.

>>11523771
I meant in general, not that specific line

>>11523646
>Jesus was an Israelite
>of the house of David
>"there were no Jews in Judea"
>he was killed by the Jews tho, the Sanhedrin, for fucking up their cash flow at Temple
>"there were no Jews in Judea"

>you can fuck my wife and rape my son but you can't harm my virtue
Stoicism is a cuck philosophy

>>11523861
kek

>>11523823
Go read the Talmud and get back to me. Christianity does not apply only to people of the same ethnic origins. It does not refer to non-Christians as Goyim or cattle in English. They do not preach to lie to non-Christians or that you can use and abuse these cattle, but never cheat a fellow Christian.

They do not share a lot and YOU know it. Either that or you've never read both books. They even claim Moses as a Jew when he was a Luddite. The Talmud is evil and actually far worse than the Koran. Both are decidedly similar in teachings with infidel vs goyim, taqiyya vs Jewish practices vs goyim/gentiles (lying to gentiles (Baba Kamma 113a), lying to keep out of trouble (for “peace”) (Yebamoth 65b), when everyone should know you are lying, guzmah (Hullin 90b), “Rabbis are liable to alter their words, and the accuracy of their statements is not to be relied upon.” The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition, Vol. II, pp. 48-49, and “It is strictly forbidden to moser [inform the non-Judaic authorities on] either a Jewish person or his property. One who mosers a Jewish person or his property has no share in the world to come.” -Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 388).

There are countless writings on lying about sexuality, Talmud scholarship and hospitality, among other topics. (The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition, Vol II, p.49).

You are disingenuous in your statement.

>>11522164

People who talk about Stoicism on this board are absolutely pathetic. You only engage with the Ethics as the Waterstones-tier brainlets you are and never read anything from their physics and logic, on which ethics are based on. They had a world of things to say on the physics of the continous and on logic, and yet you will sit at your keybords like fucking monkeys armed with a bazooka and shoot your uninformed bullshit right in my face every time I open a Stoic thread.
Pic related is my suggestion so that you can evolve to the homo species from the primates you currently are and produce a well-thought critic of Stoicism as a system.

>>11522909
I do agree in principal that Caesar story is very stoic in the beginning. However he came back to crucify them because they requested too low of a bounty and Caesar's ego was hurt from it. Though I do agree with your post and all these morons know nothing of actual stoicism.

Keep in mind we are discussing the TEXT. not the ethnic/social groups past or present or their behavior. The reason for that is it is well established that mankind, Israelite (Jew) or Christian, are sinners who turn their back to God.

>>11523891
We aren't talking about rabbinical opinions or extra-biblical works. We're talking about the OT (or even hebrew bible alone) and NT. the mishnah wasn't collated until hundreds of years after Christ. Including rabbinic self-serving oral tradition and comparing it to scripture... might as well include the nag hammadi texts as well.

>>11523934
Jews use the Torah (written work given to Moses) and Talmud (oral work from Moses) as their holy texts. Saying ignore the fucking Torah is ludicrous. These arent even the same Jews from the time of the Old Testament.

>>11523894
Unironically Stoic metaphysics was the last straw that pushed me away from the school. Although I took issue with apatheia, it was an admissible issue insofar as it was a potentially functional tactic in the art of livng, but then I found out that their believe in universal teleology. Ugh.

>>11523962
Tbhwy that's why rabbinic decisions should not be compared to or held up as scripture. An oral tradition of manmade laws that supercedes and perverts the law given by the Lord. It's the golden calf all over. Catholics have had corruption and scholars who espoused ethnic preference and cleansing over the millennia (Tertullian, Augustine), but at least they produced real philosophers like Aquinas and kept a centralized catechism. Compare to joe blow the rabbi whose advice was given to settle a dispute within the borders of a shtetl and recorded for all time.

>>11522164
this is Hesiod, not a Stoic. sage

Is stoicism not about just being yourself and accepting that there are a lot of things you can't control and dealing with them and not being a gigantic shithead or did i read it wrong

>>11523572
This. That anon is on another level man...