/lit/ - Literature

>>14224744
>living in accordance with nature
exactly what it says
>why it triggers normies so much
because it makes them realize thst the world doesn't revolve around their whims

>>14224744
Does not mean anything.

>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.

>>14224744
All of mankind should die out. That is living in accordance with nature. Killing every last of one you vermin off. I am not a human being, and in fact, we are not communicating. You are just a fucking vermin that deserves to have his skull crushed. That is according to nature. Die.

I was meant to be a happy little bird, but instead, I have to look you in the eyes... and all I desire is sending you to hell... according to nature.

>What is "living in accordance with nature"
A meaningless platitude, a blank canvas for anyone's and everyone's personal idea of what it would mean to live in accordance with nature.

>why it triggers normies so much
It doesn't. It's a normie take, if anything.

The fuck's so funny about a donkey eating your figs? Dude had shit humor.

>>14224744
it's living according to their take on logos, the god-reason spread through everything in the world; on the surface, it's a normie take, but on the inside, it means controlling your passions, which is very, very hard to do in the real world

>>14225914
I came here to post this. Nicely done anon.

>>14225914
>apollonian man bad
also neech
>horse exists
AAAAAH IM GOING INSAAANE

>>14224744

>>14224744
>>14225912
>>14225914
>>14225923
>In the sense meant by the Stoics, a human following nature meant reaching full, flourishing maturity (note the connection with εὐδαιμονία/eudaimonia), or perhaps a mixture of that and something like the modern idea of self-actualization. Vice, they thought, is caused by bad external influences or immaturity. Following nature is the same as being virtuous, which is being a fully mature, flourishing rational being, while being vicious is the same as being childish, sick, or injured.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_does_it_mean_to_live_in_accordance_with_nature.3F

>>14224744
>What is "living in accordance with nature"
Exactly what it says. In academics, ecology and environmentalism. In a buzz word, sustainability. We are all just living organisms in a biosphere and can’t live without the others so we ought to prove how intelligent we’re supposed to be by not destroying it. But that is just what we’re doing.
>why it triggers normies so much?
These kinds of people are spiritualists, sometimes its god, who they want to want to come back in their end times mythology, others are spiritualists of capitalism. They’re all anthropocentric scuzballs

>>14227245
Shut up

Made a literature thread last night.
Safe to discuss this book ITT?
Or would you rather shitpost all day?

>>14227245
>simplifying human psyche
but we are just random biological aggregates, aren't we? animals and nothing more!
you deny life

>>14227289
>Twisting a simple post to your own reeee
Yes and no. And how donyou get that I deny life? I’m not the waiting/egging on Armageddon. Could you get back on topic?