/lit/ - Literature

uttering "I am a stoic" in public will make you look like a giant faggot searching for self-help from ancient philosophers

>>16408097
If you want a real assassination of Stoicism, read The Self Awakened or it's sequel, The Religion Of The Future by Unger

>>16408102
not op but this looks pretty cool, thanks anon

>>16408102
quick rundown?

>>16408097
1, its gay
2, it's not gay in the sexual sense
3, it's similar to buddhism so its automatically shit

I was reading de maistre and he was shitting on stoics as sophists.
Why do Catholics think stoicism is shit?

>>16408118
>Why do Catholics think stoicism is shit?
pretty interesting considering christian philosophy seems so heavily influenced by a lot of greek stoic ideas

>>16408112
There are three movements that all social and religious movement falls into
>Overcoming The World
>Humanizing The World
>Struggle With The World
What they are, how they work, how they differ, and what to do to move forward

>>16408097
It's unrealistic. Most people aren't strong enough for it and would do better with other doctrines.

>>16408097

>>16408118
>just bear all the shit life throws at you and die
>just bear all the shit life throws at you until you are relieved of them and you enioy etrernal bliss in Heaven

>>16408157
Exactly.
This is why Vedanta, Buddhism, Stoicism are all absolutely søy

>>16408097
>What are the flaws of Stoicism?
it does not work for men
women do not understand it all. for women it just means being edgy and having sex in the street

>>16408157
>>16408128
I think its critical of stoicism in its denial of divine providence , will and graces
>" Indeed, in this case where is the contradiction, when it cannot be supported either by the facts, since we do not know them, or by the terms, since they have changed? Allow, then, the stoics to tell us that the proposition It will rain tomorrow is as certain and as immutable in the ordained order of things as the proposition It rained yesterday; allow them to perplex us, if they can, with the most dazzling sophisms. We shall let them prattle on, for no objection, even an unanswerable one (which I am very far from admitting in this case), can stand against the proof that resides in the innate belief of all men. If you accept what I say, Knight, you will continue when you return to your homeland to say your Rogation-day prayer. In the meantime, it will be as well to pray to God with all your might to bless you by returning you there, in the same way letting them prattle on who would object that it is determined beforehand whether or not you will see your dear country again."

>>16408097
What's the basic definition of stoicism?

>>16408097
It's a larp, much like Buddhism. The creator of stoicism himself commited suicide after hurting his foot (look it up).
Everyone experiences suffering, and there is suffering you can withstand. Patting yourself on the back for withstanding it and creating this entire larp about how you're stronger than nature is so fucking dumb, however.
Everyone has a breaking point. Some people just don't reach it because they get lucky. They should be thankful, rather than being arrogant and thinking they are bigger than fate.
That's how you get people like Jordan Peterson.

>>16408118
What does he say?

>>16408366
>That's how you get people like Jordan Peterson.
How is Jordan Peterson stoic, he was always kinda whiny.

>>16408146
Cringe. We already had this and it failed hard.

>>16408366
Stoicism doesn't principally condemn suicide.

>>16408474
What are you trying to say, what do you think "this" is and why do you think it failed?

>>16408097
We are given one life in this world and with it all of the passions, the mistakes, the conflicts, the suffering, the joy, the confusion, the victories -- those things which give color and mystique to this world localized within us. These experiences are, insofar as we are aware, unique to us. Yet the Greeks were quick to brand us as the "rational animal" -- they called for indifference and a sombre approach to living which removes from us the very things which are truly unique to us.
Tell me, followers of Aurelius, do you not remember the fires of the passion of youth? Can you not remember the wonder that came with seeing the blades of grass, the trains, the trees, the things which you today pass by without a second thought? Do you not recall a time when your emotions and intuitions guided your actions, before your creativity and thirst for life was conditioned out of your mind?
I tell you, Epictetus, when my cup breaks it is precisely because it is my cup that I care about it. Far from simply the loss of a ceramic tool, my cup carries with it memories and feelings which can never be replaced. And while these things are not enviable to you Stoics who have surrendered your passions to lead a dry, emotionless, inhumane existence, I deem them to be of greater value than what you have to offer.

>>16408627
Very much in Unger's line of thinking

>What are the flaws of Stoi-

>NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER
> NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

>>16408627
For instance, the words in this quote are not simply poetic non-sequiturs.
Time over eternity means to take Time as real and linear, not eternal, illusory and cyclical.
This makes life right now matter.
Life over everything means this as well, that we have this one life and an infinity, a transcendental bliss, is making us ignore that life we actually have right now.
Vulnerability over serenity: I can dissociate myself like the Bhagavad Gita or Epictetus say to do, but this divorces me from possession of my own life, I trade pain for being only a witness to a life that is never mine.

And so on

>>16408097
One has to choose between becoming an emperor and becoming enlightened.

>>16408366
exactly. another larp, strength instead of success. good for slaves.

That you can choose your emotions, especially intense, persistent emotions.

>>16408648
You might like Robert C. Solomon -- "True To Our Feelings". He provides an ethical defense of the emotions as valid in value judgments and necessary in practical decision making.

>>16408648
Garage filled with all those unsold books eh Roberto?

>>16408366
>t. didn't read the stoics

>>16408102
>Unger finds the two major orientations of contemporary Leftism inadequate and calls for a 'Reconstructive Left' – one which would insist on redirecting the course of globalization by reorganizing the market economy.[42] In his two books The Left Alternative and The Future of American Progressivism, Unger lays out a program to democratize the market economy and deepen democracy. This Reconstructive Left would look beyond debates on the appropriate size of government, and instead re-envision the relationship between government and firms in the market economy by experimenting with the coexistence of different regimes of private and social property.

>Unger's call is for a revolution in our religious beliefs that encompasses both individual transformation and institutional reorganization; to create change in the life of the individual as well as in the organization of society. The first part of the program of individual transformation means waking from the dazed state in which we live our lives, and recognizing our mortality and groundlessness without turning to the feel good theologies and philosophies. The second part of the program of social transformation means supplementing the metaphysical revolution with institutional practices by creating social institutions that allow us to constantly overthrow our constraints and our context, and to make this overthrow not a one time event but a continuing process. This is the program of empowered democracy that calls for reforms in the market economy, education, politics, and civil society.

/lit/ always manages to find the biggest retards to shill.

>>16408727
But that's based af

>>16408739
>neoliberalism is based

>>16408157
>Just bear all the shit life throws at you
Can you fags at least read a few pages of stoic lit before you make there retarded threads?

>>16408366
1. Suicide is pretty casual for the Stoics, " you see no way out of your suffering? You need only turn over your wrist" - Seneca
2. No stoic claims to be stronger than nature, that would be a stoic sage. A perfection that cannot be attained yet always strived for.

>>16408818
>MUH NEOLIBERALISM
At least look up what words mean before you try to use them to dismiss things.
btw Unger's book Knowledge And Politics is about all the reasons neoliberalism is a failure.

>a man slaps your girlfriend on the ass
>your gf expects you to do something
>"Worry not my dear, for he is only ignorant and misguided. You should forgive him for his mistake." t. stoic anon

>>16408727
>creating social institutions that allow us to constantly overthrow our constraints and our context, and to make this overthrow not a one time event but a continuing process.
Sounds absolutely subversive.

>>16409294
sounds surprisingly Christian.

>>16409294
You absolute dummy, you smelly fool, have you even read Epictetus?

"Remember that you are an actor in a drama of such sort as the Author chooses [..] If it be his pleasure that you should enact a poor man, a cripple, or a rule, or a private citizen, see that you act it well. For this is your business - To act well this given part, but to choose it belongs to another"

Act your part as the enraged boyfriend!
Literal NPC philosophy

>>16408366
>creating this entire larp about how you're stronger than nature is so fucking dumb, however.
>>16408884
>2. No stoic claims to be stronger than nature, that would be a stoic sage. A perfection that cannot be attained yet always strived for.

/lit/ not only didn't read any book, they didn't even read wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage_(philosophy)
>The aim of Stoicism was to live a life of virtue, where "virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature"
You're not supposed to be stronger than nature, you're supposed to follow your nature

>>16408097
Sterility. It needs another philosophy to accompany it, one that is free to let loose and suffer everything that recklessness brings to it. Stoicism is useful for uniformly organizing one's experiences, but it's inartistic.

>>16408097
Not really a flaw, but I don't like their materialism. They believe things like souls exist, but they also believe it's all material.

>>16408112
ok
>Rothschilds bow to Bogdanoffs
>In contact with aliens
>Possess psychic-like abilities
>Control france with an iron but fair fist
>Own castles & banks globally
>Direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line
>Will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city)
>Own 99% of DNA editing research facilities on Earth
>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Bogdanoff babies
>both brothers said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51
>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world
>You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now
>The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church. Who do you think set up the meeting between the pope & the Orthodox high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years) and arranged the Orthodox leader's first trip to Antarctica in history literally a few days later to the Bogdanoff bunker in Wilkes land?
>They learned fluent French in under a week
>Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff
>The twins are about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society
>In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don't know their ultimate plans yet. We hope they're benevolent beings.

>>16408727
waving hands in the air

>>16409294
Or you can look to Marcus Aurelius:
>barbarians try to invade your empire
>your people expect you to do something
>practice virtue and do your duties, by defending your people and attacking the barbarians

>>16408157
As opposed to what? give in like a worthless coward?

>>16409294
You destroy him, not because you are a retard governed by your impulses but because you have a duty to defend her from such assaults.

>>16408097
Criticism of Stoicism (in this thread, for example) are usually criticism of a strawman of Stoicism >>16409294 or a misunderstanding of what they meant >>16408366 . Or poetic shit with low content like this >>16408627 which if you take away the emotion behind it is... ...empty. Or by meme guys like this >>16408102

Anyway, a few problems (those are mostly about early and middle Stoics):

- Some of the work from the early Stoics were really not that good and that has led to embarrassment for later Stoics. To the point some of their reactions were: "He was just a young guy when he wrote this". "Can't we just erase that and pretend he did not write this?"

- They downplayed moral progress and how good someone would be when he was about to become a sage but not a sage yet. This downplaying of moral progress leads to some confusion among students of Stoicism.

God I hate these cuckolds projecting their retarded interpretations of Wikipedia's Stoicism article. I truly wish you die soon and die painfully and if you read Meditations and still concluded it is cucked then I wish it even more.

>>16408097
does Stoicism have a goal? benefit to health, strength, happiness, spirit?

>>16412583
>does Stoicism have a goal? benefit to health, strength, happiness, spirit?

Stoicism is about improving your judgement on what is good and bad.
Which will as a result benefit happiness, spirit and in some ways health and strength.

>>16408097
It doesn't get me laid

>>16408097
Living under a shell to avoid suffering leaves you insensitive to the joys of life. What noble spirit would ever want to live such a flaccid life?

>>16412684
>Living under a shell to avoid suffering
What do you mean by this?

>>16412583
Bliss, a happiness detached from all the occurrences of the external world, depending on nothing except internal virtue and reason. Independence in the most radical sense with no exception

>>16412763
Pretending to be indifferent on a personal level and not embracing the totality of life on its own terms. To practice deliberate self-denial to prepare yourself for a potential loss and such. The shell was a metaphor for the blunt, cold and lifeless skin a stoic takes on to never have to feel great emotions or pain - a life which leaves them flat and flavourless.

>>16408157
>just pretend there is a heaven lmao

>>16412817
I believe you have a different kind of Stoicism in mind?

>Pretending to be indifferent on a personal level and not embracing the totality of life on its own terms. To practice deliberate self-denial to prepare yourself for a potential loss and such

Stoicism is not about pretending to be indifferent. Stoicism is about improving your knowledge about what is good and bad. About searching what is good instead of the illusion of what is good.

Suffering because of faulty knowledge is not "embracing the totality of life".

>>16409294
>a man slaps your girlfriend on the ass
thats your fault for not putting a hijab on her and letting her to whore around

>>16408157
>>16408627
>>16409294
>>16412684
ITT: People strawmanning stoicism as being passive or emotionless

>>16412817
Proper stoicism isn't indifference to life. Its just understanding that there are large swaths of life that you simply have no control over such as death, and accepting this aspect of reality, while being the best you can in what is under your control. This then leads to less undue stress as you no longer have to car

Really the central point of stoicism is having a more objective and productive outlook. not everything is under your control and that's fine. But if you become indifferent to the pleasures of life you're not doing stoicism right, as long as you don't go overboard with them. For example Aurelius said it was fine to drink to further enjoy a social setting as long as you did so in moderation.

>>16412877
>Suffering because of faulty knowledge is not "embracing the totality of life".
Sure it is. That's what all adventure amounts to. There's no adventure to be had in realms you've already conquered.

>>16412877
>illusion
>faulty
Yeah, thought as much. Nature is everything you want it to be.

>>16412912
*no longer feel anxiety over things you can't control

>>16412684
>le stoic no feel man who doesn't enjoy anything
Maybe don't base your views on philosophy in general on your 5 minute youtube Nietzsche summary videos. The point is not to despise the pleasures of life, but to be independent of them, able to appreciate them all the more knowing that you don't need them. The (general) purpose of Stoicism is to remove suffering, I don't know why you seem to think that happiness and suffering are so inextricably linked that if you eradicate one you remove the other, you don't need to numb yourself to joy to eradicate suffering

>>16412914
From your point of view, you can only have a good life if you have faulty knowledge?

>>16412684
>le stoic no feel man who doesn't enjoy anything
Maybe don't base your views on philosophy in general on your 5 minute youtube Nietzsche summary videos. The point is not to despise the pleasures of life, but to be independent of them, able to appreciate them all the more knowing that you don't need them. The (general) purpose of Stoicism is to remove suffering, I don't know why you seem to think that happiness and suffering are so inextricably linked that if you eradicate one you must remove the other, you don't need to numb yourself to joy to eradicate suffering

>>16412885
>Something similar happened to me also the other day. I keep an iron lamp by the side of my household gods, and, on hearing a noise at the window, I ran down. I found that the lamp had been stolen. I reflected that the man who stole it was moved by no unreasonable motive. What then? To morrow, I say, you will find one of earthenware.

>>16412915
>Yeah, thought as much. Nature is everything you want it to be.
?

>>16412912
Accepting that you're going to die is fairly prudent but the rest of what is and isn't under your control isn't really something you can know until you actually try. It's one thing for a Roman senator or an emperor to make such a statement - it's another for a /lit/ poster to do so.
>>16412935
I just want you to know I am never going to read this.

>>16412953
No, but adventuring is a prerequisite for having a great life. I don't see much in Stoicism on its own promoting this.

>>16412956
>eradicate suffering
stoics really are pathetic creatures

>>16412974
>No, but adventuring is a prerequisite for having a great life.
So, you would agree that you don't need faulty knowledge to have a good life, correct?

>>16412995
define faulty

>>16412995
Yeah, of course. If good is what you want, Stoicism is fine.

>>16412992
How do you call someone who suffers without motive?

>>16413007
Wrong

>>16413009
>If good is what you want, Stoicism is fine.
Ah, OK

>>16408097

repression

>>16413012
A normal person

>>16412968
That's because you are a spiteful little thing who doesn't actually care to engage with any serious thinking and just comes here to shitpost about books and philosophers he's never read like the majority of this board

>>16412992
Why do you say so, genuinely fascinates me how you can take a position like this

>>16408097
the virgin repression of expression vs. the chad explosion of emotional energy

>>16413041
>just comes here to shitpost about books and philosophers he's never read like the majority of this board
Guilty as charged

>>16408100
this. N’s critique is pretty accurate if you want to google that.

>>16413041
>you're spiteful
>you don't read books
>shitposting
Oh look, it's a stoic thread full of reddit spacing. How surprisng.

>>16413041
>n-n-no you're the p-pseud, stoicism is b-based /fit/ said so

>>16413083
>muh reddit

>>16408100
fpbp

>>16413027
>A normal person
Explain

>>16413069
Who would be N?

>>16413144
Normal people just suffer and then move on, tell themselves it will get better or any of a billion different platitudes and get the fuck on with it.

>>16413162
But that's not what we were asking for?
Do normal people try to suffer distress without any motive?

>>16413173
>Try to suffer
Nobody actively tries to suffer, it's just a part of life that everyone who isn't a massive faggot just deals with.

In this thread I guess people are mixing up nihilism and stoicism? Being a stoic does not mean that "nothing really matters". It's merely the realisation that in the grand scheme of things you only have control over very little and making an improvement in your small area is the only thing that can be reasonably expected from you. It's basically a philosophy of not carrying the weight of the world on your shoulders. You can look at the sun for inspiration, here is an object that rises and sets everyday. It did the same 100 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, or 10000 years ago. It will continue to do the same 1000 or 10000 years from now. It shapes the land by making water evaporate that freezes on mountain tops, then melting it and creating rivers that sustains the Earth and its people. A Human being is a small cog in this grand machine. Do your duty that is expected of you. And do not be emotional about things you have no direct control over, be it an unseen catastrophy or the death of a loved one. The Earth will keep turning, the tides will rise and fall, the sun will do its job whether you are here or not in a 1000 years.

>>16413151
>Nietzsche
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.

>>16413201
>pic related

>>16413083
>reading philosophers/authors and their ideas before discussing them is REDDIT (which means it's not cool in 4chan common-speak)
Go back to pol or some other cancer board, retards like you make up the worst of lit's denizens. Stop fucking migrating here just because you want to give your wasted time browsing 4chan a veneer of sophistication because "muh literature board", you can go shit up any other board dedicated to anything else if you clearly don't care for the focus of this one

>>16413209
He didn't understand what the Stoics meant by living according to nature.

>>16413226
>pol
>cancer
>migrating
>sophistication
Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with your aphormism-sized posts is a migrating /pol/tard who doesn't read books.

>>16413238
Feel free to type a rebuttal explaining the difference?

>>16413201
>don't be emotional when your daughter is raped to death

>>16413238
Musonius Rufus has passages that directly relate to what Nietzsche is saying there.

>>16413294
You can cry and scream like a child all you want. It will not bring her back.

>>16413317
Of course I would because I'm not autistic.

>>16408097
That most retards think it means repressing emotions instead of keeping them in your control so that you can make intelligent and virtuous decisions

>>16413266
It's not that he didn't agree with an opinion, it's that he outright refused to entertain one. I say this only for your own benefit, clearly no point in talking to someone like yourself

>>16413285
Stoicism is a religious philosophy.

Living according to nature = living according to the will of God. To advance in virtue, you earnestly try to have your mind become more similar to that of God.
There is also a meaning in that you try to progress your soul.

>>16413351
After reading the first sentence of your post I didn't read it either. Get out of your own ass.

>>16413365
Read the lectures XI and XVII by Rufus. Nietzsche was undoubtedly referring to him when he wrote that, and he's accurate.

>>16413365
>The will of God
I'd say if anything that strengthens the point he's trying to make rather than rebutting it without actual direct access to the God's interpretation of their will.

>>16408474
I want to know more about what you are saying

hard determinism
basic bitch monism
everything wrong with Spinoza

>>16413313
I don't remember Musonius writing about "dictating your ideals and morals to nature" or anything of the kind.

Musonius lectures were not very theoretical. They were mostly practical.

>>16408097
Most of what they accepted as correct knowledge is objectively incorrect. Humans were not created by Zeus etc.

>>16413387
Could you point out the parts?

>>16413390
>I'd say if anything that strengthens the point he's trying to make rather than rebutting it without actual direct access to the God's interpretation of their will.
I don't think it does.
The Stoics tried to understand God's will as best as they could with what they had. They didn't try to force their opinions on God.

>>16413398
>>16413421
>But, speaking generally, if one devotes himself to the life of philosophy and tills the land at the same time, I should not compare any other way of life to his nor prefer any other means of livelihood. For is it not "living more in accord with nature" to draw one's sustenance directly from the earth, which is the nurse and mother of us all, rather than from some other source? Is it not more like the life of a man to live in the country than to sit idly in the city, like the sophists?
Lecture XI, "What means of livelihood is appropriate for a philosopher"

>At another time when an old man asked him what was the best viaticum for old age, he said, the very one that is best for youth too, namely to live by method and in accord with nature. You would best understand what this means if you would realize that mankind was not created for pleasure. For that matter, neither was the horse or dog or cow created for pleasure, and all of these creatures are much less valuable than man. Certainly a horse would not be considered to have fulfilled its purpose by eating and drinking and mating at will, and doing none of the things which are the proper work of a horse; no more would a dog if it simply enjoyed all kinds of pleasures like the horse and did none of the things for which dogs are considered good; nor would any other animal if kept from the functions proper to it and allowed to have its fill of pleasures; in short, according to this, nothing would be said to be living according to nature but what by its actions manifests the excellence peculiar to its own nature. For the nature guides it to its own excellence; consequently it is not reasonable to suppose that when man lives a life of pleasure that he lives according to nature, but rather when he lives a life of virtue.
Lecture XVII, "What is the best viaticum for old age?"

>>16413421
>The Stoics tried to understand God's will as best as they could with what they had. They didn't try to force their opinions on God
Without direct access though isn't this what all religious groups end up doing?

>>16413369
>read the philosophy itself rather than getting misinterpretations from second hand sources, which obviously has occurred here, leading to you not knowing what you're talking about at all
>Get your head out of your ass man you're so arrogant
Literally neck yourself

>>16413427
Musonius seems mostly to be trying to understand what is God's will for humans. He is not imposing on God what he thinks it is better. He has a theory of God's will.
Musonius was not an atheist. He truly believed in a God that was everywhere and truly tried to understand this God.

>>16413433
>Without direct access though isn't this what all religious groups end up doing?
Some religious groups actually claim direct access to God.

And the Stoics did believe they had access to God, since they believed God was in everything.

>>16413459
>Musonius seems mostly to be trying to understand what is God's will for humans. He is not imposing on God what he thinks it is better.
Yes, but Nietzsche already discovered the death of God, through Schopenhauer. Rufus didn't understand that yet, which is why Nietzsche points out the naive hypocrisy in his words.

I'm >>16413459
To explain better
>Musonius seems mostly to be trying to understand what is God's will for humans.
is how he acted in regards to philosophy. Of course in that text he is trying to teach his students what he believed to be God's will.

That said, he wouldn't claim he knew with certainty what God's will was, since he was not a sage (who according to the Stoics would be the figure that would be capable of understanding this).

>>16413365
The difference here is that N viewed the primal driving force of nature (to a degree you could even call panpsychic) to be the will to power and some of the prime forms he beleieved humans expressed this were art and music - enither of which stoics viewed as virtuous. From his own (albeit slightly weird and lonely) pov he was correct in his assertation - there was no real definition of a good life that wasn't a rejection of the journey and the painful, unjust and difficult parts in stoicism. Self-defeating.
I get what he's getting at but most people do just want an easy life and not to pursue to grand self-actualization.

>>16413475
>Yes, but Nietzsche already discovered the death of God, through Schopenhauer. Rufus didn't understand that yet, which is why Nietzsche points out the naive hypocrisy in his words.
Could you explain you rewrite this?

>>16413456
It's the
>implying
that people are taking issue with neckbeard.

>>16413489
It seems to me in that text that Nietzsche was claiming the Stoics tried to impose their opinion on nature. That's really now what they wanted.
They believe in a benevolent God who permeated everything from the bottom of their hearts. And they tried to understand the "mind" of this God.

>>16413459
>And the Stoics did believe they had access to God, since they believed God was in everything.
Doesn't this lead us back to Nietzsche's polemic then?

>>16413515
>Doesn't this lead us back to Nietzsche's polemic then?
How so?

>>16412912
>Its just understanding that there are large swaths of life that you simply have no control over such as death
So it's indifference to large swaths of life. Can a Stoic have a love of fate?

>>16412995
>So, you would agree that you don't need faulty knowledge to have a good life, correct?
Don't you need some? If all your knowledge was sound, there would be no "adventure".

>>16413525
If the stoic's god is pantheistic (or panentheistic?) and its will is discernable through the natural world aren't we in a situation where the stoics are attempting to interpret nature? Using the word in as broad an implication as nieztsche ever uses words.

>>16413525
Because what they see as God in everything is really just the imposition of their will on the concept of God.

>>16413548
>If the stoic's god is pantheistic (or panentheistic?) and its will is discernable through the natural world aren't we in a situation where the stoics are attempting to interpret nature?
Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that.

>>16413552
>Because what they see as God in everything is really just the imposition of their will on the concept of God.
Why do you think so?

>>16413511
>>16413511
Perhaps but N didn't see a difference between the two terms as the approach to either is an expression of will to power.

>>16413238
Everyone says this but they don't get Nietszche's overall point. He's saying the will to truth is subject to the deeper will to power. Because what makes the will to truth come to fruition is its winning over other wills and desires, i.e. being more powerful than them. So every interpretation is just the imposition of the will of the interpreters, and clash is not about opposing rational views, but views motivated by power.
It's like saying "Nietzsche didn't understand what Kant meant by the categorical imperative". He did, but he's undermining it by making it the arbitrary will of the individual instead of a truth. For Nietzsche, there is no way to live according to nature just like there is no way to live according to the truth.

>>16413568
>Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that.
I think this is the core of what nietzsche was trying to get at. I don't think he was saying the imposition of their will on nature was an active, conscious process.

The average person is too pussy to truly be a stoic

It's only flaw is how difficult it is.

>>16413575
>>16413589
>>16413595
This is... ...crappy of him.
"You don't want what you say you want, you want to impose your will on others".
How do you answer this (not in the meaning of this being a super strong argument, but in the meaning of "if you deny you are racist you are racist")?

>>16413568
>>Because what they see as God in everything is really just the imposition of their will on the concept of God.
>Why do you think so?
Is it so coincidental that the ideal Stoic way of life just is the way of living dictated to us by "nature"? Why not interpret nature as a nihilistic process of destruction and creation; contingent chaos? That's the view of Plato in the Timaeus. That's the view of the Hindus.
The answer lies in the personal character and will of the Stoics themselves. They started with their view of nature and worked backwards. They didn't discover anything.

>>16412906
Is it really strawmanning when that's the popular representation? Even if it is, you can hardly blame them for addressing the strawmen that stoicism has led to be positioned in it's field.

>>16413617
It's not so much an underhanded prod at people he disagreed with as much as a natural consequence of disagreeing with both Descartes and Buddhists and probably had a lot to do with growing up in the Reich movement.

>>16413619
Would you say it is impossible to someone to really believe the universe is in some way regardless of how they prefer it to be?

>>16413617
That is... ...a crappy reading of him.
You want what you say you want. You just didn't get to it through universal logical-deductive reasoning. This is just how views form. Nationalists are emotionally motivated by their ingroup preference. They didn't get this preference through thinking really hard. Same with leftists, all the Enlightenment philosophers, and philosophy in general. Think of it this way: any inquiry has to start somewhere. Where do you start? Why did Marx start his evaluation of capitalism with the commodity instead of individual desires and transaction? The answer is that you're free to choose, and any choice you pick is a representation of your own personal will, not a universal truth outside yourself.

>>16413641
But you would agree that saying "you don't really believe in this theory, you just want to force it" is not really a refutation of a theory?
It is the equivalent of the feminist saying that if you think promiscuity is bad for society it is "because you can't get any".

>>16413661
If you follow this way, this is not a criticism of solely the Stoics. This is a criticism of everyone ever.

And this is pretty crappy of him.

>>16413667
It's not supposed to be an academic refutation, N referred to himself as a psychologist more than he referred to himself as a philosopher. He's not saying it's a conscious decision they make of that they realise they're doing it and he really levies the same charge at the feet of all philosophers.
>What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly, is not that one discovers again and again how innocent they are—how often and how easily they make mistakes and go astray; in short, their childishness and childlikeness—but that they are not honest enough in their work, although they all make a lot of virtuous noise when the problem of truthfulness is touched even remotely. They all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through the self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic (as opposed to the mystics of every rank, who are more honest and doltish—and talk of “inspiration”); while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch, indeed a kind of “inspiration”—most often a desire of the heart that has been filtered and made abstract—that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact. They are all advocates who resent that name, and for the most part even wily spokesmen for their prejudices which they baptize “truths” (Beyond Good and Evil)

>>16413645
I believe there is one way the world is. There can be approximations of this through science and philosophy, but only to an extent. Let's take something we all believe: the metalogical laws. Noncontradiction, identity, excluded middle. I believe the universe obeys these laws, but when you put them in a system your preference affects it. For example, why do you need to take them as they are stated in classical logic? Can't you do as Hegel did, and attempt to create a dialectical system of logic that, while not denying the three logical laws, ignores them in its inquiry (as stated in FOL).
A different way of thinking about it is to get an answer, you must ask a question. The answer depends on the way the question is phrased, and the question is phrased according to you and your biases. Why couldn't a philosopher come along and say we've been asking the wrong questions, like Descartes did with the Aristotelians?
I believe in universal truths, but I accept that any philosophical discourse comes down to the clash of competing wills and preferences at the end of the day.

>>16413700
>>16413706

You can't really have an argument that advances truth with someone who thinks like he did. You just end up guessing on the intentions of someone else fruitlessly.
If this is the core of his ideas, he is overrated.

>>16413687
Yes I included that in my first post >>16413589

>>16413667
>It is the equivalent of the feminist saying that if you think promiscuity is bad for society it is "because you can't get any".
You fundamentally misunderstand what he's saying. He's not saying that every position people take is due to emotion or their life experience, but that a condition prior to rational thought is a will to power; not of your emotions, but of your individuality. Your positions don't reveal your emotional history with a certain topic (although they certainly can). They reveal your character.

>>16413492
Nietzsche's sense of nature is kind of like Schopenhauer's "intellectual aristocracy of nature." It is a boundlessly selfish and cruel thing with the only aim being to dominate. Further, the existence of an "outside" to this nature (Kant's thing-in-itself, or God) is a scientific impossibility. This is the conclusion derived from Schopenhauer who learned from Kant that time, space, and causality are subjective, and took this line of thinking to its ultimate conclusions.

>>16413727
The core of his ideas are will to power (in place of a Descartes style mind-body dualism), how it is expressed and how this relates to various cultures historically. The greeks celebrated life in its rich fulness and Christians deny the hard parts of life and wish to be saved or delivered from them and that this has been absolutely terrible to culture. His thoughts on stoicism are really just a handful of passages.
>Have I been understood? - Dionysos versus the crucified!

>>16412670
so there must be like stoic teachers / trainers / gurus with some responsibility before disciples?

>>16408100
fpbp, its makes you sound openly homosexual

>>16413727
You don't need to bring up intentions if you mean intentions divorced from a rational position (e.g. I only hold this position because it is advantageous to me). You're thinking of this as a psychoanalytic critique, and while Freud was inspired by Nietzsche's psychological method, they are by no means equivalent.
You just need to recognize the arbitrariness of choosing what to observe, what to question, and what to search for. Logicians already recognize this. What's your justification for choosing a paraconsistent logic over a classical one? Your intentions (in this case rational in nature [not emotional] and dependent on one's will). If you extend this analogy over to philosophical systems, you could treat each one as a (more or less) axiomatic system. What determines why you choose one axiom over another is up to you.

>>16413739
But this makes any kind of discussion impossible.
Suppose the Stoics are correct that there is a God present in everything. How would someone ever know they are right? Or suppose that there is not such a God and everything is atoms. How would someone ever know they are wrong?

>>16413744
Wouldn't he fall for the same criticism he gave to the Stoics?

>>16409973
>>16408884
>>16410841

You're some hypocrite pieces of shit. What about "apatheia", what about happiness through virtue alone?
You can pain this literally whatever fucking way you want, but at the end of the day what you're saying is "there is something you can do with your mind that will allow you endure any suffering and still feel happy", which is just untrue. Hence why even stoics break and kill themselves when the larp fails. "Apatheia" is incredibly similar to the whole Buddhist "Dukkha is only caused because of our desires" bullshit too. No, you fucking clown, when someone sticks a knife in your chest it doesn't hurt you because of your desires. It hurts you because it hurts.

>>16413610
you cant teach people virtues with a book or course, just like you can't teach people poetry with a book of rhymes
Stoics themselves said that the perfect stoic was never been BORN
its just a guide for people with already good nature

>>16413793
Here is what Epicurus (not a Stoic) has written in the last day of his life

>On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could increase them; but I set above them all the gladness of mind at the memory of our past conversations. But I would have you, as becomes your lifelong attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus.

>>16413793
qft. Normal people understand happiness and suffering far more than philosophers and i'm convinced that's why Milton used it as one of the tortures of hell fallen angels were condemned to.

>>16413782
Suppose there is a truth. How can you ever find a truth if you follow this way of thinking?

>>16413788
>Wouldn't he fall for the same criticism he gave to the Stoics?
He wouldn't, for two reasons:

1. After Schopenhauer, everything is subjective, and everything is in a definite world, so the thing-in-itself, or God, or logos, and so on, becomes an impossibility.

2. Nietzsche doesn't claim that one has a choice in the matter. His nature is like Spinoza's in that it is everything at once, but like Schopenhauer's in that it is subjective.

>>16413835
How would you ever find a truth without it when your point of view is phenomenal?

>>16413845
>1. After Schopenhauer, everything is subjective, and everything is in a definite world, so the thing-in-itself, or God, or logos, and so on, becomes an impossibility.
Isn't that Schopenhauer imposing his will on the universe?

>>16413847
Could you rewrite this?

>>16413835
>Suppose there is a truth. How can you ever find a truth if you follow this way of thinking?
That shouldn't be the problem with that view. Kant believed this, and he's not even close to a Nietzschean. The problem arises when you affirm something like: it is true because it's an expression of my will. What problems do you suppose arise out of this particular thinking, not the Kantian one?
There's a funny example alluded to (although not explicitly stated) that the English impose utility onto the theory of evolution. This then informs their societal views. With the above thinking you can guess that the Germans had a different conception of it; when you look at all the Germans who believed and pushed for orthogenesis you can't help but believe it.

>>16413873
Yes, and that's all we can do.

>>16413873
Yes, but some wills are better than others. You decide this by imposing your own will onto it.

>>16413886
You can't say the Stoics are right or wrong, can you?

>>16413883
You don't know Kant? There's the phenomenal world of sense experience and the noumenal world of objective existence. We only experience phenomena and can have no knowledge of the noumenal world; any correct claim about it would be accidental.
Basically how do we get universal truth if our experience is "corrupted" by things like space, time and causality?

>>16408391
I agree, but he's a large proponent for Christianity which seems similar to Stoicism in the way of saying "pick up your cross and shut the fuck up"

>>16413883
The way you view the world outside of your senses can only be perceived through sensory experience. The world as a "thing in itself" is not available to us.

>>16413905
I can say they are wrong due to my will. What's left for me to prove to you is how this will is stronger than the Stoic's (which may incidentally require rational argument).

>>16413912
>>16413916
I don't follow modern philosophy.
Isn't the whole point of Platonic (and Neoplatonic) philosophy to go above this?

>>16413927
Yes but alas we are all limited bugmen who hate the world. And everything in it. Blame Descartes.

>>16408391
>I agree, but he's a large proponent for Christianity which seems similar to Stoicism in the way of saying "pick up your cross and shut the fuck up"
Peterson is a (left of field but well read and competent) psychologist who LARPs as someone who understands philosophy when it's fairly clear he was no idea what he's talking about.

>>16413920
>I can say they are wrong due to my will. What's left for me to prove to you is how this will is stronger than the Stoic's (which may incidentally require rational argument).
Could you do that?

>>16413927
>Isn't the whole point of Platonic (and Neoplatonic) philosophy to go above this?
It only dreams that it does. The Greeks didn't have all the empirical data that we have now.

>>16413943
Which empirical data would disprove Plato on forms or Plotinus on Intellect? Or the Stoic theories on the good, even?

>>16413927
In a lot of ways N is the anti-Plato and his criticisms of Christianity can be similarly applied to Plato. He more or less outright says Socrates deserved to die.

>>16413932
Well you haven't argued against my point. If you accept it then you have a reason to reject the Stoic conception of nature as a uniform whole accessible through reason, as Nietzsche did. You'd have reason to affirm the chaotic nature of existence and nature and to affirm the tumultuous essence of life as not something to fear or control but as something to love, to be overflowed with.

>>16413959
Define the forms first.

>>16413962
I mean, you can't say Plato (or the Stoics) didn't take into consideration that the information in the world of senses is not reliable and that we should go above it in order to find the truth.

>>16408097
All modern forms of therapy and self-help are pretty much the opposite of stoicism.

>>16413983
Our conception of how we accumulate information is more refined at this point. It's not all derived from the sensory organs. Plato couldn't have known this.

>>16413972
>Well you haven't argued against my point. If you accept it then you have a reason to reject the Stoic conception of nature as a uniform whole accessible through reason, as Nietzsche did. You'd have reason to affirm the chaotic nature of existence and nature and to affirm the tumultuous essence of life as not something to fear or control but as something to love, to be overflowed with.

I'm just curious on how this game of wills would work in practice.

>>16414000
Didn't Plato say we already have the information in our minds but we just had to liberate it?

>>16413983
That's an argument against Kant - not Nietzsche. Most philosophy from Hegel onwards is lengthy, opposing explanations of things that only agree on Kant being a dickhead. What above is it you're referring to? A world of perfect forms is hardly an explanation that anyone would today consider valid.

>>16414006
It's been in practice since the dawn of human history. People only forgot about it with the Enlightenment myth that history moves according to reason.

>>16414010
What do you think he meant by that, if he did?

>>16414034
He meant the soul knows all things but forgets it when conjoined to the body. The goal of knowledge is to realize this pre-corporeal state of the soul and achieve perfect knowledge.

>>16414017
They were claiming we can't find the truth since sense experience is not reliable. This is not something that Plato and the others didn't have in mind.

>>16414029
I'm curious on this claim
>I can say they are wrong due to my will. What's left for me to prove to you is how this will is stronger than the Stoic's (which may incidentally require rational argument).
I want to see it in practice.

>>16414045
>He meant the will knows all things but forgets it when conjoined to the body. The goal of knowledge is to realize this pre-corporeal state of the will and achieve perfect knowledge.
Here's the Schopenhauerian rephrasing.

>>16414063
I just did it in my post
>>16413972
If we assume it's true for the sake of argument, which we would have to do to put it in practice. It's not like I have to beat you up to get you to believe what I'm saying.

>>16414056
That's not really what N was getting at, his ontology is completely different and his ideas are closer to Heraclitus than Plato. It's worth remebering that Kant thought things like space and time were formal features of -how- we view objects which has been demonstrated to be incorrect and rely torpedo the entire underpinning of transcendental idealism..

>>16409294
Play tummy sticks with the other man as your girlfriend giggles. Whoever cooms first loses and becomes the “cuck”. The man who didn’t coom still has his erection sword which he then slays the girlfriend’s fuck holes cooming into her uterus. Girlfriend cooms because she knows the more masculine man, and not the secret cuck, flooded her womb with his seed.

>>16414070
Really? I thought that was the case made in Phaedo. Do you know where Schopenhauer talks about it?

>>16414078
I expected something better... You didn't refute Stoic physics.

>>16414090
>refute
you're missing the point.

>>16414081
By "they" I meant >>16413912 >>16413916 not Nietzsche,

>>16414081
>which has been demonstrated to be incorrect and rely torpedo the entire underpinning of transcendental idealism..
I'm guessing you're appealing to physics. Read Carnap's (an anti-Kantian) Der Raum where he BTFOs this sophomoric argument. If you're not appealing to physics then I'd be interested to know in what vein.

>>16414088
The World as Will and Representation

>>16414095
I mean, you didn't make me say "wow, the Stoics sure were wrong, now I'm going to listen to Wagner and embrace pain". I was curious about the kind of argument that would be made and I was kind of disappointed.

>>16414099
Yes, but what chapter or section?

>>16414098
The discovery of space-time as a thing in itself is a refutation of the idea that space and time are not things in themselves unless I'm misunderstanding something?

>>16414101
The argument was the entire "will to power not will to truth" thing. If you accept that, then you have to reject the Stoic theory of nature, which is what the original message was about. If not, then the argument goes back to talking about will to power, which you didn't give any convincing case against. The guy you're replying to isn't me by the way.

>>16414101
As is in accordance with your expression of will to power.

>>16414106
I couldn't draw up a chapter right now. It's a massive tome of a work and I haven't read it in years.

>>16414121
Yeah there's like 3 or 4 of us now.

>>16414130
Alright thanks I'll try to ctrl F my way through it.

>>16414121
>The argument was the entire "will to power not will to truth" thing. If you accept that, then you have to reject the Stoic theory of nature, which is what the original message was about.
Does being curious about a claim someone did has to make me reject the Stoic theory of nature?

>If not, then the argument goes back to talking about will to power, which you didn't give any convincing case against.
You can't really prove or disprove "will to power".

>>16414146
>Does being curious about a claim someone did has to make me reject the Stoic theory of nature?
I'm saying if you accepted it, which you would need to if you wanted to "see it in practice", at least for the sake of argument.
>You can't really prove or disprove "will to power".
If you want to get pedantic you can't prove or disprove anything other than that you exist. You can give convincing cases for or against, you could argue for its incoherence, or appeal to my own "will to power", which you don't really know since you don't know me.

>>16412104
No one in this thread has read more then 2 paragraphs on Stoicism. 100% of the hate for Stoicism in this thread instead comes from mainstream hate of anything remotely “white”, masculine, traditional, and anything that might enable healthy, strong and organized European men. This is Clown World after all. What is up is now down. Left is now right. Junk food values is freedom. Weakness is virtuous. Clown World has become so consistent that you can use it to find truth by doing or believing the opposite of it.

>>16414098
It's not what Kant was talking about though, he was very much referring to Euclidean space.

>>16414172
>100% of the hate for Stoicism in this thread instead comes from mainstream hate of anything remotely “white”, masculine, traditional, and anything that might enable healthy, strong and organized European men.
We can't control the elites bringing in hoards of immigrants, so we'll just ignore it.
Stoicism would be as bad for Europe as Christianity was.

>>16414172
Have sex.

>>16414162
>I'm saying if you accepted it, which you would need to if you wanted to "see it in practice", at least for the sake of argument.
If some monk claimed that he could beat Jon Jones in a fight by using some ki blast, I would be curious to see it in practice. This doesn't mean I believe he would beat Jon Jones. This mean I would want to see how he would try to do it.

>If you want to get pedantic you can't prove or disprove anything other than that you exist. You can give convincing cases for or against, you could argue for its incoherence, or appeal to my own "will to power", which you don't really know since you don't know me.
I didn't found the "Will to Power" arguments convincing to prove the Stoics were wrong in regards to Nature. I thought they were useless and didn't say what was right or wrong.

>>16414204
>I didn't found the "Will to Power" arguments convincing to prove the Stoics were wrong in regards to Nature. I thought they were useless and didn't say what was right or wrong.
>>16413209

>>16414237
Yes, I didn't find this convincing.
This doesn't prove that Stoic physics is wrong or that in their efforts they didn't come close to what they wanted to.

>>16414244
>Prove
Here we are again.

>>16414204
>If some monk claimed that he could beat Jon Jones in a fight by using some ki blast, I would be curious to see it in practice. This doesn't mean I believe he would beat Jon Jones. This mean I would want to see how he would try to do it.
...
we are talking about a logical/epistemological framework, not some physical event. if you reject it outright it's rejecting the entire hypothetical. Imagine if you seeing the monk was dependent on your belief that he could do it. beliefs don't matter in the physical world, but they do in epistemological contexts.
>>16414244
How are you missing the obvious jump? If the Stoics claim universal knowledge (we can assume universal in relation to phenomena to avoid talking about Kant instead of Nietzsche), and you agree that any claim of universal knowledge is an instantiation of individuated will, then you would have to reject the Stoic conception.
1. The Stoics claim universal knowledge of phenomena
2. Nietzsche shows any claim of universal knowledge is an imposition of individuated will
3. The Stoics impose their individuated will
4. Individuated will is not universal knowledge of phenomena
5. The Stoics do not have universal knowledge of phenomena.

>>16414244
Stoic physics are simply one model amongst countless others - why do you not accept those instead?

>>16414279
Number 4 should be "an imposition of individuated will is not universal knowledge of phenomena".

>>16414279
>2. Nietzsche shows any claim of universal knowledge is an imposition of individuated will
I don't think he did.

>>16414282
We are arguing over the falsity of it.

>>16414303
>I don't think he did.
Well you haven't given any cogent argument as to why, so for now I'll leave the thread.

>>16414279
>we are talking about a logical/epistemological framework, not some physical event. if you reject it outright it's rejecting the entire hypothetical. Imagine if you seeing the monk was dependent on your belief that he could do it. beliefs don't matter in the physical world, but they do in epistemological contexts.

If someone claims to be able to refute Plato's theory of forms by dancing, I would be curious on how that person would attempt to do it. Would my curiosity over how that person would attempt to do it mean anything for Plato's theory of forms?

>>16414244
All physics is subjective. Nietzsche didn't "disprove" the Stoics, he just showed that they were slave moralists.

>>16414303
We are - but why do you accept its validity in comparison to others?

>>16414308
How in the hell did he show any claim of universal knowledge is an imposition of individuated will?

>>16414319
>If someone claims to be able to refute Plato's theory of forms by dancing, I would be curious on how that person would attempt to do it. Would my curiosity over how that person would attempt to do it mean anything for Plato's theory of forms?
This is so retarded I'm going to have to doubt your critical thinking skills. I explicitly said it isn't a physical event. How is dancing epistemological?

>>16414327
Who is it that is making the claim?

>>16414322
I don't think this is fair. He would have liked Caesar more than Cicero but he wouldn't have hated him.

>>16414331
Person 1: "I will prove X"
Person 2: "OK, do it"
Person 1: "By saying OK do it, you proved me right"

Bravo

>>16414327
Read the first chapter of BG&E. Also look into the developments in logic about coherentism, pragmatism, and contextualism from analytic philosophy for a more traditionally philosophical exposition. The postmoderns heavily argued for it as well, but they're explicitly inspired by Nietzsche.

>>16414338
This one here>>16414279

>>16414350
You were asking to see a discussion with will to power in practice, you weren't asking me to prove the will to power. Are you going senile? Did you forget what even you said? Or is this another person?

>>16414326
Who cares what I accept or not? That shit is not proving them wrong.

>>16414345
He didn't hate slave moralists.

>>16414351
They were claiming that in that text he did that.

>>16414359
You are a troll, aren't you? Congratulations, you got me. I thought you were arguing in good faith, and I fell for that.

>>16414370
Nietzsche did in Beyond Good and Evil (BG&).

>>16414384
I don't think it is possible to do that. And even if true

>>16414358
I mean who is making the claim of universal knowledge, it is coming from an individuated will which is an imposition of itself. All N is doing is pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in doing this.

>>16414383
I'm in good faith, you are seriously misremembering your initial request.
>>16413932
>>I can say they are wrong due to my will. What's left for me to prove to you is how this will is stronger than the Stoic's (which may incidentally require rational argument).
>Could you do that?
>>16414006
>I'm just curious on how this game of wills would work in practice.
You did not ask for me to prove the will to power. Is this not you? Or did you forget?

>>16414360
The reason you do or do not accept it has nothing to do with it validity.

>>16414360
A proof can't be found for any perspective. Perspectives have nothing to do with truth. Stop asking for proofs against/for any particular philosophy because it makes no sense.

>>16414391
>I mean who is making the claim of universal knowledge, it is coming from an individuated will which is an imposition of itself

Could you explain this better?
Your arguments seem to be
1- "You claim to know some truth"
2- "This is because of your will"
3- "Then, you don't know the truth"

This is bullshit

Claiming to know the truth doesn't mean you don't know the truth

>>16414396
I could really disprove your dancing/punching nonsense quite easily.
Person 1: How would a world with dragons look like in practice?
Person 2: Let's assume in this world that dragons exist for the sake of argument. There would be organizations meant to eliminate dragon threats and offer relief to victims... blah blah blah
This is a logic hypothetical. A possible world. If you deny the premise of dragons existing then you deny the premise required to actually answer your question.

>>16414417
It's 1:30am and if you're misunderstanding both stoicism and N this much there isn't really enough time left to explain it sorry.

>>16414396
If some monk says he will beat Jon Jones with a ki blast and I ask him to show it...
Doesn't that mean that I want him to prove his ki blast?

>>16414425
Seriously stop with this retarded nonsense if you can't understand the difference between logical/epistemic hypothetical possibilility and physical contingent possibility.
Read my reply
>>16414422

>>16414402
We are discussing the validity of Stoicism, not me

>>16414416
But isn't that the point of this thread and of the Nietzsche fans here? To show Stoics were wrong?

>>16408097
None

>>16414430
No. Read OP.

>>16414423
1. The Stoics claim universal knowledge of phenomena
2. Nietzsche shows any claim of universal knowledge is an imposition of individuated will
3. The Stoics impose their individuated will
4. Individuated will is not universal knowledge of phenomena
5. The Stoics do not have universal knowledge of phenomena.

is basically the same thing as

1- "You claim to know some truth"
2- "This is an imposition of your will"
3- "Then, you don't know the truth"

>>16414425
If you ask how a world with dragons looks like in practice, you're not asking me to prove dragons! Maybe there's a reason philosphers have divided the logical world with the physical one? Maybe that's the difference between science and philosophy in the first place? Maybe you are a retard for clinging to your objectively wrong rebut of a hypothetical?

>>16414429
Do dragons, ki blasts, dancing proving Plato wrong and your "will to power argument proving the Stoics wrong" exist?

>>16414445
You were the one arguing that you have dragons that can burn castles. I asked you to show me your dragons burning castles.

>>16414441
No, it's that the truth is the imposition of their will, not something external to them. Read Nietzsche.
>>16414447
NIGGER in one case you're asking about the physical instantiation of a hypothetical and in the other you're talking about a hypothetical itself. It's not about existence/nonexistence. I'm losing my mind here. How do you not see my point? How do you not understand basic philosophical distinctions?

>>16414456
>truth is the imposition of their will
lol

>>16414456
>n one case you're asking about the physical instantiation of a hypothetical and in the other you're talking about a hypothetical itself. It's not about existence/nonexistence. I'm losing my mind here. How do you not see my point? How do you not understand basic philosophical distinctions?

"I have my great will to power to prove Stoicism is wrong"
"Oh, show me"
"HAHAHA, see, when you said show me I proved Stoicism wrong. I'm brilliant"

>>16414456
>No, it's that the truth is the imposition of their will, not something external to them. Read Nietzsche.

This is so shit. Did he take this out of his ass?

>>16414468
By show me you did not mean prove it. You were asking about how it would operate in practice. I argued for it above anyway, why would you ask me to repeat myself?
"I have my great will to power to prove Stoicism is wrong"
"Show me (how it would work in practice)"
And then I give a hypothetical of a world where it's true. If you wanted me to prove it at the time, why did you word your posts like that?

>>16414486
You are the best troll I have ever encountered on the internet.

>>16414441
>"Then, you and I don't know the truth, and can't"
ftfy

>>16414491
I would say the same to you. You asked to see it in practice, but oh wait you really meant that I should prove it even though that's what I was doing in the conversation and there would be no reason to ask for that unless you meant an autistic mathematical proof.

>>16414441
A shorter claim
1- "I know some truth"
2- "No you don't, this is an imposition of your will. Claiming you know some truth means you don't know it"

>>16408366

This is the only good post in the thread. If you subscribe to stoicism you're some redditor who is fallaciously trying to get 'one up' on either nature itself or their own nature. The man who needs stoicism can never practice it.

>>16412968
>but the rest of what is and isn't under your control isn't really something you can know until you actually try
That is why it is virtuous to try your best. Stoicism just says that, after trying your best, you shouldn't worry about anything else since what else could you have done? As Marcus said:
>If the choice rests with you, why are you doing this? If it rests with another, who are you to blame? The atoms, or the gods? Madness in either case. You should blame nobody. For if you can, you should put the person right; or if you are unable to, at least put the matter itself right; and if even that is beyond you, what more will you achieve through your blame? For nothing should be done without a purpose.

>>16414547
>stoicism
>trying to get 'one up" on nature

>For a rational creature, to act according to nature and to act according to reason is one and the same.
>No one can prevent you from living according to the rule of your own nature; and nothing can happen to you which is contrary to the rule of universal nature.
>Universal nature set out to create a universe; and now it is either the case that all that comes to be does so as a necessary consequence, or else even the most important things, to which the ruling principle of the universe directs its own efforts, lie outside the rule of reason. Remember this, and you will face many a trouble with a calmer mind.

>>16408097
literally none.
>>16408100
But that is not a stoic thing to do. If you use it as a outward symbol thats kinda a worldly thing. Saying you are a stoic sound like you are saying I am a monk. Its cringe because it implies a much higher level than would be considered humble. If you said.
>I apreciate the stoics
I really dont think anyone would say it is cringe.

>>16415214
Nature is unreasonable. It seeks to grow at any cost.

>>16408366
entire post ruined by your last two words

>>16408097
Lack of ambition, pacification of self.
Teachings like "don't worry about things you cannot control" are limiting. Truth is you don't know what is possible or what are the limits without at least trying. World might bend to your will.

>>16415640
>>16415129

>>16415640
>Lack of ambition
Werent a lot of stoics active engagers in politics and social life?
> Truth is you don't know what is possible or what are the limits without at least trying.
pretty sure they always mention that. Pretty much every single one says do as best as you possibly can do, and if you fail, dont get hung up on it because it cannot be changed.

>>16408097
Sextus Empiricus had some pretty good critiques of Stoic logic. The one that most stuck with me is that the whole intuition surrounding syllogisms is based on ostensibly trivial arguments like 1. If it is day, it is light 2. It is day 3. Therefore, it is light; but the Stoics never explain how we're supposed to verify the major premise in situations where the demonstration isn't trivial. So these demonstrations will never really prove anything.

>>16408818
The brief description provided suggests Unger supports the opposite of neoliberalism.

>>16408100
I had a buddy in high school who spray painted "STOIC" across the tailgate of his El Camino and I always thought that was pretty cool.

>>16415734
actaully good response. I like most stoics, but Empiricus is probably my favorite of the ancients. though, desu thats kinda attacking the admitely somewhat holo truism stoics use rather than the core fundement of stoicism.

>>16408097
It's fundamentally cope.

>>16408097
happiness is pleasure, not moral perfection

>>16415704
>>16415723
I don't see stoic people trying much of anything. All the big social movements currently seem to be dominated by the least stoic people, whether it's right or left.

Could stoics do a revolution?

>>16414441
Universal. Knowledge and an expression of will are not the same thing.

>>16415823
>do a revolution
>walk away

>>16413793
>"Apatheia" is incredibly similar to the whole Buddhist "Dukkha is only caused because of our desires" bullshit too. No, you fucking clown, when someone sticks a knife in your chest it doesn't hurt you because of your desires. It hurts you because it hurts.
materialists were a mistake

>>16414461
I'm beginning to doubt that you are debating in good faith. Either that or you're an idiot.

>>16408647
Dangerously based

>>16408634
>>16408648

Stop shilling this crap in every thread.

How much is enough contemplation of death per day?

>>16408097
same flaws as any ideology, it treats life as something logical

There's something about stoicism which invites opinions from people who really don't know what they're talking about. Even a lot of the supporters of stoicism suffer a little of this because they've usually only read the late stoics who by then have abandoned or expressed skepticism of some of the weirder doctrines. It's one of the reasons I will never debate or even invest myself in a conversation about it with somebody online.

>>16417721
Do you genuinely care about the conflagration and pneuma, etc?
The metaphysics of stoicism are irrelevant.

>>16417798
No, you missed the point because you're dumb.

>>16413617
Nietzsche could be an idiot. His is a misinterpretation of the stoics, obviously they understood that nature could be 'infinitely boundless and cruel'. But the difference is, you guessed it, one of character and also a dualistic nature that could be completely opposite to the cruel and boundless.
It's strange that modern people are so obsessed with character when they have none of it, and someone like Nietzsche who was weak and without any character except for in his mind is one of the worst offenders. As if character was not something that the Greeks had already answered, it simply had causes, it was not a 'thing-in-itself' to overcome the world and subject it to the pantheism of personality. Character is something greater, something inherited to which no amount of work will always overcome fate.
The simple answer is that ressentiment and 'fort-da for princes' are two of the greatest missteps philosophy as ever taken. If you want to discuss character just look at Chrysippus compared to Nietzsche: confronted with the absurdity of nature ad fate one laughed himself to death while the other cried until he went insane. Who would you want at your side in matters of power

>>16418180
No doubt the Nietzscheans will respond with the standard, "NO YOU MISUNDERSTAND HIM, HE WAS SAYING THAT ABOUT THE GREEKS" but the difference is a certain understanding of character and the ability to allow for a great multiplicity that would hold to certain limits.
What's the old cliche? 'It's the silent ones you have to look out for.' In Nietzsche you see an obsessive character, one who is ironically trapped in his mind. These are the types you never have to worry about in confrontations apart from the danger that they will do something incredibly stupid and likely only injure themselves. And it was in many ways the type of character that the stoic strove towards because it lends real power and character rather than the sense of it.
One who moves towards silence has a martial certainty about him, the character of an assassin. For the Americans it is 'speak softly and carry a big stick' this way you double both your power and limitation of dangers. One who seeks danger foolishly is of a cursed spirit, or so lacking in it that they must turn to the petty crimes.

>>16418142

You keep it vague to protect your ego (which is why you don't want to engage in conversation) and then call people who don't immediately see your position as dumb.
So brilliant.
You said "weirder doctrines", what am I supposed to infer from that other than the metaphysical cycles?

Accept that most people only care about the ethics and engage on that, or keep crying. I don't care which.

>>16418293
There's nothing vague about what I said. The point is that when it comes to stoicism, people love to talk about it when they really don't know much about it. Even people who support stoicism will do this. That it, stop being a sperg.

>>16418180
>A dualistic nature
Why do stoics talk about N without reading him?

>>16418180
>fort-da for princes
kek

>>16418340
>Why do stoics talk about N without reading him?

Nietzsche fans are hardly different when it comes to the Stoics.

>>16418180
>His is a misinterpretation of the stoics
How many times will this be repeated? It was pointed out, clear as day, where his interpretation came from >>16413427

That's it, that's where he formed his interpretation from. Was he wrong? Clearly not, in regards to Rufus. Nietzsche's criticisms are also heavily nuanced. They're never absolute. Slower, shortsighted readers think this makes him "contradictory" as a result, but it's because they're incapable of relating what they're reading to the larger context, such as the section he's writing in, the book he's writing in, and the historical time frame he's writing in. His attack on Stoics is not absolute, and that quote that's so commonly passed around on here was written with the intention of breaking his own philosophy away from many other philosophies. Stoicism is not sufficient for his goals and that's what he's communicating there.

>>16418406
How is >>16413209 a decent attack on >>16413427

>>16408242
Stoicism is a lot like Cavinism.

>>16418406
>NIETZSCHE HAD A GREATER POINT HE WAS ALLUDING TO
>AND NO ONE ELSE EVER DOES THIS
>IT'S FINE THAT NIETZSCHE TOOK ONE LINE FROM THE STOICS TO MISINTERPRET THEM AND REWRITE THEIR NATURE AS HIS OWN
>ACTUALLY IT'S FINE AND GREAT
You are retard and you spam those quotes in every thread.

>>16418340
>Why in't everyone a Nietzschean? His bullshit feels right to me.
Who could have seen this coming?

>>16418428
He's attacking Rufus at the very root of his farmer-centric philosophy there. His point is that Rufus is simply moralizing, conducting an "is—ought" against nature, rather than philosophizing. Further, he's pointing out how this approach to philosophy is fucked from the start, because it castrates the very essence of the philosopher when he prostrates himself like so.

hegel viewed stoicism as a limited philosophy because its adopters deny the validity of what is external to self.

>>16418481
Fucking retard.

>>16418481
>He's attacking Rufus at the very root of his farmer-centric philosophy there. His point is that Rufus is simply moralizing, conducting an "is—ought" against nature, rather than philosophizing.
Where is Nietzsche saying this? Why is in your opinion, Rufus simply moralizing?

>Further, he's pointing out how this approach to philosophy is fucked from the start, because it castrates the very essence of the philosopher when he prostrates himself like so.
In which way is Rufus prostrating himself and what in Nietzsche's mind is the essence of a philosopher?

>>16418451
I've only posted those quotes twice. How did he misinterpret Rufus, when you can read right there what he was referring to? How did he misinterpret Epictetus when he called him a slave moralist?

>>16418496
>Where is Nietzsche saying this?
Read >>16413209, do you not follow what hes saying?

>In which way is Rufus prostrating himself
Towards his self-denying principle of a virtuous nature.

>>16418518
>Read >>16413209, do you not follow what hes saying?
No, I would like you to be more explicit on where he is attacking Rufus' "farmer-centric philosophy" or if he indeed had Rufus in mind when he wrote this.

>Towards his self-denying principle of a virtuous nature.
You will need to be more clear on this.
How is Rufus prostrating himself in those fragments? What would be a " self-denying principle of a virtuous nature"?

>>16418498
>How did he misinterpret Rufus, when you can read right there what he was referring to?
What was the referring to?

>How did he misinterpret Epictetus when he called him a slave moralist?
Where did he in that text refers to Epictetus as a "slave moralist"?

>>16418518
If Nietzsche had read the stoics then maybe he could have set aside his emotions for a second and tried to understand what they were saying.
But he got filtered hard, losing sight of the soul because he was overwhelmed by the violence of emotions.
He turned nature, and the stoics with it, into the history of his consciousness. The exact opposite problem of the stoics.

>>16418559
There is nothing more explicit than lining up those passages side by side. Rufus even uses the phrase "live according to nature" three times. Nietzsche rejected this sentiment and the philosophy expressed there because

1) one is always living in accordance with nature,
2) Rufus (and by extension Epictetus) have a sense of virtue akin to a slave's,
3) living only virtuously in this way is limiting,
4) nature is not virtuous in this way.

>>16418567
He refers to Epictetus that way in The Dawn of Day, §546

>>16418642
>1) one is always living in accordance with nature,
By the definition of nature of the Stoics, only the sage does that... Musonius himself didn't live in accordance with Nature.

>2) Rufus (and by extension Epictetus) have a sense of virtue akin to a slave's,
Why? And why would that be wrong, if that were the case?

>3) living only virtuously in this way is limiting,
Why?

>4) nature is not virtuous in this way.
In which way?

>>16418578
Are you kidding me? The Stoics are the emotional retards who are projecting their idea of virtue onto nature. Nature does not care about your feelings — THAT is Nietzsche's point. It isn't virtuous, and it's also relentless. It causes pain and suffering without remorse, and all the horrors one can experience are part of its design. Making a principle out of living in accordance with it is megalomaniacal, if one has any understanding of just how vast and reckless nature is. Or it's just a piece of naive stupidity if one doesn't.

>>16418270
There are no Nietzscheans here. Posting here with any serious effort goes against the philosophy.

>>16418670
>By the definition of nature of the Stoics, only the sage does that
Their definition of nature is wrong.

As for why living their way is limiting, consider >>16409983 as just one reason. Another would be the act of waging war. How far can Stoicism be useful towards that end? At best, it can provide a Buddhistic calm for the practitioner. As a philosophy, it's insufficient for harnessing the full range of emotions one is capable of, though.

>>16408100
You're right that openly declaring oneself a "stoic" is dumb, but there's nothing wrong for searching for self-help from ancient philosophers.

I would actually go as far to say that for the student that studies stoicism to help their life and understand it, the thought to openly identify and proclaim themselves as a "stoic" would not even occur to them.

>>16418677
>emotional retards
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Nice amor fati faggot.

Stoicism is based, but obviously lacks features which depend on some kind of psychological model. I think it's useful as a fundamental exercise in will, but cannot constitute a holistic philosophy.

I came across an interesting article entitled "On the intellectual inhibition of explosive grief and anger" by Paul Goodman, and in it he analyses how intellectuals can easily work themselves into a situation where they don't generally overcome obstacles because they have diluted their grief and anger responses.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting, because without realizing it, he seems to build on stoicism, stressing the importance of genuine, controlled outbursts. Stoicism and Goodman's observations, when considered together, seem to point to the murky territory of ironic identification, as in LaVeyan Satanism.

So, in my opinion, stoicism is based, but you're either a prophet or a fool if you can get by on just stoicism.