/lit/ - Literature

fuck off

i don't read books by dope fiends

>>7122022

I'm kicking a morphine addiction right now with the help of Meditations. I never knew till your post made me google.

FUCK. THIS. UNIVERSE.

he talks about being fuckin stoic in the face of adversity and duty as a man and in the next sentence he whines about shit he has to do cos hes emperor.
Hes a whiny little fag

>>7122078
It's his personal notes
If you had any we'd laugh at you

>>7122078
What means meditations

>>7122096
>>7122096
No it isn't

>>7121973
wouldn't bother, it's about as deep as reading a load of motivational image macros

I'm in the process of reading it, and it's really just saying the same thing over and over throughout the book so far. But I understand that these are his personal notes, so I can't really put the fault on him completely. The message is fine, there just isn't a lot of depth.

>>7121973
Which translation is best?

>>7122022
didn't know he was a spineless junky. makes sense.

>>7121973
Read Epictetus instead. He was really about that life and is more pleasant to read.

>>7122078
He had a rough life, dad died and he was adopted by a stranger, didnt even want to be emperor, health issues, most of his kids were sickly and died in infancy, and his wife probably cheated on him.
Despite that contemporary reports described him as an energetic selfless man who never complained about shit. Decent stoic tbh

Is it just me or is Meditations becoming the new meme book?

I've seen it recommended 2 or 3 times a day for the past week.

>>7122700
Old meme book actually. Meditations is probably quite literally the most entry level babbies first profundity book there is.

Stoicism is doublethink. Read stoicism only if you can doublethink.

>>7122859

Care to elaborate?

I am genuinely interested. It has been years since I read Meditations

>>7122892
Not him but stoicism is basically completely based on a fallacy.

>>7122938
>niet
Nice Fedora there.

>>7122938
Nice meme

>>7123062
>>7123085
Stoics, everyone. Basically Christposters who think they're special.

>>7122106
yes it is lad

>>7122106
it's not? then why does everyone say so?

>>7122938
I think Nietzche was just frustrated because nature treated him like shit
as someone with chronic nausea I symapthise

>>7123090
Lol you literally think stoics are trying to roleplay as mother nature, and 'act according to your nature' is not just a way of saying act with the dignity and self control inherent in being a rational being. But yeah nice meme though

>>7123103
>a way of saying act with the dignity and self control inherent in being a rational being
In other words, an arbitrary ideal pulled out of their ass. It falls apart without the 'muh true natural way' part.

>>7123116
You agree you have the capacity for reason right?

You agree rationality when exercised, in full recognition of of oneself as a part of a much greater whole, cannot promote or feed vice right?

It isnt 2 + 2 = elephant, its a completely reasonable line of thought and not an 'arbitrary ideal' because muh define 'define'. Go read more lacan and let the big boys talk

>>7122938
haven't started NEETchy yet but it sounds like he has a very specific idea of Nature (?)

>>7121975
You fuck off with you 10,000 pound collection of spider webs, Marcus.

>>7122678
Go read about his personal life. He was pretty fucking up there with the likes of Nero.

>>7123130
I think he means that in nature lions dont give a fuck and they will kill what ever they want. yet stoics claim that if you life by nature, which in reality is a fucked place, you'll be a better person? Are we so unaware that we could get mauled by 90% of the animal kingdom?

>>7122651
I'm not so interested in Stoics as I am in the culture of the time.

>>7123195
Oh my god you really think stoicisms about roleplaying your totem animal or something. Stoics like marcus and epictetus have always drawn a distinct line between the irrational animal kingdom and the rational human sphere, which is why it falls upon us to exercise our capacity for virtue and reason, ie act according to our nature.

Precisely because we're not animals.

Know what you're talking about first before parroting epic memes.

>>7123195
This is how you can tell the person in question has not read the philosophy they are shit talking and resort to verbal diarrhoea about their malformed perception of a simple,philosophical idea.

>tfw no one will read what is essentially your diary thousands of years later

>>7121973
Meditations gives you a nice outline of stoic ideas, but Epictetus' Discourses gives you the reasoning behind those ideas and the full picture. Too bad more Discourses books didn't survive but at least we have 4, better than no books surviving to be fair.

>most /lit/ ruler to ever exist

>/lit/: "lol what a fag"

Never change

>>7123530

>Havel

>>7123459
>Precisely because we're not animals.
You should know what YOU'RE talking about.

>tfw still a massive bitchboi after reading and (attempting to) practise stoicism.

a-at least I can let go of certain things now. Meming aside, Meditations + Discourses has changed my life.

>>7123548
Not animals fundamentally incapable of higher order cognition you pedantic fuck

>>7123567
So you're saying upper primates =/= animals.
You are biologically incorrect.

>>7123577
Not him, but it was 100s of years ago. You can't blame them for that fam, it's like not taking Aristotle seriously because of the thing about men having more teeth than women.

Especially when the philosophy is pretty sound and practical rather than mental masturbation.

>>7123587
Seems like a lot of it is grounding hypothetical in reality for the sake of doing it.

>>7123577
No... They ARE animals capable of higher level cognition, to an extent. The vast majority of animals are not.

Jesus christ does your mom still wipe your ass for you?

>>7123598
>PRECISELY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ANIMALS
Excuse me?

>>7123592
>this post was in reference to stoicism
>stoicism
>which regardless of the soundness of its principles is undeniably a practical philosophy with value in the trenches of daily life
>'grounded in hypotheticals for the sake of hypotheticals'

Jesus christ

>>7123609
You soft as a grape nigga

>arguing semantics like this

How do i know you dont have an argument?

>>7123627
You literally said precisely because we are not animals and refuse to explain it?

>>7123627
>How do i know you dont have an argument?
Also, I never started an argument. You've been arguing while i've asked you questions.

>>7123673
I explained it you fucking mong are you high

Stoics drew line between animals that dont have capacity for reason vs humans that do. PRECISELY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT AFOREMENTIONED IRRATIONAL ORGANISMS, IT BEHOOVES US TO ACT ACCORDINGLY. YES WE ARE MAMMALS BUT WE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT JUST MAMMALS. how much fucking clearer can i make this? U sound some underage faggot who just has to waddle in and post 'heh but dont yknow we're just monkeys heh?'

Fucking idiot. Worst part is i fell for the troll

One of my old high school friends has just finished his second year studying philosophy at university. He recently recommended Meditations and The Art of Happiness as essentials to a friend of ours. Is he a pleb?

>>7123783
No, sounds like you are

>>7123826
What makes you say that, Bronya?

Marcus Aurelius is a pretty chill guy.

He keeps his cool not like irrational bitches.

>>7123846
I'd be cool too with an unlimited supply of the dankest opium.

>>7123201
Perhaps you shouldn't read some disconnected special snowflake of an emperor then. He's probably the Roman with the least in common with other Romans of all Romans.

>>7123830
Sounds like you base your idea of patrician philosophy on obfuscation or what the cool kids think is deep and profound, not on practical advice to live better

>>7123130
>You agree you have the capacity for reason right?
I also have the capacity for shitting, that doesn't mean I define myself primarily as a shitting being.

>You agree rationality when exercised, in full recognition of of oneself as a part of a much greater whole, cannot promote or feed vice right?
No.

>It isnt 2 + 2 = elephant, its a completely reasonable line of thought and not an 'arbitrary ideal' because muh define 'define'. Go read more lacan and let the big boys talk
I see you're one of those types who confuses axioms for truths.

It is an arbitrary ideal. "This is the way to live" is a value judgement. There's nothing more rational about it than one's preferred flavour of icecream.

>>7123856
He's not afraid of anything.

>>7123880
See the difference between me and you is i couldnt give a fuck less about reaching some objective ideal or defining every category im working with. I see a practical and effective philosophy of life and i apply it. Have fun with your dead inside logical positivism fag

>>7123694
>getting baited this hard
Youre arguing with a 12 year old mate

>>7123924
> I see a practical and effective philosophy of life and i apply it.

Exactly, even Epictetus professes this. There's a shit ton of sections in the Discourses where he berates his students for not applying Stoicism and instead being concerned with displays of oratory and logic. Essentially doing it for ancient e-peen. Fuck logic chopping, practical and applicable is best.

>>7123956
This is why i fucking loathe pomo and modern academia. If i cant apply it or use it to enrich my understanding of anything its masturbatory dreck.

I can't bring myself to actually read a philosophy if I can understand it fron a wiki or a few sentences

I'm asking for input here

>>7123931
>>7123694
Samefag pls go

>>7123980
Sorry you read philosophy to posture for your candy ass barista friends instead of any real world application

>>7123924
I'm not him but you're effectively saying that you're ok picking a philosophy - a way to live your life - that you're simply comfortable with, without caring whether or not it's right
If you think that consciously choosing how you live will make no difference one way or another, you're effectively saying that you only philosophy to intellectually posture; completely okay with living a mediocre life

>>7123459
Our "capacity for virtue and reason" is secondary to the reasons why we actually developed higher cognition. Our nature is exactly the same as literally every single other living thing in the planet.

>>7123989
I just wrote this

>>7123992
I've literally created a metaphysical treaties, I don't agree with the logic behind stiocism
I do agree with the logic if pragmatism - but I understand the thing, and I'm not sure reading its overly specific drivel will get me anywhere

>>7121973
>He's fucking retarded.
>The more I learn about this guy the more I hate existing.
Doesn't make any sense. You sure you aren't the retarded one?

>>7123992
Give it a fucking rest dude like ive gotta justify common sense principles like 'only worry about what you can control' to autists like you

>>7121973
>The more I learn about this guy the more I hate existing.

You are doing it wrong.

>>7124025
Ruh roh guys, step aside, big man on campus

>>7124042
>give it a rest dude
>I'm tired of thinking let me sleep bro
Lol shut the fuck up

When you think about it, you have the ability to manipulate anyone - humans being the most active variable on this planet - so not too much is outside of your control

You're arguing intellectual comfort zones

>>7124094
I'm saying I literally can't bring myself to read ontological philosophy - in other words reinforce that this is the wrong attitude and that I will gain something by reading it all the way through
Or that I mostly won't

>>7124100
Lol you're a fucking clown. Literally anime tier arguments itt. Nigga wants mathematical proofs for common sense. You see that very principle in CBT, in mysticism, in a thousand little self help books, podcasts, and articles that say you cant control the world but you can control your reactions to events. Oh b-but you can manipulate anyone you come across! Except that control is so tenuous its hardly a fucking refutation. But fine, i can exert some control over people. What about the weather numbnuts? Or the government? Budget cuts that got me laid off? The guy that ran a stop light and t boned me? Go back to lacan and philosophize about your nuts some more

>>7124114
If you want to read a philosophy that will help with self control, eradicate your attachment to negative emotional states, and keep you more even keeled in day to day life, read stoicism. If not, whatever bruh

>>7122776
>the most entry level babbies first profundity book
People like you are disgusting

>>7123981
afraid not.

"Want to live a happy and stoic life? Be an Emperor like me people have to feed me grapes and suck my dick 24/7" - Marcus Aurelius

>>7124127
I respect that fire but you're appealing to self help shit marketed to middle aged women as an intellectual ideal

Environmental shit aside - which isn't much if a factor in the first world and which we're gaining, slowly, more control over

If you read the unclassified mk docs, it's very real the control you can exert over someone - but to keep it "realistic": you are absolutely in control of how much money you make, and with money and it's more abstract counterpart, power you can control quite a bit

If you made friends with your boss, got him laid and secretly took pictures you wouldn't have gotten laid off

This is appealing to a general lifestyle we inherently want but few ever achieve - you can do more by learning to do what you want

>>7124174
But Meditations was written when he was off fighting the parthians or germanic tribes, probably while his whore wife was fucking other men. He was an emperor but by no means was his life 'easy'.

>>7124197
It's just a joke.

>>7124205
Aight, it's just people usually tend to unironically criticize Marcus based on that so I just jumped to conclusions.

>>7124194
Are you seriously conflating technological manipulation of the environment with individual control? Are you really trying to spring sitcom-tier scenarios on me as a refutation of a statement as straightforward as 'the decisions your company makes are out of your hands when you're expendable'?

You really trying ti tell me stoicism was intended for middle aged roman houseiwves?

Seriously considering quitting this cesspool if a site

>>7123130
>reason exists
>rationality is anything but a blind metric
lol
>>7124042
>common sense
LOL

>>7124222
I'm asking you - do you think it's out of the realm of possibility for you to hang out with your boss after work and get him drunk? Are you unable to, with or without, disclosed or undisclosed compensation get him laid?

Now ask yourself if you think it would be smart to have a strong bargaining tool over your boss, *especially* in a tough economic climate

If you answered yes, then intellectualy this or something similar should be done

If intellectually this should be done and you don't do it; you effectively do something else - then you aren't thinking about your actions and any philosophy you hold is intellectual posturing

>>7124264
Well this is wrong
If something works and another thing doesn't then there is literally always a reason behind it

You're probably trolling

Seeing the amount of cognitive dissonance in here I can never be sure

>>7124160
Because I don't like your Paulo Coelho tier ancient self help book?

>>7124290
>Well this is wrong
Very rigorous refutation there lad
>If something works and another thing doesn't then there is literally always a reason behind it
'cuz u seds 'o?
>You're probably trolling
>>>/b/

>>7124309
Shut up you fucking pseudo.

>>7124283
Fuck you blithering about you faggot? If you can exert control then you can exert it, if not dont bother. You aint refuting shit

>>7124375
>pseudo
>>>/b/

>>7124300
A philosophy that got james stockdale thru years of imprisonment vietnamese POW camp. Whats your fuckboy philosophy got?

>>7124391
Enjoying the good NEET life guilt free without the subservient desire to get raped by the Vietcong because oligarchs think sharing is bad.

>>7122022
>>7122649
Epic meme

>>7122700
I thought bashing The Meditations and its author was the new meme.

>>7122938

Great writing (I know it's translated) but this supports my idea that 99.99 % of humanities is just universal will to edginess. just spook my shit up fam

>>7122700
It's always been a meme fam. My very first /lit/ books that I ordered was Meditations + Discourses and that was like last year.

>>7122938
Stoicism isnt just the thoughts of some depressed german guy. It was a successful school of thought and conduct that lasted hundreds of years, and their goal wasn't some universal Truth, but personal virtue and tranquility. Nietzsche can take his fruit addiction and fuck off

>>7123183
What does that mean?

What's the point of living completely according to stoicism? Why shouldn't you just kill yourself? You realized your existence is meaningless and all emotions and desires are false and empty, overcame fear, so just put a gun in your mouth and blow your brains out.

>>7124509
Have you even read any books on stoicism, retard? It isn't about existence being meaningless and becoming some fucking hermit, it even encourages social interaction but it's also about controlling your emotional reactions to situations and realising that your attachment to bullshit causes your anguish not the actual thing itself.

Where do these uninformed faggots come from? Read a book nigger.

>>7124509
>Why shouldn't you just kill yourself?
Because killing yourself doesn't follow from nihilism. If nihilism is true then there is no rational justification for any course of action.

>>7124509
kek

i was gonna call you a stupid faggot but lemme educate you instead.

this also ties in well with this gentleman's post >>7124474, which is actually a good post, but I disagree with one part

Although the Stoics weren't sitting down and trying to systemize a theory of everything, they did revere the Logos, ie the rational order of the universe. They believed since rationality cannot abide vice then the universe was working towards some virtuous end and that everything that happened to you was part of a greater tapestry of event and circumstance that was ultimately Good. This is where they derived much of their equaniminity in the face of tragedy. Yet even Aurelius concedes that if this isn't the case, if it's "just atoms", being a noble person is still bro-tier and the right thing to do. Cat ladies today would hem and haw about DEFINE NOBLE THEN SHITLORD but to any normal fucking person living out here in 3D land this is self-evident.

Passions are not empty or meaningless, they are just impressions that we use our reasoning faculty to discriminate between. It's about making a very solemn choice to cultivate virtue, discard anything that even has a hint of vice, and not sweating everything else. It's about not being a pussy bitch getting pulled around by every flit of thought and emotion.

you're still a stupid faggot though

>>7124537
lmao top kek

>>7123554
ive been the guy defending stoicism in this thread.

>mfw you're the least stoic person itt

feels fuckin bad mane

>>7124464
But here's right, Stoic rhetoric is basically 'nature is like us and therefore we are right'.

It's not very edgy to see through their bullshit.

>>7124601
oh buddy here we go again

>>7124601
m8, ancient greek is hard as fuck to translate so your 'nature' in this context doesn't mean what you think it means and is likely to be the rough meaning.

Just like how the term 'God' is used throughout Stoic texts but doesn't refer to the Judeo-Christian God.

>>7124584
solid post dogg, thanks, cleared some things up for me

>>7124719
if you were the guy I replied to sorry for calling you a stupid faggot. 4chan is straight anger fuel

>>7124727
nah, but if I was I wouldn't take it personally, this is the Internet, everyone here is kind of a faggot

>>7124631
So which definition of nature that I have overlooked would make Stoicism perfectly sensible?

>>7124838
>The word that is conventionally translated as 'Nature' is actually began as the Greek term 'physis.' Physis isn't merely an object, as in the Natural world, nor is it a State, as in it's a leaf's natural color. Physis is a process, it describes the way in which things are intended by nature to change and grow. So our first clarification would rephrase the statement to 'Live according to the way things are meant to change and grow.'

>The phrase 'live according to Nature' is obviously directed at humans (you don't have to tell a plant to live according to Nature, it will change and grow on its own.) Nor does the instruction mean to tell us to eat, breathe, bathe etc, as these are all 'natural' functions shared with other animals. By using the phrase, Stoics mean 'live according to the way human nature is meant to change and grow.' So what do we mean by 'human nature'?

>There are acutally two senses in which we can understand 'human nature.' First, each of us has a genetic structure that has been determined by evolution, a legacy of time and adaptation, and in a way of speaking we are 'designed' to fulfill determinate ends, to survive and flourish in our environments. We also exist at a precise time and place in history, and surrounded by cultural influences.

>Whether or not we achieve the full expression of our genetic potential, depends on both our circumstances (things out of our control) and our choices (things in our control). I may have the genetic capacity to grow to 6' tall, but disease, accident or self inflicted damage may prevent me from actually doing so. It is only over the second element though, choice, which I have any say in aligning it with 'nature', which in this case is meant 'what is healthy for my body.'

>This is the sense that Seneca means in his fifth letter to Lucilius "Our motto, as you know, is 'Live according to Nature;' but it is quite contrary to nature to torture the body, to hate unlaboured elegance, to be dirty on purpose, to eat food that is not only plain, but disgusting and forbidding." Seneca is directing our choices to align with our physical requirements. By 'live according to nature', Seneca seems to be instructing to reach for the things which 'Nature' has designed humans to desire. These things include health, safety, community, and other such things.

>'Human Nature' refers to the condition of a human who is expressing the very best in his or her development, that is their ultimate 'best self'. They are growing and changing in an effort to reach the ultimate goal for a human being.

>inb4 TELEOLOGY HEH

just be the best version of yourself: the philosophy. don't bust a vein sperging about it

>>7124855
It's nonsensical to tell a man to 'live up to his potential/nature', since that is what he does per definition. To quote a smart lad:

>A man is "called" to nothing, and has no "calling," no "destiny," as little as a plant or a beast has a "calling." The flower does not follow the calling to complete itself, but it spends all its forces to enjoy and consume the world as well as it can,—i. e. it sucks in as much of the juices of the earth, as much air of the ether, as much light of the sun, as it can get and lodge. The bird lives up to no calling, but it uses its forces as much as is practicable; it catches beetles and sings to its heart's delight. But the forces of the flower and the bird are slight in comparison to those of a man, and a man who applies his forces will affect the world much more powerfully than flower and beast. A calling he has not, but he has forces that manifest themselves where they are because their being consists solely in their manifestation, and are as little able to abide inactive as life, which, if it "stood still" only a second, would no longer be life. Now, one might call out to the man, "use your force." Yet to this imperative would be given the meaning that it was man's task to use his force. It is not so. Rather, each one really uses his force without first looking upon this as his calling: at all times every one uses as much force as he possesses. One does say of a beaten man that he ought to have exerted his force more; but one forgets that, if in the moment of succumbing he had had the force to exert his forces (e. g. bodily forces), he would not have failed to do it: even if it was only the discouragement of a minute, this was yet a—destitution of force, a minute long. Forces may assuredly be sharpened and redoubled, especially by hostile resistance or friendly assistance; but where one misses their application one may be sure of their absence too. One can strike fire out of a stone, but without the blow none comes out; in like manner a man too needs "impact."

>Now, for this reason that forces always of themselves show themselves operative, the command to use them would be superfluous and senseless. To use his forces is not man's calling and task, but is his act, real and extant at all times. Force is only a simpler word for manifestation of force.

>Now, as this rose is a true rose to begin with, this nightingale always a true nightingale, so I am not for the first time a true man when I fulfil my calling, live up to my destiny, but I am a "true man" from the start. My first babble is the token of the life of a "true man," the struggles of my life are the outpourings of his force, my last breath is the last exhalation of the force of the "man."

>>7121973
>tfw reading this as I browse /lit/


I'm not very far, but I feel like he repeats himself a lot or doesn't really fully develop certain thoughts in the first two (?) books.

Am I missing something completely or do the next get better?

Also can someone tell me why this is so great?

>>7124976
I am fucking aghast that "be the best person you can be" can be such a controversial personal philosophy. I'm done dude. I'm gonna practice what I preach and stop trying to change minds itt.

>>7125019
It's only controversial in the sense of being a meaningless platitude.

But by all means enjoy your meaningless platitudes. Just be good bro, don't worry about defining what good is, just do it.

>>7125019
It's only controversial in the sense of being a meaningless platitude.

But by all means enjoy your meaningless platitudes. Just be good bro, don't worry about defining what good is, just do it.

Don't waste any time finding out where your friend lives, just go to his house!

>>7125054
Like most military men it's self evident to them what is good and what is a detriment to their enterprise. Weakness, laziness, and stupidity are hazardous just like starving to death is.

>>7121973
Like so much philosophy, Marcus Aurelius is a complete waste of time. I say that because he was an opium addict. As anyone who has ever used narcotics can tell you, it would be virtually impossible to be a poppyhead and NOT be a Stoic philosopher. In other words, it's like any other drug writing - the stoic thoughts flow from the opium, just as inane bullshit flows from LSD addled minds of hippie writers.

Who ever thinks they need a filthy rich Roman Emperor dope addict giving them life lessons, is living in a completely imaginary world unconnected to objective reality.

It's like reading new agey, self-help epigrams - they sound intelligent for a moment, and they momentarily make you feel like you understand life and have a grip on it all, but which fades and vanishes two seconds after you put the book down.

Julius Caesar, though, is actually worth reading.

>>7122106
Yes it is

>>7125093
Pretty much. Stoicism is a practical philosophy and the things it considers good are almost universally valued by practical men, so explaining why those things are good is a waste of time.

>>7125054
Dude what bizarro eldritch realm are you living in that you are having SO much trouble with this? If someone says "I want to be a better person", what are they gonna do, put women's underwear over their heads, streak shit over their faces, and start talking in tongues? Are you thick? They're going to watch their temper, have self-control, eat clean, be considerate of others and what they might be going through, keep their minds stimulated with wholesome material, take care and respect their bodies, be grateful with what they have and not pine after the possessions of others, enjoy life, provide for their children, and respect their parents and friends and the members of their community. This is what it means to be a respectable and noble person.

Holy shit how spiritually bankrupt is this board that you are having SO much trouble with such a cut-and-dry concept? You want everything laid out in front of you before you start the journey, the rest of us just go for it and learn along the way following the innate moral compass we've had since we were tykes. Or whatever. Don't start sperging about when moral sense begins to develop now.

You want this grand, ontological fucking theory of Truth and the Good and God and the mystery of fucking life out of as simple a personal philosophy as "I want to be a good person". You're working top-down. You're a cancer. Your posts are shit. Your argumentation is shit. You don't care about the good, you care about semantical bric a brac and definitions and gay little spergy abstract hedge mazes in your head you wanna walk through when you're reminded of a real world and real people living in trying to get by doing the best they can with the existential uncertainty that assails us all.

You're not living here and now. You're so far up your fat fucking ass you've collapsed into a singularity. Fucking babushkas in old Russia who've never read a word of this shit and don't even know what anime is can give you a workable definition of what it means to be a good person. Stop. Just stop. Just fucking stop you thick, thick fucking cunt.

>>7125094
1/10 see me after class

>>7125094
I wish i wasn't on my phone so i could rewrite this using Nietzsche and fruit

>>7125119

Fascism is a practical philosophy and the things it considers good are almost universally valued by practical men, so explaining why those things are good is a waste of time.

>>7125146
>almost universally valued by practical men

how come that world war thing happened then

>>7125128
I'm guessing you've never been strung out on opiates?

Seriously, anon, stoicism just flows through you.

Open your mouth and the stoicism flows like wine.

>>7125123
thanks for the pasta

>>7125093
>>7125119
Relying on common sense is not philosophy at all, it's unthinking laziness.

>>7125123
Is part of being a good person getting extremely mad over others not accepting your unwarranted intuitive notions of the good and then lashing out at people who ask you to actually argue your position? I'm not sure even the Stoics would abide your kneejerk anti-intellectualism.

Just because a lot of people have a notion of the good that seems obvious to them doesn't mean that the good is obvious. It just means that people have the tendency not to think things through.

>>7125094
Isn't this the case for most addicts?

"Winos never get afraid of nothing but running out of wine" - Richard Pryor

>>7125194
>people asking to argue my position
>hurr durr what's the good bro you don't know nobody knows hurr durr

>>7124197
There is no real evidence his wife was out sleeping with other people

>>7125207
Again, you can't go to someone's house without determining where he lives first. Likewise, you can't try to become a good man without defining what a good man is. Saying that it is self-evident because of custom/intuition/nature is just a cop-out way of saying 'because I say so'.

>>7125245
Praise Jesus you are right.

>>7125245
What is good is inherently a matter of opinion based on circumstance, the term good is fluid. It has a cultural basis, living is good, dying is bad, white people are good, niggers are bad. Do you understand?

>>7125018
Pls

>>7125276
I do, the Stoics did not and they built from there.

>>7125245
He's assuming that a rational man already knows what's good or has an opinion on what's good and that fretting over defining what it means to be good is a way stalling. I wouldn't expect the intellectuals of /lit/ to understand what it means to be a man of action though.

>>7125276
I had a longer post written up but I'll just leave it at this: there is nothing genuine about your questions here. I find it curious this obsessive fixation with defining one's terms isn't so prevalent in pomo circles when they're talking about their pet topics. I don't see anyone flailing about Lacan's definition of the Real like you are here, hm, fancy that.

You just want to tear shit down. I tell you whatever we're talking about here, objective metaphysical quality or not, it is self-evident when we fully engage with life and the world, you still want me to objectively define it.

You mistook me for someone who needs philosophical axioms to explain everything he does. You think the obviousness of being a good person is some ploy to smuggle something draconian or downright evil into the mix unsuspected, like I'm some RPG villain. Your cynicism says more about you than about me.

You're so over-intellectualizing this you can't fathom a practical philosophy of life that yields results even if there isn't an obfuscating 2,000 page proof for its every concept.

You're not trying to meet me halfway. You're just shooting spitballs at the screen and snickering like a deliquent.

I'm done breh.

>>7123096
>>7123094
>>7125108
Prove it

>>7125200
Opiates are extremely conducive to the act of writing things down, though. It fosters this physical and emotional numbness, and just lazing around languidly taking pen to paper can actually be very pleasant. And when you're sky high these kinds of dopey stoic thoughts seem very natural and obvious. The opium user doesn't perceive this as pie in the sky loftiness - he's too stoned for that.

Other drugs have different effects. Speed might cause a lava flow of schizo word play, and alcohol might make the idea of just sitting down and writing seem pointless and stupid and boring.

Stoicism just seems like a natural outgrowth of opium and refined opiates.

>>7125348
Most people's notions of the good are nonsensical. Being a man of action for its own sake despite having no idea what you're on about is a silly way of going about things. If your notion of the good does not allow for philosophical scrutiny, within a self-proclaimed Socratic tradition no less, it needs some further contemplation.

>>7125353
You can't speak of 'yielding results' when you're not even properly able to articulate your ideals and argue them without resorting to simply calling them self-evident and implying that who does not find them to be self-evident is not 'engaging with life and the world' 'fully' enough.

How could someone meet you halfway when your argument for being right is the inherent 'obviousness' of your opinion? It's not an argument at all.

>>7125396
http://www.iep.utm.edu/marcus/#H2
Read the section titled "Meditations"

>>7122938
Nietzsche simply tries to diminish Stoic thought because is not compatible with his Vitalism, funny enough he is greatly influenced by them. (Hence trying to disprove them basically throwing a tantrum like this "I do understand nature you don´t")

>>7125533
He consistently argues against the absurd notion of humans being able to either go with or against the greater thing they are part of. Pic related.

>>7122938
>>7122938

It's better to see stoicism as the other extreme of heroic self-indulgent homerism

Aristotle was good on this, i remember this quote from the illiad

Apollo spoke among the immortals saying, "You gods ought to be ashamed of yourselves; you are cruel and hard-hearted. Did not Hector burn you thigh-bones of heifers and of unblemished goats? And now dare you not rescue even his dead body, for his wife to look upon, with his mother and child, his father Priam, and his people, who would forthwith commit him to the flames, and give him his due funeral rites? So, then, you would all be on the side of mad Achilles, who knows neither right nor ruth? He is like some savage lion that in the pride of his great strength and daring springs upon men's flocks and gorges on them. Even so has Achilles flung aside all pity, and all that conscience which at once so greatly banes yet greatly boons him that will heed it. man may lose one far dearer than Achilles has lost- a son, it may be, or a brother born from his own mother's womb; yet when he has mourned him and wept over him he will let him bide, for it takes much sorrow to kill a man; whereas Achilles, now that he has slain noble Hector, drags him behind his chariot round the tomb of his comrade. It were better of him, and for him, that he should not do so, for brave though he be we gods may take it ill that he should vent his fury upon dead clay."

>>7124584
Well, I don't know how much self-deceit or optimism or whatever one needs in order to actually believe this whole universe thing is going somewhere, good or evil.
And maybe it's because I'm a faggot but I still don't see the point in living as a stoic. Sure, it might be very helpful through painful times and self control is very important, but I think the only thing that makes this existence worthwhile is the ability to enjoy certain things. Not truly feeling love towards people, dismissing the extravagance of the arts so you can obediently do the work you're forced to do and be a stone head and then die, seems like shit. But oh- I don't care! I'm a stoic!

>>7125706
I feel you. I use a blend. I discipline myself and avoid some pleasures only so that I might reset and be able to once more enjoy them fully. It's pretty good.

>>7125706
>not truly feeling love
>dismissing arts
you haven't read shit you fucking moron

>>7125706
This, Stoicism is basically turning down the volume of life.

>>7125706
I feel like this is a massive misunderstanding of stoic thought

It's all about how you handle negative emotions/events, it doesn't really say much about positive emotions

>sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy

is all about negative emotions

>>7126409
In theory. In reality you can't merely turn down the lows without also turning down the highs.

Man, what is this fucking thread.
There's always some retard that makes some dumbass claim about the philosophy like >>7125706
>>7124509
Which clearly demonstrate they haven't read a single word of the philosophy they are criticizing and then people tell them how they are completely misinterpreting it but, yet again, the same retards will make more ridiculous claims.

Jesus fucking christ /lit/
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

>>7126717
Define 'speak'. Define 'silent'. How can I be visit my friend if I don't know where I'm going?

>>7124496
what did he mean by this?

>>7126717
it's nothing anymore, you're late to the party, the lights are on, the music is off

Should I read Discourses or Enchiridion?

Good thread /lit/fags. I think I'll check this meme man Aurelius out.