/lit/ - Literature

Diogenes was a Cynic, not a Stoic

>>5103705

He was neither, yet partially both.

>>5103712
He was a cynic though.

>>5103779
and also not a stoic

>>5103698
Because Epicureanism is superior.

>>5103879
Don't complain about rich kids of Instagram, then.

Stoicism is for boring and any serious artist shouldn't subscribe to it

>>5103698
Because I am a sensationalist, in philosophy and practice.

>>5103698
I do practice Stoicism, but only cafeteria style. I prepare myself for sufferings and death in this world by accepting reality, and playing through my inevitable doom over and over until I no longer fear it. Those who free themselves from the bonds of fear and fantasy, in my opinion, tend to be the most stable, moral, and interesting people in this life.

The part I don't follow is all the Marcus Aurelius "let's chop our balls off and live a life of moderation and meekness" bullshit. It is, in my mind, preferable to move up in this life to protect your loved ones from the cruelty and carelessness of the powerful and inhumane of society. One should not give a damn about appeasing others or living up to some comatose ancient laws of being "nice to everyone". One must survive first, if one is going to safeguard and cultivate kindness and humanity in this world. To survive is the first step of the philosophical good life. Since corruption and decay are so eager and ready to grow both on the morality of individuals and society, and injustice is always lurking to pounce; good men must survive by any means (up to a certain point of moral actions) so that good laws may not disappear from the earth.

"Now I am become fedora, destroyer of Jesuits."

>apatheia
I don't know what this means.

Because ataraxia is more preferable

>>5103879
>>5104006
This.

>>5103890
Why would you? They're living 'wrongly' and reaping the consequences. At best you can warn them.

>>5103698
>and haven't achieved apatheia yet.
Been there, done that.
Happiness is where it's at.

>>5104006
Ataraxia, ahhhhh.

>>5104171
>Happiness is where it's at.

apatheia is the path to happiness.
apatheia =/= apathy

>>5103940

fucking americans

>>5103698
Because I'm not a fucking materialistic pussy. Cynicism or bunk you egotistical fucknuts.

>>5104371
>Because I'm not a fucking materialistic pussy.

>implying stoics were materialists or materialistic

>>5104335
Well, honest mistake.
From google search
>Apatheia is the root for our word "apathy" (i.e., indifference), but the ancient meaning of apatheia is closer to equanimity than indifference. Simplifying greatly, achieving apatheia is straightforward: Care about only those things you are in control of. Leave the rest behind.
This has more to do with Epicureanism than Stoicism though. But that's okay, I think Epicureans need to take more political action anyway.

>>5103940
>free of fantasy
>interesting

>>5104377
stoicism is cynicism with austerity replaced by vain theorizing about how it's okay to live a decadent life.

>>5104401

stoics are known for austerity, simplicity in food, avoiding luxuries, no sex before marriage, etc...

Epictetus said if you are blessed with chariots, wealth or a wife, then take them as they are and use them wisely. But don't get attached to them, for they aren't in your control

>>5104413
Epictetus is a bro,but Stoicism is literally Cynicism with compromises. The founder of Stoicism founded Stoicism because he couldn't hack it as a Cynic.

Even the Stoics agree that Cynicism is the "shortcut to virtue" and to Epictetus Diogenes is basically the incarnation of virtue itself. Stoicism makes a lot of allowances regarding the virtuous life, to the point that you could call yourself a Stoic and be outwardly indistinguishable from your average person. This carries the risk of just justifying everything with sophistry towards yourself and ending up pursuing a life of virtue in theory only, such as for example "blessing yourself" with riches justified with mere lip service towards non-attachment.

>>5104429
In addition, the stuck up and prude civil duty side of Stoicism is more of a later Roman influence, early Stoicism was much more about hippie freedom and egalitarian naked life with free love and incest and cannibalism and without institutions and money. It was something much closer to Cynicism than the later 'bourgeois' Roman variety.

it seems that cynicism is alike taoism in that things outside of your control are to be taken in stride

>>5104429
>such as for example "blessing yourself" with riches justified with mere lip service towards non-attachment.
>>5104436

Think of it this way, it's easy to pay lip service to non-attachment when you're a beggar who has nothing. Like a guy who is insecure and ugly as fuck saying he is a virgin out of purity and non-attachment...wink wink

It's much harder to pull a Marcus Aurelius and be non-attached in the face of overwhelming temptation. Aurelius could literally fuck any person he wanted, any time, anywhere, and disgrace himself like most of the emperors did. But he didn't.

Stoicism is concerned with your inner life, not your outter life. If you are born to be a king then do it with virtue. If you are born to be poor as shit, then do that with virtue.

There's nothing inherently virtuous about austerity and poverty or hippie life.

bump

>>5103698
Because I have a personality

>>5104630

plz contain it, it's overwhelming

>>5104535
>Think of it this way, it's easy to pay lip service to non-attachment when you're a beggar who has nothing. Like a guy who is insecure and ugly as fuck saying he is a virgin out of purity and non-attachment...wink wink
Diogenes could have easily lived under comfortable patronage, but he didn't. He also repeatedly risked his life with his parrhesia.

>It's much harder to pull a Marcus Aurelius and be non-attached in the face of overwhelming temptation. Aurelius could literally fuck any person he wanted, any time, anywhere, and disgrace himself like most of the emperors did. But he didn't.
He also could have given up his power and live a simple life, but he didn't.

>Stoicism is concerned with your inner life, not your outter life. If you are born to be a king then do it with virtue. If you are born to be poor as shit, then do that with virtue.
That's my point. It's this sort of rhetoric that provides the easy way out. "I may drive a Maserati, but I'm not attached to it, trust me on this" while with Cynicism there is no cheating. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's obvious you're not attached to your Maserati because you don't have one. Stoicism is the gateway to lazy excuses in the pursuit of virtue.

>There's nothing inherently virtuous about austerity and poverty or hippie life.
There is. To not engage with decadence per definition removes the chance of getting attached to it, while the late Stoic approach provides a lot more risk. The Stoics realised this, they were just mostly too worldly and not dedicated enough to pursue this path. They wanted virtue without sacrificing the trappings of society and therefore had to make up all kind of justifications on how to do that.

>>5104171
Retarded tripshit strikes again

woe is me, my favourite threads are destined for the gallows tree!

>>5104630
>you
>having a personality

My lels are in orbit. You are the most shallow tripfag I've ever seen on /lit/.

Would a Romanised Italian think Greek quietism is pretty-a patheitic

>>5104171
>happiness

enjoy your lockean-jeffersonian theocratic indoctrination you fucking pleb

>next post is an image purporting to explain the myers-briggs personality type INFP

my god, when is this retarded tripfag going to die already?

>>5106726
ba dum tsss

Because I haven't yet established that I exist, let alone that the world exists.

Take this, philosotards.

>>5106184
>I may drive a Maserati, but I'm not attached to it, trust me on this" while with Cynicism there is no cheating

Your right in a sense, self-delusion can happen to the rich, but it can also happen to the poor.

For all we know the poor cynic dreams about maserati's and pussy all day.
Yet he might be too afraid to work, too anxious and insecure to talk to women. So he masks his frailties under the cover of poverty and celibacy.

The virtuous king has to face his fears and temptations every day, he fights the actual dragon. The poor cynic is never tested in this way, give him the power to rule, give him a tough battle, give him a nymph with big tits and he could easily crumble.

> To not engage with decadence per definition removes the chance of getting attached to it

If you have to remove it totally it probably means you can't handle its pressure. Think of Gandalf and the one ring, he gave it up because he knew its temptations are too strong, he wasn't stoic enough to fuck with it. So he gave it to Bilbo.

Bilbo was able to bear it and remain at ease. The stoic wants to be Bilbo, because you don't know what the world will throw at you. The cynic is more like Gandalf.

>>5106839
>For all we know the poor cynic dreams about maserati's and pussy all day. Yet he might be too afraid to work, too anxious and insecure to talk to women. So he masks his frailties under the cover of poverty and celibacy.
Except Cynics were known for shameless talking to everyone, not giving a fuck and fucking whatever comes across their path if they feel like it in addition to deliberately seeking out hardships and confrontations. So that's nonsense. They walked the walk.

>The virtuous king has to face his fears and temptations every day, he fights the actual dragon. The poor cynic is never tested in this way, give him the power to rule, give him a tough battle, give him a nymph with big tits and he could easily crumble.
Being a king and being virtuous are mutually exclusive to a Cynic. He would refuse power to rule. Battle is for silly faggots and nymphs are fine to fuck as long as they're free. A king is tested in the same way any dumb person is tested: By creating artificial problems for himself. By being tested by this type of stuff, by engaging with it, you fail the test in the first place by Cynic standards.

>If you have to remove it totally it probably means you can't handle its pressure.
It's not like wealth and power are things that just cling to you. There is no removing necessary, they vanish the moment you let it go. If you have them, you are clinging to them per definition. The absence of these things is the default position, not their presence. If you possess them, you do so deliberately.

>Think of Gandalf and the one ring, he gave it up because he knew its temptations are too strong, he wasn't stoic enough to fuck with it. So he gave it to Bilbo. Bilbo was able to bear it and remain at ease. The stoic wants to be Bilbo, because you don't know what the world will throw at you. The cynic is more like Gandalf.
I'm not very familiar with LOTR, but the Cynic would probably not be part of the story because he wouldn't care about their bullshit adventures.

>>5107079
>They walked the walk.

I'm not saying they didn't or couldn't. But they are susceptible to self-delusion just like the guy driving the maserati is.

>A king is tested in the same way any dumb person is tested: By creating artificial problems for himself.

Then the poor cynic has created artificial problems like "wealth, power, cars, wives, duties, battle" for himself.

They aren't problems in themselves, just like being poor or sick is not a problem in itself--- problems arise in our dispositions and attitudes to these external things, how we use them and perceive them.

The stoics admired the cynics insofar as they were virtuous. Their poverty and simplicity were valued, but poverty didn't make one virtuous or wise. There are tons of retarded beggars out there.

>>5107159
>I'm not saying they didn't or couldn't. But they are susceptible to self-delusion just like the guy driving the maserati is.
They are not. Acquiring something and managing it using it and saying you are not attached to it is very likely more delusional than not acquiring something, not dealing with it at all and saying that you are not attached to it. Who do you believe to care less about stamps, the guy with the stamp collection or the one without one?

>Then the poor cynic has created artificial problems like "wealth, power, cars, wives, duties, battle" for himself. They aren't problems in themselves, just like being poor or sick is not a problem in itself--- problems arise in our dispositions and attitudes to these external things, how we use them and perceive them.
Yes, you can relativise everything.

>The stoics admired the cynics insofar as they were virtuous. Their poverty and simplicity were valued, but poverty didn't make one virtuous or wise. There are tons of retarded beggars out there.
Yes, but virtue is much easily acquired as a poor beggar and having more than a poor beggar just gets in the way. So if you truly pursue virtue and you refuse to part with all your worldly possessions and concerns nonetheless, you are full of shit.

Stoics are like people who claim that they want nothing more than to be a professional athlete but refuse to give up smoking in order to increase their chances to be so while all the while maintaining that they're not attached to smoking and can giving it up any time. This is what makes the Stoics so duplicitous. They pay lip service to ideals they don't really pursue.

>>5107192
>Yes, but virtue is much easily acquired as a poor beggar

Yes it's much easier. My point was it's harder to be virtuous in the face of temptation. Marcus Aurelius was had a much harder challenge before him than the ordinary person or the poor homeless person

>>5107219
So deliberately sabotaging your chances to achieve your one ultimate goal is superior now?

Aurelius didn't live "in the face of temptation", he had already given into it by being in his position. Diogenes was tempted plenty as well, yet he remained in his barrel.

>>5107242
>So deliberately sabotaging your chances to achieve your one ultimate goal is superior now?

You can't wave a wand and make yourself a king. A lot of life is out of our control according to the stoics.
Aurelius had responsibilities and duties placed on him since he was a child, he was bred to be a king. There was no way for him to renounce his fate and remain virtuous, it would mean breaking promises, breaking duties, which would not only hurt his character but put his family, his council in danger, etc...

Also if he had so much power why not use it for good and virtue? Which he often did.

>Aurelius didn't live "in the face of temptation", he had already given into it by being in his position

The position itself is there by default, how you use it determines your virtue and peace of mind. The temptations are the terrible choices he could've made, think of Commodus or Caligula.

>diogenes was tempted

Not to the extent that Aurelius was.
Diogenes stood outside a brothel, shouting, "A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey! A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey! A beautiful whore . . . ". Men entering the house threw him a coin or two to shut him up. Eventually Diogenes had collected enough money and he too went into the brothel.

He was tempted by a brothel...

Because you believe in determinism.

>>5103698
I have Meditations on my nightable. Every night before sleep I read few bits. I plan to do this till the day I die.

>>5107315
>You can't wave a wand and make yourself a king.
You can put on a shitty robe and walk out of town and be done with it.

>There was no way for him to renounce his fate and remain virtuous, it would mean breaking promises, breaking duties, which would not only hurt his character but put his family, his council in danger, etc...
And this is why Roman Stoicism is bullshit. It's just glorified excuses for the values already existent in Roman culture, a perversion of Stoicism, which itself was already a perversion of Cynicism. It shows a lot of similarities with how later institutionalised Christianity is a perversion of early Christianity. It's 90% compromises and justifications for said compromises.

>The position itself is there by default, how you use it determines your virtue and peace of mind. The temptations are the terrible choices he could've made, think of Commodus or Caligula.
The only virtuous way to deal with such a position is to give it up.

>He was tempted by a brothel...
Have you ever read a book on him? Or Cynicism in general? Diogenes repeatedly risked his life (and quite possibly horrible torture) by remaining true to himself. He took far greater risks than Aurelius ever did. Aurelius barely dared to transgress against customs.

Of course comparing the two is silly in the first place, one was a philosopher who dedicated his life to his calling, the other was a politician who kept a diary.

>>5107364
>not just writing your own bits in a diary

>>5107375
I do that. But not daily. Only when trouble really start to get to me. Writing them down really make me feel better and I can put things in perspective. Not to mention I learned that one should never assume anything from reading my older notes.

>>5107375
>>5107394
If your approach to virtue requires book keeping you're doing it wrong already.

>>5107426
It doesnt, really. But I like to write.

>>5103698
Bc I still have a soul

>>5107372

Well he begged for money so he was tempted and dependent on the society he rejected.

So he wasn't free from wealth at all, in fact his life probably revolved around money much more than Aurelius. If you see how beggars live, you'll notice their life revolves around their trade--begging in desperation.

Now if he lived in the forest, as a self-sufficient hermit, then we could say he gave up wealth/money.

cause i dont take other peoples lives as formulas to follow but as examples that will guide me on my own path.

plus, pyrrho is the highest example.

>>5103940
lol

>>5103698

>diogenes

oh the guy who basically counterfeited money and was exiled for it and left peniless?

>>5107613
>plus, pyrrho is the highest example.
can't know le nothing so be indifferent poorfag?

>>5107628
>defacing is counterfeiting

keque

>>5103698
Because eliminating desire doesn't make you happy
You must come to terms with desire rather than try and remove it

>>5107637

>you must come to terms with heroin, take it in moderation heheheh... not let it go completely!...

yep, great advice Socrates

>>5107659
>comparing heroin to desire
>assuming I'm talking about moderation
Are you fucking autistic m8?

>>5107637
>average self-important pedophile

>>5107661

desire is desire, they all come at costs, one way or another it will make you suffer and unhappy.

desire for heroin is an obvious example.

>>5107672
>One way or another it will make you suffer and unhappy
This is a simply false assumption.
One needs to come to terms with the insatiable nature of desire. To come to terms with desire one needs to realize that you need to keep a space open for desire rather than try and satisfy it.

>>5107637
h-heh give in to your desires and become a true slave of your passions
but what if that desire is to rid yourself of all desires? what then?

>>5107693
>One needs to come to terms with the insatiable nature of desire.

ya, you come to terms with them by ending them. And when they appear you let go of them instantly.

>>5107705
>but what if that desire is to rid yourself of all desires? what then?

you follow a path that gets rid of all of your desires, and then the final desire you let go of is the desire to "end all desires", then you are done. simple.

>>5107705
>h-heh give in to your desires and become a true slave of your passions
>>>>implying
Are wannabe edgy stoics and antinatalists really this fucking retarded?
>but what if that desire is to rid yourself of all desires? what then?
We don't want what we think we want
Seek psychoanalysis
>>5107707
If one is actually manages to stop desiring you would be melancholic
>>5107714
And starve to death and die?

>>5107725
>And starve to death and die?

You are free to act without desire and with wisdom and insight instead. So when hungry you eat, when sleepy you sleep.

If there is no food to eat, you starve, and it bothers you not at all.

>>5107725
>If one is actually manages to stop desiring you would be melancholic

Melancholy comes from not getting what you want, from being unsatisfied with what you have. This is impossible for the man who has overcome desire.

>>5107745
>You are free to act without desire and with wisdom and insight instead.
Impossible outside of pure fantasy/illusion.
>So when hungry you eat, when sleepy you sleep.
Those are desires.
>If there is no food to eat, you starve, and it bothers you not at all.
To the contrary. A better question to ask is who's desire are you trying to fulfill by not eating?
>Melancholy comes from not getting what you want, from being unsatisfied with what you have.
True melancholy is losing desire to live/function/etc.
People who are depressed because they cannot have what they want are under the false assumption that desire can be fully satisfied, that is not to say that desire should be removed completely seeing as that's equally silly. Stop treating desire as something to be fulfilled rather than something to be had.

>>5107783
>Those are desires.

>confusing actions with desires
>confusing intentions with desires

> A better question to ask is who's desire are you trying to fulfill by not eating?

That question makes no sense in the context where there is no food, and when you have no aversions or desires.

>True melancholy is losing desire to live/function/etc.

Melancholy is a disposition one takes for a variety of reasons, the basic reason being dissatisfaction and a feeling of helplessness to remedy your situation, both stem from desire for reality to be otherwise than it is.

>People who are depressed because they cannot have what they want are under the false assumption that desire can be fully satisfied, that is not to say that desire should be removed completely seeing as that's equally silly

Desire can't be fully satisfied all the time, but it can be eliminated.

The automatic hunger response is not desire. The craving of food is a desire, and is something else entirely.

>>5107607
>Well he begged for money so he was tempted and dependent on the society he rejected.
Who said Diogenes rejected society itself?

>So he wasn't free from wealth at all, in fact his life probably revolved around money much more than Aurelius. If you see how beggars live, you'll notice their life revolves around their trade--begging in desperation.
Who said Cynicism is about avoiding money? Also, panhandlers easily make minimum wage and a Cynic's needs are far less than your average drunken bum. He would probably have to beg no more than half an hour a day, and that is without scavenged food. If you're fine with sleeping outside, there really is nothing desperate about being homeless in a warm climate. Meanwhile, Aurelius' life was filled with distracting nonsense completely.

>>5107879
>Who said Diogenes rejected society itself?

he rejected their values and money, yet begged for it daily.

He wasn't self-sufficient, he was more like a parasite. I don't see how his position is any better than Aurelius.

The point of the cynics was to develop virtue in accordance with nature. But what that "nature" entails is never clarified, why begging is better than wealth isn't clear. Everything a person does is natural.

The fact that he thought farting in public and breaking social conventions was special and more natural just showed how one sided his thinking was.

If he would be born a wolf he would make fun of the wolves hunting in packs, while following them around begging for scraps.

>hurrr hunting is not in our nature...hunting is a vice not in accord with nature...oh by the way plz give me your scraps!!!

>>5107933
>he rejected their values and money, yet begged for it daily.
Where do you get that he rejected their money? Which works on Ancient Cynicism have you read?

>He wasn't self-sufficient, he was more like a parasite. I don't see how his position is any better than Aurelius.
He sure cost a whole lot less and sent a whole lot less people to their deaths as well. He didn't demand taxes, he didn't slay down those who opposed him et cetera. He didn't live in luxury off the backs of slaves and peasants. To think that someone who's an emperor or something of the like can be virtuous in any way is silly.

As for the rest of your post, all that applies to Stoicism as well. In fact, this appeal to nature is the central point of their philosophy and directly taken from the Cynics.

>>5107953
>Where do you get that he rejected their money? Which works on Ancient Cynicism have you read?

have you read any? Crates gave up all his money and property to be a homeless ascetic, the early cynics despised money and property preached against it, just like Diogenes did

yet ironically none were self-sufficient or independent of money.

>>5108009
They were against superfluous wealth, currency itself was not the issue. There is nothing about Cynicism that is inconsistent with begging.

I've read Ancient Cynicism and Diogenes the Cynic by Luis E. Navia and Cynics by William Desmond. Which ones did you read?

>>5108030
>They were against superfluous wealth
>superfluous

nice, but no.
Kings are against superfluous wealth too...wink wink