/lit/ - Literature

>Heh, you wanna live according to what your reason tells you is good? I think that's wrong. Oh you want me to explain why? Well I mean... It's... Fuck Plato.

They certainly got btfo'd

>>12570985
Tell me who didnt got btfo by his philosophy?
He even shits on women that live for pure carnal pleasure

>>12571126
So all women?

>>12571133
I dont know.
Honestly there is very little that can conter argue the hedonistic, materialist "philosophy". Would love to read someone shitting on those ideals post-nietzche. You can call women thots all you want, but you cant really deny their desire for seeking carnal pleasure left and right. Its hopeless

>>12571141
This outcome was basically an inevitability of liberalism. Technical progress in medicine, vice-peddling dopamine trappers as an elite class, the "pursuit of happiness" leaving plebs to their own insufficient devices, tolerance for harmful ideas "as long as they aren't harming me", and so on all culminated in what we have now. It doesn't promise anything, so if you don't have something you want it's your fault, and no one has the power to stop those who seek to guide our dopamine away from life and everything life-giving towards greater and greater unrealities. Everyone is protected from the consequences of their shitty behavior by modern medicine, the welfare state, etc. Even still you see people saying there isn't enough safety and security ("why can't a woman walk home half naked at night through high crime rate neighborhoods? Rape culture!").
Basically what I'm saying is that there are plenty of criticisms of this sort of thing embedded in illiberal philosophies. People with those beliefs have zero institutional power though.

I don't think anyone who believes the Stoics were refuted by Nietzsche actually knows anything about the Stoics.

>>12571221
Problem is that those very same people are easy to refute and be labeled. Its really hopeless all of this, the creation of tecnology is something that comes natural in human beings, its it was inevitable that shit would come to this aparently.
The only way i see that is able to counter argue the carnal hedonism seems to be something close related to religion or some sort conservative utilitarianism or a strong union of egoists, idk.

>>12571379
Only counter for all this is focusing on the spirit. If you're really, truly wise, goodness will emanate from your core, and others will not fail to see it.

>>12570985
When I was atheist, I got really interested in Stoicism but left it after a few weeks or so. It’s boring, meaningless, and offers nothing good to seek. You’re just trying to derive some satisfaction by looking at everything with indifference. It’s the same with Buddhism and other philosophies and religions. All vague, nihilistic, crap.

Christianity has every positive quality of Stoicism and then some.

>>12571319
>I don't think anyone who believes the Stoics were refuted by Nietzsche actually knows anything about the Stoics.

Nietzsche either didn't know what he was talking about or it was a strawman.

Anyway, Nietzsche's philosophy was a failure even for himself. People think he was some kind of sage because of his emotionally charged rhetoric.

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 endeavoring 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.

>>12571553
The Stoics were BTFO by the Late Platonists. As Nietzsche himself says you can find the entire system of Christian ethics in Simplicius Platonic correction of Epictetus Handbook.

>>12571553
Cucked and bluepilled.

>>12571141
"Materialistic hedonism" is a shitty philosophy of life that turns you into a worse person and doesn't make you happy. It can't even be called a philosophy of life, it is just living like an animal.
The very first philosophers already have written about this.

>>12571652
Are you the idiot that always tries to start my're school > you're school fights here? Grow up.

>>12571618
Cringe

stoicism is the most simple and brainlet philosophical school, lets be honest. its basically a meme

The Stoics' goal is completely mundane and indicative of a class of individuals who are desperately searching for a way out of themselves. There's no need to make this the goal — you're already achieving it, in every moment of your life. You make it the goal because you're neurotic and hate yourself.

>>12571453
Your wretched spirit will perish with your feeble body, silly dualistic Christcuck.

>>12571618
> would like everything to be made after your own image

Woah! Did NEETzsch just blame Stoics for Christianity?

>>12572015
What??

>>12572015
Yes. He basically calls them the original Semites in Ancient Greece, and that (like Plato) they had nothing to do with the Greeks. Can't remember if he does so in either Twilight of the Idols or Will to Power.

>>12571553
>was atheist
>is Christian
We've reached peak brainletism. You don't even have to be indoctrinated to believe in a anthropomorphic creator anymore.

Ive had a pretty rough ride. I have been in a psychiatric unit with psychosis, and I've had a pretty 'high-functioning' (award-winning) junior academic career.

In my youth, I idolised Nietschze. But the guy's neurotic writing led to a place where he was truly isolated in life. No friends and a complete rank outsider in academic circles, he had a complete mental breakdown by his 40's, and was nursed by his mother and sister.

Nietchze's work takes a desperate attempt to overcome the state, the shackles of societal expectation, and striving, thus ultimately becoming more than a man. This ended in spectacular failure for Niestchze.

Stoicism has helped me massively recover in my personal and professional life. It has given me a return to health, and some moderate ambition. It is about understanding the world as is, and learning how to navigate that.

tl;dr; fuck nieschtze, overrated shit

Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher

>>12572039
Someone who has thought all the same atheist criticisms as you has converted to Christianity. Deep down, this troubles you greatly. Yes, I was an atheist, but that was when I was a child. Haven’t you learned anything about the human mind? What we think is certain today we will think the opposite tomorrow. You’re still trapped in the same mindset that you were years ago.

>>12572044
>I have been in a psychiatric unit with psychosis
>In my youth, I idolised Nietschze
>but I blame Nietzsche for being the "neurotic"
Why? It should be clear to you that that burden was yours, not his.

>>12572063
I've thought all the same Christian affirmatations as you, but that was when I was a child. Yes, I'm greatly troubled. You were not by raised with the false Christian teachings of the human mind and yet you've managed to retard your entire bloodline with that trap of a mindset regardless. Humanity is absolutely fucked.

>>12571672
t. Stoic midwit.

>>12572077
actually, I started reading Nietschze after my psychotic episode. Nietschze didn't fuel my psychosis. I don't blame him, or anyone. Not even myself. Just a freak occurrence in my early life.


But following Nietschze religiously is inviting neuroticism to a point of disenfranchisement with life. I'm not talking online 4chan, im talking the will to act and disengage. It killed its very founder

>>12572102
>false Christian teachings
Never gonna make it.

>>12572111
>But following Nietschze religiously is inviting neuroticism to a point of disenfranchisement with life.
That goes for basically any religiosity. Again, that burden was yours. And what killed Nietzsche was brain cancer, not some sentimental form of neurotic madness.

>>12572113

>>12572120
I'm not him, but Nietzsche was a miserable man and you would be better off following the Stoics, Plato, Epicurus, etc than following him or "mainstream culture" which its hedonism and status seeking.
I frankly think threads like this with posts like this >>12571810 or this >>12571920 are harmful to people who don't know about Ancient Philosophy and who end up thinking they should not read them for believing they are useless, when any of them is much better than the "modern Sheryl Sandberg/Hugh Hefner lifestyle" of today and when they are very similar to each other.

>>12572133
Prove Christianity is false

>>12572172
>>12572120
yeah honestly. I didn't actively seek stoicism. I just tried to find a new way to think, and what emerged where a stoic set of principles in my own journey.

Nietschze didnt die a normal life in retirement. Just go read up on him if you doubt me. His professional life ends by his early 40's.

>>12572172
>>12572188
You're free to turn philosophy into self-help if you need to for your own mental stability, but you'd probably both be better off if you stepped away from literature overall.

>>12572214
We are not turning it into anything. Classical Philosophy had as its main objective making yourself better. That's the whole point of all the discussions about virtue.

>>12572039
Christianity gives you all the simple answers, you just have to Believe™.

>>12571968
>not realizing my language is only a reflection of the reflection, not a dualistic modus i inhabit
Glory be to Yahweh!

>>12572252
>Nietzsche was a miserable man [and] didn't die a normal life in retirement
You claim that you aren't turning it into self-help, but your interest in comfort obviously trumps your interest in the truth, and the arguments being made against Nietzsche don't even touch on his philosophy. Nietzsche's "main objective" was also to make better, but that process isn't always a comforting one.

>>12572277
The truth they search for is that of how to make your soul better so that you could live a better life. You can call it self-help or whatever you want in order to denigrate it, but this is a pretty important area of study.
And they lived a better life than your hero or than by people who don't read them and follow Cosmopolitan or Men's Health instead.

>>12572063
So you are proposing change for the sake of change?

>>12572120
>brain cancer

*syphilis

>>12572375
No, but let’s be honest. Most atheists are atheists because they don’t understand much about Christianity. They ask many questions, and not knowing the answers, come to the conclusion that Christianity is false. This happens often in the younger years. Unfortunately atheists never stop to think whether these views they hold were founded on misunderstanding.

>>12572337
>The truth they search for is that of how to make your soul better so that you could live a better life.
In other words, truth is less important to them than their comfort, since there are many truths which can only be discovered through suffering and sacrifice... which is what I already said. Also, "better" here is a rather nebulous term — the soul that craves the truth, i.e. power, at all costs, is not going to live a "better" life by seeking comfort and retirement instead. A "boring" life is what will be lived then.

>>12572395
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-was-cancer-not-syphilis.html

>>12572337
>feel-goods and warm fuzzies
>the Truth™

One gives you a lifetime of feeling zen-like bliss and complete obliviousness (and it just feels gud, bruh), the other is a path towards wisdom and an endless spiraling into the dark mental void of your subconscious. You must choose one.

>>12572421
All the useful parts that Christianity claims are either obvious atavistic notions, or "borrowed" from elsewhere. The rest is nothing more than obfuscating sentiments that are hard to denounce because that would make you look like a bad person, this is exactly how leftist "argumentation" works now. "Heretic" is to Christians, what "racist" is to leftists.

>>12572526
Do you think that someone who perfectly follows Christian teachings will have a great life?

I love these threads because its great to laugh at the retards that hate nietzsche because he got too mainsteam or they're """"""""""""christian"""""""""

>>12572433
They search for the truth on how to better organize your soul. And this knowledge leads to a happier life.
All of that talk about suffering and sacrifice and the soul that searches for power instead of a boring life just reads like bravado.

In the end, following Socrates will make you wiser on how to live and a better and happier person.

>>12572538
Do you think those who need a manual to live are truly alive?

>>12572546
If happiness is what you want, go for it. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't make a fuss when other people tell you that you care more about self-help gurus than about philosophy then, because that's the case whether you like it or not.

>>12572185
Christianity isn't false. Fucking obviously.
I don't even think your God is false. I just think he's a faggot.

>>12572546
>They search for the truth on how to better organize your soul.

You can start by cleaning your room, mister!

>>12572557
They’re certainly living a more meaningful life than without it

>>12571011
Nietzschean philosophy in a nutshell

>>12571618
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt64AWqfFdo

chad Sadler BTFO's incel Nietzsche

>>12572588
They could also live a meaningful life by dedicating it to collective stamps, bottle caps, or any other surrogate activity. If this is all there is to Christianity, what makes it any better than any other alternative?

>>12572578
It’s already tidy mr hitler. What comes next, now that we have your Ordnung?

>>12572626
>Christianity is a surrogate activity
There’s a reason Ted never mentioned religion.

>>12572693
The Industrial Society and its propagation is my religion.

>>12572460
The truest wisdom to be got on the spiraling path is the realization that you should have taken the other path, but by then, you're probably too far buried inside your own mind to truly change course.

>>12571618
>t. never been innawoods

>>12571618
>Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different?

>>12571666
What did Satan mean by this?

>if you criticise something it just means you're weak and want to justify that weakness
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>there could never be a deep or true reason for the critique, it's just will-to-power from a point of weakness
>everyone wants the feeling of will-to-power
>no exceptions
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>meanwhile Dionysus is rotting in his bed asking over and over, 'but what if Socrates really was corrupting the youth?'
>in no way could this eternal recurrence of a shitty question be ressentiment replacing Plato with irrational modernity
>because MUH FEELINZ OF POWWA!
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>it's okay when I do it
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>but what if he really was corrupting the youth tho?
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>and, just a coincidence surely, every follower asks himself eternally 'what if gommunism/fascism really is gorrupting tha youthz?'
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>MUH OVERMAN FEELZ
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ

>>12571590
>>12571319
Nietzsche probably knew more about Stoicism than either of you.

>>12573180
Yeah he was smart and talked good so he couldn't possibly be wrong about anything

https://www.quora.com/As-a-stoic-how-does-one-respond-to-Nietzsches-criticism-of-it-in-Beyond-Good-and-Evil

>>12573180
>probably
Oh? Some guy who got his thesis requirement waived in order to start lecturing as the youngest at his university because he was so damn good knows more about the classics than a shit-poster on four channels? You don't say?

>>12573180
>>12573819

>>12571920
>living in accord with what you cannot help but be

>>12573832
fuck off faggot

>>12573848
So this is the power of power larpers...

>>12573834
Which is a mundane statement. Being neurotic and miserable doesn't mean you're not living in accordance with nature because these things are part of nature. Now, before you ask, "well what's this conception of nature good for then?" — Attaining higher knowledge. And with higher knowledge, one can attain (but is not guaranteed) an even higher form of happiness that wasn't even conceivable before.

*ahem*

>>12571553
>Christianity
>Positive qualities

Pick one.

>>12572044
Sometimes people get sick. It's just the way it goes. There's rumours that it was syphilis which, if true, you could blame on him to some degree, but it was most likely brain cancer or something. There's no point in blaming his decline on something that was out of his control.

>>12571618
>Oh, you noble Stoics
stopped reading there lol

>>12572063
>What we think is certain today we will think the opposite tomorrow. You’re still trapped in the same mindset that you were years ago.

Hopefully you'll grow out of this stupid phase too and leave that sick middle eastern cult.

>>12571553
cringe and anti-dionysian pilled

>>12572421
If you are unable to realize that Christianity is false then you are very unintelligent. It is very obviously false.

isn't the roman stoic part of the roman master morality he admires?

>>12572111
>But following Nietschze religiously

That's were you dun goofed, Nietzsche is not a high priest or a prophet. You're supposed to engage with him critically and even polemically. He emphasizes this very clearly towards the end of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

> It killed its very founder

No, what killed him was a neuro degenerative disease, that could have been a result of syphilis, or some congenital, or something altogether. His philosophy is no more responsible for this than you are for your psychotic episode.

A good deal of Nietzsche philosophy could be understodd as a attempt to wrestle himself of the despair caused by his debilitating physical condition.

>neuroticism

Quite the opposite actually. Nietzsche is a philospher of self-affirmation (well it's abit more subtle than that, but he's closer to self-affirmation than self-crippling neurosis).

>>12572588
Many people also live a more miserable life with it than without it. At the end of the day your argument is not any stronger than the observation than some seem fit for Christianity and benefit from it, while others are better off trying something else.

>>12572538
No.

>>12573241
He was a scholar of Ancient Greek you doofus.

The guy in that quora thread is funny (I like how he suggest Nietzsche somehow got brain cancer because he misunderstood Stoic teachings). He makes a few mistakes when explaining Nietzsche's critique of Stoicism, for instance:

>He also misrepresents the Stoic School’s concept of Nature. It is not “extravagant without limit.” It is pretty spartan and severe.


Nietzsche wasn't talking about the Stoic concept of Nature, but about Nature itself (arguing, in effect, that the Stoic were projecting onto Nature qualities that they were trying to cultivate in themselves).

>It is pretty spartan and severe. For example, it is difficult to find things in the smallest bacteria, or the most beautiful flower, or the largest whale that are not necessary.

This conception of Nature is classical an very elegant, but it doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of contemporary science. There are vestigial (thus non-necessary) organs in many organisms. There are plenty of unnecessary outgrowth that is either curbed over time (but it can be a lot of time) or or grows so much it leads to extinction. How does one even explains the existence of cancer if nature is "severe and spartan, without anything necessary" ? From a biologist's point of view Nietzsche idea of Nature might be in some respect more accurate than the Stoics'.

>The Cosmos must have feelings, because there is no other way we could have them.

This requires much more explanation, or is laughably wrong.

>His claim that we demand that Nature be ‘in accordance with the Stoa,’” is 180 degrees opposite to the Stoic School’s teaching that the Stoa must be in accordance with Nature.

Here again he's misunderstanding Nietzsche's argumentative strategy. Here Nietzsche isn't talking about what the Stoic doctrine says of itself, he's analyzing what the doctrine truly does. For Nietzsche, despite the Stoics claiming the Stoa follows Nature, their description of Nature and of the Stoa actually do the opposite (namely, wrongly ascribing to Nature traits that in accordance to the Stoa, then claiming the Stoa took those traits from Nature).

>Also, he misrepresents Stoicism by claiming it is a spiritual will to power to be the causa prima (first cause). In reality, the Stoic School has always had an advanced teaching on causa prima and how we derive from it; it cannot derive from us.

Same remark as above.

Why is Stoicism so disliked on /lit/? And why is Nietzche always used "prove it wrong?" From my understanding Stoicism is reacting to every situation in a rational way and Nietzche's works revolve around embracing suffering in order to evolve. Someone please educate my brainlet boomer brain.

>>12575094
/lit/ is populated by neurotic commies that are an anxiety attack away from killing themselves

>>12575094
Stoicism has a low reputation for being too easy to get into compared to other philosophies. It has been mocked several times by many philosophers in the 19th century in various layers and its very easy to mold and break.
Even moderm stoicism has been reformed in such a way that they had to cut back a lot of previous concepts, specially about the "nature" problem.

>>12570985
Nietzsche was very insightful, but he honestly misunderstood Stoicism and his criticism of it is consequently weak.

>not being epicurean

never gonna make it

>>12574414
>implying seeking knowledge has anything to do with personal happiness

You’re barely any better than a hedonist.

>>12576038
stoicism in disguise

>>12572572
The founder of Western Philosophy was all about philosophy as a way of life. Why is your definition of what philosophy is for the one that should be followed rather than his?

>>12575094
Because Stoicism is the most popular Ancient Philosophy by far nowadays. So of course we will have misrepresentations of it being shown as destroying it.

If Epicureanism was the most popular philosophy, we would have threads about how Epicurus argued that people should live like hippies or party girls. Or some incoherent babbling by Nietzsche about how they are life denying.

>>12576020
You honestly misunderstand how to give a critique of something retard, first you provide an argument.

Nietzsche is a hypocrite. He tried so hard to convince himself that there was meaning to life by adopting this silly self-improvement philosophy. In the end, as he couldn't hide behind his youth any longer, and the infinite darkness was close by, he has a mental breakdown knowing that his philosophy was useless. He had accepted the meaninglessness of existence and it broke him.

>>12571379
Fascism and Communism were attempts to counter the hedonistic consumer culture. Both analysed their world making use of the new scientific methods and technologies. Both sought to distill a metaphysical truth, a sum greater than the mundane parts. Didn't turn out well, but the attempt was made.

>>12575037
> How does one even explains the existence of cancer
Organisms died before cancer was an issue for most of history. It was simply a non issue.

>>12575037
There's a disproportionate ratio of green text to white text therefore it's autistic and I'm not reading.

>>12576761
Still does not explain why Nature allows for cancer in a Stoic understanding. Not to mention it's far from impossible to get cancer before 50 as a human, so well within the range of life expectancy for adults even in the Antiquity.

>>12576771
>not reading autistic posts
>on 4chan

What do you read here then ?

>>12576782
I hardly come here anymore because I think most of you are idiots.

nietzsche was the first accelerationist

>>12576671
>Or some incoherent babbling by Nietzsche about how they are life denying.

Imagine being so bothered that you'll call one of the greatest philosophers to ever live "incoherent."

>>12575094
Stoics view suffering as something to be endured while you pursue the set virtues of the Stoa. Nietzsche felt that your unique sufferings were something that you should find meaning in and use to propel you forward along your own path.

>>12576671
>The founder of Western Philosophy was all about philosophy as a way of life.
I don't think Thales had in mind that "all things are water" as a principle would lead to a happier lifestyle.

>>12570985
live according to nature? however you live is your nature. tautology. heh, nothing personnel kid.

>>12578061
Nietzsche's quote that is often posted here is just a shitpost. It looks like the kind of thing some attention whoring tripfag would post here.

>>12578194
Socrates is considered the father of Western Philosophy. And his philosophy was all about the happy life.

>>12578335
>Nietzsche's quote that is often posted here is just a shitpost

It really isn't, no matter how rump rustled it makes you. Nietzsche was a scholar of the Greek and Roman classics, he knew damn well what he was talking about. He was pointing out that their presumption of taking their ethics from nature was crap, and that they were ultimately no different from any other moralist.

>Socrates is considered the father of Western Philosophy. And his philosophy was all about the happy life.

You can consider him that all you like, but Thales was still the first, and Parmenides was the one that got the ball rolling on critical philosophy.

>>12578335
>Socrates is considered the father of Western Philosophy.
But it didn't start with him, so whoever considers him the father of it ought to study more.

>>12578357
What the Stoics mean by nature is not what he thinks it is. Either he was misinterpreting them (and shitposting) or he was ignorant.
And he lived in the 19th century, when knowledge of the Classics was pretty damn poor. The contemporaries of the Stoics, who had a better grasp of their terminology and ethics than anyone in the 19th century (or even today) didn't make the same criticism.

>>12578357
>>12578360
Socrates is considered the father of Western philosophy because historically pretty much every western philosophical school descended from Socrates.

>>12578427
>What the Stoics mean by nature is not what he thinks it is.

According to a shitposter on a Laotian paper marbling forum.

>And he lived in the 19th century, when knowledge of the Classics was pretty damn poor.

The surviving Stoic classics were well-preserved in Latin at the time.

>The contemporaries of the Stoics, who had a better grasp of their terminology and ethics than anyone in the 19th century (or even today) didn't make the same criticism.

The Epicureans disagreed with them on what morals one should take from nature all the time, what the fuck are you talking about? The entire premise of the disagreement in their ethics was in their views on nature, whether it was a divine order or just atoms and chance.

>Socrates is considered the father of Western philosophy because historically pretty much every western philosophical school descended from Socrates.

That's the traditional view, Thales was still first, and Plato (who really deserves the credit for starting that era of philosophy) owed a lot to Parmenides forcing philosophy to start taking itself seriously.

>>12578496
>According to a shitposter on a Laotian paper marbling forum.
And according to modern academics.

>The surviving Stoic classics were well-preserved in Latin at the time.
Most of the surviving Stoic texts were in Koine Greek. The meaning of many philosophical terms and many other nuances in Classical Philosophy were lost with time.

>The Epicureans disagreed with them on what morals one should take from nature all the time, what the fuck are you talking about? The entire premise of the disagreement in their ethics was in their views on nature, whether it was a divine order or just atoms and chance.
Epicurus didn't give much of a damn about logic or physics. And he didn't make a criticism similar to that of Nietzsche.

>That's the traditional view, Thales was still first, and Plato (who really deserves the credit for starting that era of philosophy) owed a lot to Parmenides forcing philosophy to start taking itself seriously.
The traditional view is that Socrates is the father of philosophy due to his influence on subsequent philosophers. The Stoics descended from him via Antisthenes. The Epicureans via Aristippus. Aristotle via Plato. Christian and Muslim philosophers via Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics.

And Socrates viewed philosophy as being for what you are deriding as self-help.

>>12578357
>Nietzsche was a scholar of the Greek and Roman classics, he knew damn well what he was talking about.
He has no additional authority over any of us who have also read the stoics and disagree with his flat reading of their concepts (that conceptual flatness is the basic reason this particular criticism from him comes off like a shitpost, he doesnt demonstrate an understanding of what is meant by that he criticizes here)

>>12577115
Why, because he was a geneticuck?

>>12578427
>>12578496
>What the Stoics mean by nature is not what he thinks it is.
nietzsche is basically saying, "nature is not what stoics think it is". his critizising is so good the stoics close off and saying nature is what they are saying it is and he should talk about what they are saying it is not making a new assumption of nature.
look at this guy
>>12573241
>https://www.quora.com/As-a-stoic-how-does-one-respond-to-Nietzsches-criticism-of-it-in-Beyond-Good-and-Evil
>happiness comes from our choice to harmonize with Nature.
this kind of cheesy reasoning is so bland and wrong you dont want to talk about how nature is not adapting to nature what is stoics think they do.

> Nature revealing to us what is indifferent and what is to be preferred and what is Virtue and what is Vice than it has to do with a cold unfeeling Cosmos.
again, i think nietzsche is go down to this stupid notion of nature tells you what is wrong and what is good. nature dont tell you shit, you are seeing shit in nature.

>>12578790
nigga maybe if you read the classical stoics instead of Quora posts you wouldnt still be riding nietzsche's jock as hard as everyone else who discovers him before the philosophies he shitposted about

>>12578804
is the only one in the entire thread what instead of saying nietzsche is wrong because the concept of nature of stoics is different, at least is saying what actually stoics are saying.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt64AWqfFdo
even here he is only saying nietzsche is not right because, again, nietzsche is not talking about the nature stoics are talking. without, again, saying a single word about what stoics actually say.
and i think they dont do because they know to shit nietzsche is right, they instead talk about some mysterious nature stoics understand. they dont want to see stoics are idolising nature.
anyway tell me what stoics think about nature.

I am a stoic anglican, rate me

>>12578562
>And according to modern academics.
Do you have a source indicating the unanimous agreement among all academics today that Nietzsche was wrong about the Stoics?

>And he didn't make a criticism similar to that of Nietzsche.
I don't see why it should matter whether anyone made Nietzsche's criticism at the time when the Stoics were alive or not. Thousands of years passed in between and much more thought had been put into what nature is by Nietzsche's time. This isn't tackling Nietzsche's assessment but sidestepping the issue.

>The traditional view is that Socrates is the father of philosophy due to his influence on subsequent philosophers.
Right, but the traditional view is clearly not the complete view. Socrates may have had more influence than all of the Pre-Socratics combined, but Western philosophy did not start with him, bottom line. In general the Continental philosophers don't side with this traditional view anymore due to Nietzsche's analysis which separated Socrates and Plato from the Pre-Socrates and went so far as to say that they weren't proper Greeks, because they lacked the fundamental concern of the Greeks that came before them, which was beauty (Heraclitus's logos, for example, is nothing like Plato's logos; the former a mixture of logic and beauty, the latter all logic oriented). And anyway, if you want to talk about influence as an indication of anything, Nietzsche has been the most influential philosopher since Socrates if we consider everything that has happened since his time in philosophy and academia.

>>12578790
If Nietzsche wants to criticize the Stoic concept of Nature, he should criticize what nature meant 2,000 years ago, not what they called nature in the 19th century, which has a different meaning.

>>12579160
>Do you have a source indicating the unanimous agreement among all academics today that Nietzsche was wrong about the Stoics?
Modern academics who write about Stoicism disagree with Nietzsche views.

>I don't see why it should matter whether anyone made Nietzsche's criticism at the time when the Stoics were alive or not. Thousands of years passed in between and much more thought had been put into what nature is by Nietzsche's time. This isn't tackling Nietzsche's assessment but sidestepping the issue.
It does because they were more able to grasp Stoicism than anyone in the 19th century had, since tons of knowledge of Classical Philosophy were lost with time. The meaning of terms changed, nuances changed... An Epicurean or Academic philosopher that lived in the 1st century would be able to make a stronger criticism of Stoicism than Nietzsche.

>The traditional view is that Socrates is the father of philosophy due to his influence on subsequent philosophers.
Right, but the traditional view is clearly not the complete view. Socrates may have had more influence than all of the Pre-Socratics combined
The issue here is that the man from which Western Philosophy developed from claimed that Philosophy was concerned with ordering your soul and a happy life. Claiming that the search for a better life is not philosophy is either ignorance or idiocy considering the most important and influential Western philosopher considered otherwise.
Nietzsche doesn't even come close to be the most influential philosopher since Socrates. Plato, Aristotle, etc were much more influential. Even in the last couple of centuries you have Marx and Mill.

>>12579200
what nature meant 2000 years ago is what stoics think of nature?.
no. he criticize the specific stoic approach.
2000 years ago there is people saying nature is indifferent too.

>>12579263
>Modern academics who write about Stoicism disagree with Nietzsche views.
Alright... do you have a source indicating the unanimous agreement among all academics who write about Stoicism today that Nietzsche was wrong about the Stoics?

>It does because they were more able to grasp Stoicism than anyone in the 19th century had, since tons of knowledge of Classical Philosophy were lost with time.
Okay, so you aren't concerned with whether the Stoics' view of nature was superior to Nietzsche's view of it, but with whether Nietzsche's view of the Stoics was accurate or not. Fine. But by your admission, not even you know what the Stoics meant then — or has new information appeared since Nietzsche's time that clarified what the Stoics meant? If so, care to share it with us here? This anon asked you to explain what the Stoics thought about nature >>12578955 and I'm gonna have to agree with him that there's really no way to move forward until you provide more on this.

>The issue here is that the man from which Western Philosophy developed from claimed that Philosophy was concerned with ordering your soul and a happy life. Claiming that the search for a better life is not philosophy is either ignorance or idiocy considering the most important and influential Western philosopher considered otherwise.
Socrates / Plato controlled the flow of philosophy in the West for thousands of years, and the academics justify this, but that doesn't mean it started with them or that philosophy's primary concern is to increase happiness. And we KNOW that it didn't always concern itself chiefly with that because we have the Pre-Socratics to show us otherwise.

>Nietzsche doesn't even come close to be the most influential philosopher since Socrates.
All the Continentals and Analytics since his time were influenced by him. ALL of them. The only thing Socrates has over Nietzsche currently is time.

>>12572576
Based

Why do pseuds hate Nietzsche so much?

>>12573161
get help

>>12579274
>what nature meant 2000 years ago is what stoics think of nature?.
What the Stoics meant by the term "phusis" is not what you think it is.

>>12579348
>Alright... do you have a source indicating the unanimous agreement among all academics who write about Stoicism today that Nietzsche was wrong about the Stoics?
Yes, anon, there are totally polls being made where they specifically ask philosophers what they think of Nietzsche's criticism of Stoicism.

>Okay, so you aren't concerned with whether the Stoics' view of nature was superior to Nietzsche's view of it, but with whether Nietzsche's view of the Stoics was accurate or not. Fine. But by your admission, not even you know what the Stoics meant then — or has new information appeared since Nietzsche's time that clarified what the Stoics meant? If so, care to share it with us here? This anon asked you to explain what the Stoics thought about nature >>12578955 and I'm gonna have to agree with him that there's really no way to move forward until you provide more on this.

The study of Classical Ethics improved a lot since the second half of the last century, specially since the 80's... But we still don't have a perfect grasp of Stoic thought. This is maybe the best article on this
https://modernstoicism.com/what-does-in-accordance-with-nature-mean-by-greg-sadler/

>Socrates / Plato controlled the flow of philosophy in the West for thousands of years, and the academics justify this, but that doesn't mean it started with them or that philosophy's primary concern is to increase happiness. And we KNOW that it didn't always concern itself chiefly with that because we have the Pre-Socratics to show us otherwise.

I don't need to argue that "all of philosophy is about happiness". You are the one who said that >>12572572
>If happiness is what you want, go for it. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't make a fuss when other people tell you that you care more about self-help gurus than about philosophy then, because that's the case whether you like it or not.
I'm not the one claiming all philosophy is about happiness. You are the one claiming happiness is an unworthy topic of philosophy.

>All the Continentals and Analytics since his time were influenced by him. ALL of them. The only thing Socrates has over Nietzsche currently is time.
Do you have a source indicating that every single academic of the continental or analytic tradition was influenced by Nietzsche?
Could you explain how Nietzsche influenced Kripke?

>>12571618
>Doesn't knows the difference between Nature and Universe.

>>12579593
equivocator
dissembler in ignorance

>>12579593
Nature and the universe are synonymous after Spinoza.

>>12579565
>This is maybe the best article on this https://modernstoicism.com/what-does-in-accordance-with-nature-mean-by-greg-sadler/

this is practically the same and in essence the same as >https://www.quora.com/As-a-stoic-how-does-one-respond-to-Nietzsches-criticism-of-it-in-Beyond-Good-and-Evil

in all the article they dont say anything too different about what "nature" means. in the ancient times they have an idea about the "nature as everything", or whatever you want to call it. and they say our rationality is nature too, ok, so intelligent, and then they say we can be more nature atuned if we really want, and then all goes to shit... like nietszche said.
>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,

basically they said if nature is everything i am part of that everything so i can know that everything by being what i have to be in that everything. they want to associate their ideas to a higher order, that is the reason they say according to nature and not according to "whatever the fuck i want"
like nietzsche say is a problem of philosophy iself, not only of stoics.
>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 nietzsche critic is perfectly valid in this context. the stoics concept of nature is not a so different thing. you are cheating all thread along. is more or less the same as nietszche said. is not that complex.
fucking presumptuous shit you are moving with no sense.

>>12578562
>And according to modern academics.

Good for them, they're wrong. The Stoics used nature in two senses, one as a term for the cosmos, which they believed represented a divinely ordained order that our limited perception would come to view as bad, when it was in fact a perfect divine order; the second as in the term of inherent nature in which they believed it was the inherent nature of humans as social animals to cooperate and be virtuous. Nietzsche addresses both, first by pointing out that nature bears little in common with their notion of a divinely ordered cosmos, and the second by pointing out that humans are absolutely incapable of doing anything but living in accord with their natures.

>Most of the surviving Stoic texts were in Koine Greek.

Regardless, they were preserved in a language Nietzsche could read and he had studied them extensively. Your "it's current year" attempt to address his criticism has no merit.

>Epicurus didn't give much of a damn about logic or physics.

Irrelevant.

>And he didn't make a criticism similar to that of Nietzsche.

That's because you're refusing to see it. They didn't give that exact critique (well, they might have, since few of their writings survived, but I doubt it) but they did extensively disagree with them and their views on what ethics one should take from nature, as Nietzsche here is doing. The Stoic ethics were formed in the view that nature was a divine order that our limited perceptions failed to grasp the perfection of, the Epicurean ethics in the view that nature was a product of chance that we're subjected to.

>last line

I'm not disputing that is the traditional view, I'm saying it's erroneous because Plato was the one who really started that segment of the history of philosophy, and because philosophy up to that point owes a credit to previous thinkers that were noted influences (Heraclitus, Democritus, Empedocles, and Parmenides especially).

Also there's no clear proof that Epicutrus was influenced by Aristippus.

>And Socrates viewed philosophy as being for what you are deriding as self-help.

Oh that wasn't me, that was a previous poster. I think teaching people to live better lives is one of the best features of philosophy.

>>12580449
Damn it, anon. Do you really refuse to understand their point? They did not think of the term nature as you do.

>>12580663
>They did not think of the term nature as you do.
They're faggots either way.

>>12580663
yes, maybe. but they think the term as nietzsche did?.

>>12580644
>on Nature
We are just talking past each other.
I frankly don't think you understand their point or that there is any way I can convince you.
Nature was not a "rhetorical device" to convince others to follow them or win debates ("we seek nature so we are right"). Or what we think by nature nowadays.
Maybe instead of "nature" they should have left the term untranslated to avoid confusions.

>Regardless, they were preserved in a language Nietzsche could read and he had studied them extensively. Your "it's current year" attempt to address his criticism has no merit.
Have you ever read "After Virtue"?
The idea that we have lost knowledge from the past was not created by me.

>That's because you're refusing to see it. They didn't give that exact critique (well, they might have, since few of their writings survived, but I doubt it) but they did extensively disagree with them and their views on what ethics one should take from nature, as Nietzsche here is doing. The Stoic ethics were formed in the view that nature was a divine order that our limited perceptions failed to grasp the perfection of, the Epicurean ethics in the view that nature was a product of chance that we're subjected to.
The issue of "the universe has a perfect order" vs "everything is just athoms" is not the reason for the difference in Stoic vs Epicurean ethics.
If God descended to Earth and told Epicurus that everything was "well ordered" he would say "sweet" and he would keep living as he did. He then would say "see how you should not fear the future?". In one of the fragments of Epictetus, he more or less says "who cares if it is all athoms or if there is a providence? This is above our station. The important thing is to rule your desires"

>I'm not disputing that is the traditional view, I'm saying it's erroneous because Plato was the one who really started that segment of the history of philosophy, and because philosophy up to that point owes a credit to previous thinkers that were noted influences (Heraclitus, Democritus, Empedocles, and Parmenides especially).
If pretty much all Western Philosophers claim to be descendants of Socrates, it is not wrong to call them his "sons"

>>12580735
No.

>>12580807
im not the anon you responding.
>they should have left the term untranslated to avoid confusions.
the term is not important, the word is not important.
they refere to a higher order and they say you can be (or you are) like that higher order?. in essence that is what nietzsche criticize.

try to explain in your own terms, what is nature to stoics if not is "everything".

>>12580807
I think you're making it out to be something other than "nature" because doing so would require accepting a criticism of Stoicism.

>The idea that we have lost knowledge from the past was not created by me.

It's irrelevant here, because Nietzsche had access to what are largely similar resources on the Stoics as we do.

>The issue of "the universe has a perfect order" vs "everything is just athoms" is not the reason for the difference in Stoic vs Epicurean ethics.

It was the root of their ethics. In a universe of atoms and chance, Epicurus reasoned that the only true good was pleasure. Epictetus (a late Roman Stoic) wouldn't have made a statement like that if there hadn't been previously an idea that their ethics stemmed from the view of the universe as a perfect divine order.

>If pretty much all Western Philosophers claim to be descendants of Socrates, it is not wrong to call them his "sons"

It's idiotic and owes mostly to Plato and Aristotle aggressively tearing down the thinkers who had already established philosophy prior.

>>12580833
Think of Plato's forms. What is the "nature" of a circle? Now think the same about man.

>>12580920
So, then man's inherent nature. That thing Nietzsche said you cannot do anything but live in accordance with.

>>12580920
i think you are the one who dont understand nietzsche criticizing.

>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,

in your own example he say you are making the nature of the circle in the moment you think about the nature of the circle, you are making the nature of the circle, the nature you want the circle have..

>>12580920
There are no circles in nature.

>>12580848
>I think you're making it out to be something other than "nature" because doing so would require accepting a criticism of Stoicism.
From the bottom of my heart, I don't. I don't think the Stoics were making an appeal to nature.

>It's irrelevant here, because Nietzsche had access to what are largely similar resources on the Stoics as we do.
It is not. You can read a book and misinterpret it because the terms changed meaning over the centuries or because what people understand philosophy to be about changed.
"After Virtue" is not an obscure book and the author is sympathetic to Nietzsche in some ways and not a fan of Stoicism.

>It was the root of their ethics. In a universe of atoms and chance, Epicurus reasoned that the only true good was pleasure. Epictetus (a late Roman Stoic) wouldn't have made a statement like that if there hadn't been previously an idea that their ethics stemmed from the view of the universe as a perfect divine order.
Epicurean ethics doesn't need athomism to work. It would work just as well in an ordered universe. Neither does Epictetus' brand of Stoicism depend on a well ordered universe. In an universe of athoms and chance, the dichotomy of control still works. If anything, athomism and chance makes Epictetus' ethics more useful.


>It's idiotic and owes mostly to Plato and Aristotle aggressively tearing down the thinkers who had already established philosophy prior.
The Classical Schools did consider themselves descendants of Socrates and neither the Epicureans nor the Stoics descended from Plato.

>>12580923
No. Man not as he is, but as he should be.
You don't act in that way. Neither do I or Nietzsche. The one who acts as this way would be the sage.

>>12580951
My impression is that Nietzsche is arguing that the Stoics made an "appeal to nature" and then tried to make "nature" what they wanted it to be.
When "nature" did not have the meaning we usually think of.

>>12581038
>but as he should be.

On what basis? Nietzsche's whole point here is that Stoic ethics are baseless, and that their nature (either nature in the cosmic sense, or in the sense of inherent nature) are both not actually features of nature, but what the stoics wish them to be, which makes them no different from anyone else making a broad ethical assertion.

>>12581038
yes, only that nature for stoics is not nature like national geographic nature. (like everybody dont stop to say all the fucking thread.)
i think you are the one who dont understand, pretty ironic.
he is making a deeper assumption with the appeal to nature. not the ecologic nature but the intrinsic nature of things. and he say is full of shit making that assumption.
anyway that is my interpretation.

>>12580979
>From the bottom of my heart, I don't. I don't think the Stoics were making an appeal to nature.

That's fine, I don't doubt you think that, and I think you don't think that because doing so would require admitting that their ethics were flawed and baseless.

>It is not. You can read a book and misinterpret it because the terms changed meaning over the centuries or because what people understand philosophy to be about changed.

It is. Nietzsche was an accomplished philologist and I don't give a flying fuck what After Virtue has to say.

>Epicurean ethics doesn't need athomism to work. It would work just as well in an ordered universe. Neither does Epictetus' brand of Stoicism depend on a well ordered universe. In an universe of athoms and chance, the dichotomy of control still works. If anything, athomism and chance makes Epictetus' ethics more useful.

Except for the fact that if the universe is divinely ordered, with everything serving a purpose, the Epicurean tendency to reject discomfort becomes unethical because they're rejecting a feature of a perfect divine order. Stoic ethics become completely baseless, because considering suffering an evil becomes an entirely legitimate, since it's no longer brought about by misunderstanding a perfect divine order that was ordained by god himself.

>The Classical Schools did consider themselves descendants of Socrates and neither the Epicureans nor the Stoics descended from Plato.

Epicurus rejected the idea that he had any previous influences, and the only fairly obvious one in his work is Democritus.

The work of the presocratics in establishing philosophy was extensively downplayed by Plato and Aristotle, who are the primary survivors of philosophy of the time, and most (if not all) of the students of Socrates actively smeared the sophists.

>>12581050
>>12581057

Of course Stoicism is not based on nature as we think of it. If we were to live that way, there would not be the need of any system of ethics. You can't take away any system of Ethics from this basis.
And any decent system of Ethics will have an end point.

>>12581144
yes, but why saying your system of ethics is according to nature or some intrinsic notion of life and not just your thoughts?. that is their only error. from mi point of view at least.

>>12581144
It's not based on anything besides the mind that engineered it, like all idealism, which is the point Nietzsche's defenders are making

>>12581092
>That's fine, I don't doubt you think that, and I think you don't think that because doing so would require admitting that their ethics were flawed and baseless.
No, really, I sincerelly don't think they were making an appeal to nature.

>It is. Nietzsche was an accomplished philologist and I don't give a flying fuck what After Virtue has to say.
I think it is pretty clear that Nietzsche was not an omniscient god. Why do you doubt he could ever be wrong?

>Except for the fact that if the universe is divinely ordered, with everything serving a purpose, the Epicurean tendency to reject discomfort becomes unethical because they're rejecting a feature of a perfect divine order.
Avoiding suffering by achieving virtue is not inconsistent with a perfect divine order.

>Stoic ethics become completely baseless, because considering suffering an evil becomes an entirely legitimate, since it's no longer brought about by misunderstanding a perfect divine order that was ordained by god himself.
It doesn't, because according to Epictetus suffering comes from desiring external things and what you consider to be an evil is not.
"Everything is by chance" doesn't make it a good idea to have a badly ordered soul, to desire kinetic pleasures, money, status, etc. If anything it makes it an even worse idea.

>Epicurus rejected the idea that he had any previous influences, and the only fairly obvious one in his work is Democritus
Where did Epicurus write that?

>>12581196
>I sincerelly don't think they were making an appeal to nature.
but you have some notion of what they are making?

>>12581160
Because for them nature meant something else. It was not their purpose to make an appeal to nature.

>>12581190
Stoicism is not different from any other philosophy in how it developed. It didn't come from divine revelation (it is not a religion), but from theorizing by humans.

>>12581227
Trying to find the knowledge on how to live the best life.

>>12581196
>No, really, I sincerelly don't think they were making an appeal to nature.

I just said that, and I think you sincerely think that because you want Stoic ethics to have a concrete basis. Further, it wasn't an appeal to nature they were making, it was an attempt to establish a system based on nature as they saw it. The point here that it's not nature itself, but nature as they saw it.

>I think it is pretty clear that Nietzsche was not an omniscient god. Why do you doubt he could ever be wrong?

He was wrong about lots, he wasn't fucking wrong about this, because the Stoics meant nature in the two capacities I mentioned.

>Avoiding suffering by achieving virtue is not inconsistent with a perfect divine order.

Except the fact that the Epicureans advocated withdrawing from a public life to pursue their idea of virtue, whereas in a perfect divine order, you'd be shirking your duty to do so.

>It doesn't, because according to Epictetus suffering comes from desiring external things and what you consider to be an evil is not.>
>"Everything is by chance" doesn't make it a good idea to have a badly ordered soul, to desire kinetic pleasures, money, status, etc. If anything it makes it an even worse idea.

Stoicism wasn't rooted in some sort of utilitarian calculus. They believed their system could reduce suffering, btu that wasn't the primary purpose, the primary purpose was living a life of virtue. However, their idea of what a life of virtue actually is, is rooted in the idea of the universe as a perfect, divine order, and in a universe that isn't the only argument that remains for them is a pragmatic, utilitarian one, not an ethical one.

>Where did Epicurus write that?

It's part of the tradition surrounding the study of Epicurus himself, in which he denied having previous influences. Epicurus' writings are scant.

>>12581270
>It didn't come from divine revelation (it is not a religion),
see this
>Because for them nature meant something else
nietzsche is saying among other things (and i agree) that philosophers are priests and philosophy is her religion.

when you theorize about the intrinsic nature of things you are pretty close to the divine anyway.

>It was not their purpose to make an appeal to nature.
they are making and appeal to the nature or an appeal to his own manufacturated notion of nature. you cant deny that, come on. not the national geographic nature, i know.

>>12581144
>Of course Stoicism is not based on nature as we think of it.

It's based on nature as they thought of it, which was as a divinely ordered cosmos, or in terms of the inherent nature of things. Do you have even one shred of evidence that it's anything but these?

>>12571553
>You’re just trying to derive some satisfaction by looking at everything with indifference
idiot

>>12581294
>I just said that, and I think you sincerely think that because you want Stoic ethics to have a concrete basis. Further, it wasn't an appeal to nature they were making, it was an attempt to establish a system based on nature as they saw it. The point here that it's not nature itself, but nature as they saw it.
I frankly don't really care about Stoic physics or logic.
I don't care if the Stoics were right on providence or if Epicurus was right about athoms or providence. The part of Stoicism I care about is that of Epictetus who also didn't give much of a thought about physics or logic.

>He was wrong about lots, he wasn't fucking wrong about this, because the Stoics meant nature in the two capacities I mentioned.
You were arguing that Nietzsche was some super expert that couldn't get Classic Philosophy wrong because he had the same texts we have.

>Except the fact that the Epicureans advocated withdrawing from a public life to pursue their idea of virtue, whereas in a perfect divine order, you'd be shirking your duty to do so.
Some of the earlier Stoics also withdrew from public life. Active duty was more of a Roman Stoic thing.

>Stoicism wasn't rooted in some sort of utilitarian calculus. They believed their system could reduce suffering, btu that wasn't the primary purpose, the primary purpose was living a life of virtue.
The life of virtue is lived because it is the life that will make you live better.

>However, their idea of what a life of virtue actually is, is rooted in the idea of the universe as a perfect, divine order, and in a universe that isn't the only argument that remains for them is a pragmatic, utilitarian one, not an ethical one.
Epictetus explicitly said in one of the fragments that a life of virtue is better even if there is no providence.

>It's part of the tradition surrounding the study of Epicurus himself, in which he denied having previous influences. Epicurus' writings are scant.
I dont remember reading that.

>>12581298
They did not argue humans are intrinsic virtuous. They argued an ideal human would be virtuous.
This is not an appeal to nature. You are just misinterpreting what they meant by it. Or trolling me.

>>12581301
They didn't think normal humans were intrinsically virtuous. By nature they didn't mean humans as they thought human beings were in practice, but as they should be

>>12570985
Friendly reminder that nobody has ever shown Plato to be wrong

>>12581386
is an appeal to virtue disguised like an appeal to "nature". ok.

>>12581353
>I frankly don't really care about Stoic physics or logic.

Well that's just grand. But we're not talking about their physics or their logic, we're talking about their ethics, which were rooted in their metaphysics.

>You were arguing that Nietzsche was some super expert that couldn't get Classic Philosophy wrong because he had the same texts we have.

I didn't say he couldn't get it wrong. I said that he probably didn't because he was an accomplished philologist and one of the greatest philosophic minds to have existed, and probably knew more about what the Stoics thought "nature" meant than you do. Do you think he didn't know that the Stoics thought that man ought to be virtuous as according to them, do you really fucking think that isn't exactly what he's pointing out?

>Some of the earlier Stoics also withdrew from public life. Active duty was more of a Roman Stoic thing.

One of the key points of difference between Zeno's philosophy and Crate's philosophy was that a life of virtue is something that should be actively pursued and used to better the world.

>The life of virtue is lived because it is the life that will make you live better.

A life of virtue was believed to make you happier, but owing to the philosophical climate at the time, this wasn't considered a necessary feature, and philosophers of the time very much followed the views Plato outlined in the Republic, where virtue would still be beneficial in and of itself, owing to its nature as virtue even if the life of the virtuous individual was actually complete hell for it.

>Epictetus explicitly said in one of the fragments that a life of virtue is better even if there is no providence.

Epictetus didn't invent the fucking philosophy, nor was he even its most important thinker. He could think it was better despite that, but that doesn't change the fact the philosophy was not rooted in a hedonistic utilitarian calculation, and without it being unethical to reject components of the divine order, someone concluding that shirking duty to avoid suffering is entirely legitimate in doing so.

>I dont remember reading that.

Ok. Epicurus was not a Socratic philosopher, this is the standard position.

>>12581386
>They didn't think normal humans were intrinsically virtuous. By nature they didn't mean humans as they thought human beings were in practice, but as they should be

You fucking thicky. They didn't think it was normal for humans, they said it was the inherent nature of humans which humans rejected. Nietzsche is pointing out that humans do nothing but live according to their inherent nature, and that the inherent nature of humans as the stoics envisioned it was their creation.

>Steeps his sweeping philosophical claims on human nature upon flawed and since discredited historical research
>Autistic fangirling obsession with Wagner. Literally seething once he realizes that Wagner isn’t his idol in an experience that calls to mind the electrical interfetterence copypasta
>Obsessed with self-transformation and unabashed, uncompromising strength in the face of normie nice guy society
>Is in actuality a depressed and lonely loser who ends up mentally broken and dead and has his legacy cucked by his sister

Yeah strong guy

>>12581585
Plato was one of the furthest away from being an ideal man among the Greeks, so it seems neither of them truly lived what they espoused.