/lit/ - Literature

BLACKED enthusiast

I imagine a stoic
xD

>>12404764
someone who might've been a genuinely solemn person at some point but its now experiencing a sour grapes paradigm.

"Wisdom In A Can"
he checks out and goes home
starts as if to open it
but it's empty!

Someone who wants motivation to get their life together, but can't bring themselves to believe in Christianity. Will ultimately find that stoicism is more unjustifiable than Christianity since there is no basis for determination what is "good." Will either attempt Christianity afterwards or continue searching endlessly for something else.

>>12404808
>or continue searching endlessly for something else.
That is until they run into Epicureanism.

>>12404764
my ideal boyfriend

>>12404764
>one copy of Seneca's moral essays please

>>12404764
A person with emotions issues that tries to fight back reading books, asking google and listening to podcasts

>>12404799
kys faggot

An intellectual npc. He probably liked bacon until Adam ruins everything railed against it.

>>12404816
What makes Epicureanism different?

>>12404825
/sci/ eishes they looked like that

>>12404874
Human beings desire their own happiness. Other things they desire can be reduced to their pursuit of happiness at root, though they will start to associate things that give them happiness as desirable in themselves over time.

>>12404833
>>12404833
>>12404833

>>12404764

If you were one you wouldn't attentionwhore about it on the internet.

>>12404764

I imagine a dull introvert who skipped Plato.

>>12404764
Myself.

>>12404764
some faggy little pseud

A young person who's just taken a philosophy class. An old stoic would probably never say: "I'm a stoic." Come to think of it, and old stoic probably wouldn't say much at all.

>>12404825
>morals

>>12404764
A uninteresting young guy who lifts sometimes

>>12404764

The problem with Modern Stoicism is not Stoicism, but that people who claim themselves to be Stoics often don't study it too deeply. They read the Meditations and say "Now I'm a Stoic".

That and that the most famous ones in the "community" try to make Stoicism some kind of subset of progressive ideology. For example, Stoics would not favor sex outside marriage. Modern progressives do. The "leadership" of Modern Stoicism then go on and says "The old Stoics were prudes. But now we know better". Do they try to engage the arguments of the Stoics? Do they try to see why they were against it? If it came logically from the Stoic principles? Of course not. They go against what modern liberals believe, so of course they were wrong and their beliefs were due to Roman prudishness.

Someone asked "is Jordan Peterson a Stoic"? Of course he is not. He never claimed he was. But the answer of some of the "leaders" were basically that he was not a Stoic because he was not sufficiently progressive. Being virtuous means being for open borders.

>>12405102
>Come to think of it, and old stoic probably wouldn't say much at all.
Chrysippus wrote over 700 books.

How could you read Plato or Aristotle's ethics and then take Stocism seriously? It's a fable to console legionnaire retards so they don't question why they're marching off to die in some horrid war in Germania or Persia.

>>12405206
Platonic ethics is pretty much identical to Stoic ethics.

>>12405188
>That and that the most famous ones in the "community" try to make Stoicism some kind of subset of progressive ideology.
This seems to happen with all modern revivals of ancient beliefs. The reason is that there is no historical continuity to the present. The chain was broken. Tradition is not something that you can dig up out of the earth, but something that is passed down through living people who abide by it. When it develops it does so holistically, within itself. Modern Stoicism, just like modern paganism or whatever else, is illegitimate for this reason. You take the fragments that are left other, that you can't fully make sense of because their context is completely dead, and then you fill in the rest with ideology du jour.

>>12405213
No they're not. Stocism is ugly dry fatalism for future war casualties. Platonism is the striving for henosis with the Good and the Beautiful. There are no "indifferents" nonsense in Platonism.

>>12404764
Pic related

>>12405188
I always tell them to read Musonius Rufus and then tell me why he's wrong, from a stoic perspective, about sexual conduct.

>>12404764
A person whose self is in despair

>>12405233
Stoicism says that we need to be good, sweetie, and we know now that things like homosexuality and sexual liberation are good things, that means stoicism supports those things. You're not a racist incel bigot are you?

>>12405226
What the Stoics considered to be good, the Platonists considered to be good. What the Stoics considered to be indifferent, the Platonists considered "not good or bad".
Both lived simple lives, without looking for pleasure, status, etc.

>>12405241
I mean, you joke, but that's not really far from their justification for it.

>>12405226
>No they're not. Stocism is ugly dry fatalism for future war casualtie
It's so clear you've never read anything about it aside from a wiki page on it. Stocism isn't fatalist and it's not dry.

>>12405221
Umm sweetie the chain of Platonism remains unbroken.

>>12405248
>t. ugly soul that can't comprehend the difference between beautiful Platonic providence and dry Stoic fatalism
No wonder the monks threw out your corpus kek

>>12405246
Yup.

>>12404764
Redditor, software programmer and crying on the inside eternally

>stoic

also not literature

You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima

>>12404764
A loser in life who, as a defence mechanism, has concluded that nothing really matters anyway.

>>12405512
The two best known Stoicism books were written by a Roman Emperor when Rome was at its peak and Arrianus. Arrianus was regarded as the best philosopher of his day, the best historian of his day, a successful politician who was a governor of multiple provinces and a general who stopped an invasion.

>>12405512
You come from /his/, don't you?

>>12405242
No, to start with Stoicism has no conception of beauty.

>>12405512
I hope you're not implying things matter

>>12405242
How is the Platonic "become Godlike" comparable in any way to the miserable Stoic "be content as a cog in a machine universe"?

Read what Platonist actually ethics are:
>Plotinus: Virtue Ethics
ttps://www.iep.utm.edu/plot-v-e/

>>12405545
Concern over beauty is a passion that should be extinguished.

>>12405603
The poverty of the Stoa.

>run up to stoic and pretend to punch him but back off at the last second
>he flinches
LMAO SO MUCH FOR STOICISM

>>12405615
Poverty is no concern to a man of good character.

>>12405597
Epictetus has written "become Godlike" dozens of times.
Virtue is beauty, being virtuous is becoming Godlike.

>>12405619
Poor between your ears.

>>12405677
Says the one who wants to start shitflinging between two philosophies that are pretty much indistinguishable in practical terms.

>>12404764
Is he Sargon of Akkad?

>>12405656
Stoics don't have a proper conception of God, their God is subordinate and subject to fate, not a providential bestower above it. To become a Stoic God is to remain a victim to clockwork fatalism. Nor does the Stoic have a proper conception of beauty as a form that all other intelligibles participate in. What does the Stoic even mean by beauty? Their aesthetic theories are notoriously poor.

>>12405704
Is perfect virtue not beautiful? And perfect vice not disdainful? Does a virtuous man, or woman, not appeal more to one's soul than the one full of vices?
How does the pursuit of virtue in the Stoics differ from the pursuit of virtue in the christian saints?

>>12405704
>Stoics don't have a proper conception of God, their God is subordinate and subject to fate. To become a Stoic God is to remain a victim to clockwork fatalism.
Now you are just trolling. You have never read a single Stoicism book, have you?

>>12405684
Your projecting your poverty onto Platonism by false equivalence and ignorance of the unfamilar. The end goal of henosis is nothing like Stoic cogism.

>>12405721
Anon

>>12404764
A redditor or >>12404777

>>12405722
Pretty much the only difference between Platonism and Stoicism is that Stoics will be more active, while Platonists will spend more time in contemplation.

Both consider status, material wealth and physical pleasure to be things that should not be pursued. Both consider that a good life comes from a knowledge of the good. But consider that the good is virtue and that it is necessary and sufficient for happiness.

>>12405725
>Anon
What?

>>12405685
No. Aurelius is ok with his wife being fucked by niggers though that never happened, while Carl actually has his wife get fucked by niggers.

>>12405717
All intelligible forms are beautiful. Particulars are beautiful to the degree to which they mimic their forms. Unlike the Platonist/Christian, Stoicism has no eros for God, just soulless resignation to fate.

>>12405206
Keep in mind it born in the academic world of 4th century athens, but somehow we almost lost all works from the Greek founders of Stoicism. What we know well is the (pre-hellenic) Roman take on stoicism, who probably exalted the stern attitude to life and duties expected from a soldier citizien. Cosmopolitanism for example was a big point of Zeno, the founder of the movement, but aside few quotes from hime reported by Roman Stoics, they conventiely forgot about that aspect of their doctrine

>>12405756
>soulless resignation to fate
How do Platonists deal with fate, might I ask?

>>12405736
And so do Epicureans. Similarity of some praxis is not meaningful, they are all radically different philosphies. In particular the Platonist will create art, the Stoic can not because he has no conception of beauty. Where is the Stoic Golden Ass or Divine Names?

>>12405756
>All intelligible forms are beautiful. Particulars are beautiful to the degree to which they mimic their forms.
I do not think I understand what you mean by that

>>12405779
This is gibberish

>>12405760
Stoicism is a barracks philosophy to convince soldiers to be contented to die in battle, nothing more. A fable for army cohesion during campaigns.

>>12405769
Providence of the gods, or God in Christian Platonism.

>>12405800
You didn't answer my question.
Will the Platonist accept fate happily and not consider good fortune to be good and bad fortune to be bad, like the Stoics did or will he throw a temper tantrum?
Boethius seemed surely to be similar to the Stoics.

>>12405792
As i said, Roman Stoicism probably took a road more similar of what you are saying. Original Greeks founders like Zeno? Hard to say.
I would suggest if you didnt to read the "Manual" of Epictetus: it's a stoic of second century AD, but of greek origins and neither a politician or a soldier, like the others Roman age Stoics. Probably among all the readable authors is the one who preached the nearest ethic and metaphysic of the original school

>>12405778
>And so do Epicureans.
Epicureans have some differences, since they consider pleasure to be positive, unlike the other two.

>Similarity of some praxis is not meaningful, they are all radically different philosphies.
Similarity of how they act, similarity of what is the good. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing to start a "my're philosphy > you're philosophy" shit.

>In particular the Platonist will create art, the Stoic can not because he has no conception of beauty. Where is the Stoic Golden Ass or Divine Names?
Who is Seneca?

>>12405748
>Aurelius is ok with his wife being fucked by niggers
Wtf. Is this true?

>>12405815
They simply dont care, as they are focussed on the world of ideas and found with logical thoughts the godness of both the two after-death options (nothingness or afterlife). The Plato dialogue about Socrates suicide pretty much answer your question

>>12405792
>Stoicism is a barracks philosophy to convince soldiers to be contented to die in battle

This is bullshit. Stoicism was concerned with having people living good lives.
And tell me, how does Platonism differs from Stoicism on how to behave in a battlefield?

Idk what everyone itt is talking about. I just remind myself that there will always be shitty drivers before I head to work and it stops me from getting angry when someone cuts me off without signaling.
I'm a stoic.

>>12404764
Someone who doesn't really care what anyone else has to say-

>>12405835
Fortune means more than life and death.

>They simply dont care, as they are focussed on the world of ideas and found with logical thoughts the godness of both the two after-death options (nothingness or afterlife).
And this is... accepting your fate...

>>12405825
Voice of that time reported his wife was rather "libertine" and he simply recognize as his child whatever child came out from
the wife because he strongly loved her. He even indirectly mention that voices in his private diary

>>12405852
She was likely not a libertine.
Do you know how modern progressives call anyone they dislike "virgins" or "sexually repressed"? The Romans usually called their political opponents promiscuous.

>>12405850
Yes but if think Stoics have a positive view of a "neutral" fact for them (life). For Plato and his followers, life was inherently good, as a reflection of the supreme idea of good. As long you know what really truly matter, thanks to the philosophy, at least

>>12405779
Beauty is the actualisation of form. A particular drawn circle that more closely mimics the Form of the Circle (e.g. C=2πr or the other derived circle definitions) is more beautiful, a badly drawn circle that mimics the form less well is less beautiful.

The Form of the Circle itself, being perfect and eternal in the noetic realm of forms as an intelligible, is perfectly beautiful. Now the intelligable forms of all things: circles, triangles, man, etc. all partake and share in this being beautiful, in the Form of the Beautiful, which because all intelligible forms participate in it, exists prior to and above other forms.

Start you ethical theory there, with the Form of the Beautiful above all other intelligible forms, then to the Form of the Man and the Form of the Body Politic, and then to beauty of particular men as individuals and in groups, and you will have a properly grounded virtue ethics.

>>12405857
In fact i wrote "voices", as anon asked infos about that question. Of course, we dont live in that time, so is impossible to claim if that voices were true or not

>>12405873
>Yes but if think Stoics have a positive view of a "neutral" fact for them (life)
Could you rewrite this?

>>12405877
>Beauty is the actualisation of form. A particular drawn circle that more closely mimics the Form of the Circle (e.g. C=2πr or the other derived circle definitions) is more beautiful, a badly drawn circle that mimics the form less well is less beautiful.
You don't understand anything about beauty and so you whole teaching is aesthetically hollow.

>>12405877
Interesting post, thank you.

>>12405886
Not my mother language sorry. Was i meant was that, for the Stoics, life didnt mattered in the eternal scheme of the universe: people born, live and die, this always happened, and everyone lived thought the same perils and joys, and the world simply ignored everyone's lives and kept function as a machine deviced by god. Happiness was simply to accept this truth, dont try to pretend life and the universe were something different, and focus on doing your duty in life.
To conclude, stoics were neutral on life and the universe because they thought what really mattered was their behavior, dictated by the reason INSIDE them. The Theory of otherworldy perfect ideas OUTSIDE the mind, like Platonists support, was not part of the stoic schools. So anything outiside you didnt mattered, material of spiritual

>>12405823
>Epicureans have some differences, since they consider pleasure to be positive
In moderation, just like the practice of the Peripatetics, Platonists, and Stoics, with the same practical warnings about the dangers of excess. Still a very different philosophy. Yes it matters, superficial similarities in some practices conceal radical differences in other practices and purpose. It is extremely naive to suggest that a general philosophical consensus on how to live on some matters means all philosophies are of a similar kind.

>>12405921
>To conclude, stoics were neutral on life and the universe because they thought what really mattered was their behavior, dictated by the reason INSIDE them.

I don't see the Platonists as differents in regards to this. How did Plato portray Socrates' reaction to his death? Wasn't it with indifference to life?
And isn't the search for the good something that happens inside of your soul?

>I'm a Stoic

You're a LARPer. Reading and even practicing Stoic principles doesn't make you a Stoic anymore than reading The Hagakure and taking kendo lessons makes you a fucking samurai.

>>12405943
I think that the Epicurean belief on what is good makes them significantly different from the others.

And what differentiates Stoics from modern people? What makes them different?
>They consider status, material wealth and physical pleasure to be things that should not be pursued. They consider that a good life comes from a knowledge of the good. They consider that the good is virtue and that it is necessary and sufficient for happiness.

In which, they are similar to the Platonists.

>>12405992
If you do practice Stoic principles and understand the philosophy, you can call yourself a Stoic.
I don't think anyone in the world does. I don't call myself a Stoic either.

>>12405815
Platonism doesn't have fate, it has the providence of world souls, tiers of heros, daimons, and gods, or something simpler in Christian Platonism. Providence is different to fate because God is superior to the events, not subordinate to them. Reconciliation to providence is the same as reconciliation and standing to the gods. Platonists hold the soul is eternal and will have eternal life somewhere, either reincarnated, or henosis/theosis.

Read the Platonist critques of Stoic fatalism to understand the Christian view.

Someone who has been hurt and who will never truly live

>>12405983
It's more about prospective than anything. Stoicism was deeply rooted into human ethics and largery ignored everything strictly non-human related, because they were considered pointless. Plato, while Socratic (the first "human-centrist philospher we know) was still deeply influenced by pre-socratic schools, who focused on how the world function and how it was born. So even stuff like human life are studied by Platonists as part of the grand scheme of the universe
So Stoics largery found their reason about how to judge a man and his by his inside reason, without caring how the reason came from or how to works. Platonists while doing the same explain how their vision of the universe works, and how they are related. With this in mind, the Socrates we know from Plato works and his human-focused view of life can be see as more proto-stoic than Plato himself

>>12406009
If you understood the philosophy you would know that having a Stoic teacher is part of it. PROTIP: The dude who maintains the Daily Stoic is not your Seneca.

>>12406033
Cont.
So if you simply focus ONLY on the ethics about life and death in Platonism, they basically follow Socrates, and so are very similar to core Stoicism. But they also add heavy metaphisic of the universe into them, and the end result is rather different, and turn life and ethics into a more positive, providence-guided forces

>>12405836
Platonism believes that gods you beseech and your own actions can influence the outcome, not in fatalism. That you may have agency to not have your life end here.

>>12406022
A Platonist and a Stoic would both have the same reaction if they were to be unjustly executed.

>>12404987
this

irvine said it best

>>12406071
Socrates as a soldier behaved and thought like a Stoic is supposed to behave and think.

>>12405903
Start here
http://www.platonic-philosophy.org/files/Plotinus%20-%20On%20Beauty%20(I-6).pdf

>>12406071
A Stoic is supposed to do his best in order to fight well. Marcus Aurelius didn't go #YOLO when he went into wars.

>>12404764

>>12406093
Probably wiped their arses the same way too.

>>12406147
Then, don't say the Stoics were different due to how they wiped their asses.

>>12406104
Socrates was guided a daimon he cultivated. Stoics don't believe in the providence of gods/daimons.

>>12406136
I'm not arguing Platonism is a superior barracks philosophy. Believing you are not a pawn of fate makes you less blaise about taking battlefield risks. A stoic soldier is more useful to an army than a Platonist monk. The purpose of stoicism is to convince men they are disposable and to be content with it, whilst Platonism says men have value that may not be best spent fertilising poppies.

>>12406155
In practical terms what he did in battle was equivalent to what the Stoics did. This is mostly about the conspiracy theory that >>12405792 created. You don't need to artificially create Stoicism to have brave soldiers if there were already brave soldiers.
And if you did try to create brave soldiers, it would make more sense to create a timocratic man.

>>12406194
Are you the one that created the conspiracy theory that Stoicism was created for war, when most of it relates to times of peace?

Both the Platonist, the Stoic and the Aristotelian would fight in a similar way.

>>12406197
Also, while Roman Stoicism way have indeed been influenced by his soldier-thinkers, it was mostly a school of thought for the elite who had to send men to dearh. Low soldiers who actually had to die in battle were mostly into esoteric cults who had nothing to do with the stern stoic ideas, like Mythraism

>>12404874
The Epicurean axiom of good feels good bad feels bad is a lot easier to accept than the arbitrary Stoic appeal to nature.

>>12404764
you probably aren't a stoic you just like the idea of it

Stoicism is just corrupt bourgeois Cynicism made compatible with the status quo.

It was literally founded by a man who was too morally weak to be a Cynic so he created Cynicism Lite.

>>12406326
>Stoicism
>bourgeois

>>12406392
Stoicism is the opium of the masses.

>>12406785
It's literally not. Stoicism is a disciplined way of living. The "masses" are most assuredly not Stoic.

>>12404764
whenever anyone tells me their belief system I doubt them, the amount of people I know who're "certain god is real" but do drugs, cheat and have premarital sex is ridiculous

>>12406796
Stoics lack the discipline to be Cynics so a lot of their output is just excuses for their weakness and lack of dedication.

Cynics live in poverty, Stoics make up excuses while they chase wealth while saying that they like totally could do without. It’s a philosophy for people who like to LARP as a sage while lacking the spine to be one.

>>12406988
This reminds me of an issue within early Christianity, between the majority of people who live in the world, and the "perfect" who abandon it. Literature written for the latter can often have little value for the former, but the former need their own aid as well. There's no reason to belittle people who don't feel compelled to give up everything. They have their own troubles to contend with.

>>12406988
Discipline has nothing to do with it, they had different opinions on what it took to be happy. The Stoics believed it was okay to prefer things like wealth so long as you recognize they're ultimately indifferent to your happiness while the Cynics rejected indifferent entirely, because to them they weren't actually indifferent but actually hindered your happiness.

>>12404764
Some really outsider loner guy riddled by anxiety disorders who needed stoicism to survive.

No wait, that's me.

>>12406988
Living in poverty is a meaningless exercise. The cynics justified this lifestyle by claiming that living on the streets in your own filth was the closest one can be to human nature. In their eyes civilization was a fools errand.

This stands and falls depending on what you think human nature is. And as far as I can see is civilization a product of human nature. The desire to band together, improve each others lives, build up knowledge and art and preserve our knowledge for the next generations so they can build upon it.

>>12407110
Fair point desu

>>12407396
This is the type of cope sophistry I mean. Meanwhile they did acknowledge Diogenes as the ultimate sage and Cynicism as the short-cut to virtue though.

>>12407550
That’s not true. See Diogenes Laertius:

>He used also to say that when he saw physicians, philosophers and pilots at their work, he deemed man the most intelligent of all animals; but when again he saw interpreters of dreams and diviners and those who attended to them, or those who were puffed up with conceit of wealth, he thought no animal more silly.

He wasn’t necessarily anti-civilisation, he was anti-decadence. He lived in the city. He wrote books. He held speeches in the market place. He wasn’t some sort of anarcho-primitivist avant la lettre.

A nihilist without proper Marxist education.

Millionaire silicon valley dudebros and self help authors writing for those dudebros.

>>12404824
(me (pls))

>>12405512
Negativity can be an armour against further negativity in that this armour negates any further damages by camouflaging among its foes, an armour like that would fit anyone who still believe they are not where they want to be or who they want to be so that, from that low position, they can only ascend.

>>12407550
at some point civilization becomes silly and i start to see its facades,have you ever lived on the streets in your own filth?have you ever had the grain of this world rub you raw?when shit gets real, when its a matter of life and limb i feel best because thats when i know the deception and bullshit stops.

Is there a /lit/ stoicism starter kit?

>>12404764
What comes after Stoicism?

>>12405512
I am fairly successful. All I do is simply act as my daemon tells me to do and fortune follows.

>>12405617
What if it was in his nature to flinch. All actions are a part of a vast and swirling mechanism.

>>12410174
Stoicism has 3 primary works: Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, Discourses by Epictetus, and Letters from a Stoic by Seneca.

>>12410421
senior year of highschool

>>12410421
Asceticism

>>12410455
Sweet, can't wait to read moby dick again

>>12410454
Can you get into them directly, or do you have to read some other works to understand them.

>>12409209
aren't they vampires or something? i didn't see the show

still, >tfw no qt vampire /lit/ bf

>>12410620
>aren't they vampires or something?
does it matter?

>>12410726
>does it matter?

yeah because it's kind of hot desu

>>12410746
ok now be my bf

>>12410769
would you bite me? only softly of course. i don't think it's very safe to break the skin

>>12405221
so kind of like Jurrasic Park, but for philosophy?

>>12404764
A dindu or wanna-be White dindu. Or a Nazi.

>>12410593
They are pretty easy. Start with Epictetus.

>>12407900
The line of philosophers that led to Stoicism is
Aristotle -> Antisthenes -> Crates of Thebes -> Zeno of Citium

Diogenes was a big influence to both Crates and Zeno, but it was Antisthenes with his teachings of living in accordance with nature that lead to Zeno's early stoicism.

>>12405154
Faggots like this exist?

>>12407550
>Living in poverty is a meaningless exercise.
Then you won't find any meaning in living in luxury either

>>12411771
Being reliant on, or identifying yourself with physical possessions is destructive as well.

But that does not mean you should live like a bum. And eat the garbage other people throw away. You just become a useless barnacle on society.

There are better ways to get rid of the control things and objects might have over you.

Why does /pol/ keep recommending Meditations when they clearly don't understand a first thing about Aurelius' writing? From periodical reading of it, doesn't he basically preach "turn the other cheek" or to be unreactive? Quite opposite of pol's anger with minorities....

>>12411855
When does /pol/ recommend Meditations?

>>12411862
I often see it in their list of recommended books or simply discussed as a great book.
And I am doubtful that a nationalsocialist can enjoy any of the wisdoms in the book

>>12411867
Well people like to share around recommendation charts and then read none of the books on it.

>turn the other cheek
I don't think that's a fair paraphrasing of his philosophy though. The man was a roman Emperor and fought the Marcomannic Wars. Better would be "Sometimes your cheek will get slapped, deal with it".

>>12410812
yes

>>12411855
/pol/ is fractured.

>>12412264
god, the fantasy of being sensually bitten is hot. i would if i could, anon

>>12411855
>Why does /pol/ keep recommending Meditations when they clearly don't understand a first thing about Aurelius' writing? From periodical reading of it, doesn't he basically preach "turn the other cheek" or to be unreactive?

You clearly don't understand a first thing about Aurelius' writing

>>12406033
>Stoicism was deeply rooted into human ethics and largery ignored everything strictly non-human related
Not true, Stoicism has a fatalist metaphysics that their ethics depend on. It needs an all-powerful mechanistic determinism for the ethical ideas to be coherent.

Epictetus or Seneca? What to start with?

>>12412365
>It needs an all-powerful mechanistic determinism for the ethical ideas to be coherent.
Not true.
If you look at the Meditations, Marcus Aurelius explicitly says that it makes no difference to how you should act if the universe is ordered or disordered. Epictetus' ethics is largely independent of the universe being ordered or disordered. Even if the universe is completely disordered and everything happens by chance, his ethics still hold.

>>12412365
I'm >>12412405
But then, you are probably the one who wrote this conspiracy theory crap >>12405792 so it is not surprising you don't know much about Stoicism. That's the problem of getting your knowledge from wikipedia, I guess.

>>12412365
>It needs an all-powerful mechanistic determinism
The Stoics were compatibilists.

>>12412405
Start here, you're too engrossed in Stoa myopia to know their positions in the context of their contemporary rivals.

>>12404764
boring ass faggot

>>12412437
Marcus Aurelius explicitly said that it made no difference if the universe is ordered or disordered.
Maybe, just maybe, he knew more about Stoic ethics than you do.

>>12410455
Upvote

>>12404764
Fag who hasn't actually read any philosophy but pretends like it's his new passion. I don't judge them though since a lot of "stoics" I've met do actually get interested enough to start educating themselves later.

>stoic
Someone with serious mental health issues trying to cope.

>thinking Christianity and shithole hedonistic philosophies are better than stoicism
>Know nothing about stoicism
Stupid cunts like these make me not want to come to 4chan. Stupid useless niglet faggots

>>12412422
And your free will has no influence on the unfolding of an all powerful mechanistic universe that drives you inexorably to your fate. Hence the derived Stoic ethics of coldly accepting your non-agency vis-a-vis the external world.

>>12412482
>your free will has no influence on the unfolding of an all powerful mechanistic universe
That's not true.

>>12412405
>>12412447
You don't understand what the Stoic philosophy of fate is and are substituting a loose ordinary dictionary definition instead of the metaphysical concept that was central to Stoic-Platonic disputes throughout Late Antiquity.

>>12412482
That's not what compatibilism is. If your choices have no influence then it's free will. In Stoicism and any other sort of compatibilism your free will choices are accounted for by fate, as if god already knows what choices you're going to make and sets them in stone by ordering cause and effect to achieve whatever results from those choices.

Stoics don't "coldly accept" anything. They believe nothing outside their control is necessary, and they act accordingly. This doesn't mean they won't prefer or disprefer things which they recognize as being out of their control.

>>12412541
>If your choices have no influence then it's not free will.
fixed

>>12412515
Epictetus' dichotomy of control holds irrelevant of there being a fate or not.
Having a well ordered soul is better for yourself no matter if everything happens for a reason or if everything is down to chance (as Marcus Aurelius said). Being temperate instead of being ruled by pleasures is to your advantage regardless of fate. Accepting what fortune gives you is better for yourself than throwing a temper tantrum no matter if everything happened by chance or if there is a perfect planner out there.

>>12412479
Why should I sacrifice what benefits me or gives me pleasure for the sake of being virtuous or stoic?

>>12404764
I imagine an effeminate hipster who has, at some point, heard of Epictetus and seen some of those image with a quote from the Enchiridion hypertext'd on.

A nihilistic hermit.

>>12412912
Being virtuous will make you happier than having physical pleasure. It will benefit you more than anything else.

It's basically dumbed down Confucius.

>>12412454
This is me, or at least it's how I like to think I am. I liked Meditations, and I will read more of the Stoics (and others) because I want to learn, not because I want a label for myself.

>>12404764
People that are into roman "stoicism" are the same ones that fall for corporate mindfulness bullshit

>>12405188
> Being virtuous means being for open borders
Kys I'm not being pro open borders because your gay interpretations of Aristotle and Aurelius

>>12405188
To be fair, there's very little surviving material that accounts for Stoic views about love and sex. I can just use Zeno's Republic as an authority and claim that polygamy is Stoic.

>>12405062
>Marcus Aufeelius

>>12414243
You can't say anything about Zeno because there are no surviving texts.

Musonius view on love and sex comes logically from the principles of Stoicism.
Pleasure is neither good or bad. Believing that "pleasure is a good" is bad, since it is (according to Stoic doctrine) a wrong belief. And wrong beliefs are vices. If you don't believe pleasure to be a good, you won't do anything with the aim of achieving pleasure. You would have sex for procreative reasons.

Another reason is that of desire. Having sex has the problem that it increases your desire for it. Increasing your desire for pleasure, your desire for something external is a bad thing for yourself. As an example from another school, Epicurus did not have sex because of this reason. Larger desires for sex bring anxiety, frustration and also make you do shitty decisions.

Think about what the sage is. How do you become a sage? Is it by practicing the life of Charlie Sheen, making pleasures your masters? Or is it by not letting the pleasures take hold of you? Epictetus often stressed this. You become temperate by not letting pleasure be your guide. You become intemperate by letting it dominate your decisions. I have not read Aristotle, but I believe he had this point about habit.

>>12414243
You can't say anything about Zeno because there are no surviving texts.

Musonius view on love and sex comes logically from the principles of Stoicism.
Pleasure is neither good or bad. Believing that "pleasure is a good" is bad, since it is (according to Stoic doctrine) a false belief on what is good. If you don't believe pleasure to be a good, you won't do anything with the aim of achieving pleasure. You would have sex for procreative reasons.

Another reason is that of desire. Having sex has the problem that it increases your desire for it. Increasing your desire for pleasure, your desire for something external, is bad for yourself. As an example from another school, Epicurus did not have sex because of this reason. Larger desire for sex bring anxiety, frustration and also makes you do shitty decisions.

Think about what the sage is. How do you become a sage? Is it by practicing the life of Charlie Sheen, making pleasures your masters? Or is it by not letting the pleasures take hold of you? Epictetus often stressed this. You become temperate by not letting pleasure be your guide. You become intemperate by letting it dominate your decisions. I have not read Aristotle, but I believe he had this point about habit.

>>12414844
>Believing that "pleasure is a good" is bad, since it is (according to Stoic doctrine) a false belief on what is good. If you don't believe pleasure to be a good, you won't do anything with the aim of achieving pleasure.
This leaves out the role of indifferents. What exactly prevents us from engaging in sexual relationships, as long as we are able to limit our desire and acknowledge these opportunities as external or preferred indifferents? There is no real reason to pursue them, or avoid them, being indifferent, as long as temperance is taken into account. The limits of temperance being only when a pleasure is starting to do harm.

>>12414982
>This leaves out the role of indifferents.
Indifferents are indifferents. That means they should not be seem as something you search for their own sake.
The problem with "modern Stoics" is that they tend to say "x is a preferred indifferent, that means doing something for the sake of x is OK". It is not. When you do so, you are treating it as a good. They are not Stoics. They are utilitarians trying to dress as Stoics.
Pleasure is not even considered a positive indifferent.

>What exactly prevents us from engaging in sexual relationships, as long as we are able to limit our desire and acknowledge these opportunities as external or preferred indifferents?
First that when you do so you are doing it for the sake of pleasure. You are being ultimately ruled by pleasure. Your rationality becomes a tool to help please your body. Think about how the Sage would act. He wouldn't act for the sake of pleasure, since he is indifferent to it.
And when you do so, you become less temperate. You lose some temperance and gain some pleasure. Would a Stoic consider this a good trade?

>There is no real reason to pursue them, or avoid them, being indifferent, as long as temperance is taken into account.
If there is no reason to pursue sexual pleasure or avoid it, when should you have sex? Your decision to have sex wouldn't be affected by pleasure. It would be affected by your decision to procreate and by how it would affect your temperance.

>The limits of temperance being only when a pleasure is starting to do harm.
Temperance means that you are not ruled by your passions and desires. If you go out to have sex with some party girls, you are being ruled by your search for pleasure (and depending on who you are by your search for status).

>>12414982
>>12415055
One way you can see how they treat pleasure as a good is how they try to find ways to say that searching for it is OK, without engaging the arguments of the old Stoics.

>>12404764
Someone who doesn't have the strength to express their emotions

>>12404787
People in need of duty don't read Aurelius. You read him as a mantra towards achieving some social good. This combined effort one forms through duty to your job, your economic prosperity benifiting your social being as part of a community of individuals, all being attentive and passionate, solemn, laboring in combined action. After repeated reading and reflection on Aurelius' words, you cant help but acknowledge the legitimacy of a kind cooperation at the centre of a debate above you, a debate in which you have no power, such is the planet among the planets of exploding sun, or suddenly hit by a quasar. Seriously, look. The balance of power always lies much higher if you are to make all judgement open to disaster, (and no, his wife getting dicked by the butler doesn't count). You do have to engage in a community for egotistical reasons, or to survive. You do have to cooperate and be nice to have the potential for a life of interacting with real power. Otherwise you are best to stick with Epicurianism and refine your pleasures to fit with a life of reclining in the woods, joyous with thought, pleased to have a little cheese and a little wine and swerve among friends and back to reading. Stoics are for doers, not those inclined to want.

Most of the people in here haven't read the stoics and just recite what other people told them stoicism is about.

>>12404764
repressed homosexual teenager

>>12404764
A OCD schizoptypal incel with delusions of grandeur.

>>12414423
kek

An apathetic trying to maintain a masculine exterior.

>>12405129

very gay post

14 year olds are not allowed here

A stereotypically masculine but intellectual "bro" (for lack of a better term), maybe a former troop, or a nerdy autist who's really into self-improvement and is trying to get his shit together. Both are probably either alienated from contemporary politics or hard right nationalists.

>>12412362
What is it with people pretending ancient Romans and Greeks are modern day liberals who would be outraged that they're being read by racists?

>>12418205
For a lot of philosophers I would agree, but the Stoa was literally started by a Phoenician who couldn’t speak Greek to save his fucking life, preaching cosmopolitanism.

I have no idea why red pillers aren’t devoted Aristotelians, he was a (based) racist, woman-hating patrician.

>>12418537
The Stoics were not modern liberals. What Stoics considered good, modern liberals consider indifferent or even negative (temperance, for example is seem as negative by modern liberals who believe promiscuity is good). What modern liberals consider to ultimately be good, the Stoics considered to not be good (money, status, pleasure).

>>12418575
We just know better than they did. If some ancient dead white man thinks sex is bad, that's not my problem, sweety. Stoicism has to keep up with the times, okay?

>>12418575
Don’t get me wrong, people like Massimo Pigliucci piss me off too with how they mangle the philosophy to serve their own ends, and the ressentiment-y self victimization shit certainly wouldn’t be attractive to any of the Stoics. Both Cicero and Seneca go off about free shit for the masses. All that said though, I think it’s equally or almost equally not modern right-wing either; no anarcho-Capitalism or xenophobia in Stoicism etc. Etc.

The Stoics would be pragmatist moderate republicans.

>>12418611
>The Stoics would be pragmatist moderate republicans.

The stoics would be called right wing extremists facists nazis like literally everyone who is a bit further to the right than mainstream conservatives.

There's nothing "moderate" about plenty of stuff in Stoicism. They would be called bigoted homophobes and shit like that.

>>12418593
Some people do believe this.

>>12418611
I think they would not be "modern right wing" either.

>>12418635
To be fair, so do "pragmatist moderate Republicans".

>>12418640
>"pragmatist moderate Republicans".
Pragmatist moderate republicans at this point have the social views of 90s democrats.
Under today's progressive worldview pretty much everything before 1970 is nazi evil racist crypto fascist stuff, including stuff from the left (for example, Proudhon, Bakunin)

>>12418647
I believe we meant different people by "moderate conservatives". Maybe RINOs are actually what count as moderate conservatives nowadays...

But now that I think about it, what would be a Stoic policy in regards to immigration?
In one sense, you are a cosmopolitan. In another, you have a duty to your country due to your role as its representative.
You wouldn't be 100% close borders, but I don't think it would be 100% open borders.
Is a virtuous immigrant the same as a vicious one?

>>12418671
There is no stoic policy on immigration and anyone who pretends otherwise is talking shit.

>>12404764
>I'm a ...
roastie or neckbeard

>>12418749
He's not asking for an official policy or something, but rather that if one were to apply Stoic principles to the topic of immigration, what the result would be.

How do I tell the difference between a stoic and a depressed person that can't express himself properly?

>>12419716
There is no stoic principle which can inform on the question of immigration. One person can say allowing immigration is according to nature and another person can say it isn't. That argument takes place outside of stoicism.

>>12418749
But we're free to discuss what a stoic approach to immigration could be like.

Great thread btw. Very insightful discussions here.

>>12419771
You're not required to take a particular position on immigration to be a stoic. Any attempt at discussing a "stoic approach" to anything outside of stoicism can only invite confusion. I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to approach issues in that way because I've seen how politically motivated actors will try to manipulate others. It's like how some progressives will try to claim Jesus was a peace loving tolerant hippie who totally loved gays when it suits their purpose.

>>12404764
Me

>>12419748
The Stoic is not depressed and can express himself properly. Or could, since there are no real Stoics living nowadays.

Someone who never read philosophy and has seen many Jordan Peterson videos on YouTube.

Like all the "I am a Xist" idiots: A pathetic LARPer on the desperate search for meaning and identity in a vapid late-modern plastic world.

Too smart for self-help books but too dumb for actual philosophy.

>I'm a stoic

I picture someone who doesn't understand the difference between philosophy and ideology, but is grasping onto the identity of a philosopher because it makes them feel better about themselves.

>>12420104
What's the difference between philosophy and ideology? Both terms can be used in many different ways and classically a reference to a persons philosophy was the equivalent of their worldview, which is also how an ideology can be defined.

>>12405076
Cringe

>>12420175
A philosophy is malleable, and you're supposed to change it as you gain more knowledge and understanding. An ideology is rigid and unchanging, and you either fit into it or you don't. For example, if you say "I'm conservative" then that would mean you've incorporated conservative principles into your personal philosophy. If you say "I'm a conservative" then that would mean you follow conservatism as an ideology, any beliefs you have that conflict with conservatism need to be abandoned or you can't say "I'm a conservative" anymore.

This is why ideology, in and of itself, is retarded. If you're am ideologue, but find evidence that is sufficient to prove to you that your ideology is false even a little bit, you either have to ignore that evidence or abandon the ideology. If you have a philosophy rather than an ideology, and find evidence that conflicts with your philosophy, you can just incorporate it into your philosophy and adjust as necessary.

>>12404764
Someone who appreciates their ontology.

>>12420366
I think the distinction is completely arbitrary. You can be conservative on issues A, B, and C while choosing to be something else on issues E, and F. It is a philosophy by your own definition because conservationism, like any other philosophy, has evolved throughout history as it faced news issues and problems. Being a conservative today no longer means you're a monarchist, for example.

I think it's reasonable to believe any person in the world is an ideologue as you've defined it. Everybody is capable of nuance and change so I think you're merely using it as a denigration for philosophies you don't like. That's how the word is typically used.

>>12420438
>I think the distinction is completely arbitrary.
Not completely, no. There's very little distinction, which is why people make the mistake of using them interchangeably, which is why people think the distinction is arbitrary. If your ideology says 2+2=5, and you see that 2+2=4, you either have to ignore that 2+2=4 or abandon the ideology. If your philosophy says 2+2=5, and you see that 2+2=4, then you adjust your philosophy accordingly.

Now, ideologies can change if the general understanding of a specific ideology changes. For example, the 'liberal' ideology has shifted from right wing to left wing over the past century. Furthermore, people can cling to their personal philosophy and refuse to change as if it were an ideology. However, neither of these things actually alter the definition of the terms.

>You can be conservative on issues A, B, and C while choosing to be something else on issues E, and F.
That's the thing, you can do that if you've internalized conservative philosophy, you can't do that if you're a conservative ideologue. That IS the distinction.

>Everybody is capable of nuance and change so I think you're merely using it as a denigration for philosophies you don't like.
Okay, everybody is capable of breathing, but sometimes people don't, and we can agree that is generally speaking not a good thing. In the same way, everybody is capable of amending their philosophy, but sometimes people don't and choose to adopt ideology, and that's also not a good thing. Also, I'm not sure where you got this "denigration for philosophies you don't like" idea from, since the ideas themselves have no bearing on whether it's philosophy or ideology.

I don't know if I made this clear earlier, but any philosophy can be an ideology if you refuse to amend it when met with facts or ideas that conflict with it. The reason I said the "I'm a stoic" guy is an ideologue is because he has chosen to adopt stoicism as his identity, rather than incorporate it into what personal philosophy he's developed himself over his lifetime, which would identify him as an individual. Does this make sense?

>>12420527
I'm not that anon but
>If your philosophy says 2+2=5, and you see that 2+2=4, then you adjust your philosophy accordingly.
This is not necessarily true. It is only true if your philosophy is to adjust your philosophy according to whatever thing is considered true.

>The reason I said the "I'm a stoic" guy is an ideologue is because he has chosen to adopt stoicism as his identity, rather than incorporate it into what personal philosophy he's developed himself over his lifetime, which would identify him as an individual.
I think it's safe to say that you like Jordan Peterson.

>>12420634
>This is not necessarily true. It is only true if your philosophy is to adjust your philosophy according to whatever thing is considered true.
An ideology is a philosophy that you refuse to change, so if your philosophy is to not change your philosophy in the face of conflicting evidence, that makes it an ideology, your ideology.
>I think it's safe to say that you like Jordan Peterson.
...maybe a little.

>>12420657
>An ideology is a philosophy that you refuse to change
Besides Peterson, I don't know how you have come to this conclusion. An ideology in general is just a particular organization of ideas.

>>12420527
It doesn't follow in any way that because somebody calls themselves a stoic, they're an ideologue as you've defined it. They're not saying they're not open to evidence or they refuse to change their mind on anything.

I see no purpose for your philosophy/ideologue distinction other than to denigrate people you don't like, or to persuade people to think a certain way you wish them to. This is classic internet atheist trick of calling religious people "dogmatists" while portraying themselves as rational and free thinking. Ideologues as you've defined them don't exist in real life. It's a slur.

>>12420698
>An ideology in general is just a particular organization of ideas.
Right. An ideology is an organization of ideas, therefor if you do not adhere to those ideas, you do not follow the ideology. If you accept some of the ideas, but not all of them, then you aren't adhering to that organization of ideas, but creating your own. This is why I said a philosophy is malleable, because you do not have to conform your ideas to that of the philosophy like you would have to with an ideology. I know I'm not doing a great job communicating here.

>>12420712
>They're not saying they're not open to evidence or they refuse to change their mind on anything.
OP asked what kind of person I imagine, and the kind of person I imagine is an ideologue. I can't actually say whether they are or not, just that they've made themselves look like one to me.
>I see no purpose for your philosophy/ideologue distinction other than to denigrate people you don't like, or to persuade people to think a certain way you wish them to.
Like I said, any philosophy can be made into an ideology, so I'd have no way of saying "Your shit is an ideology, but mine's a philosophy, therefor mine's better" like you seem to think I do.
>Ideologues as you've defined them don't exist in real life.
Yes they do, there's a shitload of them. How have you gone your whole life without meeting a single one? You have never met a single person who refuses to change their mind on, say, their political views, despite being presented with conflicting facts? Not one?
>It's a slur.
It is. An ideologue is a bad thing to be according to my definition. If you've defined ideologue differently than I, which you seem to have, then there's nothing to argue. I say ideology and philosophy are different, and ideology is bad. Unless you can convince me that either A) Ideology as a term is interchangeable with philosophy or B) Refusing to change your mind when presented with facts is not a bad thing, then I don't see what you're arguing.

>>12420787
You have to chill out with this greentext shit. You're on a literature forum so act like you know how to write. If an ideologue is somebody who can't change their mind or absolutely refuses to, then I have never met one before and neither have you. If an ideologue is the exact same thing as a bigot or a close minded person then you're just changing words for the sake of changing words, which is a very Peterson thing to do so it doesn't surprise me that you're a fan.

The word ideologue originally meant worldview and despite the negative connotation some people attach to it that's still what it means. There is no intelligible or necessary distinction between philosophy and worldview.

>>12420887
>You have to chill out with this greentext shit.
Bro, where do you think you are?
>You're on a literature forum so act like you know how to write.
Fucking what now?
>If an ideologue is somebody who can't change their mind or absolutely refuses to, then I have never met one before and neither have you.
I have met plenty of them, are you serious?
>If an ideologue is the exact same thing as a bigot or a close minded person then you're just changing words for the sake of changing words
No, a bigot is something completely different. Like, not even close. Are you reading what I'm typing before bothering to respond? You could have replaced "bigot" with "cheese sandwich" and your post would make just as much sense.
>which is a very Peterson thing to do so it doesn't surprise me that you're a fan.
Literally what the fuck are you even talking about now? Stay on point, lady.
>The word ideologue originally meant worldview and despite the negative connotation some people attach to it that's still what it means.
Okay, "gay" used to mean "happy" too. Your argument makes no sense. You keep trying to convince me being an ideologue isn't a bad thing without trying to convince me to change my definition of "ideologue" to mean something that isn't a bad thing.
>There is no intelligible or necessary distinction between philosophy and worldview.
In your opinion.

>>12420787
Have you considered, at a minimum, reading Ideology: A Very Short Introduction?

>>12420787
>therefore if you do not adhere to those ideas, you do not follow the ideology
Yes, I agree this follows from ideology as an organization of ideas. What does not follow is that the ideology itself *necessarily* refuses to change.

>This is why I said a philosophy is malleable, because you do not have to conform your ideas to that of the philosophy like you would have to with an ideology.
Again, this is not necessarily true. I'd say it is definitely possible for a philosophy to be dogmatic and unchanging. In this case, the line between ideology and philosophy blurs to the point where the distinction is arbitrary and the only reason to make the distinction is to be able to use one as a pejorative.

>tfw started reading Meditations yesterday

>>12404764
A NEET who spends most of his time masturbating, watching anime, playing vidya (which he unironically claims he hates), shitposting on the information superhighway, and desperately wants to be a cool, deep thinking, """""intellectual"""""

>>12420946
I can do this autistic shit too.

>Bro, where do you think you are?
Hey I'm not a bro and I know where we are. What does that have to do with this style of writing?
>Fucking what now?
I said we're on a literature forum so act like you know how to write.
>I have met plenty of them, are you serious?
See now you're just repeating yourself.
>No, a bigot is something completely different
I don't think it is, and you have demonstrated why it's any different. A bigot is a close minded person and you defined an idealogue as a close minded person.
>Are you reading what I'm typing before bothering to respond?
Yes I am. Your failure to understand isn't my problem.
>You could have replaced "bigot" with "cheese sandwich" and your post would make just as much sense.
The point you're failing to get is that you're changing definitions for no reason at all. You haven't demonstrated a practical purpose for your definition of an ideologue and neither have you given an actual example of an ideologue in reality. If by ideologue you mean somebody who isn't capable of change then ideologues don't exist in reality since everyone is capable of change.
>Literally what the fuck are you even talking about now?
You really should read the stoics because it might help you control your anger.
>Stay on point, lady.
I have, so no problem there.
>Okay, "gay" used to mean "happy" too.
Yes that's true. It does does mean happy. You don't read old literature and assume they're talking about gay sex when they call somebody happy do you?
>Your argument makes no sense.
The sentence you quoted wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact. classically, when a persons ideology is referred to they're talking about a persons philosophy or worldview. Modern connotations don't change that like just like gay can still mean happy.
>You keep trying to convince me being an ideologue isn't a bad thing
I am?
>without trying to convince me to change my definition of "ideologue" to mean something that isn't a bad thing.
I don't know how you fail so hard at understand what I'm saying. Your definition of ideologue is the exact same as bigoted or close minded, and so I think the definition is superfluous or meaningless. Ideology in essence means the same thing as philosophy, the only difference is a negative connotation people apply to it. If Aristotle was a strict Platonist who refused to change his opinion or look at new evidence he would still be a philosopher despite his close mindedness.

>>12420985
>What does not follow is that the ideology itself *necessarily* refuses to change.
Let me try to put this a different way. It's not that the ideology is an ideology because it refuses to change, because a set of ideas can not make a decision, it's not a thing, it exists in the mind of people. If you adopt a philosophy, and refuse to alter it when it needs altering, it becomes your ideology. If you adopt it and allow it to change, then it isn't your ideology. I apologize for using a food analogy, but a sandwich ceases to be a sandwich if you remove the bread, because we have defined the term "sandwich" to include bread, and an ideology ceases to be an ideology if you allow it to be altered, because we have defined the term "ideology" to be rigid. The definition of sandwich has no bearing on what's inside the bread, and the definition of ideology has no bearing on the beliefs contained therein.

Just switch ideology to worldview and you'll see what I mean. You have a particular worldview, that worldview contains ideas, you've decided to label all of those ideas when collected together as 'worldview X'. Now, if you change some of those ideas, you still have a worldview, but you can't say you follow 'worldview X' anymore. If you follow 'worldview X' and meet facts that conflict with the beliefs contained within 'worldview X' then you need to either ignore those facts or amend your beliefs, and amending your beliefs means your beliefs are no longer in line with 'worldview X'. This is why if you disagree with any point in 'worldview X' you can not say it's your worldview, or ideology.

>I'd say it is definitely possible for a philosophy to be dogmatic and unchanging.
All I'm saying is that when it becomes dogmatic or unchanging, it becomes ideology, that's the line of distinction.

A fat guy with a pony tail who makes youtube videos on philosophy.

A dude standing under a porch tbph. It's painted pink and peach if that means anything to you

>>12421135
>What does that have to do with this style of writing?
What does greentext have to do with 4chan? Is that a real question?
>I said we're on a literature forum so act like you know how to write.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it seems irrelevant so okay whatever I guess.
>See now you're just repeating yourself.
That is, in no way, a counter to what I've said.
>A bigot is a close minded person and you defined an idealogue as a close minded person.
An ideologue is someone who refuses to change their philosophy. A bigot is someone who is intolerant of philosophies that are different to their own.
>Yes I am. Your failure to understand isn't my problem.
Then why are you still trying to get me to understand?
>You haven't demonstrated a practical purpose for your definition of an ideologue and neither have you given an actual example of an ideologue in reality.
Look up a debate on youtube, any subject. Wait for someone to be presented with facts that conflict with their worldview, and see if they continue to defend that worldview. If they do, they're an ideologue.
>If by ideologue you mean somebody who isn't capable of change then ideologues don't exist in reality since everyone is capable of change.
I didn't say they're incapable of change, I said they don't change. I made this very clear.
>You really should read the stoics because it might help you control your anger.
I have read the stoics, and I'm not the one throwing a tantrum, calling people autistic, and projecting like "I said we're on a literature forum so act like you know how to write." You are.
>You don't read old literature and assume they're talking about gay sex when they call somebody happy do you?
No, but we're not talking about old literature. If you walked up to me and said "I'm gay" then I wouldn't assume you just meant you're in a good mood.
>classically, when a persons ideology is referred to they're talking about a persons philosophy or worldview
Yes, and if they change their worldview, then they don't get to say that the worldview they used to have is still their ideology. You don't get to disagree with a conservative worldview and still say you have a conservative worldview, in the same way you don't get to say you're a conservative ideologue when your personal philosophy includes liberal principles.
>I am?
Yes? You've been repeatedly saying that all the negative aspects to being an ideologue are bullshit.
>Your definition of ideologue is the exact same as bigoted or close minded, and so I think the definition is superfluous or meaningless.
You're literally just assuming things here.
>If Aristotle was a strict Platonist who refused to change his opinion or look at new evidence he would still be a philosopher despite his close mindedness.
Aristotle would still be a philosopher if he refused to accept facts that conflict with his ideas? So you're saying you can be a philosopher without employing LOGIC? What's wrong with you?

>>12404786
HAHA, YES!

Someone boring and way too involved with his personal worldview, a person who will regularly disrupt a FB group chat rhythm by posting some "back when men were men" content probably involving warfare

>>12421141
>and an ideology ceases to be an ideology if you allow it to be altered
not. necessarily. true. (in any scenario outside of Peterson's definitions)

>>12421222
stop fucking posting

>>12421323
Okay well then I suppose we just agree to disagree. Arguing over a term when we acknowledge we're using it in different contexts is kind of silly.

>>12421341
Calm down, love.

>>12421351
You are just using language imprecisely. The more accurate word to use is "dogma" in place of ideology, and "dogmatist" in place of ideologue, unless using nonoptimal terms is your intention. Also, Ironically enough, the more you dig your heels into the ground and defend your strange position the more akin it becomes to your definition of "ideology".

>>12421395
>You are just using language imprecisely.
Yes, I haven't spent enough time thinking about my views on this specific topic to be able to quantify them well, or even know if I'm really right.
>The more accurate word to use is "dogma" in place of ideology, and "dogmatist" in place of ideologue, unless using nonoptimal terms is your intention.
Again, we're just arguing semantics at this point.
>Also, Ironically enough, the more you dig your heels into the ground and defend your strange position the more akin it becomes to your definition of "ideology".
I should say I don't mean to. I believe this is a situation in which we're not understanding each other's points completely and trying to explain ourselves, rather than actually arguing, since you can't actually argue against a point you don't fully understand.

>>12421427
>Again, we're just arguing semantics at this point.
Just because it's semantics doesn't mean it isn't something worth arguing. Besides, this whole chain of replies is all about semantics.

>>12404764
Cliff Westwood

>>12421451
>Just because it's semantics doesn't mean it isn't something worth arguing.
It kind of does, because we've already acknowledged we're using the term in different contexts. The term "point" means one thing when studying rhetoric and another thing when studying geometry, and what sense would it make for a rhetorician and mathematician to argue over it's meaning independent of context?

>>12421469
>It kind of does, because we've already acknowledged we're using the term in different contexts.
Right, I'm using the word in the context of its most general and applicable usage. You are using it in the context of Jordan Peterson's ideological framework.

>>12421496
Well I believe my context makes more sense and would be a better fit for general and applicable usage because in your context it's just a stand in for an already applicable word, that being philosophy, but that's just my opinion.

>>12421514
>t's just a stand in for an already applicable word, that being philosophy
I think that's the exact point of the other anon you were replying to and part of my point. In their most general definitions, philosophy and ideology are not necessarily any different. At the very least we should look for more precise language than try to redefine words to draw a pretty arbitrary distinction which (historically) is used simply as pejorative for people who are more dogmatic than someone more open-minded.

>>12421567
>we should try to use language more precisely
>which is what I'm doing by ignoring the potential nuanced differences between terms

I have other things to do, and this is anonymous, so you don't mind if I duck out, right?

>>12421580
Using more precise language != redefining words to fit some ideological framework. I like Peterson but his fanatics are just annoying and ironically miss his message.

>>12405196
Yes, and with one account recalling with humour that he quoted the entirety of Medea within his commentary on it. The man's numbers are clearly bolstered by some artifice.