/lit/ - Literature

>>22213683
The goal of the stoic is to advance life towards happiness and pleasures for everyone, it's just a framework to get there. I'm not sure it necessarily denies happiness, just makes weak minds recognize the work that needs to be done

>>22213683
this jpg is very badly sourced. But I will say that Epicureanism is the end product of Stoicism, and has always been intended to be taken as such.

>>22213683
Just a heads up: Epicureanism was an esoteric sect, in the likes of the mystery cults, and all we know about it are just the exoteric teachings that may or - most likely- may not be true to what was really practiced in the inner circles of the garden. So getting all hyped up to what was literally a outer shell for dummies of a mystery cult that you know nothing about is kinda silly.

>>22213779
foolish bladder, one extirpates the negative impulses that the positive impulses may pour forth unimpeded.

>>22213683
Stoicism isn't about supressing emotions but accepting them but not letting them rule you and make the wrong decisions, and knowing what is ours(our desires and aversions and our will) and isn't ours(anything outside of the will), and also living according to nature. It's also not about rejecting passions, but unhealthy passions such anger, greed etc.

The person who made this seems to be mistaking Stoicism for modern stiff upper lip stoicism and comes off as a bit uneducated on the matter.

>>22213704
>>22213706
>>22213779
>>22214177
Look at all the triggered stoicucks. Good one, OP.

Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, R.W. Sharples
Six Ways of Life in Ancient Philosophy, John M. Cooper
Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucualt, Pierre Hadot
The Therapy of Desire, Martha Nussbaum

>>22213779
>So getting all hyped up to what was literally a outer shell for dummies of a mystery cult that you know nothing about is kinda silly
Tell it to billions following abrahamic religions

>>22214253
>(attacks stoics)
are you trying to make people disregard those books? your brain is a fucking mess.

>(posts books about ....
OHHHHHH
A FUCKING EVIL ENEMY
> Spiritual Exercises from Socrates

figures. someone kill this person for me. cut off his feet and throw him in a pit.

>>22213706
that is incorrect; there were three major schools in Ancient Greece: 1. originating from Anaximander, 2. originating from both Anaximander & Pythagoras, & 3. originating from Pythagoras
(1) descended via Socrates and led to Stoicism which had its "end product" in Neoplatonism (and probably Christian Theology & Mysticism)
(2) descended via Heraclitus & Parmenides & Democritus and had its "end product" in either Epicurianism ("eat as much as you can, and then share judgement") or the forerunners of modern science like Descartes Husserl Kant ("gather together and devise methods to decide what is worth eating")
3. descended directly from Pythagoras: the sophists Socrates pokes fun of... they died out, unless you count history, geography, & sociology teachers as their descendants...

>>22214729
>(1) descended via Socrates and led to Stoicism which had its "end product" in Neoplatonism (and probably Christian Theology & Mysticism)
Unfortunately this is not fact the case. Stoicism was a discipline of deductive inquiry; logic, logos, etc. as evidenced with Chrysippus and his way of things being that way which the romans took up. When you examine 'that' then you notice it's the furthest thing away from the "academic skepticism", see: >>22212172 You could call it a merging of Pythagoras, .... but.. why would anybody say that as: Chryssipus's method more resembles modern science than that of Pythagoras.

On the other hand I observe that Rhetoric is moreso the business of "this thing called logic" and not philosophy, and that Gorgias of Leontini rather than Socrates of Athens "pioneered" this thing.


BUT you prompt a good topic in my head, anon, of the history of dogmatic cretins and their evolution from arguing 'about' (whilst not being) what philosophers said and did and making up sectarianism and trashing other sects, to the end product when thety did this as christian sects and trashing other christian sects.

As: it is fucking absurd for grown adults or small children to argue like vicious brats over the names of dead men who encouraged virtue and good things, to the point of ignoring all of those teachings entirely in favor to being a cunt (see above link) for social status points.

but then this is why the west has always been barren

Where to start with stoicism? Aurelius Meditations or somewhere else?

>>22216129
Martial, Cassius Dio, Cato too I guess ... you want to get a sense of the thought-process and reflections of the people of those times.

>>22216073
>When you examine 'that' then you notice it's the furthest thing away from the "academic skepticism"
well, yes, that's what I also said, I just did not name "skepticism" in path nr. 2... although I named academia, practically the fruit of skepticism... maybe pay more attention?
>Gorgias of Leontini rather than Socrates of Athens "pioneered" this thing.
yeah, the third path, most removed from Anaximander & Socrates
>feminist word-salad denouncing the west
oh...

>>22213683
You can literally get the quick rundown version of it by reading that Epicurus letter.

>>22216644
>>denouncing the west
Hahahaha it's good in a way that you realize how rampant the sectarianism is, but bad that you've conflated it and its advocates with being "the west," - surely, e.g. Jesus is more important than two faggots clawing at each other about what Jesus said, no? That's the sectarianism.

>>feminist
>>word-salad
that's one hell of a pavlovian filter you've got there, dog-boy


Anyway, on-topic:
> academia ... the fruit of skepticism
How so? The inventors of medicine, engineering, medicine, all inventions etc., and the law-makers and conquerors, etc. etc., were not "philosophers". What does a philosopher have to teach anybody, on a real level, except that whole "academic skepticism" "professional debunker" shtick.

My point, which your autism filtered, is that Stoicism had nothing to do with "academic skepticism"; demonstrably, and so comes from a different place and seeks different things; arguably far superior places and far superior things than (the habit of fans of philosophers).

Stoicism has more followers because it is rigorous and has writings for all kinds of adversities you might come across in life but unlike abrahamic and even other religions it also doesn't bog you down with meaningless rules.
Epicureanism is a mix of stoicism and watered down hedonism. In practice, most stoics are epicurean without knowing it.

>>22216073
>On the other hand I observe that Rhetoric is moreso the business of "this thing called logic" and not philosophy, and that Gorgias of Leontini rather than Socrates of Athens "pioneered" this thing.
Can you concretely substantiate this? I.e. , what logical figures are present in Gorgias' writings? Why Gorgias and not Parmenides and Zeno?

>>22216941
>My point, which your autism filtered, is that Stoicism had nothing to do with "academic skepticism"; demonstrably, and so comes from a different place and seeks different things; arguably far superior places and far superior things than (the habit of fans of philosophers).
Nta, but Stoicism 100% comes from idealizing Socrates, even if the lineage is via Antisthenes and not Plato.

>>22217891
Well, the Romans differentiated Rhetoric from Philosophy; arguing for Rhetoric as a matter of a Virtuous person speaking of a thing with precision (Quintilian), we add to this Chrysippus and what survives of his writing and dialectic, and the praise of it, and his introduction of Stoicism to the Roman Republic, then we add this dialectic to rhetoric, then we examine the figures of the pre-socratic and arrive at Gorgias as a ... it would be cheap to call him a 'forerunner' ... as an exemplar of the style of inquiry we're talking about with the Stoicism and Rhetoric of Chrysippus and Quintilian.

If you want to discuss this, I have already gotten drunk and made a thread for the purpose, >>22217801

>>22217909
>Stoicism 100% comes from idealizing Socrates
except it demonstrably does not. Socrates is the "professional debunker" who speaks in circular nonsense - which is recognizable to us as being meaningless words; bad sophistry, this is the platonic academy which was hostile to stoicism and tried very hard to undermine stoicism.

More than this proof is that of the dialectic of Chrysippus, who brought stoicism to the roman world and his methodology is entirely antithetical to academic skepticism in that he has a manner of actual deduction, logical inquiry, clear conclusion, differentiation, etc., which is "not important" to the skeptic who insists "(they the skeptic) are the wisest because they know nothing and declare any knowledge to be impossible," except that they are certain they know nothing - which is an end to knowledge rather than a beginning.

>>22217909
>even if the lineage is via Antisthenes
Perhaps, but it's nothing of value from all parties until Chrysippus.

I would like to explore the pre-socratics and the 'sophist' label more, but.. virtually nothing survives.. i think the lineage notion is rubbish; no one man 'invented' reason, for instance, except that Chrysippus comes close to formalizing the extirpation of the causes of a persons 'un'reason.

>>22216129
Epictetus enchiridion for a brief overview, then read the discourses, read the robin hard or robin waterfield versions, don't read meditations first that is a mistake people commonly make, it's a man's personal diary and nothing more, read it after you have an idea of what stoicism is through reading epictetus and get the gregory hayes version if you want.

The other stoics, seneca, musonius rufus etc are honestly not 100 percent necessary IMO, there isn't much point to bogging yourself down reading dozens of authors.

>>22217987
>then we examine the figures of the pre-socratic and arrive at Gorgias as a ... it would be cheap to call him a 'forerunner' ... as an exemplar of the style of inquiry we're talking about
I don't think this answers my question. What, concretely speaking, is Gorgias' "style of inquiry" as you put it? What is "logical" about his rhetoric, concretely, i.e., what "logical figures" akin to syllogism are located in his surviving writings? Presumably you agree that "logic" and "logical" must mean something, or it comes across as saying "well, I like him / agree with him, and so he's logical", right? So I'm asking, if by logic you mean something like a particular form of argument, where is it present in Gorgias' actual writings?

>except it demonstrably does not. Socrates is the "professional debunker" who speaks in circular nonsense - which is recognizable to us as being meaningless words; bad sophistry, this is the platonic academy which was hostile to stoicism and tried very hard to undermine stoicism.
>>22217995
>Perhaps, but it's nothing of value from all parties until Chrysippus.
This doesn't address the issue. Chrysippus studied under Cleanthes, Cleanthes studied under both Crates the Cynic and Zeno, Zeno himself studied under the same Crates and came under him looking for people like the Socrates depicted in Xenophon the Socratic's Memorabilia, Crates studied under Diogenes of Sinope, and Diogenes was a follower of Antisthenes the Socratic. The lineage is perfectly clear. Chrysippus might well be a giant of Stoicism, but Stoicism itself was founded by a man who idolized the Socrates of Xenophon and who studied under a man who himself studied under a student of Socrates.

>>22218055
>I don't think this answers my question
Yeah, my bad: I'm talking about Chrysippus, but I mention Gorgias because it provides a character who was a popular contemporary to the hated Socrates, which offers a more convincing "origin" - in the sense of "guy A invented reason, no guy B invented reason," - this is only worth saying if someone seriously thinks Socrates invented anything or was considered t have invented anything as he's wrongly credited with centuries afterwards.

>Presumably you agree that "logic" and "logical" must mean something, or it comes across as saying "well, I like him / agree with him, and so he's logical", right? So I'm asking, if by logic you mean something like a particular form of argument, where is it present in Gorgias' actual writings?
again, Chrysippus.

>This doesn't address the issue.
>Cleanthes, Zeno
Sure it does. Do we 'not' credit the inventor of the rocketship because guys before him had invented mule-driven carts? The rocketship is a massive advancement by comparison; that is: the formalization of these things:

>lineage
sure, as I said I am sure people were doing this already for centuries; they would have to be the sophists of which you'd go to Gorgias to examine from this perspective.

I don't think anyone grasps the importance that Chrysippus had, i.e. we may say he invented the scientific method, or how radically different this makes Stoicism to the Platonic Academy, or anything else which follows from it. The perception of philosophy and its legacy, the definition of rhetoric and human speech, etc., is shown by these things to be quite different to our comprehension. Today anyway.

Perhaps we might blame Plethon of Byzantium in the 1400's for this Plato centric-view. As it does not seem to be the reality of things back then. Moreover.... consider the actual legacy of Plato and compare it to Chrysippus (or the others who argued against the platonic notions, plotinus e.g.), Plato (albeit inadvertently) dresses up the hebrew god concept and makes it palatable from a western audience, for instance. Chrysippus would say what Plotonus said about this.

>>22218165
>I mention Gorgias because it provides a character who was a popular contemporary to the hated Socrates, which offers a more convincing "origin" - in the sense of "guy A invented reason, no guy B invented reason,"
Okay, but on what grounds are you attributing this to Gorgias? Parmenides and Zeno the Eleatic both precede Gorgias, why wouldn't it be them? Surely the case would have to be made by evaluating Gorgias' surviving writings and specifying where "reason" appears in them, and not just on account of disliking Socrates, right? If you'd like to drop the matter, that's fine, but I'm at least not convinced that Gorgias is even more of a source for reasoning in philosophy than Socrates.

>Sure it does. Do we 'not' credit the inventor of the rocketship because guys before him had invented mule-driven carts? The rocketship is a massive advancement by comparison; that is: the formalization of these things:
But Chrysippus is still a Stoic, operating within the Stoic school of thought developed and founded by his predecessor Zeno, right? He's still operating within that horizon, as are his successors? Even if they dispute or develop further something Zeno thought? It doesn't seem comparable to, say, Aristotle studying under Plato at the Academy, and then setting up his own school to rival it, while forwardly criticizing his teacher in his writings.

>sure, as I said I am sure people were doing this already for centuries; they would have to be the sophists of which you'd go to Gorgias to examine from this perspective.
Do you think it's incidental that the Socrates of Antisthenes and Xenophon inspired the founding of Stoicism? Why do you suppose that wouldn't make it more needful to take him somewhat more seriously? Surely you could take the easy out of separating the Socrates of Plato from the Socrates of Antisthenes and Xenophon? Or do you not think so?

>>22218218
>Okay, but on what grounds are you attributing this to Gorgias?
I'm not dude, Chrysippus is my V2 guy.

>Parmenides
good point

Okay, Socrates vs. Gorgias; let us wipe our brain of later influences on us and examine the two Men in contest of logic and in the matter of rhetoric as a good vs. philosophy as (platonic academy, academic skeptism),

Gorgias, first,is a rhetorician: he is a speaker and he is made ambassador, he has great successes and solves many problems, he is a diplomat or a senator equivalent (like a young cicero in sicily or a young sulla in numidia), it's noted that he talks 'with' the audience; not talking at them, - a statue of made of him in his own lifetime, he is loved and his is well-famed and admired by later people. These are achievements. Gorgias is a rhetorician; his grasp of logic and problem-solving is via his rhetoric (this is what we explore in chrysippus as to the methodology).

Socrates, first, is a philosopher; he is also a speaker but he is not given any kind of responsibility, his methods are "bad sophistic" in that we can only discern of him what Plato credits him with; this is academic skepticism in the sense of an intelligent adult can run rings around a child and easily shut the child down with simple circular reasoning. Socrates is credited with being the mentor of a famous hated traitor, his people despise him, his reputation is garbage due to this, he is mocked in the theatre and his pomposity and simple-trickery is made famous via Aristophanes: people know of the infamy of socrates as a figure of fun. Socrates is a philosopher; his grasp of logic cannot be said to regard the solving of problems as important - although we do recognize that Socrates is using nothing but simplistic rhetoric.

Socrates vs. Gorgias.

>Do you think it's incidental that the Socrates of Antisthenes and Xenophon inspired the founding of Stoicism?
I do not see this to be the case. If we attribute "academic skepticism" to Socrates, as is correct that we do, and if we attribute a mode of deductive inquiry to Gorgias then we see nothing in Stoicism to attribute it to Socrates and we find something quite superior to "academic skepticism" in Stoicism as a consequence. But at that point we would be going to Chrysippus. I say that the difference or distinction can be demonstrated between Gorgias and Socrates: on the basic social level "which of the two were respected enough to influence anybody" and on the actual methodological approach of the two, how greatly they differ:

One is earnest inquiry and deduction, the other is an obstinate refusal to deduce anything at all.

>Why do you suppose that wouldn't make it more needful to take him somewhat more seriously? Surely you could take the easy out of separating the Socrates of Plato from the Socrates of Antisthenes and Xenophon? Or do you not think so?
I don't know. Maybe. I think the advancements of Chrysippus dwarf these things and they're trivial by comparison.

>>22218218
ed. also,
Maybe a good heuristic is this:
Socrates, his greatest champion is Plato
Gorgias, his greatest champion in Chrysippus - although... we're forced to look only at the trajectory and methodology since Chrysippus's thoughts on Gorgias don't survive.

but, to the end product:
Socrates to Plato : Platonic Philosophy, Academic Skepticism, "knowledge is impossible"

Gorgias to Chrysippus : Stoicism as the powerhouse of intellect in the Roman Republic, Scientific Method "knowledge is knowable only through unbiased inquiry", Rhetoric and Virtue as interdependent (see Quintilian)

>>22218324
>he has great successes and solves many problems
What problems did he solve?

>he is a diplomat or a senator equivalent (like a young cicero in sicily or a young sulla in numidia)
How does being an ambassador make him a "senator equivalent"?

>it's noted that he talks 'with' the audience; not talking at them
Who notes this?

>a statue of made of him in his own lifetime, he is loved and his is well-famed and admired by later people
How is this per se relevant to what may or may not be his influence on logic and philosophy?

>his grasp of logic and problem-solving is via his rhetoric
This is our point under dispute: shouldn't we be able to define logic clearly, first, even if provisionally, to see whether it in fact is the case that this is true, and then look to his surviving writings to prove that?

>he is not given any kind of responsibility
In what sense, and according to who? I apologize, but this is a bit too vague for me to engage with.

>his methods are "bad sophistic" in that we can only discern of him what Plato credits him with
What is "bad sophistic" precisely? Why do you take it that Plato’s the only source for him, when we have Xenophon's Socratic writings and a substantial number of Aeschines' fragments?

>this is academic skepticism
Do you take it that Speussipus and his immediate successors were Academic skeptics? Or how, if at all, do you distinguish Speussipus from Archesilaus and Carneades?

>Socrates is credited with being the mentor of a famous hated traitor, his people despise him, his reputation is garbage due to this, he is mocked in the theatre and his pomposity and simple-trickery is made famous via Aristophanes: people know of the infamy of socrates as a figure of fun
As with Gorgias' reputation, how is this per se relevant to what his role as a source for reasoning may or may not be?

>his grasp of logic cannot be said to regard the solving of problems as important - although we do recognize that Socrates is using nothing but simplistic rhetoric
According to what and whom?

>I do not see this to be the case. If we attribute "academic skepticism" to Socrates, as is correct that we do, and if we attribute a mode of deductive inquiry to Gorgias
But these are the things to be demonstrated, and not assumed from the outset. Again, Parmenides and Zeno precede Gorgias, and substantial quotations of their work exist to show that something akin to deduction is present in their work (for Parmenides, consider fragment 8, for Zeno, consider the paraphrase of one of the arguments of his book in Plato's Parmenides 137c).

(Cont.)

>>22218324
>>22218467
>on the basic social level "which of the two were respected enough to influence anybody" and on the actual methodological approach of the two, how greatly they differ:
>One is earnest inquiry and deduction, the other is an obstinate refusal to deduce anything at all.
But Gorgias' influence on philosophy is limited to Isocrates and his school, while Socrates' influence on philosophy doesn't just extend only to Plato and Aristotle's schools, but several different sects of philosophy, even as they rival with each other: Cynicism and Stoicism through Antisthenes, Megarianism and Pyrrhonism via Euclides, and Epicureanism via Aristippus. Do you not think it's more decisive for Socrates that it's he that the founder of Stoicism looked to and not Gorgias?

>>22218358
>Gorgias, his greatest champion in Chrysippus - although... we're forced to look only at the trajectory and methodology since Chrysippus's thoughts on Gorgias don't survive.
But why should we see that trajectory, when the clearest one is that Chrysippus was head of a school founded by a man who appreciated Socrates? And again, where is that methodology in Gorgias' surviving writings?

>but, to the end product:
Socrates to Plato : Platonic Philosophy, Academic Skepticism, "knowledge is impossible"
>Gorgias to Chrysippus : Stoicism as the powerhouse of intellect in the Roman Republic, Scientific Method "knowledge is knowable only through unbiased inquiry", Rhetoric and Virtue as interdependent (see Quintilian)
It's probable that you don't think much of Sextus Empiricus on account of his Pyrrhonism, but do you think he made up Gorgias' On Non-being whole-cloth? But aside, where in Gorgias does he speak about unbiased inquiry, or give any sign that that's what he does?

>>22218480
>>22218467
I don't really have a great deal of time
here, the main things:

>Do you not think it's more decisive for Socrates that it's he that the founder of Stoicism looked to and not Gorgias
Again, this cannot be the case when we know stoicism was via chrysippus, and if socrates resembles nothing of that. This also doesn't matter to me personally, as I know better and have studied and learned greatly superior things from this - if people go to stoicism and think it's something else, or say enamored with plato all their lives, that's absolutely hilarious - sad for their societies, great for mine, but hilarious either way.


>As with Gorgias' reputation
uh.. again socrates was widely despised by his own people and if anybody abroad had heard of him it would have been through aristophanes where he's like a david icke character. In the same year Gorgias was famous and well-respected.
This destroys the common platonic notion that Socrates was 'hated' for 'being intelligent', which is the persecution mythos where we're led to believe that the ancient greeks hated intellect, and that is where we all got the notion that "the philosophers" dragged mankind into reason.

Plainly speaking, all people possessed reason already (i would add through advanced rhetorics of which - i've already laid out; unbisaed inquiry, means of proofs) which the later platonic academy was the antithesis toward; that is: evading the pursuit of knowledge by claiming that that knowledge was unattainable or attainable through mystical hokum. Which is laughable. This is what Aristophanes and his audience were laughing at.

>This is our point under dispute: shouldn't we be able to define logic clearly,
No, Socrates.

>It's probable that you don't think much of Sextus Empiricus on account of his Pyrrhonism,
I like those things, I don't see much difference in things which actually 'pursue' knowledge and put forth ideas. The academic skepticism is merely closed-minded debunking and demoralization whilst offering nothing of value or use to uplift anybody. I don't see any point in putting any borders between stoicism, epicureanism or pyrrhonism, for that matter, so long as we agree that it's the objective in the mind that's the common concord between people; the trajectory of inquiry, then we only need put a border against those things which impede that concord.

>Gorgias' influence on philosophy
Ah but you take Gorgias as a platonic model philosopher musing about the clouds, I take Gorgias as like a Roman Consul engaged in rhetoric hard at work in the business of material reality. This is what I was saying about there being another thread entirely - if it begins with socrates you have it your way and we get philosophy as is, if it begins instead with gorgias or people like gorgias then we have rhetoric and material sciences. And we know this 'other thread' is true, of course, because we did have rhetoric and material sciences via the romans, via chrysippus.

>>22218467
also...
>. Again, Parmenides and Zeno precede Gorgias, and substantial quotations of their work exist to show that something akin to deduction is present in their work
Parmenides I think yes - but I'll agree with you, and ask in that case, what was plato doing to go against those things? he cuts off the line of inquiry in (his school) and it ends there, for them and we get professional debunkers calling themselves followers of plato who become the academic skeptics. Plato, then, was not following along from Parmenides or Zeno or whoever else. Or Socrates himself, for all we know lol since we only really have Platos storybook to go from. - as you mentioned earlier,it is a good point.

How do you faggots right these long ass comments?

>>22218992
Because this board is infested by pseuds, that's why

>>22218992
>>22219000
zoom zoom

>>22218992
they are communists
>>22219000
all communists are pseuds (ACAP)

>>22220251
you mean ACAPs, ACAP is All Communists Are Pedophiles

>>22220263
makes sense as pseuds are always hypocrites and the majority of pedophiles (groomers) focus on indoctrinating lies... which is why we have so many gays today, mainly via "education"
pic not related... or is it

>>22218992
>How do you faggots right these long ass comments?
How did you not learn to speak and read and write fluently in English and arrive on a /literature/ forum?

riiiight, you're /pol/tards doing /pol/sophistry
>>22219000
>>22220251
>>22220263
>>22220413

>(fluent language is communism)
>(education is gay indoctrination)
hahahaha

>(although jews are very low IQ compared to my own society in the 1700s and all other cultures across the world throughout time, I'm going to insist anybody who speaks better than I do is a Jew)
>(i'm proud of my inability to articulate myself *has a drink* and to be led by others with bad arguments)
baka barbarians

PROTIP: this is why you aren't in control of yourself or your government and you won't ever be until you learn to shake off these self-limiting influences

>>22218950
>>22218978
ed.
3/3

>>22218480
It's the ability to reach definite conclusions from the evidence that's the defining factor. It's the removal of doubt and ambiguity on any matter, if the evidence say XYZ then reality is XYZ. This is markedly different from the indecision of the platonic or skepticism approaches, as I said, the academic skepticism (professional debunker) is just egotism from the part of the speaker which is like sophistry to just defend whatsoever happens to exist or whatsoever happens to be consensus at the time.

ULTIMATELY this is necessary to convey to undo the damage of "philosophy" (or that way of anti-reason) on the mind which is obviously self-limiting,

e.g.
"so it took you 6 years to get this degree, it'll take another 6 years to undo the damage that the University has done to you,"
Arthur Young
Inventor of the Helicopter

to replace the non-starter of skepticism with a clean and effective means at weighing evidence, discerning the truth of a thing and being able to arrive at the right conclusion and articulate this, to hurry along the society to deal with one matter and then the next.


thas all i wanted to add nigga

>>22216129
Robert Spaemann's criticism of Hedonism