/lit/ - Literature

It's very gentlemanly and charming and it shows depth of character... it's not creepy at all

captcha: access nanFun

grannyporn? what are you accusing me of captcha?!

Stoics were the original Vulcans. It wasn't about "living without emotions," it was about following reason and not being blinded by passion and hysteria.

>>5062692
Not all emotions, just the negative ones.

>>5062692
Read Seneca and find out it isn't living without emotions.

It's living with everything you can afford to lose while keeping your own being intact, and perserving your integrity. It's the ultimate self confidence.

>>5062710
>grannyporn? what are you accusing me of captcha?!
You're one of those kinds of people who you meet at parties who always feels like they have nothing to say, but once you start talking everyone listens because Goddamnit chuck, you are interesting as hell.

The core idea with stoicism is that although you reject emotions, you feel emotion while doing so. It results in feeling only happiness as a product of your rejection.

TL;DR: 2deep4me

Reason should control emotions

>>5064530
> although you reject emotions, you feel emotion while doing so
*tips paradox hat*

>>5062692
> Can anyone explain the appeal of stoicism to me?
You get a lot more done better and don't have to suffer from emotional problems/conflicts at least if you are properly stoic.

You accept shit the way it is and you are happy about the shit being as it is. Makes you happy. Does it?

>>5062692
>Can anyone explain the appeal of stoicism to me?

I think it'd be pretty helpful if you were a Roman legionarie.

>>5062726
>Stoics were the original Vulcans

never change /lit/

I don't understand it either, OP. Its far more fun to live as I do, as an over emotional emo who manages to enjoy the everloving fuck out of life on occasion.

>>5062692
>I mean living without emotions, where's the fun in that?
Simply put, its benefits become prevalent in a life where negative emotions outweigh positive ones. Stoicism is attractive to those who live dangerous lives of hardship. But you are right in the sense that in order to achieve this sort of 'hardness', you have to sacrifice a lot of delicacy, nuance and possibly happiness. Pic related.

The point is that there's no point in making a huge deal of the things that you can't influence.

>>5065384
Wow, thank you, anon. I am currently reading the Meditations of M. Aurelius and your comment has shed some light into a dark corner that has grew big on my mind for some time.

>>5065421
Do note that I'm a prejudiced gardenfag myself though.

>>5064526
though Seneca also says in his letters that family is but a possession he could do without lel

>>5064526
>It's living with everything you can afford to lose
So basically being apathetic?

>>5062692
>without emotions, where's the fun in that?
>without emotion / where is the fun

you're doin' it wrong.

>>5065337
burn brightest, burn fastest.

>living without emotions, where's the fun in that

I take it you've never experienced the extremes of human emotion. shit's fucked yo, I never want that again.

Source: bipolar

>>5064530

This is poor and confusing explanation of Stoic thought on happiness. Sometimes I wonder how many of /lit/'s Stoicfags have read anything beyond Marcus Aurelius.

Stoics identify four emotions: pleasure, pain, fear, and desire. They reject these, because they are not based on kataleptic impressions, but on irrational opinions. Instead they propose three "eupatheiai": joy, volition, and caution. These may be very similar to what we would consider "emotional" responses in terms of their actual effects, but the difference is that they are based on the sage's kataleptic impressions of his world rather than on mere opinions. Of course the sage doesn't exist and Stoics well knew it, so all the followers of Stoicism lived with their emotions as best they could and tried to ape the katalepsis and thus the eupatheia of the sage. But they, as they well knew again, all failed and were all wholly vicious and not virtuous at all.

>>5062692
Because for some people: it's the only way to deal with their situation. It isn't always a conscious decision.

Wiki ataraxia, OP

>>5067982
That would be Epicureanism, bruv. Stoics are about that apatheia.

Non-metaphysical Stoics:
>Life is full of hardship and I need both comfort and control.

Metaphysical Stoics:
>You can only start to see the Real once you stop getting buffeted around by the ephemeral perturbations of human life.

Modern Stoics:
>If I say I'm a Stoic on the internet, will I become a cool badass man of few words and get laid?

>>5065421
You should get into some Epictetus, he's hands down the best Stoic.

>>5065437
Yes, because his person remains intact. He loved his family (the man in the example) but he knows that even without them, he is still his own being, which allows him to be, therefore he is still ''happy'' if you will. He has loved his wife and kids, but he knows that he can lose them, and his own vessel, in the end, is what matters most to him, so if that remains, he should remain emotionally stable (you are allowed to mourn for a bit)
>>5066734
How does any of that explanation sound apathetic? He also encourages teaching everyone everything you know and general altruism. But even without that, it's nothing like being apathetic. You can do whatever you want, as long as your personality is strong enough to be able to lose it. Once losing something corrupts your soul, you're done for. The stoic life stops there.

>>5068722
>It's living with everything you can afford to lose

If you can afford losing it, it means you don't really care about it.

>>5069379
It means you care about it, but not as much as you care about your integrity. It's not black and white.

Are you saying you've never cared for lovers or your parents/siblings? You can live without them and remain intact as you are, right?