/lit/ - Literature

>>18007561
I think you mean Epictetus. Epicurus is not a stoic. You can basically start with either Letters, Mediations or Discourses. All of them arent´t structured so you´ll get a messy first impression. Just try to recognize their main ways of justifying their stoic ethics.

Did you Epictetus rather than Epicurus? Maybe a slip, but Seneca often did praise parts of Epicureanism, even if the schools where supposed to be opposites.

In chronological order, it would go Seneca > Epictetus > Aurelius. Seneca is by far my favourite, but he is the least strictly stoical.

Epictetus is the most dogmatic of the three, but even he wasn't particularly interested in the metaphysics that the earlier stoics cared more about. Aurelius is the most aphoristic.

It depends on your taste, for purity, I'd go with Epictetus, but if you want an entertaining read, then definitely Seneca.

>>18007561
I personally liked Meditations.
>Meditations for someone personal diary to themselves, very sincere and direct
>Discourses for more esoteric and aphoristic, classically philosophical style stuff
>Seneca for letters of a very uncle like nature

>>18007606
Accurate

>“When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own - not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.”

The most cucked philosophy, read Nietzsche instead

>>18007625
>Nietzsche
more like Neetzsche amiright?

>>18007561
Start with Zeno, the founder

>>18007625
>>“When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own - not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.”

>>18007625
Which Nietzsche? Be specific.

>>18007600
Yes I did mean Epictetus and TY for the thorough reply.

Isn't stoicism just coping? It would be better to express your emotions, without them letting control you, instead of deluding yourself that anger and sadness are useless therefore should be discarded entirely.

>>18007984
>anger and sadness are useless therefore should be discarded entirely
This isn't stocism.

She's right you know

>>18007647
Within the first page my boi Marcus Aurelius does not approve of the homosexual love of young boys

>>18007625
Nietzsche probably would've agreed with that statement, except for the one bit at the end about anger being "unnatural."

>>18007561
>ctrl-f cicero
>Phrase not found
thread full of midwits as usual

Aurelius is a historical curiosity. Read him first if if you want bite-sized Stoicisms to read before bed.

Epictetus is our most systematic account of Stoicism. Read him first if philosophy is your primary concern. This is the real deal.

Seneca's letters contains Stoicism at its most persuasive. Quotations are discussed. Memorable exhortations are strewn throughout. Read this first if you actually want to improve as a human being.