/lit/ - Literature

>>17189943
First off, how much of a lost cause are you? As long as you're not literally an Innsmouth's fishmen you'll find a nice girl if you work on yourself.

>>17189943
You're just coping and trying to not have to put in hard work to improve yourself by blaming genetics for everything.

>>17189960
this

>>17189954
5'9" ginger male whose skin looks like a burn victim because my parents never put on suncream when I was a child. Face looks horrendously ugly, balding at 20 already. I workout since 2 years but have the frame of a soiguy. Top that with a small penis (4.5"x4") and lots of mental problems due to rough childhood.
I am not here to get pity but to learn about living life despite my genetics. Yet, this girlfriend thing pains me deeply no matter how much I medidate on this topic.

>>17189981
>Yet, this girlfriend thing pains me deeply no matter how much I medidate on this topic.
It will never go away until you have one btw, if the truth is too hard to bear than I don't know what advice to give you
Also, I hope you're not saying all of this until you've made a significant effort in getting one

>>17189943
The best line in this book is in regards to all of your experience being merely human experiences, and as such you should be dilligent, but not get too upset or elevate them too highly. Its just a little life after all. Try to be virtuous, put your trust in [the] God[s], and if you fail try again. Anxiety is a fucking useless plague.

>>17189981
I'm in the same position as you but I'm coming to terms with the fact that I have a personality defect from years of bullying and watching porn and browsing r9k. I've just given up on myself. I cannot bring myself to make friends without sperging out and being mean to them out of fear that they are bullying me. Honestly, I used to laugh at epicurus' philosophy and think stoicism was the moral high ground. But once you've experienced how nothing matters in the grand scheme of things, even your morals, then you realise the only thing left to do is to be as content as possible, which means giving up and embracing whatever escapist pass time you have at hand. And that, my ladies and gentlemen, is why people have sex, party, do drugs etc. So do it with movies, videogames, music and reading. We are all going to die and i can't fucking wait.

>>17189981
Ok, in all honesty I do not envy you, but you're not fishman tier. Personality is what matters the most in a meaningful relationship. If it's true that you have been working out for two years then it's a sign that you are not lazy and having a penchant for stoicism means that you (hopefully) at least read the stoics and thus that you somewhat enjoy philosophy. May the problem be that you're a social incompetent? Are you able to talk with a girl?

>>17189943
Stoicism is not a tool to help you cancel out your emotions, nerd. They exist for a reason.
You need to focus on improving yourself, and continue to pursue the chance to have a family one day. I swear to god.

People who get into stoicism/asceticism/meditation for the purpose of cancelling out what their biology is telling them to drive towards are just fucking themselves up

>>17189981
>Yet, this girlfriend thing pains me deeply no matter how much I medidate on this topic.
This is the core of your issue desu. So long as you let that control you, you won't get a girl. The moment you lose the need, you'll be able to get a girl.

>>17189943
I seriously cannot understand how people are so caught up in getting a girlfriend. Talking to girls is literally a skill like any other fucking shit and it boggles me that when it comes to this people use all their strenght in not trying
I'm not trying to judge you and not saying that looks matter, It's just the way I see this, its nothing beyond a skill, I've been proven right time and time again through experience

>>17190024
You are a midwit who doesn’t understand how much looks and height matters. You think you can just fix it but have a personality? Lol that’s not how women work.

>>17190039
Yo I'm literally not a virgin and I had two long term (meaning that lasted for years) relationship. It's all about personality faggot.

>>17190039
>You think you can just fix it but have a personality? Lol that’s not how women work.
its an handicap, not a fatalism

>>17189943
It was hard for me too OP, but just be strong and it will pass.

>>17190040
ALl AbOUt ThE PeSOnALiTY.

Is that what women say to their beta orbiters?

>>17190046
Well said, midwit

>>17190039
>You are a midwit who doesn’t understand how much looks and height matters
Not as much as people with a shit personality like to think while they blame their failures on genes.

>>17189480
Go here.

>>17190057
Enjoy jerking off for the rest of your life fag

>>17190059
If being a realist means I have a shit personality then so be it

>>17190057
cringe cope

>>17190071
Or you could fix your personality and get girls instead of complaining? You're not being realistic but pessimistic.

>>17190071
So you’re admitting that you choose to remain alone

>>17189943
Anon, I think you are cutting your analysis short. These emotions are also "beyond your control", are they not? What would be the stoic thing to do, then? Ignore them, I think. Just move beyond them. You can't let petty things like that snare you.
You should also incorporate a spiritual element in your stoicism on the off chance that you're practising it atheistically. It's hardly a doctrine that can be endured with a materialist perspective. You don't need to believe in God, but an understanding that this life is just a portion of your true existence certainly helps.
>>17190021
This is the most degenerate way to understand Epicurus, but I think your craving for death is already evidence enough about how "effective" your worldview really is.
>>17190030
>muh biology
Biology does not impart meaning, anon. Not unless you are a dog or some other type of stupid animal. Emotions are unimportant and transient. Enslave yourself to them at your own peril.

>>17189995
>you've made a significant effort in getting one
I have dated three girls in my life with whom I had a genuine connection with and who were not too repulsed by my appearance. However, they all broke it off due to my small, especially in regards to girth, penis because they could barely feel anything even though we tried to work it out with foreplay, positions and angles. The last one told me to never pursue a relationship ever again because my pencildick will never do anything, not even for a 12 year old. (she was a very nice girl but the sexual frustration turned her into a monster)

>>17190072
But I am coping. I am fully embracing reality for what it. I don’t sugarcoat it unlike midwits.

A person coping would say

ItS AlL AbOuT ThE PeRSoNALiTY

>>17190078
>Biology does not impart meaning, anon. Not unless you are a dog or some other type of stupid animal. Emotions are unimportant and transient. Enslave yourself to them at your own peril.
You say that, but even as you wrote this post you felt an emotion which dictated your behaviour and thoughts. The human mind does not exist in a vacuum, and you are not a robot devoid of emotionality.
Can you see the irony?

>>17190081
> I am fully embracing reality for what it.
Is something depressed people say when they want confirmation instead of working on improving themselves

>>17190079
That sucks anon. I hope you find solace in other aspects of your life.

>>17190079
Did you make them cum in any way at all?

>>17190084
based

>>17190081
You reek of virginity and sexual frustration. I'll make an educated guess and say that you watch sissy hypnosis videos.

We live in an age were people can drastically alter their appearance through cosmetic procedures, and people still get upset about their appearance. Why? If you’re upset with the way you look, talk to a plastic surgeon. Also, read Michel de Montaigne. He talks a lot about insecurity in his essays.

>>17190084
I don’t drink alcohol
I don’t do drugs
I don’t eat fast food.
I don’t eat junk food
I am not on any medication

You’re so blinded by lies that you think anyone who sees and accepts reality for what it is, is depressed.

>>17190104
Not everyone's rich anon

>>17190105
>I don’t drink alcohol
>I don’t do drugs
>I don’t eat fast food.
>I don’t eat junk food
>I am not on any medication

Is that supposed to justify your position in any way? That's not impressive at all lmao

I read this in a book on acting:
The method actor tries to excite in himself the same emotions that the character he plays on stage might feel.
This approach is problematic, since our emotions are ultimately out of our control.
Every actor will at some point be afraid, or happy, or angry, at the wrong time in the play.
It is far more practical for an actor to focus on how a character would (physically) act in a given situation.
"A calm handshake" is impossible to achieve for an actor who does not feel calm himself.
What is possible, though, regardless of the inner states of the actor, is "a slow handshake".
The actor must learn to act despite his feelings.

>>17190105
>I don't
good for you but
>You’re so blinded by lies that you think anyone who sees and accepts reality for what it is, is depressed.
That doesn't mean you're not depressed. You obviously are. That's okay, you just need to work on that. You can't get (or at least keep) a girl when you're depressed.
And you saying you see reality for what it is, doesn't mean you actually do. You sound very pessimistic, so you view life through a negative lens. That's not realism.

>>17190106
South Korea has the cheapest and best plastic surgeons in the world.

>>17190079
Assuming that this is a genuine post, I want you to know that joy, suffering, benevolence and malice are all irrelevant and transient in the end. You, however, anon - you are a living, breathing being with the seed of a superior freedom in your heart. Never give up and draw on the strength you have to walk forward. There are some things that are worth it.
I am not talking about women here btw.
>>17190082
I think you'd have quite an experience if you ever met me face to face, anon. Most of the time I don't have emotions, no. When I do, I can change them fairly easily. Emotions emerge and wash over you, but you are not your emotions. If you actually pay attention and sharpen your awareness, you will realise that you can either accept them or let them go. If you are properly aware, emotions can not control your conduct, because you can act dismiss them or even act contrary to them as you see fit.

>>17190118
Those are all marks of depression. I have none. I am a healthy man who pays careful eyes to his diet.
>>17190128
Depression is stating the truth okay

>>17190138
>Depression is stating the truth okay
Thanks for proving my point, you're depressed and view life as inherently negative and call that realism. It's not, it's coping.

>>17190106
Most people who get cosmetic procedures aren’t rich. If you’re middle class, it’s very expensive, but completely affordable.

>>17190146
Okay continue believing the beautiful lie that looks aren’t a make or break deal. I can’t convince a brainwashed man.

>>17190138
> Those are all marks of depression. I have none. I am a healthy man who pays careful eyes to his diet.

You can be depressed even while doing all the stuff you're doing, it's not strictly physical.

>>17190155
The projection is strong in this one. I used to think like you once, depressed anon. Life doesn't work that way. You'll find out if you get out of your depression.
Yes, looks are important, but they're not make or break. I have a friend who's 1.60m and pretty damn ugly but he gets cute girls all the time. Why? He's confident and has skills. Women appreciate that. Does he get 10/10s? No, but he gets plenty of 6s-8s. Lower your standards and work on the areas you can improve instead of sulking about things you can't change. The "looks is everything" crowd are inherently copers who don't want to work on themselves, because they only worry about what they can't change instead of what they can change.

>>17190133
>Never give up and draw on the strength you have to walk forward
Thank you for your attempt to help but that is exactly is the issue. It's not only when I think about never getting a girlfriend that the pain arises but also whenever I see couples on the street, my friends talk about relationships or even when I see pictures of normal girls. It's just the biological drive which seems impossible to accept and regulate.
All this deep thinking, rationalizing my situation does nothing.

>>17190182
>All this deep thinking, rationalizing my situation does nothing.
That's because you're broken inside, you need to fix your mind first. You know what's funny? Even if you suddenly had the looks of chad, you still wouldn't be able to keep a girl.

Stop ascribing moral judgements to things that don't require them. Instead of saying "I don't have a girlfriend, and this is bad" simply say "I don't have a girlfriend" because having a girlfriend is not in itself a good or bad. It's actually indifferent to your happiness even if you would prefer to have one than not.

>>17190182
That sounds intense. I think maybe you should reflect on what an actual relationship would be like. It's not all just lovey-dovey hand holding. There are arguments, there are times where you have to listen to inane bullshit and there are times when you are just bored and annoyed and don't want to waste another second on your partner. Make sure to reflect deeply on how things would work out realistically, not just on your desire for what may well be a fictional experience.
Apart from that, I can only recommend what I wrote here >>17190078 in case it skipped your attention. Stoicism can't make the pain stop, but it can give you the strength to get up and keep walking despite the pain, rather than without it.
>>17190196
Shut the fuck up you disgusting faggot. Go rot somewhere else.

>>17190214
But OP is empty inside and thinks that getting a girlfriend will fill up that emptiness. (Hint: it won't).

>>17190217
>Shut the fuck up you disgusting faggot. Go rot somewhere else.
Who hurt you? The girlfriend you never had?

>>17190182
Deep thinking will get you nowhere at this point. What are your actual skills? Develope them. How is you financial situation? Can you improve it? If so: improve it. Keep working out. Not for looks, but for the happiness and health that arises with movement. Work on your humor. Work on your posture. Act as if you are beautiful, even if you feel the opposite. What you lack is not the love of a girlfriend. The girlfriend is only your substitute for a lack of self worth. You cannot depend on other people's love forever. You have to embrace who you are, anon.

>>17190196
>you still wouldn't be able to keep a girl
Have you not read my post? >>17190079
My attempts to get a girlfriend all were shattered by something I have no control over. A small penis is to not be able to keep a girl which is true anatomically, psychologically and even culturally it seems.

>>17190237
No, you're wrong. The problem is your mindset, you let that defect define you. They probably didn't leave you because of your small penis, but because you felt bad about your small penis. Or if they did, they weren't worth your time anyway, but I doubt that since you say you had a genuine connection.

>>17190228
No one "hurt" me, but having to endure your idiocy in this thread is indeed painful. Extract yourself from here, please.

>>17190237
Forget about your dick. There are people with even smaller and thinner cigarette dicks and they are married and have children. As important as it is to be hung like a donkey, there are other things. Things that you do have control over, things that you can and should improve. Either improve yourself or endure the pain forever, mate.

>>17190266
You can call the truth idiocy but that doesn't change it or improve your life in any way. Stop looking away.

>>17190278
I understand that you are probably trying to help, anon - unless you are a troll - but you are too low IQ to understand OP's problems and give reasonable advice in return, so please just shut the fuck up.

>>17189943
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)
Don't bother blaming yourself.
It's all your parents fault for failing to raise you properly.
Would you say "improve yourself" to Genie?
Genie can't even grasp such concepts. Neither can you.

This post got me thinking. I don't think humans in their natural state require romantic love to be happy. Romantic love is a social construct. For the vast majority people mated for reasons entirely unrelated to love. Our primitive ancestors mated based on who would produce the best offspring, and throughout the history of civilization, people married for economic reasons. And these people for thousands of years got by fine. It's not until the last few hundred years that people have sought after love. However, despite love not being necessary for happiness in our natural state, I do think it is in modern society. Society conditions us so deeply with the idea that if you want to be truly happy, you need to be in love, that I don't think individual people will ever be able to shake it off.

>>17189943
train your will by eating shit. shit is cool man, eat shit.

>>17190308
No, I understand OP's problem very well because I've been there. I know what it's like. Sometimes people just need to hear the truth for what it is. You can call people you don't like low IQ or faggot all you want, but that doesn't help OP anything either. I'm not sure what triggered you so.

>>17190033
Retard advice with no meaning.

>>17189981
Majority of people in the world would kill to be you so just act like it

>>17190323
You being a faggot triggered me. I don't care what you believe you understand, you're posting obnoxious and stupid shit on my board and it's revolting. Stop.

>>17190057
>>17190081
Serge Gainsbourg got with Jane Birkin and Brigette Bardot. I dunno if you'd consider him unattractive or just unconventionally attractive, but, in any case, there is hope for everyone.

>>17190358
>MY board
>refusing to understand the other
>fag incel
You are a child.

I'm 6'1 grey eyed, blond, handsome Euro and I can't get a girlfriend.
It really is all about personality the ones responsible for my lack of it are my parents.
Stop blaming yourself. Stop trying. There's no solution.

>>17190275
>There are people with even smaller and thinner cigarette dicks
>In a room with 100 men you are smaller than 95 of them
I doubt that your statement is true.

>>17190374
You typed this response with your three inch thick morbidly obese fingers.
>>17190387
Take a walk with a sign that says "looking for a girlfriend" and report back.

>>17189943
Stoics dont judge things out of their control, meaning they would not use phrases such as "my horrendous genetics" and hence not condition themselves to see their lives as horrendous.

>>17190263
this desu. It was less about the small penis and more about you being insecure / not taking charge in bed in a way that made them not feel like a woman. The penis size isn't going to help, obviously, but if you are assertive and take charge of the situation, as well as maybe learn a bit more on how to fuck a woman properly, I'm not saying it'll be perfect but you'll be able to find someone.

>>17190425
this desu

>>17190345
>Majority of people in the world would kill to be you so just act like it
I don't understand this. Please elaborate.

>>17190425
based and stoicpilled.

>>17190442
you live in a first world country. Your height is above average for Asian males. Your penis size is about average for Asian males. Jesus dude, you know average penis is only 5" right? 4.5" is nothing to be excited about but it's not that far from the average. There are plenty of people with 4.5" dicks living happy, fulfilling relationships.

>>17190396
You're wrong. Look up statistics on people with tiny dicks getting laid. I have done my research. Stop crying over your shitty lot in life. You are making matters worse. Your problem is not your tiny dick. Accept your pathetic little penis and move on. Whatever keeps you from going out there and living your life: discard it.

>>17190413
Don't get me wrong I have been approached by women often.
But they all have been scared shitless by my detachment from reality. Even when I try to moderate myself I come off as insane.
t. was homeless by choice, 136 IQ.

>>17190521
You sound based anon. You're higher IQ than me too. Based Aryan arahant. Unironically look into Buddhism and The Doctrine of Awakening by Evola or something like that. Who knows, you might benefit from it.

>>17190454
It's not about the length but about the thickness. Calculate the volume of an average to above-average dick and then compare it to mine. The difference is HUGE.
>people with 4.5" dicks living happy, fulfilling relationships
Yeah, I don't know how they are even able to keep and satisfy a girl long-term. Also, how would you know whether they do not have any sexual problems or she cheats regularly?

>>17190079
Try jelqing

>>17190078
>degenerate
leave

>>17190560
>satisfy a girl long-term
Jesus dude, there are ways to make a girl cum without a penis. Get creative.
>Also, how would you know whether they do not have any sexual problems or she cheats regularly?
This is a problem you share with 100% of men.

>>17190591
Ladies first, faggot.

>>17189943
He would go to a brothel and bang a whore.

>>17190559
Anything to ascend beyond this shit reality.
Delusions here we go.

>>17190620
Doesn't actually cut it.
Even around whore I'm cripplingly autistic.
And once it's done you're down 50-200 and depressed

>>17190621
Don't go schizo mode on me now, anon. I'm placing my bets that your detachment, high IQ and ubermensch status will be enough to push you straight through the gates of Nirvana. Good luck and make sure to reach Enlightenment.

>>17189995
>It will never go away until you have one btw
Not him but I'm not sure why you're saying this
I'm an average looking guy with garbage social skills, it used to bother me but after fucking a hooker and spending some time doing things I liked I couldn't give less of a shit about women anymore. I barely even jack off. "Muh biology" fags are dumb

>>17189943
>Let us enclose the highest good within the mind: it loses its meaning if it passes from our best part to our worst, and is transferred to the senses, which are keener in speechless animals. Our supreme felicity ought not to be assigned to the flesh. The goods that reason give are real; the are solid and eternal; they cannot fail; they cannot decrease or be diminished. Those others are the goods of opinion: they share their name with real goods, but the distinctive property of good is not in them. For this reason, let them be termed "comforts" or "preferred things". Let us realise that they are our possessions, not true parts of ourselves

>What is this good? Just this: a mind made flawless, a mind that rivals even the divine, that elevates itself above the human sphere and places nothing beyond its own bounds. You are a reasoning animal. What then, is the good in you? It is the perfection of reason [...] Do not judge yourself to be happy until all your joys arise from yourself. I will give you a brief rule by which to measure yourself: you will possess your own good when you understand that the fortunate are really the least fortunate of all.

>>17189943
A few thoughts for you suffering anon.

First of all, rejoice in this: despite all you hear, your body isn’t what attracts women the most. They are first attracted to whatever displays wealth, caring and providing. Some things that are in your power in this respect are eg. (1) dressing well and with purpose (not mindlessly); (2) keeping a fresh haircut and clean facial hair and teeth (3) displays of wealth that sound dumb but still work like having a nice watch, a nice car, an iPhone; (4) caring for a dog, for plants, for children and going the distance to help your family members and friends; (5) have a stable job. You get the idea.

Another «primitive» source of attraction is being around other women, so try to make some female friends and hang out with them. Seneca wouldn’t recommend you make friends to get something out of it though, so try to have make genuine friendships. These will probably be more valuable in the long run than a girlfriend anyway.

Secondly, about your emotions. Epictetus would tell you that they aren’t really outside your control, but are derived from what you value. When you are suffering, ask yourself if you’ve done a reasonable effort about it, and remind yourself that this is what matters. Hopefully, this will drift what you value slowly, and eventually free you.

Another thing is to then shift your mind to what you do have, right now, and express gratefulness. We will all be dead soon anyway, so don’t waste too much time thinking about what’s not present, in the present.

Hope this helps!

>>17190078
>most degenerate

you've been preconditioned to believe that things are a certain way and other things are not a certain way. You are the brainlet.

>>17190927
On the contrary, I've been conditioned that all things are equal, formless and transitional. It took a lot of effort to educate myself sufficiently to distinguish things properly. Not to mention that your post also presupposes the idea that nothing has a proper nature, which of course is ridiculous.
Additionally, allow me to point out that this:
>that things are a certain way and other things are not a certain way
is literally retarded. Yes, some things are a certain way and other things are not a certain way - that's why some things are some things, rather than other things. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

>>17190313
just look at how much romantic love and the sex is peer pressured into our fucking brains. You are literally shamed for not having sexual relations.

>you'll find a nice girl if you work on yourself.

>>17190630
you would be depressed regardless.

>>17190960
So you have been conditioned then?

>>17190864
>going the distance
*go above and beyond

>>17190987
Everyone is conditioned, you stupid motherfucker.

>>17191046
so stop thinking you are right and labelling people hahaha

>>17189943
Read more than just marcus aurelius. I recall seneca specifically talking about physical ailments. Though not much about love.

>>17191050
Holy shit, how are you so dumb?
>Everyone is conditioned
>Therefore there is no correct position and uhh labels are inapplicable I guess?
How the fuck did you get from point A to point B? Do you even use your brain?

>>17190021
If you can’t wait to die then why haven’t you killed yourself?

Seriously. Actions over words. If the thing you really want in this present time is to die then you’d have made it happen.

Either you have no self awareness or you need to grow up.

>>17191095
>personality defect
i am a coward

>>17191079
>he still believes in truth

>>17190078
>Stoicism is hardly a doctrine that can be endured with a materialist perspective
This isn't true at all in fact, Stoic metaphysics probably take a secondary role in Stoicism. The reason for acting rationally and wisdom stands alone, it is because it brings man happiness. Honestly Stoic metaphysics are pretty flimsy and how much emphasis was placed on them was up to the writer entirely. I think as Nietzsche correctly perceives in his 'o you noble stoics' passage, the idea that Jupiter governs the universe according to reason was always just a convenient delusion, faith rather than reason, it was always the weakest part of Stoicism

Seneca himself attests to the unimportance of whether 'the gods' (or insert God in its place), guide our affairs or whether it's all random, that philosophy is an end to itself
>Someone will say, "What use is philosophy to me if there is fate? What use is it if a god is in charge? What use, if chance has the mastery? For what is certain cannot be changed, and against what is uncertain there is no way to prepare oneself. Either Jupiter has pre-empted my planning and decreed what I should do, or fortune has left nothing for my planning to achieve". No matter whichever scenario is true, Lucilius, or even if they all are, we must still practice philosophy. Perhaps the inexorable law of fate constrains us; perhaps Jupiter, the universal arbiter, governs all events; perhaps it is chance that drives human affairs, and disrupts them: all the same, it is philosophy that preserves us. Philosophy will urge us to give willing obedience to the gods, and but a grudging obedience to Fortune. It will teach you to follow Jupiter, or to cope with chance.

>>17190974
Then why waste money?
>>17191079
Read more boy.
You'll go off rails of sanity just like the rest of us real quick.

>>17191162
Even if you don't believe in objective truth, you believe in subjective truth. Otherwise, you would not be trying to shill your gay views to me.
>>17191164
The divine element is what provides the justification for the amor fati.
>Seneca himself attests to the unimportance of whether 'the gods' (or insert God in its place), guide our affairs or whether it's all random, that philosophy is an end to itself
The quote you have provided suggests just the opposite. I am particularly looking at the last two sentences. You can protest against determinism and still make room for a spiritual environment and climate. It's the latter which is important for Stoicism.

OP this post is fucking embarrassing.

The philosophy comes down to this. Control what you can control.

Shave off your hair, don’t try any of this hair transplant shit. Or weird haircuts to hide it.

Workout properly, count calories. Your body doesn’t ignore thermodynamic principles. If it does, contact me I’d quite like to use you to win a Nobel prize.

At 20 you are at the lowest possible value in the sexual market for men. I’m 24, 6 feet 4 inches, model and I’m a doctor with rich parents. I have social and emotional intelligence and when I did have Instagram I had 6000 followers whilst following 150 people. It sounds like I’m bragging which in a sense I am, but it doesn’t mean anything because this is anonymous. However, even with all of this I don’t compete with men with more status and who have looked after themselves well into their 30s. I’ve struggled with women and continue to do so. Most of the women I want do not want me.
Either I cry like this bitch post because I don’t meet their standard or I self reflect and practice introspection and raise my own standard over time.

It’s the world. There are hierarchies but what you don’t understand is that when you have accountability and use the stoic philosophy to not worry about what you CANT control then you have a superpower. You can climb the hierarchy just as I can fall from the position I’m in. It’s dynamic. Stop being a fucking bitch.

Just to let you know I started from being obese and I went bald by 17. I was so fat I couldn’t even see my dick. Social intelligence is focused practice, emotional intelligence too. Put yourself in uncomfortable situations and realise you’re not going to die from awkward encounters.

>>17191201
If you are going to try and patronise me at least try to make an argument first so I can btfo you properly.

>>17189943
Maybe Marcus would want you to reflect on this: if you’re a miserable person, a girlfriend won’t make you a happy person. If you’re not a miserable person, you don’t need a girlfriend to be happy.

>>17191231
There's no argument.
>>17191230
You are all that and have nothing. Yet I see fat bald romanians with tattoos making babies with quite cute girls.
Self improvement is a joke.

>>17191236
And here’s what Epictetus would say: okay, so maybe you’re never going to get a girlfriend. Maybe you’ll be single forever. So you can choose between merely being single, or being single while also bitching and moaning and feeling miserable about it. Which of those would you prefer?

>>17191223
>The divine element is what provides the justification for amor fati
Stoic invulnerability and disregard for the state of the external world is what provides the justification for amor fati, the ability to control one's perception, 'prohairesis' as in Epictetus' own doctrine
>Do not seek for things to happen the way you want them to; rather, wish that what happens happen the way it happens: then you will be happy

How exactly does the idea of that quote suggest the opposite? I think its apathetic attitude towards whether everything is orchestrated by the gods or whether 'chance has mastery' is pretty clear in demonstrating how secular stoicism can be - although it can certainly be spiritual also - point is it's not relevant

>>17189943
I can't say I was in your shoes and granted I don't think anyone can say that they've been in someone else's shoes fully, but the feeling you're getting is due to many things. If you want a girlfriend so badly, then maybe that's the exact reason you don't have a girlfriend. Connecting with another human being isn't like acquiring new pants from a store, you have no say in what they do or think unless you're really manipulative, and then, if you are so manipulative, you're not connecting to someone else, instead you're constructing someone you want into somebody else.
And when you finally get a girlfriend because chances are that you will, you will find out how stupid having a girlfriend really is compared to your expectations. I'm not sure I want another relationship right now because the current one is fucking me up so badly I'd rather be alone, since I feel alone anyway.

But as I was in your shoes as well, and as other anons told me as we're telling you right now, you'll probably not think any less of this stupid "necessity" and still go on to make the same mistakes we've made. You'll find a girlfriend at some point, everything will be awesome, you'll fuck and kiss and hold hands, and talk about shit and do some other shit, until it gets old or both of you get so used to eachother it feels like the other isn't doing their part enough to make you feel as you once did in the beginning, distance will form and finally in the last stage you'll feel like even after you've had a girlfriend, you'll still feel alone and wonder why the fuck did you do this to yourself, why did you want this so badly when it ends up the same fucking way but now you have some past memories that you won't be able to relive anymore. Not only that, you'll probably associate their face with the feeling you've had for them, but be unable to feel like that anymore since now it's fucked up.

Maybe I'm just projecting, I don't know. But after a few girlfriends, I've realized, you've either got to be extremely lucky to find "the one" that will be with on at every fucking level of the journey, which is improbable at best and impossible at worst imo, or this is just how we are. Put the idea of the other on a pedestal and when another imperfect human being comes alone to sit on it, we realize how moronic we are to have actually wanted something so badly only for it to be just another thing to go terribly bad.

tl;dr
you'll have a gf
you won't have the gf you want
you'll have relationship fun (connection, sex, romance, camaraderie, belonging)
you won't have it forever
some will go bad or very bad
your perspective on how relationships are before you've had them will only make you regret it even more when it does go bad
you'll have to sacrifice yourself for the other or you won't have the other
the sacrifices will be your time, your passions, your wishes, your wants, your needs - in this order

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO77AjVc-jM

>>17191230
Your post is pathetic and you have everything wrong about social hierarchies. You have your (you), now please go away.

>>17191230
Also. The dick shit doesn’t matter. Hiding insecurities is what is unattractive. You show you’re insecure about it then it permeates into your relationship with people.
My best friend has a mouse cock. He jokes about it, laughs about it with us, his friends, and all of the multiple partners he’s had publicly. He makes no effort to hide it. In fact, I watched him use it to break the ice when meeting his current girlfriend who’s a 9/10.

We spoke to her and her friend and within 5 minutes of conversation he says “I don’t want to alarm you but I have a tiny cock. I just thought you should know.”

I tried to help his case by interjecting and said “yea but you’re skilled in other areas right?”

He replied “no, honestly. Don’t get your hopes up for tonight it’ll be shockingly underwhelming.”

And that was it. 3 years ago. Now in a solid relationship and she’s always trying to prove herself to him. This guy is a generous 5/10. Own any flaw you can’t change

>>17191260
You are a loser.
Quite cute girls. Kek.
If your goal in life is simply this then you are destined to be below average because even the majority of average people have aspirations beyond their capacities.

Settle for less dweeb.

>>17191284
>Don't try it bro, it will be awesome but then you will suffer bro, trust me.
Who gives a shit. That is life. And people want to live.

>>17191339
True.
I was only pointing out that it's not as great as we all thought or some of us thought it was going to be.

>>17191260
If you lived by that image you wouldn't have responded to me with that awkward preaching, anon.
>>17191277
>Stoic invulnerability and disregard for the state of the external world is what provides the justification for amor fati, the ability to control one's perception, 'prohairesis' as in Epictetus' own doctrine
This would collapse in on itself under the strain of life if it's understood as a simple affirmation of the material ego to the maximum, because the ego is not exempt from its own critiques and complaints.
>How exactly does the idea of that quote suggest the opposite? I think its apathetic attitude towards whether everything is orchestrated by the gods or whether 'chance has mastery' is pretty clear in demonstrating how secular stoicism can be - although it can certainly be spiritual also - point is it's not relevant
I do not understand. The quote seems unambiguous to me? The "perhaps" refers not to an option, but to an inclusion. It means that even if both Jupiter and chance are constraining you, all the same you have a task to do and while it is your duty to follow the gods, philosophy allows you to interpret their instructions. I do not see the secularism in this. A healthy Stoicism presupposes the existence of the supernatural.
>>17191302
Go post your cringe to /r/relationship_advice or something.

>>17190106
then make it your goal to get rich and afford it? it's not like you need to be a millionaire, its maybe 10s of thousands of dollars max for the biggest procedures. you could earn enough in 2 years if you really put the effort in, but you'd rather complain on /lit/ instead

>>17191302
Your story is bullshit and you know it.

>>17191375
The fact that this conversation is too far fetched for you to believe says a lot more about you than you realise.
This isn’t even anything spectacular.

>>17191357
You are an underachiever. It’s easy to deduce in your response. Cope more.

>>17191417
Dilate.

>>17190078
>Emotions are unimportant
Don't mislead people by trying to pass this of as Stoicism.

>>17191725
Sorry for not being a homo, anon.

>>17191747
You don't know what you're missing.

>>17191357
>This would collapse in on itself under the strain of life if it's understood as a simple affirmation of the material ego to the maximum, because the ego is not exempt from its own critiques and complaints
Why would the idea of the material ego collapse under its own critiques? While the idea of the sovereign ego is helped by an inherent divine property, I don't see why it need be a requirement

I don't see how you can see the 'perhaps' as in any way an inclusion either. Seneca seems to me clearly to be proposing two strictly-opposed possibilities: one that the universe is divinely orchestrated by the supernatural, the other that mere 'chance' and the random winds of fortune holds dominion over all things (i.e. a secular view)

>You don't need to believe in God, but an understanding that this life is just a portion of your true existence certainly helps.
I must also say that I take issue with your claim as to what Stoicism requires here. If you're implying it requires any type of belief in the afterlife, that is of course completely incorrect.

In fact, the main stoic argument not to fear death, like the Epicureans, was the very idea that it marks the cessation of all feeling and cessation, it's repeated time after time that the most stupid thing of all is to fear a thing you will never experience (death):
>A person would be crazy to fear something that's not going to happen to him, and it is equally crazy to fear something you won't feel. Or does anyone believe that he will feel death, when in fact it is through death that he ceases to feel anything else?

The only reference to the afterlife I can find is
>No one is such a child as to be afraid of Cerberus and the dark and skeleton figures of ghouls and legend. Death either consumes us or sets us free. If we are released, then better things await us once our burden is lifted; if we are consumed then nothing is waiting us at all: both our goods and evils are gone
Which again, seems to me to be the exact same kind of balanced consideration stoic writing often adopts, considering the probability of both religious (elysian fields) and secular (body dies and the mind with it) which suggests that Stoicism doesn't depend on upon either foundation

>>17189943
When your toes on the earth stroll
Find what you seek, fire birth
Better know desire
Than die alone

>>17191747
Maybe, maybe not, but you're definitely not functional.

>>17191798
thats gay

>>17189943
Read Seneca or reread your pic related. Killing yourself is always an option.

>>17191754
I don't think that'd be good for me, anon.
>>17191765
>Why would the idea of the material ego collapse under its own critiques?
Why should you do anything? "Because I must, it is my duty!" Why? How? Since when? You didn't ask for such a duty, did you?
All of these questions are easily resolved with a spiritual perspective, but are completely impossible to resolve otherwise.
>I don't see how you can see the 'perhaps' as in any way an inclusion either. Seneca seems to me clearly to be proposing two strictly-opposed possibilities: one that the universe is divinely orchestrated by the supernatural, the other that mere 'chance' and the random winds of fortune holds dominion over all things (i.e. a secular view)
You seem to be overreaching here. You could say that either interpretation is possible, but that you can't even see how mine is legitimate is a stretch. I just reread the quote and this part:
>No matter whichever scenario is true, Lucilius, or even if they all are, we must still practice philosophy.
Seems to make it rather explicit that to Seneca, at the very least the possibility of all of them being true simultaneously exists. The last two sentences, again, seem to bolster the message.
>I must also say that I take issue with your claim as to what Stoicism requires here. If you're implying it requires any type of belief in the afterlife, that is of course completely incorrect.
I am not implying that Stoicism requires that, but a healthy Stoicism is certainly considerably helped by the belief, not necessarily in an afterlife, but in the existence of something outside material reality to which we will return after we are done here.

>>17191802
You shouldn't judge functionality by emotional activity, unless you are trying to imply that neurotic BPD women are somehow the most enlightened people of us all.

>>17191328
My goal in life is manufacture perfect combat machines out of my sons. To do what my father failed to do.
But you can't make babies without a hole.

>>17191874
Certainly more enlightened than a depressed sack of shit, your condition is not unique and it's the opposite of enriching.

I'm 31 and I've never had sex or even been on a date

>>17189943
>I will never have a relationship with a loving girlfriend

I think you misread the tenets of stoicism.

>>17191893
I am not depressed. Stop trying to make people believe that unless they are riding the high of this or that hysterical emotion they are depressed. That's not true. It's a harmful belief.

>>17191874
Emotions are a basic human function with a purpose, as much as any bodily function. To say they are unimportant is like saying that your lungs or your circulation are unimportant. Emotions need to be processed properly and kept in balance, which Stoicism helps with. I have no clue how you'd go from "emotions are important" to neurotic BPD women being enlightened, that's exactly what happens when emotions are *not* taken seriously.

>>17190079
Learn to eat the pussy like a madman

>>17191934
You let your emotion take over your reply to defend your anonymous ego instead of arguing in favor of the hypothetical depressed sack of shit.
Now you just seem to be arguing semantics, if you truly believe emotions do not matter then your concession about there being a middle ground already contradicts your first statement.

>>17191975
>>17191934
Also, you seem to be arguing against yourself when you are the one who brought up the hysterical women hyperbole, don't you see your own harmful ideas, not finding the middle ground?

>>17191943
This is bizarre. Yes, emotions are unimportant. No, the end goal isn't to be an emotionless robot. Just because emotions are unimportant doesn't necessarily make them a waste of time, unpleasant, destructive or what have you. They are still, however, unimportant in the long run. Far more so than even the slightest damage to your lungs or circulation. I can't even remember my emotions from ten minutes ago. Can you, anon?

>>17191990
What are you even trying to argue about? Emotions are as important as you make them out to be even if you ignore their inherent biological connection to your thoughts that are far less rational than you think they are. It feels like you are just distilling it down to semantics especially since you are already arguing that they do have an effect on you that isn't necessarily negative.

>>17191975
>You let your emotion take over your reply to defend your anonymous ego instead of arguing in favor of the hypothetical depressed sack of shit.
I genuinely can't even see what you are trying to say here. Are you implying that I responded because your posts somehow deeply emotionally touched me, in whatever way? You're pretty boring desu. I just replied because I am bored.
>Now you just seem to be arguing semantics, if you truly believe emotions do not matter then your concession about there being a middle ground already contradicts your first statement.
What? Are you confused, anon?
>>17191988
>Also, you seem to be arguing against yourself when you are the one who brought up the hysterical women hyperbole, don't you see your own harmful ideas, not finding the middle ground?
It's not hyperbole. It was a precise statement meant to demonstrate that heightened emotional activity does not somehow imply higher stages of personal development. On the contrary, the opposite relation exists there. This does not mean that the perfect man is a completely emotionless robot 100% of the time. It does, however, mean that emotions are unimportant.

>>17191990
Stop acting obtuse. Emotions are not isolated events, as you know, they are recurring patterns. When someone says that emotions matter, they're not talking about something they felt once for 5 seconds, but about the recurring patterns a person experiences, which can absolutely be as destructive as any other health problem.

>>17192027
>somehow deeply emotionally touched me, in whatever way?
Your reply was entirely emotional and devoid of arguments, so yes.

>You're pretty boring desu. I just replied because I am bored.
This is an entirely emotional, destructive reply trying to get an emotional response out of me. You aren't very good at this whole stoicism thing.

>>17191230
who cares. just shut the fuck up

>>17191840
>Why should you do anything? "Because I must, it is my duty!" Why? How? Since when? You didn't ask for such a duty, did you? All of these questions are easily resolved with a spiritual perspective, but are completely impossible to resolve otherwise.
You should act rationally for the reasons seen here >>17190854 , because philosophy and reason bring man the end of suffering and an impenetrable joy;
>We must surround ourselves with philosophy, the one rampart that can never be stormed, that the siege engines of fortune can never breach. The mind that has abandoned external goods, that asserts its freedom within its own citadel, has taken up a truly impregnable position. Sling-bullets and arrows fall harmlessly at its feet. Many speak of the long arms of fortune, but fortunate has no long arm: it catches only those who hold onto it

>Seems to make it rather explicit that to Seneca, at the very least the possibility of all of them being true simultaneously exists. The last two sentences, again, seem to bolster the message
I don't see how you've got the impression that Seneca is suggesting that both scenarios might be true simultaneously, they seem entirely opposed to me in their very essence. How exactly can both "Jupiter, the universal arbiter, govern ALL events" and chance having "mastery" or "chance driving human affairs". One scenario that's considered is a rational will behind events, the other is that it's just random chance without divine will.
The last two sentences are just affirming the compatibility of (stoic) philosophy with either possibility

>I am not implying that Stoicism requires that, but a healthy Stoicism is certainly considerably helped by the belief, not necessarily in an afterlife, but in the existence of something outside material reality to which we will return after we are done here.
I've never seen any suggestion of any kind of existence after death beyond what I have already quoted and with such ideas as
>Soon you'll be ashes, or bones. A mere name at most - and even that is just a sound, an echo. Why are you still here? Sensory objects are shifting and unstable; our senses dim and easily deceived; the soul itself a decoction of blood
or
>And above all philosophy accepts death in a cheerful spirit, as nothing but the dissolution of the elements from which each living thing is composed
And that's from Aurelius, who I'd consider the most spiritual out of the three big extant stoic writers, I think your injection of the belief in some hopeful 'existence outside material reality' is simply your own invention

>>17192023
>What are you even trying to argue about?
That emotions are unimportant.
>Emotions are as important as you make them out to be
Yes. In other words, you assign importance to emotions - in and of themselves, they have none. Therefore, you should not assign much importance to them, since that is harmful.
>It feels like you are just distilling it down to semantics
What am I distilling to semantics? I made a very simple and straightforward statement. If you assumed that somehow I was arguing for the total extirpation of emotion from the human being, then that's not really on me, is it? Just because emotions are unimportant doesn't mean that they are bad. They can be, which is why you need to know how to control them. They are still unimportant.
>especially since you are already arguing that they do have an effect on you that isn't necessarily negative.
I never argued the opposite? I must note, however, that you are the one who chooses what effect emotions have on you. In and of themselves, they are unimportant and meaningless and can have no effect other than whatever effect you allow them to have. If you leave your emotions completely uncontrolled and allow them to have any effect, then that's always negative, but emotion in itself is not inherently negative.
>>17192031
This kind of sounds like bullshit though? Emotions are feelings. They can be random or ordered. In all cases, they're just feelings.
>>17192045
>Your reply was entirely emotional and devoid of arguments, so yes.
That's pretty funny. Your response was an ad hominem accusation. My response was to reject your accusation, expose a false dichotomy and state my opinion of its harmfulness.
>This is an entirely emotional, destructive reply trying to get an emotional response out of me. You aren't very good at this whole stoicism thing.
I am genuinely bored anon. Kind of hungry too. I am sorry if you wanted me to feel super excited about our exchange, but I don't see how me being bored is somehow a problem. I've replied to way better posts than yours on /lit/ today and I've been bored every time I did that.

>>17191902
based

https://youtu.be/oeRbEtJhjEI

>>17192071
>You should act rationally for the reasons seen here, because philosophy and reason bring man the end of suffering and an impenetrable joy;
Why should I care? If I'm indifferent to suffering and happiness and working for anything more is too much effort, for example, why should I bother?
>I don't see how you've got the impression that Seneca is suggesting that both scenarios might be true simultaneously, they seem entirely opposed to me in their very essence.
They don't seem that way to me. Why should they be opposed?
>How exactly can both "Jupiter, the universal arbiter, govern ALL events"
If I gave you the freedom and power to intervene in any event, would you be using it constantly, all the time, for everything from start to finish? No? Then why would the gods?
>and chance having "mastery" or "chance driving human affairs"
If human wills play a part and divine wills play apart, what about the rest? The environment the wills are brawling in? That's the domain of chance. This is just an example. I am sure you could formulate this in other ways too.
>I've never seen any suggestion of any kind of existence after death beyond what I have already quoted and with such ideas as
It would be bizarre if a philosophy of inner strength in this life concerned itself much with the afterlife, but nevertheless, it is the spiritual element that is important, not a specific afterlife.
>And that's from Aurelius, who I'd consider the most spiritual out of the three big extant stoic writers, I think your injection of the belief in some hopeful 'existence outside material reality' is simply your own invention
The quotes don't necessarily contradict a spiritual view. With that said, an "existence" outside material reality does not carry the same connotations of an existence in this world, nor does it carry any connotations of "hopefulness". It's not a matter of doing good in this life in order to move onto a better life. It's a matter of order, which gives meaning and beauty to duty.

>>17192103
>Your response was an ad hominem accusation.
You should first learn the definition of the term before trying to use it, ad hominem is when you attack someone's character instead of bringing up an argument which is not what >>17191893 is.

>expose a false dichotomy
You supposedly exposed a false dichotomy no one stated by bringing up your own false dichotomy with the hysterical woman.
This discussion has nothing of worth to be gained anymore since you already conceded your point about emotions being unimportant by repeatedly saying that they do have value despite your continuous claims that they don't, now it's just about emotionally-charged insults and veiled semantics which is an ironic but unsurprising level of discourse for someone with these deeply flawed and poorly thought out beliefs.

>>17192103
>This kind of sounds like bullshit though? Emotions are feelings. They can be random or ordered. In all cases, they're just feelings.
The feelings that people experience aren't random. They're responses to stimuli, and frequently occur according to learned patterns. Those patterns can be healthy or unhealthy, productive or destructive. The same stimulus (e.g. failing a test or getting rejected by someone) lead to entirely different responses in different people. People with destructive ways of dealing with their emotions need to learn more constructive ways if they want to lead fulfilled lives.
This is so basic, I'm not sure if I'm getting baited.

>>17192103
>emotions are unimportant
>every post has at least two lines about how he feels about something as if anyone gave a shit
Practice what you preach or learn something better to preach about.

>>17189981
If you are this neurotic about your present circumstance and the past that you have been dealt, what makes you think a girlfriend would make you happy? A girl liking you will not necessarily make you stop hating yourself.
A girl is external, out of your control, and can be lost. Is this what you want your happiness to be made of? A girlfriend is good, but the pain this is causing you shows that this good has become distorted.

>>17192160
>You should first learn the definition of the term before trying to use it, ad hominem is when you attack someone's character instead of bringing up an argument which is not what >>17191893 is.
You literally said I'm depressed and experiencing a "condition" that enforces a diminished form of life, lol.
>You supposedly exposed a false dichotomy no one stated by bringing up your own false dichotomy with the hysterical woman.
The natural conclusion from my example is not a dichotomy, so no, I did not "bring up a false dichotomy" of my own.
>This discussion has nothing of worth to be gained anymore since you already conceded your point about emotions being unimportant by repeatedly saying that they do have value despite your continuous claims that they don't
Are you mentally impaired anon? How does one follow from the other? This is a complete non sequitur. You are such a liar, too. I never said that emotions have no value, I simply stated that they are unimportant. I've been so careful to phrase myself reasonably and yet you are still such a disingenuous piece of shit.
> now it's just about emotionally-charged insults and veiled semantics which is an ironic but unsurprising level of discourse for someone with these deeply flawed and poorly thought out beliefs.
Don't project too much onto me, please. Your understanding of "semantics" is also certainly unique. I must admit, anon, I am feeling emotions right now - pity and amusement. You are a rare specimen.
>>17192184
>The feelings that people experience aren't random.
You know exactly what I am saying, anon. Substitute "random or ordered" with "spontaneous or ordered". Does that please you better?
>They're responses to stimuli, and frequently occur according to learned patterns.
Maybe the pattern people need to be learning more is that emotions are unimportant. Once they learn that, their "responses to stimuli" might become a lot more controlled and self-aware.
>The same stimulus (e.g. failing a test or getting rejected by someone) lead to entirely different responses in different people.
This presupposes the complete lack of self-awareness. Sure, without self-awareness and introspection, all that is left is the stimulus and its result. If you introduce self-awareness and introspection, then you are dealing with another factor that controls response.
>>17192187
Even if we assume that your sad projections are true to reality, how does any of this contradict my position, anon? Just because emotions are unimportant does not mean that you are not allowed to have any or express any. Honestly, why are you all so stupid? Is it just because you naturally seethe when you get btfo and your lack of emotional control clouds your thinking? It's hard for me to understand. I specifically expressed myself with clarity in mind. It's not like any of the ideas I've mentioned are particularly challenging to comprehend. I'm even spoonfeeding you, but it seems like things are very difficult for you people.

>>17190039
I've dated some short uggos because they were intelligent and funny.

OP, the personality that attracts women and the personality that pathologically agonizes over "tfw no gf" are mutually exclusive.

>>17192318
I used "value" as a synonym of "importance" to expose your semantics and that threw you right off as expected. You are still holding on to the dissonance of emotions being both unimportant but also having value and inherently defining us as people, you can't have both or you need to explain what you mean by unimportant, or else it's just veiled semantics.

>Just because emotions are unimportant does not mean that you are not allowed to have any or express any.
You keep contradicting yourself, if you truly think they are unimportant then you wouldn't feel such an intense urge to include your emotions in every single post.

>I specifically expressed myself with clarity in mind
You are not being clear because you are contradicting yourself and flip-flopping between arguments in every paragraph in an emotionally driven manner to "win" discussions instead of simply presenting your points.

>>17189943
imagine a even worse fact and genuinely accept that one

>>17192156
>Why should I care? If I'm indifferent to suffering and happiness and working for anything more is too much effort, for example, why should I bother?
Stoicism is not indifferent to happiness, happiness is the end goal (Eudaimonia), which for the stoics means to be a virtuous and just life, lived according to reason

>They don't seem that way to me. Why should they be opposed?
I don't know any other way I can explain it, one belief is that the divine (Jupiter) governs all events, the other is that chance 'has the mastery' (i.e. that it's all random, no divine will governing reality)

>If human wills play a part and divine wills play apart, what about the rest? The environment the wills are brawling in? That's the domain of chance. This is just an example. I am sure you could formulate this in other ways too.
That stance is entirely your own invention also, see the specific wording "Perhaps Jupiter, the universal arbiter, governs ALL events, (or) perhaps it is chance that drives human affairs", what if "chance has MASTERY", this is clearly introducing a contradictory possibility, that chance alone governs our lives instead of any 'gods'.

>It would be bizarre if a philosophy of inner strength in this life concerned itself much with the afterlife, but nevertheless, it is the spiritual element that is important, not a specific afterlife.
What exactly do you mean by the 'spiritual element' being important? What part of any fulfilment through Stoic disdain of 'externals' and via the use of reason and philosophy depend upon your 'supernatural' entity/entities?

>The quotes don't necessarily contradict a spiritual view. With that said, an "existence" outside material reality does not carry the same connotations of an existence in this world, nor does it carry any connotations of "hopefulness". It's not a matter of doing good in this life in order to move onto a better life.
Except there is no mention of anything of this manner about acting "virtuously" in this life for the sake of a reward in the next, virtue - as I've already explained - is a reward all unto itself to the Stoics, man achieves eudaimonia and true happiness through living virtuously, that's it, that's the motivation

>It's a matter of order, which gives meaning and beauty to duty
This is entirely what you think is the way things ought to be, again this is your worldview you're imposing upon Stoic thought, there is no reference to your strange metaphysics of the 'existence outside material reality ... which gives meaning and beauty to duty', this is entirely your own schizobabble

>>17192400
Which of these anons are you, it's hard for me to keep track? You've replied to two separate things.
>I used "value" as a synonym of "importance" to expose your semantics and that threw you right off as expected.
>"I used the wrong word on purpose to prove that you are actually the one who is stupid." t. you
I am genuinely speechless. Anon, you do realise that things can have value, even immense value, in their own context, without actually being important at the grand level, right? For example, your mom giving you a hug. It is a precious thing for you and for her, but it really doesn't matter to the prime minister if your mom hugged you today or not. Do you understand? Do you perhaps need a simpler example still? Why are you so dumb? How is this possible?
>You are still holding on to the dissonance of emotions being both unimportant but also having value and inherently defining us as people
There is no dissonance. Emotions are unimportant and subordinate to consciousness, intellect, personality etc. They are also valuable as a part of human life and a form of expression. They do not define us as people, unless we are stupid and let them do so, in which case well that sucks for you.
>you can't have both or you need to explain what you mean by unimportant, or else it's just veiled semantics.
There is absolutely nothing semantic about it, I meant exactly what I wrote. If you were curious to get a more in-depth look at my views, you should have simply asked.
>You keep contradicting yourself, if you truly think they are unimportant then you wouldn't feel such an intense urge to include your emotions in every single post.
1. I do not feel any intense urge to do so, though for the past couple of posts I have been mildly entertained. You have thrown me into stunned disbelief a couple of times now and that's a bit fun.
2. Just because something is unimportant doesn't mean that you are disallowed from engaging in it. Every post in this thread and on /lit/ in general is unimportant, yet we are still here wasting ungodly amounts of time writing those posts. Similarly, I could keep my replies to you as austere, to the point and emotionless as possible, but why should I? I do as I like. This is not to say that you should overestimate how emotional I am feeling or claim that my actions are stemming form emotion. Similarly, it would be false to say that I am completely emotionless writing this post.
>You are not being clear because you are contradicting yourself and flip-flopping between arguments in every paragraph in an emotionally driven manner to "win" discussions instead of simply presenting your points.
This is literally what you are doing except for the last part since you have no points to make and are just sperging at me. You don't even need to do it now, but look through the full chain after we are done. I have been concise and articulate all along.

>>17192318
>You know exactly what I am saying, anon.
Not really, no. What *are* you saying with the distinction between "spontaneous or ordered"?
>Maybe the pattern people need to be learning more is that emotions are unimportant.
No, ignoring feelings doesn't make them go away. They hang around, fester, and start bubbling up and manifesting themselves in all sorts of fucked up ways.
>If you introduce self-awareness and introspection
Yeah, that's what we call processing emotions. Here's how it works (to give just one simple example):
>A student fails exams because he procrastinates, and thinks all he needs to do is drive himself harder.
>Through examination and introspection, he discovers that the problem is not one of productivity, but rather the fact that he feels so much fear and anxiety about the possibility of failing that he doesn't even bother to try.
>By taking that emotion seriously, he can start to notice it when it occurs, and begin to distance himself from it instead of identifying with it. Stoicism might teach him that he has no control over the outcome over any exam, only over the effort he puts into his own studies. Thereby, he begins to process the emotion.

>>17189943
accept the feelings not the fact

>>17192483
>Stoicism is not indifferent to happiness, happiness is the end goal (Eudaimonia), which for the stoics means to be a virtuous and just life, lived according to reason
I know. Why should I care, though? Why should a Stoic care? He may think it's a good thing to get started with this mindset, but where will he draw the strength to sustain it, when there is no good answer to this question?
>I don't know any other way I can explain it, one belief is that the divine (Jupiter) governs all events, the other is that chance 'has the mastery' (i.e. that it's all random, no divine will governing reality)
Just like a judge governs over a trial and the jury has mastery over it without depriving the lawyers, prosecutors and defendants of their roles, so it can be viewed as here.
>That stance is entirely your own invention also, see the specific wording "Perhaps Jupiter, the universal arbiter, governs ALL events, (or) perhaps it is chance that drives human affairs", what if "chance has MASTERY", this is clearly introducing a contradictory possibility, that chance alone governs our lives instead of any 'gods'.
I am looking at the specific wording and I think it is you infusing that particular meaning into the words. See the above example I wrote. It's also very clear to me in what context Seneca is writing this - he is rebutting the antithesis of that atheist meme "if you believe in god you will never go to the doctor/look before you cross the street/etc.".
>What exactly do you mean by the 'spiritual element' being important? What part of any fulfilment through Stoic disdain of 'externals' and via the use of reason and philosophy depend upon your 'supernatural' entity/entities?
The supreme justification of everything.
>Except there is no mention of anything of this manner about acting "virtuously" in this life for the sake of a reward in the next, virtue - as I've already explained - is a reward all unto itself to the Stoics, man achieves eudaimonia and true happiness through living virtuously, that's it, that's the motivation
Did you misread what I was saying? This is just what I said. It's not a matter of acting "virtuously" (I didn't use this word?) for a reward - it's a matter of order, rightness, duty and so on.
>This is entirely what you think is the way things ought to be, again this is your worldview you're imposing upon Stoic thought, there is no reference to your strange metaphysics of the 'existence outside material reality ... which gives meaning and beauty to duty', this is entirely your own schizobabble
That's fair enough, but without such schizobabble I am afraid Stoic philosophy becomes rather uncompelling. If an individual is doing okay without Eudaimonia why should he give a fuck to put in effort and live by the tenets of Stoicism? There are easier ways to live.

>>17192497
Hugging my mother holds far more value than this silly discussion ever will, not just for myself but also for everyone that interacts with me, why are you drawing your importance line around emotions rather than any kind of thought and communication?
I'll tell you one thing though, the emotions you expressed in your posts had some value too, it showed how highly you think of yourself and how you are driven by external validation for your thoughts and emotions while trying to give off an air of superiority and not caring about such things, this is what ultimately made you post and it's what defined your excursion through this thread, your supposedly unemotional beliefs were secondary at best.

>>17192518
I went back to look through our chain, you claimed that "emotions aren't random" and that they occur according to patterns which can be destructive, therefore some course of action should be undertaken to make emotions "healthy" or whatever. My point is that yes, they can be "random" or "spontaneous" or however you want to call it, just as much as they can be ordered. according to patterns or will or whatever else. Emotions arise and they disappear - either as one offs or by schedule or by specific patterns and stimuli. In the end, they are just feeling and can be dismissed and ignored, since they are transient and devoid of meaning regardless of how they appear.
>No, ignoring feelings doesn't make them go away. They hang around, fester, and start bubbling up and manifesting themselves in all sorts of fucked up ways.
They go away when I dismiss them, though? Are you sure that maybe you're not just engaging in destructive behaviour and conduct of which emotions are merely symptoms? If so, then yes, you will not be able to escape the effects of poor behaviour and conduct. The effects of emotions, on the other hand, are very easy to dispel.
>By taking that emotion seriously, he can start to notice it when it occurs, and begin to distance himself from it instead of identifying with it.
That's kind of what I have been talking about all along, though. It's just that there is nothing to "take seriously". The effect of an emotion depends on how closely you identify with it. If you realise that it is unimportant and react accordingly by disidentifying, you regain control over yourself and your emotions.
>>17192622
>Hugging my mother holds far more value than this silly discussion ever will, not just for myself but also for everyone that interacts with me, why are you drawing your importance line around emotions rather than any kind of thought and communication?
My point is this: does you hugging your mom have consequences on the national level? No. Local level? Community level? Also no. It may not even have consequences on how your day goes. It's still valuable in its own context. It is, nevertheless, unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Do you understand me now?
>it showed how highly you think of yourself and how you are driven by external validation for your thoughts and emotions while trying to give off an air of superiority and not caring about such things
This type of thinking is precisely why you should not assign too much importance to emotion. I have been having some fun being condescending, yes - though really, this should be a given considering how ridiculous your posts are - but that does not mean I typed my responses seething with sadistic glee or anything like that. I am still in a pretty mild mood. The emotions I am feeling supplement my experience since they make this exchange more fun. They are not at all controlling my conduct, nor do I care for external validation on an anonymous forum or even in general.

>>17192676
>Do you understand me now?
I understood that by your own definition this discussion has less worth than hugging someone, something that doesn't evoke emotions will always be less relevant in how we act which means that by your own reductionist abstraction your rational thoughts are less important than emotions not just personally but also in the "grand scheme".
What do you think you are changing in the grand scheme by arguing here?
This is all I will take from this thread, not your worthless opinions about emotions but rather your failure to notice your emotions coloring your every post and thought.

>>17192754
>I understood that by your own definition this discussion has less worth than hugging someone, something that doesn't evoke emotions will always be less relevant in how we act which means that by your own reductionist abstraction your rational thoughts are less important than emotions not just personally but also in the "grand scheme".
This is practically incoherent. You've completely disregarded what I've said and regurgitated a mess of confused bullshit. How you could take my examples, mix them together into an incoherent mishmash and then claim that, actually, my point was its precise opposite all along, is really beyond me.
>What do you think you are changing in the grand scheme by arguing here?
Nothing, I am just bored.
>This is all I will take from this thread, not your worthless opinions about emotions but rather your failure to notice your emotions coloring your every post and thought.
Anon you're being stupid. Check the second half of my response to you just above. Some - not all of my posts - have expressed emotion. This does not somehow magically mean that their content has been primarily emotional or generated by emotion. Anon, be honest, did you even read the stuff I wrote?

>>17192676
>They go away when I dismiss them, though?
Not at all. They go away when you process them. Yes, an event can occur that makes you angry or scared or whatever, and an hour later you don't feel that intense sensation anymore, but it hasn't just disappeared into thin air. Intense emotions leave traces and scars (e.g. trauma) that hang around until they're processed. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't see 99% of the chronic emotional problems that many people suffer from every day.
>That's kind of what I have been talking about all along, though. It's just that there is nothing to "take seriously". The effect of an emotion depends on how closely you identify with it. If you realise that it is unimportant and react accordingly by disidentifying, you regain control over yourself and your emotions.
If the way you engage with emotions can have significant consequences on your life, that alone makes emotions important. That's what "important" means, something you can't simply ignore. I never suggested that emotions should be accepted absolutely and at face value, they're separate both from the person that experiences them and the stimulus that causes them.

>>17192676
Your view of the structure of society is very idiotic and ignorant which and makes it clear why you would hold such bizarre ideas.
What defines civilization is every interpersonal interaction, urge, and emotion, the zeitgeist that characterizes society. This is easily seen throughout 4chan for example where every post is built upon a series of past thoughts and emotions, like this thread that was only made because someone wanted a girlfriend.

>>17192857
>Nothing, I am just bored.
Then why are you fixated on emotions if you know this thread won't change anything either? It's a very arbitrary line to draw especially since emotions are very often what drive politics and are far more relevant than obscure philosophical ramblings.

>>17192893
>Not at all. They go away when you process them. Yes, an event can occur that makes you angry or scared or whatever, and an hour later you don't feel that intense sensation anymore, but it hasn't just disappeared into thin air. Intense emotions leave traces and scars (e.g. trauma) that hang around until they're processed. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't see 99% of the chronic emotional problems that many people suffer from every day.
The last time I felt intense emotional pain was a couple of years ago and it took me something like 20 seconds to get over it when I actually decided to. Maybe it's easier for some people and harder for others? I still don't think that's an argument against my view, though.
>If the way you engage with emotions can have significant consequences on your life, that alone makes emotions important. That's what "important" means, something you can't simply ignore. I never suggested that emotions should be accepted absolutely and at face value, they're separate both from the person that experiences them and the stimulus that causes them.
Kind of based, though I don't think that emotions should ever have significant consequences on your life (unless you let them).

>>17192903
>Your view of the structure of society is very idiotic and ignorant which and makes it clear why you would hold such bizarre ideas.
Uhhhh, okay?
>What defines civilization is every interpersonal interaction, urge, and emotion, the zeitgeist that characterizes society.
You've picked out the four most irrelevant aspects of society to credit as the chief drivers. Only "zeitgeist" counts for anything among those four.
>This is easily seen throughout 4chan for example where every post is built upon a series of past thoughts and emotions, like this thread that was only made because someone wanted a girlfriend.
Almost nothing and no one on 4chan will make an impact on something outside of 4chan.
>>Nothing, I am just bored.
Then why are you fixated on emotions if you know this thread won't change anything either? It's a very arbitrary line to draw especially since emotions are very often what drive politics and are far more relevant than obscure philosophical ramblings.
Is there anything else I should be doing? I do as I like.

>>17189943
>Yet, thinking and actually practicing acceptance over this situation only causes a deep pain in my chest. The emotions brought forth by never getting a girlfriend seem to be biologically rooted and unchangeable as well.

get a gf then, you dumb virgin, i never had a gf too but you can bet your ass once the quarantine ends, i will flirt shamelessly with every attractive girl i meet

>>17190079
Those girls should kill themselves

>>17192924
I'd say you're either just extremely insusceptible to emotions (may or may not be a bad thing, really depends on how you want to live your life) or completely habitualized at suppressing them. I hope it's not the latter, I really do, because that's a *massive* meltdown waiting to happen.

>>17193015
I don't melt down, nor have I ever felt any inclination to, so I assume it's the former. It's not like I am not emotional, emotion comes very easy to me if I let it. It's just that it's also easy to control. It's strange to me when I meet people who can't. I have also met two other guys like me though, so I am pretty sure I'm not some anomaly either.

>>17193047
I myself am not someone who expresses emotions outwardly, and I don't consider myself an emotional person at all. But getting into introspection and meditation made me realize how much shit I was carrying around from my youth and how much that unresolved stuff was affecting my wellbeing and my decision-making. I didn't realize any of that was going on until it started to manifest physically, a lot of it not until my late twenties. I don't know how old you are, just be aware that if you are indeed suppressing, it can take a while to show up - but it always does at some point.

>>17189943
You should look up epicureanism instead. They reason that we should achieve peace of mind (or pleasure in moderation) while avoiding as much pain as possible since that's the most logical thing to do.
So how does that fit into relationships? Well, relationships have good moments but also bad moments and it's a matter of time when the bad starts to outbalancing the good. Every relationship ends in pain regardless: she might end it, cheat, die, etc. You are investing so much energy and emotions on something that is 100% guaranteed to end painfully.

>>17193167
>You are investing so much energy and emotions on something that is 100% guaranteed to end painfully.
So... life ?

>>17193127
I introspect a fair bit, but my introspection is what led me to this conclusion. I have been thinking about meditation and things like that, but I have not found a way to do it that satisfied me yet. I will probably look into some types of yoga and the complementary meditations after the pandemic is over.

>>17189981
>balding

Shave it, grow a beard

This will help with ugly face too

>burned skin

That can surely be fixed with a good skincare routine

>small dick

This is a rough one but genuinely won't be an issue for the right girl, not memeing

>20

Lmao you're fine, just read Nietzsche and overcome your inner bitch

>>17194063
And what would you have said if OP was 25? 30? 40?

>>17189943
stoicism is not a philosophy for boys

>>17189943
At least you're not black or worse, Indian.

>>17190345
No they wouldn't lmfao

>>17190079
Look up more plates more dates. Supposedly he got his five and a half inch penis to 7 inches with PE type routines. Worth a shot even if it gets you up to the average range (5.5 to 6.5 or so)

>>17190079
how small tho micro penis?

>>17190079
Learn to finger though. If they still don't like you they are whores who will probably get knocked up by a nig. Remember anon, sexual pleasures are part of a relationship but it's not the relationship itself.

>>17189981
it's not even that small, slighlty below average. for some reason people overestimate the average dick lenght.

>>17190079
yes, a very nice girl.