/lit/ - Literature

A true stoic would not have made this post, and if he did it would be in some private journal that nobody is ever meant to read.

>>6115407
That's because I'm no longer a stoic, genius. That's how I was able to make this post.

It's not a difficult conclusion to reach, buddy.

>>6115407

Does it matter who reads it, if it gets written? A true stoic wouldn't have these thoughts at all I assume, I know basically fuck all about stoicism

>>6115400
damn you did not get it at all bro

>>6115423
why should i take the words of a non stoic seriously

It's intellectually justified decadence.

Don't mind them, they exist in all cultures. Pic related.

stoicism is for godboys only please evacuate the premises if you are not able to comprehend

>>6115429
>mfw this is the only fucking argument ever presented

>you just dont get it maaan

You're a caricature of yourself.

>>6115426
Stoicism is about control, not about mentally banishing all these thoughts from ever existing.

lol OP is such a TTKM.

You've never practiced stoicism--all you do is play on steam and shit post--and get poor grades at school (that is, if you're not at autism school).

>>6115400
You can't truly be stoic if you don't live in a kind of isolated, eremitic way. Trying to be an "urban stoic" somehow is an oxymoron.

>>6115496
wrong, this is probably the root of your misunderstandings, please evacuate the premises

>>6115407
>>6115426
>>6115464
>>6115476
>>6115484
>>6115496

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No true stoic.

>>6115520
learn how to argue instead of linking to wikipedia, and evacuate the premises

>>6115400
Define 'normal person' and how it would be better than being a stoic.

>mfw OP didn't get it for three whole years

>OP tries to be stoic because he thinks being stoic it will get him laid
>it doesn't
>tries to adopt the stance of "normality" as a power play to make himself seem strong instead of confronting his own weakness

class dismissed

>>6115534
There is no point in participating in an inherently fallacious argument.

Explain what you define as a true stoic and prove OP was never a stoic and then you may be allowed proper debate.

Now, please exit the building.

>>6115520
If you're angry because you achieved ataraxia then no, you aren't a Stoic. You literally got it wrong.

>>6115562
Im not even OP, 20 posts into this thread and not a single person has actually defined stoicism yet.

Everyone is saying he didn't get it like a bunch of hipsters while I think he got it pretty spot on. If you're angry your useless life philosophy is outdated and leads nowhere, feel free to enlighten my simple mind as to how stoicism is in any way good for anyone.

>>6115400
I've only read "Meditations" and a couple wiki pages on the subject so correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding isn't being a stoic just about moderation and not being ashamed of your mistakes? Unless if there's some text out there that literally says, "The only way to enlightenment is to pretend you don't care," I just feel like you misinterpreted the moral dude.

>>6115559
stoicism is probably the only life philosophy out there anyway that is valuable and dependent on being smarter than average and on not being a retard

in other words your temperament may not be suited for it as you are not a godboy. unfortunately i do not know of a proper substitute for the lemmings; perhaps the lesser buddhism or epicureanism would suffice. please evacuate these premises

>>6115595
No, no, see - the only way to enlightenment isn't to PRETEND you don't care, it's actually not caring. About anything. At all. Ever.

>>6115589
>not a single person has actually defined stoicism yet.

That's because no one wants to spoonfeed you

>>6115559
basically stoicism is inherently deterministic and incorporating the two successfully into your daily life will bestow you with untold treasures full of swag and power

>>6115598
Let me summarize your post.

>its a philosophy for ~intellectuals~ only
>you can try buddhism or something idk

Please exit the bulilding, turn a corner, and fuck off to your internet cafe with your apple laptop and your beanie where you belong.

>>6115400
That's why most people do religion instead of philsophy. It's easier and more normal.

>>6115607
Well that's just silly

>>6115611
No, that's because nobody actually knows what stoicism is.

It's a dumb vague philosophy that anyone can interpret however they wish.

>>6115659
so, basically any philosophy or ideology ever?

>>6115659
i see you have willingly ignored the answer you were looking for. evacuate the premises now before we call security

>>6115400
>Actually practicing a philosophy
That's the most autistic things I've ever heard.

>>6115589
Would we need to describe Stoicism to someone who has apparently practiced Stoicism for the past three years? OP highlights all the things that you can do to be the opposite of a Stoic, such as:
>Not caring about his inner self (calling it "nonsense")
>Publically throwing a bitchfit because he was unable to discipline himself
>"be a normal fucking person" when Stoicism itself extols the virtue of being more virtuous than the average person
>Not understanding that the best way to live your life is to give it your best try, and even if you fail you have nothing to really be angry about.

OP is just an angry man who thought that being quiet and suppressing his emotions. All Stoics feel as emotional as anyone else, but the idea is to discipline and steel yourself to overcome giving into those emotions. OP didn't overcome anything. He sat around for three years in frustration until he snapped and made that post.

If you need a real idea of Stoicism, go read The Discourses, Meditations, and Letters from a Stoic. There's a famous quote from Epictetus that reads,
>I must die, but must I die bawling?
In this case OP must live, but must he live bawling? Apparently his answer is yes. That is why he is not a true Stoic.

>>6115400
James Stockdale (assuming he's still alive)

>>6115685
>all stoics feel emotions
>but they constantly try to steel themselves from them

Sounds like exactly what OP was doing.

Tell me then, what is the point of emotions if they are not to be felt to their fullest extent? To cry in utter abandon and to laugh as hard as your lungs allow you to?

What is the point of this absolutely mad idea of disciplining that which was never meant to be disciplined?

If you need another view of stoicism, read Marcus' Meditations. There's also a bunch of very famous quotes from Marcus, was literally talking to himself.

>“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.”

>“Don't waste the rest of your time here worrying about other people – unless it affects the common good. It will keep you from doing anything useful.”

>“It never cease to amaze me: we all love ourselves more than other people, but care more about their opinion than our own.”

Stoics, much like many Eastern mystics, have an impoverished view of life and the human condition. Yes, there is pain in the world and much of it is caused by our fellow human beings; but there is also much joy and love, and it has the same source. It may be good in times of need to be able to detach ourselves from the rest of the world and reflect on how fleeting all of it really is; but living a full life also means being engaged with that reality on a daily basis, good and bad things alike.

I grant that stoicism has some attractive things to offer, not the least of which is a perspective that makes a life of what can seem like pointless work from an objective standard tolerable. However, until proven otherwise there is no reason to think that these same benefits can’t be achieved under some other philosophical system that provides more robust guidance about how to live and which actively promotes ethical behavior.

>>6115792
>To cry in utter abandon and to laugh as hard as your lungs allow you to?
That's just physical manifestations of your emotions; not manifestating these emotions should not be stopping you from feeling them.
>can't you be happy without smiling ?

>>6115927
If you're actively suppressing those emotions in order to stay in control you're not feeling them to the fullest.

>>6116106
stoic intellect makes my emotions as sublime as possible breh, why are you still inside these premises

i told you there are other options

>>6116106
You are not suppressing them, anon.
I don't know, maybe Stoicism is not for some types of people.
Can you really not feel an emotion without manifestating it ?
This is not suppressing at all.
You can still be content without smiling.

>>6115792
> philosophical system that provides more robust guidance about how to live and which actively promotes ethical behavior.

You described something close to stoicism. Remember there was a Stoic Roman emperor, as well as a Stoic writer who lived in Rome in times of political turmoil (and political turmoil was brutal at the time). I don't thing you can say they weren't engaging with reality, good and bad things alike, on a daily basis. Read Of Consolation: To Marcia by Seneca. It's not the work of a man insensitive to human joy and human sorrow, not at all.

>>6116137
To not display the emotions you feel IS suppressing them.

When you're happy, you smile, when you're sad, you frown. These are actually basic human functions, and you actually do these things subconsciously to the point of not even noticing it. It may not have been a full smile, but the corner of your lips raised upwards just a tiny little bit, for a tenth of a second.

There are people who are trained to read these exact facial signs.

And guess what, to be able to hide these subtle and very hard to control natural facial expressions, requires years of dedicated work. But being a sociopath works well too, I guess. Or a stoic.

You really haven't thought this through. You cannot feel an emotion without displaying it AND not suppressing it all at the same time.

>>6115400
How did you actually practice stoicism ?

>People just think I'm a brute or some kind of an emotionless mute.

Perhaps you made a confusion between stoicism and autism. Stoicism doesn't prevent you to be nice to people, you just don't get to burst into tears when you're sad.

But it's rather fun that you criterion for wether being a stoic was a success is wether people like you, and not wether you feel satisfied inside. If your purpose is to have plenty of friends and make a career, consider a variety of sophism.

>nothing extraordinary is happening in your life.
Why would you need extraordinary things to happen to your life ? Can you not make enough happen in your normal life ? You seem to be a closeted extreme-sensation craver. Forget stoicism and practice snowboarding.

>>6116164
I was unconsciously refering to expressing them to the exreme like
>To cry in utter abandon and to laugh as hard as your lungs allow you to?
apologies for not stating it again.

>>6116164
>>When you're happy, you smile, when you're sad, you frown. These are actually basic human functions, and you actually do these things subconsciously to the point of not even noticing it
***it is natural therefore it is good***

>practice stoicism
everyone thinks you're an annoying stuck up cunt
>practice epicureanism
everyone thinks you're a nice laid back person

the pure stoicism sucks, it's better to be a neoplatonist and take the best part of stoicism with a more positive overall philosophy

>>6116598

>practice hedonism
>feel good no matter what happens

>>6116629
that's a stoic idea

>>6116633
>hedonism
>stoic idea

>>6116676
>feel good no matter what happens

>>6116684
>implying stoic apatheia is about 'feeling good'

read more

>>6115400
it sounds like you were doing it wrong, tbh

it's not about having no emotions ever, it's about not letting things that are outside of your control bother you.

>>6116694
you forget eupatheiai

Best stoic reporting in.

>>6116720
eupatheiai is their way of saying "we're not really joyless cunts, some fun is allowed" but their goal is apatheia.

>Stoic babbies who thought reading Aurelius the Meme would be good enough
>Stoic babbies who think the discipline involves disavowing positive emotions
>Stoic babbies who think it's about becoming emotionless
>They haven't read Seneca close enough
>They haven't read Epictetus close enough

Top jej.

You fell for the troll, dilettante.

>>6116772
>>They haven't read Epictetus close enough
it seems

>>6115400
I think you're meant to practise a religion, not a philosophy. I think something like stoicism is meant to be incorporated into your behaviour so it can guide it. It's not a set of dogmatic commandments.

Stoicism is about attaining tranquillity of the mind and happiness through a degree of self-discipline and through not letting external forces control you. It's not about being emotionless. You're allowed to be nice and enjoy yourself, there's nothing about stoicism which frowns upon these. Unless that enjoyment is being derived from uninhibited, uncontrolled pleasure seeking, of course.

>>6116772
Good post. I'm not too fond of Stoicism as it's generally presented but Epictetus is top dog and almost a Cynic throwback.

>>6116864
> I think something like stoicism is meant to be incorporated into your behaviour so it can guide it

How is that not practice

>>6116873

>Cynic
>top dog

breddy gud

If you don't talk to anyone and nothing extraordinary is happening in your life then you're doing it wrong. If you're letting your social anxiety get to you and you're too lazy to do anything then you've done the opposite of Stoicism for three year. Good job.

>>6116508
That's kind of what he was saying, but I think he was also trying to say that emotions and a person's physical display of emotion are really the same thing. The idea that one can discipline the physical response without dampening the actual emotion itself is false.

>>6117102
Yes but why does it matter to manifest your emotions ? After all, if you feel them, you might as well display them.

>>6115433
words are words, a stoic wouldn't feel differently if the words were written by someone in particular or randomly appeared on their papers.

>>6115400
>Who actually practices stoicism nowadays?
I sort of do, I suppose.
I try to share my wisdom with everyone interested, which means discussing ethics and justice, etc, not me lecturing, I'm not trying to imply I'm oh so smart, but sharing your knowledge to help improve both debating parties is a part of the stoic's life.

I realize that I am all I've got in this world, and that at the core of my existence there is me, which, so long it stays intact, should make me happy to be. Which doesn't mean I don't care for others, but when they're gone, I need to be content with me still being there.

I don't attach myself to material things or dionysian excesses, I can enjoy them, but I know I don't need them.

I like to live cheaply, bread, milk, pasta and rice are fine to eat all the time.

Not actively trying to be a stoic, by the way, I just live, but I suppose some aspects of it fit.

>>6115659
Stooicism is just control over what is ones to control, namely ones thoughts and reactions to events. Otherwise it's a go with the flow sort of thing. Attachment is a no

>>6118764
>I like to live cheaply, bread, milk, pasta and rice are fine to eat all the time.
I wish I good live on this, but they give me acne...

>>6118764
Also, why do you prefer stoicism over epicurianism ?

How would a stoic respond to some great injustice against his virtues or the common good?

How would a stoic effectively alert the populace to the gravity of some great threat without appealing to emotion?

>>6118791
A lactose thing? There will probably be some other cheap foods. Fruits are very cheap as well.
>>6118813
Like I said, I don't purposely choose to follow any philosophy, I've just read some stoicism (Seneca's letters) and there are some parallels with the way I happen to live. I don't go out of my way or force myself to live like this, it's just who I turned out to be.

But from what I've read so far (and I could very well be wrong), Epicurianism seems to abolish pleasure completely, because it only makes you a slave to pleasure, which you can't live without once you've had it, etc. The whole negative hedonism thing, while stoicism (once again, for as far as I'm concerned) allows to have as much pleasure as you can do without. You are free to enjoy whatever you want, as long as it doesn't become the sole purpose of your life. At the core of your happiness, there should be your life in general. You can enrich this with friends, lovers, nice foods, tv, whatever you want, so long as once they suddenly disappear, you're still intact as a human being. (doesn't mean you're not allowed to suffer grief either, I don't know where the whole emotions of a stone idea of stoicism comes from, maybe some other important stoic advocates it or something)

>>6118860
>Epicurianism seems to abolish pleasure completely
Far from it, they just recommend abstaining from pleasures that will lead to more suffering in the long run. They advice to be content with the basics, but there's is nothing wrong with enjoying something more as long as it won't cause you harm or dependence on it.

You should give some of these a listen:

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-principles
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-ethics
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-gods-death
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/lucretius
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/warren-epicurus

It's more sensible and subtle than you think.

>>6118873
I'll save them and give them a listen sometime, cheers.

>>6118858
>How would a stoic effectively alert the populace to the gravity of some great threat without appealing to emotion?

We might be facing extinction, provided we don't do X.
Instead of
>WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

>>6118953
Are you a TTKM or?

>>6115598
>godboy

What is this supposed to mean.

>>6118965
TTKM ?

>>6118965
>wanting to force a memè
not even a practical one

>People just think I'm a brute or some kind of an emotionless mute.

Your idea of being a 'stoic' parallels with 'being an autistic child'

It doesn't matter if you stopped being a stoic because the criticism you are posing has such elementary answers that you could never have been a stoic to begin with.