/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10267373]

Actual Stoicism is based.

Stoicism as practiced by numales who read Meditations once and think Aurelius is a model Stoic is not. Every time I see someone start talking about being a "Stoic" and citing Marcus I'm reminded that even something so seemingly esoteric as Stoicism attracts more dilettantes and pretenders than actual practitioners.

Regardless, anyone who is serious about practicing Stoicism will eventually encounter Theravada Buddhism and realize that it's very similar but superior in every way.

"Stoicism" is very popular among Chads who want to pretend to be philosophers and numales who want to pretend to be emotionless hardasses. The numale stereotype, the liberal atheist who thinks he's really smart and always wants to impress people with how educated and worldly he is, will almost always cite Stoicism as his personal philosophy. He imagines that this provides him with a moral structure without the need to rely on religion (showing how little Stoic writing he's actually read) and he knows that the average person will know absolutely nothing about it, so that even his minimal knowledge will seem impressive.

I see this a lot and it's almost always the same kind of guys doing it. You can basically tell whether someone has a brain or is just a retarded dilettante based on which Stoics they mention by name. If someone cites Epictetus, they're probably ok. If someone cites Aurelius, there's an extremely high likelihood that they're a numale poser. That's just the facts, boys.

Like the first fucking page of Meditations is Aurelius mentioning how thankful he is to the friend who loaned him a copy of Epictetus' discourses. Come on man, apply yourself.

Stoicism is a practical philosophy and Epictetus' discourses are intended to explain it so that readers can understand it in both theory and practice. It's intended to teach you.

Aurelius' writings are, again his own personal diary intended primarily to aid him in keeping certain things in mind which he had already learned. It offers very little in the way of explanation because, again, he was writing it for his own personal use. It's interesting from a historical and biographical standpoint but virtually useless from a philosophical one. More importantly, it offers absolutely nothing new. This is not necessarily a criticism, because it wasn't intended to. It is just Marcus writing down things he wants to remember from his readings of philosophy.

It's like we have a novel and a guy who wrote a book report on it and you're here saying that you don't see the difference between the two and that you actually prefer the book report to the original work. It's sad.

[Anonymous No.10267384]

>>10267373
Refrain from posting. That would be the ultimate Stoic move. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.10267392]

>You can basically tell whether someone has a brain or is just a retarded dilettante based on which Stoics they mention by name.
>mentions Aurelius 7 times
>mentions Epictetus 3 times
>mentions Seneca 0 times
Yes, I think this case is clear.

[Anonymous No.10267397]

>>10267384
haha [STOICED.COM]

[Anonymous No.10267398]

I saw that thread on /his/ too.

[Anonymous No.10267399]

>claims to be a stoic
>posts a long post about how much other people's actions annoy him

[Anonymous No.10267406]

>>10267397
>stoiced.com

I would watch that

[Anonymous No.10267419]

>>10267373
Tell me more about Stoicism I only have a mild familiarity with it

[Anonymous No.10267422]

>>10267419

[Anonymous No.10267426]

>>10267419
>asking a shitposter to teach you something

[Anonymous No.10267431]

>>10267419
Just read the Meditations

[Anonymous No.10267469]

>>10267392
>mentions rufus 0 times

Found the psued

[Anonymous No.10267482]

>>10267469
Didn't add anything to conversation, but good to know you can skim Wiki.

[Anonymous No.10267495]

kill yourself you dubm fucking nigger

[Anonymous No.10267504]

>>10267482
Good stoic response there anon

[Anonymous No.10267506]

Philosophy is for gaylords Tbh

[Anonymous No.10267508]

>>10267406
>Ooh you've got a huge cock
>You should not become attached to a particular cock, as you may lose the cock, and that way lies grief. Instead say that you love cock in general, and you will go on well. When you are gaspingly thirsty for cock, take a very small cock, then make him pull out before climax, and tell no one.

[Anonymous No.10267522]

>being too much of a pussy to go full cynic
yeah nah stoicism is for intellectual cowards and bureaucrats like Aurelius lmao

[Anonymous No.10267533]

So, what should I read?

[Anonymous No.10267535]

>>10267533
Epictetus

[Anonymous No.10267538]

>>10267533
Atlas Shrugged

[Anonymous No.10267541]

>>10267533
The ashes of Diogenes' plays

[Anonymous No.10267552]

>>10267373
>Stoicism is a practical philosophy
so is marxism and hedonism and stirnerism, yet all are garbage because they never approach what is truly essential, meaningful and transcended in life. So they have no grounding, they merely offer momentary, bodily and psychological "utility" allowing the individual to rationalize his sins and sin in comfort.

>Regardless, anyone who is serious about practicing Stoicism will eventually encounter Theravada Buddhism and realize that it's very similar but superior in every way.

only because theravada buddhism actually has a decent metaphysic to it...yet it isn't much better or truthful either, again it focuses on "pragmatism" and appeasing the individual, teaching him how to be comfortable with his environment and choices....blah

[Anonymous No.10267554]

>>10267552
>sins

[Anonymous No.10267565]

>the average person will know absolutely nothing about it
Life in the US must be hell.

[Anonymous No.10267567]

>>10267552
>muh metaphysics
We moved on from that bullshit for a reason.

[Anonymous No.10267584]

>>10267567
Considering that the average person still believes in fate, I hardly think abandoning the study of metaphysics was a wise decision. It is clearly important, and without the popularisation of intelligent metaphysics, like those found in Hinduism or Judeo-Christianity, you get hacks like Deepak Chopra making millions.

[Anonymous No.10267591]

>>10267567
>I've become mesmerized by appearances
>appearance IS reality

[Anonymous No.10267624]

>>10267552
>meaningful and transcended in life.
laff at this spooked 20 yo boy

[Anonymous No.10267631]

>right and wrong are spooks
>it's wrong to be spooked

[Anonymous No.10267645]

>>10267591
>dude like reality dont real, have you watched the matrix

>>10267631
>it's wrong to be spooked
Stirner never said this.

[Anonymous No.10267670]

>>10267567
>>10267645

>I share the same primitive materialist myopia as hedonists and consumerist lumpenproles, and I'm proud if it!

Disregard of metaphysics is disregard of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10267679]

>>10267670
>adherence to one of the schools of metaphysical thought is disregard for metaphysics
>le playbayans
Wew, you actually are a 20 year old DUDE MATRIX hipster. Top yourself as soon as possible.

[Anonymous No.10267688]

>>10267624
>*gives meaningful and philosophical critique*
>"lol sp00gs x-DDD"
This is why Stirnerists are the niggers of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10267704]

haha what do you have their comradE? oh? you have something to show me comrade? is it sosmething interesting?? interdasting? im intrigued, do please show it comrade
oh look comrade, there's somethign rong with it comrade. its wr5ong. somethings wrong about it. you mustn't've checked it thoroughly comrade. its wrong comrade.
SSSSPSPooopppoOPOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKSSSS
ID IDS A SPOOK YOU"VE BEEN SPIOKKING YOURSELVES SPOOKY SPOOKY HAHAHAHAHA LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLO SPOOOOKY SPOOKY PSOOKY IN MY UNDIES XDDDDDDDDD SPOOOOOOOOOOKKIE SPOOKMANIA LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO SPOOOOKS
SPOOK
SPSPPSPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSOOSKKKKKKKKKKKK

[Anonymous No.10267730]

>>10267688
>political and moral philosophies are ""bad"" because they're not metaphysics
>meaningful and philosophical critique
You have to be over 18 to use this website.

[Anonymous No.10267744]

>I'm reminded that even something so seemingly esoteric as Stoicism attracts more dilettantes and pretenders than actual practitioners.

WAIT WHAT

pseuds like stoicism?

you dont say

[Anonymous No.10267753]

>>10267679
lol I bet that faggot even watched matrix

[Anonymous No.10267754]

>>10267730
>18
lol spooked much?

[Anonymous No.10267759]

>>10267730
>implying i ever said non-metaphysical philosophy was bad n shiet
>implying i didn't just shartpost to jimmyrustle a stirnerfag
>implying all these things and then assuming you yourself are not sp00g
i am become the laughing.

[Anonymous No.10267762]

>>10267567

OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

WE MOVED ON FROM METAPHYSICS

PHILOSOPHERS BTFO

M O V E O N
O
V
E
O
N

[Anonymous No.10267761]

>>10267533
Homer

[Anonymous No.10267769]

>>10267670
Metaphysics not grounded in reality (in other words, most of it) is literal fanfiction. Kill yourself delusional cuck.

[Anonymous No.10267773]

>>10267688
Except you didn't actually say anything except play with empty, vague fantasy in rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.10267783]

>>10267762
Oh shit we're done?
GUYS, WERE FREE, METAPHYSICS IS OVER

[Anonymous No.10267804]

>>10267373
Thanks man, i loved meditations and i have put Epictetus Discourses and Selected Writings in my list of books to buy.

[Anonymous No.10267836]

Stoicism is the ulimate edgy athiest numale pseud philosophy, it doesnt matter if you cite Seneca or Epictetus or Aurelius. What matters is the fact that you're reading overexplained "so deep!" platitudes. The stoic at 23 is the same guy that read "the art of Manliness" and other such self help trash at 19.

[Anonymous No.10267844]

>>10267836
>edgy athiest numale pseud
wtf i hate stoicism now

[Anonymous No.10267851]

>>10267836
what about neoplatonic universal oneness is atheist?

[Anonymous No.10267852]

>>10267836
>mfw this is actually me

it's okay I dropped all that and now I am suicidal, unmotivated, and depressed like a cool /lit/ poster

[Anonymous No.10267857]

There can never be stoics on this website. If some goes out of his way to say they are stoics they stop being stoics. As a social encounter stoicism is The Game of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10267863]

>>10267373
>"Stoicism" is very popular among Chads who want to pretend to be philosophers and numales who want to pretend to be emotionless hardasses. The numale stereotype, the liberal atheist who thinks he's really smart and always wants to impress people with how educated and worldly he is, will almost always cite Stoicism as his personal philosophy.

I mean I see what you're getting at, but usually "nihilism" is what I see here. The difference between pop-(i.e. not)-nihilism and pop-(i.e. not)-stoicism is that pop-stoics can be religious while pop-nihilists aren't. If I had to gamble, I'd bet more self proclaimed pop-stoics are right winged and christian simply because lefties have their own flag to wave.

[Anonymous No.10267872]

>>10267844
Stay woke, resist the eternal stoic!

>>10267851
Its atheistic in the same way Budhism is atheistic especially when practiced by soyboys. A modern stoic will always be agressive towards actual religions because its the egotistical self help aspect that they seek out, they praise it for being "practical".

>>10267852
Depression should be treated by a professional, not by charlatans and dead diary fags.

Every stoic I know just wants to deny his own shortcomings and feel superior while not acting any different then anyone else.

[Anonymous No.10267880]

Stoics are autistic cucks

>>10267836
this

[Anonymous No.10267896]

>>10267567
We actually didn't.

[Anonymous No.10267905]

>>10267872
I don't know who you've met to make you believe that about modern stoics. ascesis is found is almost every religion and is a primary component of stoicism

[Anonymous No.10267933]

>>10267905
Quotes from my stoic friend:

>"Yeah sometimes when I watch Rick and Morty, Rick drops a truth bomb, and I have to ponder it for like 30 minutes."
>*Sniffs coke*
>"Yeah Stoicism is about realising its all bullshit man, over 2000 years the same fucking shit, none of it matters."
>*More cocaine*
>"Hahaha fuck girls man, Mgtow is the only way forward."
>*Shows me his favorite 'I fucking love science' memes*

[Anonymous No.10267962]

>>10267933
what's stoic about any of that? he's clearly using the wrong word, you should blame him rather than the philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10267971]

>>10267533
Kevin McDonald

[Anonymous No.10267983]

>>10267872
>>10267933
>X is something my friend calls X
Tell me this is bait.

[Anonymous No.10267991]

>>10267962
Well he has read every important stoic philosopher and incorporates their quotes in his daily life.
If we get into Why people have distorted stoicism in this way, I would repeat myself and say its because of the "so deep!" oneliners. I think stoics are interesting in a historical sense, but if you think they are the smartest people ever you are cringy as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10267992]

philosophy without metaphysics, without objective ethics and transcendent truths, without distinguishing the Absolute from the relative, is not philosophy at all, it doesn't come close to wisdom... it's scientism and mental masturbation, alienation and disintegration and being mired in illusion and trapped in subjectivity like an animal

[Anonymous No.10268000]

>>10267983
>No true Stoic..

[Anonymous No.10268001]

>theists on my /lit/
I stopped seeking God when I was 14 and read Carl Sagan and Dennett, then at 16 I read Nietzsche then by 19 I found Foucault and Stirner and became euphoria and free and gay

[Anonymous No.10268009]

>>10267991
Why don't you talk to him about his hypocrisy?

[Anonymous No.10268010]

>>10268001
ok

[Anonymous No.10268026]

>>10268009
I have, but he always shrugs it off. For instance I talk about him embracing a higher power to follow Stoic teachers more precisely, he then says that goes against the Stoic principles of Logic.

[Anonymous No.10268028]

>>10268010
only the fool says in his heart 'there is no god'

[Anonymous No.10268051]

>>10268000
That's not how it works, brainlet.
>>10267991
That means you have the problem with his interpretation, if that can even be called such, not with stoicism per se.

[Anonymous No.10268072]

>>10268051
No fuck you, ofcourse I am gonna judge a philosophy based on how its adherents act irl.

[Anonymous No.10268092]

>>10268072
He's obviously not an adherent of Stoicism if he doesn't understand what it is and isn't practicing it. You are just being obtuse.

[Anonymous No.10268098]

my younger brother considers himself a stoic
he read a bunch of books and at one point was heavy into marcus aurelius meditations.

my brother is an idiot neet with few social skills and very little going for him, if it wasnt for his mother taking care of him and then now the burden fell on me to take care of his lazy ass he would be in deeper shit than he is now.

i also know someone from the marines that considered himself a stoic, also read into the meditations and even did some presentations on the "benefits" of stoicism.

he got kicked out of the marines for drinking and driving, kept up with him on facebook for a bit and he appears to be lying through his teeth about how his life is going well, his mother reached out to me one day telling me how he isnt doing anything with his life, and she suspects him from suffering from ptsd.
which cant be true because he never deployed.

lastly the only other person i know who claims stoicism is an exe's cousin, she was 22 when i met her, had never held down a job, barely made it through highschool, had no plans for college but was clearly a "smart" girl. she would talk to you about philosphy and random "intellectual" subjects till your ears fall off. she considered herself an "autodidac"? and genuinly belived she was too good for a formal education since its just a piece of paper. if you can envision an unhealthily skinny white girl that doesn't take care of herself, peach fuzz all over her face, fuzzy arms, smelling like old fish and dirty teeth/bad breath. its her.
even after a few years my ex and i are still friendly her cousin is not doing anything with her life and is essentially a female neet parasite.

given my experiences with stoics, im going to assume everyone who claims to be a stoic is just a parasite and a neet.

which is interesting because when i read into it, this isn't really the ideology of stoicism.

but it seems to be the people it attracts.

fucking parasites.

[Anonymous No.10268111]

>>10267373
Stoicism is stupid. Neither Epictetus nor Aurelius offer anything better than Confucian style maxims based on nothing.

One can always reason with reason

[Anonymous No.10268115]

>>10268072
>>10267933
>>10267836

seriously, fuck stoics

[Anonymous No.10268116]

>>10267836
This was a v v v v good critique of stoicism and also atheists doesn’t anyone else hare people who don’t believe in Santa ??????

[Anonymous No.10268124]

>>10267373
fucking chads and numales and liberals, yeh you go get em!

[Anonymous No.10268131]

>>10267535
>>10267538
>>10267541
wrong wrong wrong. Euclid or nothing.

[Anonymous No.10268151]

>>10268092
>A philosophy has adherents that don't completely understand it or practice it.
>Not a shitty philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10268224]

>>10268151
That's really bad reasoning and I think you know that.

[Anonymous No.10268806]

>>10267373
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu7n0XzqtfA

[Anonymous No.10268825]

>>10268151

>this band doesn't actually make great music after all because it has a shitty fanbase

[Anonymous No.10268874]

You're like a little baby, watch this. Interdimensional, shapeshifting child molesters.

[Anonymous No.10268913]

>>10268098
>complaining about neets and parasites
>on 4chin

[Anonymous No.10268936]

>>10267373
Epictetus is a fucking fag. What has made Aurelius so long lasting is that he wasn't a master or anything. He was just practicing Stoicism and keeping a journal and notes to himself. It makes it much more palatable to the average person and more capable of relating to.

[Anonymous No.10268938]

>>10267552
>essential, meaningful and transcended in life
>sins
Nice essentially meaningless statements that transcend the accepted nature of words conveying non-nebulous and non-worthless concepts

[Anonymous No.10268942]

>>10267373
>Actual Stoicism is based.

No. Stoicism is the result of the only actually existing democracy in history being crushed by incompetence and greed. Because that is human nature. But instead of admitting it, Stoics pretend to be satisfied, and turn everything on it's head, losing is really winning, powerlessness is really freedom.

Marcus Aurelius was the emperor, he was supposed to be the ONE free man in the Roman shitstain, living by his own will fi no one else did. Instead some pederast Greek Stoic "teacher" made him a mental cuck, unable to rule or to control his empire, leaving it in the hands of an incompetent heir after wasting his own life sobbing self-contentedly to his diary.

Stoicism is a philosophy for slaves and cucks. Which is why all you cunts love it, because you have no power and no control, yet you have to pretend to be free, because freedom is the noble lie our system is based on, so otherwise you would be shown to admit being a failure.

And yes, most people are dumber than you, but that does not make you smart, honest, or free.

[Anonymous No.10268949]

>>10267373
>Theravada
>Not Mahayana
Come on son what are you even doing with yourself

[Anonymous No.10268955]

>>10267533
unironically the Enchiridion (Handbook) by Epictetus

[Anonymous No.10268971]

>>10268936
>Aurelius was an emperor
>Epictetus was the slave of a slave
Who would have had a "masters" education hmmm......

[Anonymous No.10268975]

>>10268028
The heart is the metaphorical seat of emotions, so yes, since God existing would make people feel nice because heaven, only a retard would want there to be no God. But only the fool says in his brain "there is a God"

[Anonymous No.10268976]

>>10267373
Good post.

Of course these cunts want the emperor stoic and not the slave stoic and that's basically all there is to their preference.

[Anonymous No.10268977]

>>10268938
>he literally just posted 'nice spooks' in fancy writing
Holy shit fuck off faggot.

[Anonymous No.10268980]

>>10268942
0/10

[Anonymous No.10268982]

>>10268977
>he literally doesn't understand what a spook is

[Anonymous No.10268995]

>>10268942
>ad hominems
>appeals to emotions
>twisting historical realities
>no actual arguments against stoic ideas

[Anonymous No.10269002]

>>10267872
Buddhism isn't even atheistic, it just doesn't have one prime creator God. The gods in Buddhism are subject to karma like everything else.

[Anonymous No.10269020]

>>10269002
Buddhism would probably be closest to something like agnosticism, because it's goal was never to provide you with metaphysical answers. It was a path to escape suffering, that is all.

[Anonymous No.10269025]

>>10268942
>Marcus Aurelius was the emperor, he was supposed to be the ONE free man in the Roman shitstain, living by his own will fi no one else did. Instead some pederast Greek Stoic "teacher" made him a mental cuck, unable to rule or to control his empire, leaving it in the hands of an incompetent heir after wasting his own life sobbing self-contentedly to his diary.
Don't forget that he was also a junky.

Pretty easy to say 'don't worry about it bro' with the fattest stash in the empire.

[Anonymous No.10269038]

>>10269020
I'd say apatheist polytheistic, kind of like the Greek lad who also had a four part cure to suffering.

[Anonymous No.10269069]

Marcus Aurelio the best emperor of Roman civilization

[Anonymous No.10269081]

>>10267373
The fact you care so much about genuineness reveals you're own fraudulence. If you were an actual stoic you'd be working on something to improve your life not trying to make people feel insecure about their commitments to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10269177]

>>10268971
He wouldn't have to have get babby's first journal if he was actually living by said principles. Afterall, the Enchiridion wasn't even written by Epictetus but by Arrian instead.

[Anonymous No.10269244]

This thread is full of bad readers (with poor comprehension skills) and guys who know stoicism just from hear say.

Criticism in general is:

>Stoics are weak and cowards who do not act and let the world be terrible without daring to stand up to the challange and improve it.

This is false. Stoics believe in doing everything possible so that you become the best possible human being, and when you have the power to act in a way that will improve the world, then you can and should do it.

But what if you can not do anything about it?

In my country new laws were created recently (I will not tell which country and which laws) that violate the rights of the people (especiallythe poorer ones). As a lawyer, I am doing and will continue to do everything possible to combat the errors and depravities of the legislative, seeking to make the judiciary understand the unconstitutionality of the new norms.

But what else can I do? Should I growl, foam, become neurotic, lose sleep? No. I know that a good life is measured by the quality of the moments of consciousness that make it up, and I refuse to let events that I can not control turn my mind into a hell. I will remain calm and happy, even though I can not change everything I would like to change. This does not mean that I do not go to the fight in the only way that I can and with the only weapons I have (in the case in question as a lawyer).

>Stoicism is a simplistic philosophy that anyone understands; it is a childish philosophy, it does not require mental effort

Now, of course, it's an easy-to-understand philosophy. Most of the lessons of sages are intellectually simple to understand, what is complex is practice. Placing stoicism in practice is the big question, and this requires training and effort, perhaps more than the effort required to understand Kant, for example.

>These readers of stoicism and atheists; these numale atheists; atheism; atheists, atheism and atheists............

So now religious belief based on nothing but faith are a characteristic of great minds? Religiosity is a medalof good character?

No one can say that something like a God does not exist (an original cause, the infinite, nature, the whole, or whatever concept one wants to use), yet what can be said with complete certainty is that all human religions are human creations, and their "internal logic" is sustained on nothing but faith. Findings in the fields of biology, physics, astronomy, etc., have already defeated all the sacred texts of the world.

There may be a God, but no human has ever seen it.

[Anonymous No.10269315]

>>10267933
>>*Sniffs coke*
>>*More cocaine*

I don't think drug use is compatible with stoicism.

[Anonymous No.10269353]

>>10267373
I've just finished, meditations it was ok, he's kinda right about it being a dear diary to himself though. At the same time it's a pretty short book, not fun, but not hard either. 7/10 until the final line brings it to a solid 8/10

>>10269315
>I don't think drug use is compatible with stoicism.
depends on the drug, nearly everything Aurelius says about the inner mind readsthe same as a psychedelic trip

all things in moderation, even stoicism itself...so basically stoic on the streets, hedonist in the sheets

[Anonymous No.10269387]

>>10267373
>reading meditations for "how to stoic" and not for the historic significance
>chad/numale dichotomy
its not your fault you can only see whats put in front of you but its your gloating thats revolting

[Anonymous No.10269491]

>>10267992
Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater anon.

[Anonymous No.10269734]

>>10269315
aurelius was a drug addict

[Anonymous No.10269803]

>>10267992
how did this babbies first blog make it into book form, vanity publishing?

[Anonymous No.10269875]

>>10267373
>"dude so many rich famous guys on the Tim Ferriss podcast say to practice Stoicism so i'm gonna practice it to become rich and famous like them"
>"dude humility and emotional hardness is like the new cool thing that rich people do now, it used to be being a douchebag when Steve Jobs was in style but that's passed, it's all about Stoicism now dude, that's the buzz word that'll get people to think you're smart now"
>"it's perfect because it's what all the rich and famous people are talking about, yet it validates you if you're a complete incompetent failure because you can just be like 'oh i drive a honda civic because i practice stoicism, not because i'm an incompetent fucking loser', dude you gotta try it"
>"dude i'm a philosopher now i swear to god, ask me anything and i'll give you an answer in my pretentious overexaggerated diction like Tim Ferriss and Ryan Holiday do where they don't even answer the fucking question but they talk down to you and emphasize their buzz words and GRE words so much that you forget what you even asked them and you don't want to call them out because they've impressed you so much with their intelligence and J. Crew henleys"
>"yeah, i totally read Meditations, I read it in one sitting I couldn't put it down"
>"what do you mean all the lines i quote from it are on the first row of Google Image Search results for "marcus aurelius quotes"? stop being so naggy and insecure, you should read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius like i did, then maybe you'll be able to function like an enlightened adult like me. S-so uhh.. did you see the latest Joe Rogan podcast? That's another face in the Mount Rushmore of modern philosophy next to Tim Ferriss and Ryan Holiday - Joe Rogan. And maybe Tai Lopez."
>"tell my mom i'm sorry"
>kills himself

[Anonymous No.10269878]

>>10267567
moveon.org

[Anonymous No.10269886]

>>10267992
what book is this?

[Anonymous No.10269914]

>>10267373
it is a ideology for those who have no idealism be radical, have principles, be absolute, be that which the bourgeoisie calls an extremist, give yourself without counting or calculating, don’t accept what they call ‘the reality of life’ and act in such a way that you won’t be accepted by that kind of life, never abandon the principle of struggle

[Anonymous No.10269921]

>>10269914
>i have literally no idea what stoicism is whatsoever
Which philosophy forbids you to use proper English grammar?

[Anonymous No.10269947]

>>10269921
accelerationism

[Anonymous No.10269961]

while stoicism may be in vogue now, its just a fad. you're just a hipster; mad because your only "edge" over the peasantry is now lost.
>>10267373

[Anonymous No.10270007]

If you want to get closer to living in a world free of anxiety, worry, or self-consciousness (the lowest form and thus the biggest sign of underdevelopment), then stoicism is a good starting point. Unfortunately it's highly incompatible with a love life, so take that as what you will. Schopenhauer addresses this in TWAWAI, and that's currently what I'm going through. Thoreau and Emerson take stoicism up a notch

>>10267533
Seneca>Epictetus>>Aurelius. They are all good for their own reasons, and the first two are interchangeable. >>10267761
>>10267836
eh. Just because some people like this are associated with stoicism, means nothing. There's a reason Shakespeare, Montaigne, and Schopenhauer read and were inspired by Seneca.

>>10267933
he's not a stoic and i've met guys like this. Also: you don't have to be a hundred percent stoic in every sense of the term. You would be a wooden post, like Schopenhauer says. Love would be incompatible.

>>10268001
lol

>>10268098
my friend is a capitalist and he's a scumbag. Capitalism sucks. my other friend detests weed and he's a bad guy so weed is good. My other friend likes John Waters, so... oh wait, that doesn't count

>>10268942
awful. you have obviously not read anything beyond more than half of Meditations.

[Anonymous No.10270019]

>>10268995

[Anonymous No.10270046]

>>10270019
all stoics are failed cynics desu. too weak and unprincipled for the dog life so they just started adding sophistry until they could life like every other normie but with platitudes.

[Anonymous No.10270060]

>>10270046
I'm of the opinion that bad dogs should be put down

[Anonymous No.10270596]

The type of guy who reads meditations and thinks its "deep".

[Anonymous No.10270614]

>>10268026
Then your friend is no Stoic.

[Anonymous No.10270650]

>>10267373
I was a stoic for years. Worked out twice a day, ate right, held myself to a high moral standard. Now I eat whatever I want, never work out, and booze constantly. Life is too short, and I paid my debt to society. I owe it nothing anymore. Epicurians rule, slaves drool.

[Anonymous No.10270672]

>>10270650
this is most normie post off all time

[Anonymous No.10270688]

>Me before reading the full text of the OP
"Oh boy, I sure can't wait to read a well-thought out post full of thoughtful analysis regarding the honest development of Stoic philosophy."

>mfw reading a shoddy, hastily cobbled together collection of meme assertions

[Anonymous No.10270696]

>>10270650
t. street person whom eats out of waste containers, a disease riddled body in rapid deterioration, an overall objectively hopeless bill of health and well-being. Addicted to intoxicants which whom abuses from dusk til dawn. Associates society debt and disconnection, a social outcast.

[Anonymous No.10270715]

>>10270696
>dusk til dawn
>til
brother.

[Anonymous No.10270723]

>>10270650
>implying epicurus advocated the life of a degenerate junkie

terrible. take a lap.

[Anonymous No.10270865]

>>10269875

Surprised Holiday hasn't been taken to task yet by /lit/. Guy is a pseud and douche of the highest order.

[Anonymous No.10271000]

>>10270596
>bearded guy in sunglasses
wtf i hate stoicism now

[Anonymous No.10271054]

>>10269244
>This is false.
From your boy Epictetus

>8. Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well.

>15. Remember that you must behave in life as at a dinner party. Is anything brought around to you? Put out your hand and take your share with moderation. Does it pass by you? Don't stop it. Is it not yet come? Don't stretch your desire towards it, but wait till it reaches you. Do this with regard to children, to a wife, to public posts, to riches, and you will eventually be a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods. And if you don't even take the things which are set before you, but are able even to reject them, then you will not only be a partner at the feasts of the gods, but also of their empire. For, by doing this, Diogenes, Heraclitus and others like them, deservedly became, and were called, divine.

>17. Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If it is his pleasure you should act a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your business, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is another's.

>Most of the lessons of sages are intellectually simple to understand, what is complex is practice.
Only if you reduce it to a meme like "just be virtuous dude" the complexity in application has a lot to do with understanding and determining virtue without just taking it from a preexisting system.

>So now religious belief based on nothing but faith are a characteristic of great minds? Religiosity is a medalof good character?
Its more a joke about the irony of athiests seeking such a universal system to replace the void in their hearts left by their rebellion against God.

>yet what can be said with complete certainty is that all human religions are human creations
Hardly, perhaps you should brush up on your Aristotle and Aquinas. Or simply consider the logical knots that will form when you apply this reasoning.

[Anonymous No.10271063]

>>10267522
Holy shit this.
I often feel cowardly because I almost never pick a side in many situations (most often political)
I tell myself that Stoicism is my compass, but I still know deep down that it has a very cowardly tinge to it.

What can I do? This is depressing!

[Anonymous No.10271116]

>Discarding a philosophy over some misinformed followers and not understanding this is an ad hominem

Instead of condemning someone you believe is wrong, educate them. Nobody acts in the way posters have described intentionally, if you carry superior knowledge of life then share it with them. Raise your fellow man up by sharing the knowledge you have.

Stoicism is often misconstrued but even if we choose to ignore those who do this there are still issues with it. However the baby and bathwater maxim springs to mind. Stoicism is not about embracing suffering, or becoming some unemotional fedora lord (nice try kid) but about preparing your mind for the unexpected. I always use a gambling analogy when explaining this, if a stoic goes to play roulette, he places his bet and expects all possible outcomes (in this case winning or losing). By expecting both with equal anticipation he will not be surprised or vexed if he loses nor will they become giddy with joy of they win. By priming oneself in this way they are in control of their reactions and won't be slave to their impulses. Furthermore the stoic accepts their own fate and their own lot in life, they will not rue the roulette board, or curse the gods or the croupier, all things happen as they ought to and the wheel spins exactly how it was meant to.

[Anonymous No.10271121]

>>10271063
Why do you have to pick a side? If you have an opinion either way then their is no choice in the matter only that if you choose to voice it. If you hold a opinion and it is relevant to the discussion you should voice it. If it is informed by facts and you truly believe it to be true it will hold up to the scrutiny of whoever you are talking with. If is is not true then why hold it? If it does not hold up to scrutiny perhaps your view may be incorrect and whoever you are speaking with may be able to alter your view. And vice versa.

[Anonymous No.10271178]

>>10271116

B-but I already live my life according to this principle.

[Anonymous No.10271242]

>>10269244
>>10270007
>>10271116

[Anonymous No.10271260]

The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.

[Anonymous No.10271341]

>>10267533
Suma Theologica

[Anonymous No.10271343]

>>10271116
> Stoicism is not about embracing suffering, or becoming some unemotional fedora lord (nice try kid)

>33. Be for the most part silent, or speak merely what is necessary, and in few words. We may, however, enter, though sparingly, into discourse sometimes when occasion calls for it... If you are able, then, by your own conversation bring over that of your company to proper subjects; but, if you happen to be taken among strangers, be silent.

>Don't allow your laughter be much, nor on many occasions, nor profuse.

>3. ...If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.

No laughter and no talking unless its about Stoicism oh and being upset at the death of loved ones is sign of not being virtuous.

How is that not fedora?

[Anonymous No.10271361]

>>10271343
Are you seriously trying to say that Aurelius managed to successfully run an empire without speaking at length about anything other than stoicism?

It's not meant to be a literal manual but an outline of principles

[Anonymous No.10271374]

>>10271361
Never change.

[Anonymous No.10271382]

>>10267373
projecting much OP?

[Anonymous No.10271416]

>>10267373
Defining yourself based on ideologies you've read in books is autistic, no matter what philosophy it is.

[Anonymous No.10271421]

>>10267538
>>10267373
Gas yourselves

[Anonymous No.10271428]

>>10271361
Did you read your post? Firstly it clearly is a manual unless you have a unique definition of the word and secondly even if we accept your claim it doesnt make it any better.

Here is your argument
"Stoicism isn't fedora in practice only its principals are!"

>Are you seriously trying to say that Aurelius managed to successfully run an empire without speaking at length about anything other than stoicism?
No I am saying that Epictetus the teacher who preceded MA wrote a manual which prescribed that behavior for stoics. Do you think Epictetus was wrong about Stoicism?

[Anonymous No.10271461]

>>10270865
Absolutely. Ryan Holiday is such a fucking douche. All he does is namedrop and talk down to people. His only claim to actually being "successful" is marketing/PR campaigns which it turned out he intentionally lied and made up stories to create media controversy for his clients/company. Then he leveraged this "fame" into book deals with buzz words like stoicism, using bumper-sticker philosophy in the empty self-help bullshit genre. Everything he does is for appearances and vanity, he's the opposite of a stoic.

I wish he got all pretentious and snobby to me in person, on the street in the middle of deserted/unrecorded NYC streets at 4am on his "morningly runs" with his fit band, so I can punch him in his goofy fucking jaw, give him a double leg takedown and break his arm with a jiu-jitsu armbar. I'd love to see the FitBit report on that one, seeing the gigantic spike in his heart rate coinciding with the time when I break both of his fucking arms and maybe his legs during his fucking morning jog. POST THAT ON YOUR FUCKING INSTAGRAM STORIES, FAGGOT!

[Anonymous No.10271465]

>>10271054
>>yet what can be said with complete certainty is that all human religions are human creations
>Hardly, perhaps you should brush up on your Aristotle and Aquinas. Or simply consider the logical knots that will form when you apply this reasoning.

I too doubt you can offer any solid evidence of the veracity of any religion

Like anon said, it's all just faith

[Anonymous No.10271490]

>>10271428
Aurelius was not writing a manual though, he was not writing for any clear purpose and almost certainly he wasn't writing for audience.

I'm not arguing from a position that Stoicism is the be all and end off of philosophy and life but rather than many of its teachings may be useful.

I'm assuming you are taking the stance that Stoicism in its entirety is useless and fedora tier. If this is your position I'm happy to debate.

[Anonymous No.10271499]

>>10271465
>no solid evidence

And still anon will readily believe that stoicism works without bothering to get into actual psychology.

[Anonymous No.10271511]

>>10271428
le fedora xD

[Anonymous No.10271514]

>>10271465
There's no such thing as "solid evidence", only preferred and not preferred axioms.

[Anonymous No.10271545]

>>10271461
Solid post

[Anonymous No.10271567]

>>10271490
What about anons posts makes you think he wants to talk about MA's diary? He brings up specific problems he has with stoic principles citing Epictetus. You're splitting hairs about minute detail and then complain you dont understand the argument anymore.

[Anonymous No.10271640]

>>10270723

What did he advocate? What is the epicurean good life?

[Anonymous No.10271643]

>>10267419
Just be yourself.

[Anonymous No.10271658]

>>10271499

Psychology is an early-stage science - the brain is basically still a black box. Everyone understands that you might get large effect sizes without knowing the exact causation - but at least you can actually see an effect size.

No such measurable output for religion.

[Anonymous No.10271685]

>>10271465
>>I too doubt you can offer any solid evidence of the veracity of any religion
only liberal rationalist sperg out about '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''proof''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''', not that retard like you can stop being a liberal

[Anonymous No.10271732]

>>10271658
>Everyone understands that you might get large effect sizes without knowing the exact causation

So how does this apply to Stoic teachings and not to religions?

[Anonymous No.10271784]

>>10271732

We don't know how the brain works, but you still observe that it exists, and has such complex responses that thought patterns like stoicism could have some kind of effect.

There's no similar external object with which to base a belief in god - nothing you can observe and expect might someday yield evidence of a god.

Stoicism has a large amount of quite weak evidence pointing to a possibility, but religion has almost nothing.

[Anonymous No.10271822]

>>10267399
This.

By the way, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations should be read in conjuction with Pierre Hadot's The Inner Citadel. It creates a really neat and clean framework which creates actual structure in the Meditations and makes it a good example of how Stoic principles can be implemented in daily life.

[Anonymous No.10271858]

>>10271784
>There's no similar external object with which to base a belief in god - nothing you can observe and expect might someday yield evidence of a god.

Good post!
I wasnt talking about proving god exists however, but that religious teachings and practices could yield similair positive psychological results. The unkown exact causation could just as easily be trust in the lord as trust in stoic determenism.

[Anonymous No.10271930]

>>10271640
A self-sustainable life of moderation. Some indulgences are fine, but he warned that addiction often leads to greater suffering in the long run, making drugs unsustainable. Happiness should come foremost from lack of stress and pain. A nice place in the countryside where you can play music and bullshit about philosophy with friends was his idyllic lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.10271938]

>>10271858

Oh yeah that's very fair, sorry for misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.10271955]

Read Pierre Hadot

[Anonymous No.10271965]

>>10267508
>post this on /pol/ to annoy niggers

[Anonymous No.10272095]

>>10271685

Yes, the Christian who faithfully follows what Mom and Dad taught him to do is an authority to call others retards.

>>10271685
>only liberal rationalist sperg out about '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''proof'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I bet you also do not like many of the discoveries of the twentieth century for being "Jewish science."

Friend, you can believe whatever you want, just do not pretend there is any rational and logical argument to sustain your faith.

[Anonymous No.10272138]

FUCK I HATE STOICS GAHH
FUCKING KEKS!!!

[Anonymous No.10272146]

>>10271930
Nice, thanks

[Anonymous No.10272153]

>tfw you find out that most critics in this thread are attacking stoicism not because of its abilities/incapacities in helping people to live better lives, but only because they are Christians (but disguising their arguments as being philosophical)

2017 and people are still letting religion influence their way of thinking. Poor world.

[Anonymous No.10272849]

>>10271116
>By expecting both with equal anticipation he will not be surprised or vexed if he loses nor will they become giddy with joy of they win.
I think this is how you get an aneurysm.

Personally, I'm not rigid in my views on philosophy or religion. Too each his own. I like to have discussions about these subjects without getting to hung up about nomenclature. I've assembled my own philosophy out of parts from nihilism, hedonism, altruism and a whole lot of other isms. It's dynamic and progressive. Excuse me for not being a purist and I know these terms might seem to be contradictory but it's helpful. I'm always looking to change my perception of things and to learn new stuff. That's why I'm here.

Maybe it's a good thing for stoicism to become 'trendy', maybe it'll make people read more. I think we'd all benefit from that.

[Anonymous No.10272935]

>>10271054
>void in their hearts

Why do people pretend such a thing exists? Or are you actually so ignorant you think being an atheist leaves a void within you aching to be filled? Someone would have to be an incredibly weak, immature person to have this problem.

[Anonymous No.10272941]

>>10272935
>>10272095
>>10271643
>>10271382
>>10271116
>>10270723
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1PfRXi41uE

seriously (that's english for "unironically")

[Anonymous No.10273149]

>>10271490
How is any of that relevant to any of the points I raised concerning Epictetus, what your argument was or even what a manual is?

The argument I am making is only that >>10271116 is incorrect and it is in fact about "embracing suffering... [and] becoming some unemotional fedora lord. I backed this up with quotes from Epictetus. So show that either he is wrong or my understanding of him is.

[Anonymous No.10273172]

>>10272153
>stating the current year

You know how I can tell you're a nu-male?

[Anonymous No.10273182]

>>10271784
You absolutely can prove that God exists. If you don't think so, you're fallen for the modernist Jewish propaganda.

[Anonymous No.10273201]

>>10273182
>You absolutely can prove that God exists.

So why dont you prove it and enter history books forever as the man who made one of the greatest findings in all human history?

[Anonymous No.10273218]

>>10273172
>you're a nu-male?

I have a hot wife, so I guess I do not fit the profile.

[Anonymous No.10273238]

>>10273201
It's already been done, by Aquinas, and everyone knew this prior to the intellectual diseases introduced by the so-called "Enlightenment."

Read The Last Superstition by Ed Feser for a good introduction.

[Anonymous No.10273261]

>>10273218

I've also spent a lot of money in the past with luxury prostitutes, so I do not have much of what is known as "nu-male."

Poor American Christians. Even in ad hominem they fail.

[Anonymous No.10273269]

>>10273261
You honestly seem like the kind of guy who thinks Sam Harris/ Dennett/ Dawkins are serious philosophers

please die, brainlet

[Anonymous No.10273299]

>>10273269
>Sam Harris/ Dennett/

Dont know them

>>10273269
>Dawkins

His field is biology (but yes, biology has helped to unmask most of the world's religious creeds).

[Anonymous No.10273366]

>>10273238
>It's already been done, by Aquinas

The only thing that seems logical in his argument is that you end up having to get to a first cause, or to something that has always existed which some call God). So you either have something coming out of nothing or something that has always existed.

But this does not prove that any of our human religions are correct. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this first cause concerns itself human lives or even knows of our existence (something even more palpable when one realizes that human beings are the product of natural selection, like any other life forms).

[Anonymous No.10273378]

>>10273269
to be fair Dan Dennett is a real philosopher

a dumbfuck meme philosopher, but at least its actually his job title

[Anonymous No.10273385]

>>10273366
You clearly do not understand the argument. Yours is a common misconception - what we mean by cause is actually something entirely different from what you imagine.

Additionally, the argument never claims to show that Christianity is true. That's a whole other issue, which comes after the issue of God's existence.

Again, you need to actually read the arguments, not just some summary on plebbit or 4chan.

>>10273299
I honestly can't tell if you're baiting. Biology does not in any way conflict with Catholicism, and if you think it does you are indeed a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10273398]

>>10267373
>a true stoic could feel nothing, even at his wife's funeral
Nah i'm good. I relish in the horror and passion of it all.

[Anonymous No.10273411]

>>10273385
>I honestly can't tell if you're baiting. Biology does not in any way conflict with Catholicism, and if you think it does you are indeed a brainlet.

C'mon, dude.

Natural selection and all of the finds that came after Darwin overturned all the arguments of creation presented in the Bible.

Only thing that Catholics can do now is to say that those arguments and stories were just "metaphors" and "symbolism," and argue that the history of the evolution of species on Earth is the form that God used to create us.

In the end, however, ancient Greek myths, or Islamism, Hinduism are all as right as Catholicism. It's all based on faith.

Why dying and ceasing to exist is so scary to you guys?

[Anonymous No.10273521]

>>10273411
Nobody actually read Genesis literally until the 19th century - basically everyone knew it was a metaphor. Also, Catholics have never read Genesis literally - to do so is considered heresy. The thing about the Bible is that it isn't a book, but rather a library. To assert that the whole thing must be read literally is akin to asserting that a random collection of 60 books must all be read the same way.

Also, your claim that those religions are all of the same merit is patently absurd. Even skeptical historians will tell you that Christianity has BY FAR the most compelling evidence. And, no, Catholicism is not based on blind faith; this is called fideism and has been condemned by the Church over and over.

You would know all of this if you actually took the time to read books on the matter. Instead you shitpost and embarrass yourself on the internet with these /r/atheism tier posts

[Anonymous No.10273572]

>>10273521
>Nobody actually read Genesis literally until the 19th century
Citation needed. Also how do you know how they read it?
>Nobody actually read Genesis literally until the 19th century
Citation needed. Especially on the heresy. Also on who's authority? Also how do you know what they took literally or not? Is there an infallible authority here?
>To assert that the whole thing must be read literally..
Do you mean certain parts of it must be read literally? How do you discern what should be taken literally or not?
>Also, your claim that those religions are all of the same merit is patently absurd. Even skeptical historians will tell you that Christianity has BY FAR the most compelling evidence.
Citation needed. Also that's not saying much. Furthermore you value evidence?
>Catholicism is not based on blind faith
You think there is good evidence for the existence of god. Okay..

>You would know all of this if you actually took the time to read books on the matter.
I'm not who you replied to but I'd shudder to hear the books you've read on the matter.

[Anonymous No.10273593]

>>10273269
I'm not so sure being a "serious philosopher" in the year 2017 is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.10273595]

>>10273572
Here is just one example for Genesis: https://www.catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis

And there is evidence for Gods existence, in the form of proofs. I said it before, but read The Last Superstition by Feser for an intro to this. I guarantee you've never read the strongest proofs for Gods existence, yet you still dismiss them outright.

As for the historical veracity of Christianity, some good introductory books would be The Case For Jesus by Pitre and The Resurrection of Christ by NT Wright.

And these are just introductory books. Take a look at some of the stuff that priests must read in the seminary just to have a baseline comprehension of the faith...

[Anonymous No.10273622]

>>10273595
>https://www.catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis
I'm not going to read all that, call me lazy, uninformed I don't care. If you want to argue, put forth your best arguments here, summarize.

>I guarantee you've never read the strongest proofs for Gods existence
Maybe I haven't. If they're so strong you figure I would have heard them though. Why wouldn't an enormously wealthy and widespread religion think that it wouldn't be a good idea to put their best arguments forward. I was raised Catholic at least. I'd love to hear a summary though.

[Anonymous No.10273641]

>>10273622
>I'm too lazy to read my opponents' arguments, even though I'm posting on a fucking literature board

Honestly you should just kill yourself if you're too lazy to read about literally the most important thing there is

[Anonymous No.10273651]

>>10267373
I've always viewed stoicism as knowing that the universe has an unbelievable amount of factors in it out of our control. With this knowledge it's easier to accept the negative situations in life considering how immensely out of our hands the universe is. It's not about not getting mad at it, it's about not getting illogically mad at it. It's about understanding and being able to deal with life logically and meditatively.

It's certainly not about not feeling anything. It's about thinking deeper and wider into life and situations that effect us. IMO.

[Anonymous No.10273670]

>>10273641
I've already heard and read many many many arguments friend. And I would argue if god exists, you shouldn't need to resort to literature to have to search for (bad) evidence.
>Honestly you should just kill yourself
Yeah I want to think like you do. Really setting a good example.

[Anonymous No.10273687]

>>10270672
>>10270696
>>10270723
All these skinnyfats mad they will never realize what their bodies are capable of.

[Anonymous No.10273701]

>>10273670
I'm 100% sure all you've read are these meme-tier "arguments" like the ontological argument that carry no weight with anyone with triple digit IQ. If you seriously want to hear the good arguments, you could start by reading The Last Superstition by Feser. You need to understand that blog posts and 4chan posts are not enough to effectively argue things as weighty as this. You're actually going to have to put some effort in.

Also, just lol @ you saying the arguments are bad without even reading them. What a fucking moron. Typical of atheists, though.

[Anonymous No.10273726]

Stoicism seems pretty alright to be honest. How does one into it though?

[Anonymous No.10273744]

>>10273701
>If only everyone would read that book by Feser everyone would get it like me

>the arguments are bad without even reading them.
Lol so I've only heard bad arguments, you seem to be hoarding all the good one's

I'd still love to hear a basic summary or even one point but apparently they are just too deep

[Anonymous No.10273841]

>>10272935
>Why do people pretend such a thing exists?
Because they legitimately do. Despite not believing in Gods they rush quickly to find a new ones to provide objectivity and meaning whether in political ideologies, philosophical ones such as humanism or spirituality.

[Anonymous No.10273856]

>>10273201
Here is a nice starting point. Unless you want to reject causation you need to have a God like figure.

[Anonymous No.10273878]

>>10273744
Not that anon.
But its effectively what comes into existence has a cause and that an un-caused being/thing is necessarily God

[Anonymous No.10273884]

>>10270007
>Unfortunately it's highly incompatible with a love life
What do you mean?
Also, now I can't look at girls with pigtails without thinking about this picture.

[Anonymous No.10273947]

>>10273878
If that is in fact the truth (although you can't speak for him) I could have told him I've heard that one before, many times actually. It's not the worst argument but good lord it's not evidence by any stretch of the imagination and the belief is still cemented in faith.

>what comes into existence has a cause and that an un-caused being/thing is necessarily God

I would argue that if anything this is an argument for deism. Certainly not the catholic faith which is what he was spearheading. To say that that argument necessarily applies to catholicism is just plain incorrect. That same argument could be applied to any of the worlds religions which all equally claim they're god is the correct one.

There is also the question how did that god (that caused being) come into existence? There is no scientific or logical answer to this so they are stuck on the same exact spot that an atheist is.

The difference lies in the religious person believing that having faith is the way to go. While the atheist believes that the science of tomorrow (as it has explained so many things so far, especially in relatively recent time) is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.10273993]

>>10273947
>It's not the worst argument but good lord it's not evidence by any stretch of the imagination and the belief is still cemented in faith.

Actually its based on pure deductive logic. Which means that if one accepts the axiom that everything which comes into existence has a cause but reject this it is this party leaning more heavily on faith.

>I would argue that if anything this is an argument for deism.

Its starting point for establishing the existence of God which is a necessary step before going on to argue that the Catholic understand of God is the correct one.

>There is also the question how did that god (that caused being) come into existence?

I dont think you have given this much thought or even read that post. To quote that single line "that an un-caused being/thing is necessarily God" The argument is ***not*** that everything has a cause, but that an uncaused thing could only be God.

>There is no scientific or logical answer to this so they are stuck on the same exact spot that an atheist is.
Literally a strawman, logic demands this answer unless you reject causation as an axiom.

>the atheist believes that the science of tomorrow (as it has explained so many things so far, especially in relatively recent time) is the way to go.o
The atheist has to not only reject deductive logic but also has to reconcile thier contradictory world views of reality and the inability of the scientific method to explain matters which cannot be repeated.

[Anonymous No.10274092]

>>10273993
>Actually its based on pure deductive logic. Which means that if one accepts the axiom that everything which comes into existence has a cause but reject this it is this party leaning more heavily on faith.

First off I don't understand your grammar here:
>but reject this it is this party leaning more heavily on faith.

I apologize so I'll argue how I think I interpret it.

Believing that everything has a cause does not necessitate the belief in god, and much less the belief in the christian deity. This is the key here and all of our arguments will come back to this.

>Its starting point for establishing the existence of God which is a necessary step before going on to argue that the Catholic understand of God is the correct one.

It "could" be a starting point if you believed that god necessarily exists because he is the outside metaphysical element. You ask why does the universe exist. I ask how does the universe exist. Why denotes purpose. How is blind to everything but the evidence/science.

>The argument is ***not*** that everything has a cause, but that an uncaused thing could only be God.

I am saying that from a *strictly logical standpoint* you are stuck in the same spot that an atheist is. You have no more evidence than an atheist does. Neither of us can explain the origin's cause. You can say that the cause (god) was uncaused. But that refutes the maxim "everything which comes into existence has a cause."

>Literally a strawman, logic demands this answer unless you reject causation as an axiom.
Addressed above.

The atheist has to not only reject deductive logic but also has to reconcile thier contradictory world views of reality and the inability of the scientific method to explain matters which cannot be repeated.

The atheist is open to the evidence and is willing to cease what he believed yesterday for the evidence of tomorrow. The theist knows the answer before he asks the question, he or she need only rationalize.

[Anonymous No.10274107]

>>10273744
>>10273947
That is, in a sense, the one sentence version, but it is wholly inadequate to portray it in such a way.

Also, I am by no means saying that Feser's book is the only source on this argument. He merely does the best job at explaining this on a level which your ordinary brainlet can grasp.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

[Anonymous No.10274151]

>>10274107
I can copy and paste links and give book recommendations too. I don't because I'm able to discuss my thoughts *somewhat* articulately. Also, and I'm really trying to help you, the whole brainlet thing really doesn't phase me, it only makes you look weaker.

[Anonymous No.10274198]

>>10273993
>I dont think you have given this much thought or even read that post.

Also, no fault of your own, but you misinterpreted my meaning:

>There is also the question how did that god (that caused being) come into existence?

>(that caused being)

I mean caused as in the verb not the adjective

[Anonymous No.10274207]

>>10274092
>Believing that everything has a cause does not necessitate the belief in god, and much less the belief in the christian deity.

Again, belief in the Christian God does not follow immediately from Aquinas' argument. But, I think a big issue you are having here is that you simply do not understand the word "cause," in the sense in which we are using it. I'm not talking about "A caused B caused C caused..." in the temporal sense. To clarify what we would really mean takes a lot of space, which is why I am hesitant to try to summarize.

>god necessarily exists because he is the outside metaphysical element

Nobody believes this.

>I am saying that from a *strictly logical standpoint* you are stuck in the same spot that an atheist is. You have no more evidence than an atheist does. Neither of us can explain the origin's cause. You can say that the cause (god) was uncaused. But that refutes the maxim "everything which comes into existence has a cause."

Again, you should read the link I posted above. Causation is different in this context.

>The atheist is open to the evidence and is willing to cease what he believed yesterday for the evidence of tomorrow. The theist knows the answer before he asks the question, he or she need only rationalize.

This is just bias. You're saying that atheists are intellectually honest, and theists are not, but this is absurd.

Here, I will spell it out for you. Keep in mind this is the ultra TLDR version.

All things which exist have are composed of potentiality and actuality. Actuality is what a thing actually is; for example, a blue rubber ball is actually blue, actually rubber, and actually a ball. Also, it is actually bouncy, actually finite, etc. Potentiality is what something could potentially be. For example, the ball could potentially be red, potentially be melted, etc.

Notice that potentiality only exists relative to actuality.

Now, how does something change from potentiality to actuality? It can only be changed by something which is actual. For example, for the ball to become red, it must be painted, in which case that which is actually red (paint) is applied to the ball. Or, it could be melted, by something which is actually hot. Things do not randomly change from potential to actual.

Consider the following example. I use a stick to move a rock. The rock is being moved by the stick, i.e., the potential for the rock to be moving is being actualized by the motion of the stick. The stick is moving because my hand moves it. I.e., the potential for the stick to be moving is actualized by the motion of my hand. And my hand moves due to the contraction of my muscles, and so on. Notice how all of this is simultaneous - the cause of the motion gives the effect simultaneously.

Now, here is the key claim: this kind of ordered series - called "essentially ordered" - cannot regress to infinity. (cont. next post)

[Anonymous No.10274235]

Note the difference between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered. Accidentally ordered means later things in the series do not depend on what came before - for example, a father begets a son, a son begets another son, etc.

Essentially ordered does matter - if the stick stops moving, so does the rock.

Why can essentially ordered series not regress to infinity? Simple - if they did, then nothing could occur at all! For there must be a termination in this series, something which actualizes all potential, for otherwise the rock could never stop moving at all.

So this first cause - this so-called "unmoved mover" - THIS is pure actuality, pure act, in Scholastic terms. THIS is what we Catholics call God.

Now, I know what you will say - that's not what I think of when I say God! How does that fit the Christian conception of God? Now you see the difficulty with trying to summarize all of this. Aquinas dedicates hundreds, literally hundreds, of pages to this issue.

[Anonymous No.10274240]

>>10267373
>More importantly, it offers absolutely nothing new
good point

it is, in fact, quite old

[Anonymous No.10274245]

>>10274235
An interesting corollary to what I posted here:

If God did not exist, in this way we conceive of him - as ipsum esse subsistens - then nothing could exist even for a single moment. This is why deism is so absurd: it cannot explain how anything exists in the here and now.

[Anonymous No.10274254]

>>10274092
>First off I don't understand your grammar here:
As the cosmological argument of aquinas is based off of deductive logic it means that if you accept the premise everything which comes into existence has a cause but reject his argument that this necessitates a God like figure it is you who are leaning on faith instead of reason.

>Believing that everything has a cause does not necessitate the belief in god, and much less the belief in the christian deity.
But do you see the importance of establishing their being a God first before moving on?

>It "could" be a starting point if you believed that god necessarily exists because he is the outside metaphysical element.
Not at all God is reached via deduction its not an assumption or apriori

>You ask why does the universe exist. I ask how does the universe exist.
Actually Im not, the question Im looking at is "how does causation work and what its consequences are"

Its no different from asking given what we know of evolution what are the consequences for traits in humans.

>I am saying that from a *strictly logical standpoint* you are stuck in the same spot that an atheist is.

Only if you hold that athiests reject the principle of causation. Is this what you think?

>But that refutes the maxim "everything which comes into existence has a cause."
How though? this point doesnt apply to something that has always existed (ie not come into existence) take a look back at >>10273878

What you are doing here is acting again as though I wrote *everything* has to be created and have a cause

>Addressed above.
Addressed above,

>The atheist is open to the evidence and is willing to cease what he believed yesterday for the evidence of tomorrow.

A beautiful sentiment but is it matched in reality? Do you not see the knots athiests tie themselves into when they try and rationalise their ethical views and understanding of causation?

[Anonymous No.10274277]

>>10274198
>Also, no fault of your own, but you misinterpreted my meaning:

No, you really did not think much about this or read the post you responded to. Look at the post your comment was directed at, it literally states that God is un-caused; therefore something which did not come into existence.

[Anonymous No.10274302]

>>10274235
Why is the universe an "essentially ordered series"?

[Anonymous No.10274307]

>>10274277
Well, of course he didn't put much thought into it - that's why he's an atheist.

It is truly a tragedy that so many have come to see atheism as the "intellectual" worldview, when in reality it is so untenable to the point of being absurd.

[Anonymous No.10274310]

Should I read Meditations before Letters from a Stoic? Or vice versa?

[Anonymous No.10274313]

>>10274302
I never said it was, but it is composed of them. However, all things which actually exist right now, belong to an essentially ordered series.

I did a kind of poor job of explaining everything, because there is a lot of metaphysics you need to have down before it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.10274323]

>>10274313
>However, all things which actually exist right now, belong to an essentially ordered series.

But that's a tautology, because by "existing right now" the thing necessarily exists through time, and therefore space, and is subject to a necessary causation as a result. So all you have said is "Everything that has a necessary cause is necessarily caused."

[Anonymous No.10274339]

>>10274323
Eh, not really. It doesn't necessarily have to exist through time - think of something popping into existence for 1 second, then disappearing forever.

But, yes, what I am saying is that things which can potentially exist do actually exist only when they are made to actually exist by something else. This does not necessarily need to be God, but it will trace back to God, in the "vertical" sense (i.e., not the temporal sense).

[Anonymous No.10274367]

>>10274307
>It is truly a tragedy that so many have come to see atheism as the "intellectual" worldview, when in reality it is so untenable to the point of being absurd.

Not to the point of absurdity, most peoples beliefs in either directions are infantile or simplistic just because its such an extremely complex and difficult matter. Unpacking Aquinas and then getting onto understanding the legitimate criticisms about him is for instance a very long and time consuming affair. All of which is more complicated as people have emotional investments in the answer going a specific way.


Pic related

[Anonymous No.10274381]

>>10274367
I agree completely.

Dominus tecum.

[Anonymous No.10274402]

>>10274381
Its good to hear from a person who can see the challenge
>Dominus tecum.
I hope so, been grinding through religious and atheist works (good ones actually exist) but havent been able to resolve it am fearful Ill never work it all out

[Anonymous No.10274445]

>>10274339
Sorry, I guess my use of "through" was vague there. What I meant was, "it necessarily exists within time."

My point is, by applying time as an objective universality, you apply "beginning" to the universe (as you have said, "it will trace back to God"), and you necessarily situate it within time, i.e., a comprehensive faculty of a human-like being, which would have to in this case be God, in order for this being to exist prior to the universe. But here you are assuming what was to be proved, namely, that the universe had a beginning.

[Anonymous No.10274457]

>>10274445
You completely misunderstood the argument, as it does not in any way rest on the premise that the universe had a beginning. In fact, I think that, philosophically, it is not possible to demonstrate such a thing.

[Anonymous No.10274495]

>>10274457
Then how, precisely, does this argument "trace back to God"?

[Anonymous No.10274519]

>>10267373
guys guys guys

guys

...

"sophrosyne"

[Anonymous No.10274531]

>>10271063
>What can I do?
Know thyself?

[Anonymous No.10274564]

>>10274254
>Do you not see the knots athiests tie themselves into when they try and rationalise their ethical views and understanding of causation?
What is the problem?

[Anonymous No.10274602]

>>10274207
>>10274235
The unmoved mover argument, while thought provoking is coming from a guy who only could have only been familiar with 13th century physics.

You are basically asserting that there must have been an unmoved mover i.e. something must have existed without a cause. This is a leap of faith and a logical fallacy. Also an unmoved mover does not *have to be god*, and in no way does it even in the faintest whisper denote the ideas of morality/a just god etc. Not only is it wishful thinking the two things are mutually exclusive. You simply have no evidence. Also you are deducing that an essentially ordered universe exists a priori. We simply can't make these claims with absolute certainty. It would be scientifically/intellectually damning.

>How does that fit the Christian conception of God?
Yes, that is where your arguments get REALLY bad so let's not even go there.

>>10274245
>then nothing could exist even for a single moment.
I'm sorry how is deism any more absurd than theism? Do you know HOW god potentially exists and creates?

The fact remains we don't know the origins of the cosmos, or even if this universe is the only universe. So either:

We don't know. Therefore god.
or
We don't know. Therefore let's try to understand.

[Anonymous No.10274651]

>>10274277
You still don't understand what I'm saying. I'll try to make this visual:

Theist:
God->Universe->Planets->People

Atheist:
???->Universe->Planets->People

You are not in a better position logically. You have simply filled in the blank with a guess and called it god and gave it morality etc. The atheist typically will be open to a scientific explanation while the atheist already knows the answer. We don't know the answers yet, to just say that god did it is not only non factual but a bad guess as it is entirely faith based.

[Anonymous No.10274662]

>>10274602
Im not that anon but.

>You are basically asserting that there must have been an unmoved mover i.e. something must have existed without a cause. This is a leap of faith and a logical fallacy. Also an unmoved mover does not *have to be god*, and in no way does it even in the faintest whisper denote the ideas of morality/a just god etc. Not only is it wishful thinking the two things are mutually exclusive.

Just ask yourself a few questoins, how does causation function without an unchanged starting point and what traits would this point/thing (the unmoved mover) have.
>>10274564
>What is the problem?
The problem is disregarding the faults confusion and hypocrisy in one side of the question.

Assuming you are the same anon there's also the problems of ignoring the rest of that post.

[Anonymous No.10274665]

>>10274564
>rationalise their ethical views
umm human solidarity? Brain development through hundreds of thousands of years? A species does not survive well by hurting each other

[Anonymous No.10274667]

>>10274651
>implying God orders things by size

what a maroon

[Anonymous No.10274671]

>>10274662
But if you replace God with yourself as the unchangeable starting point of causation, it functions just as well, if not better, since time is internal and relative.

[Anonymous No.10274673]

>>10274651
>while the atheist already
meant to say theist
potential freudian slip

[Anonymous No.10274680]

>>10274667
Not sure if you are trolling but you are the one that interpreted it that way, it was a way to help visualize my meaning.

[Anonymous No.10274726]

>>10274662
>Just ask yourself a few questoins, how does causation function without an unchanged starting point and what traits would this point/thing (the unmoved mover) have.

Firstly you are dedicated to our basic understanding of causation. I'm saying that a causality in your sense does not have to exist. We don't know if time reverts eternally. We aren't even close to answering these questions. If I'm not mistaken the contemporary view is that rearward eternity is more likely, but there isn't a solid theory on the matter. I'll try to dig up a source though.

[Anonymous No.10274739]

>>10274651
> I'll try to make this visual:
Ill respond in kind

Cosomological argument

Uncreated-->things which come into existence

Your argument

Something that isnt uncreated -->things that come into existence

>You are not in a better position logically.
Actually I am here, the cosmological argument uses logical deduction to demonstrate the incoherence of the idea that things can come into existence without having an origin in something that does not. It then goes on to discuss the traits of what this something must have.

However you come in and posit state No - despite accepting causation - this logic is invalid (for reasons I wont say) and is not allowed to be used in this one area! Unlike other fields of inquiry deduction is invalid in assessing what traits an uncreated thing would have.

This is where your faith comes into play, creating a permanent exception and exempting you from the burden of having to wrestle with the ideas of great thinkers like Aristotle and Aquinas and there being a real possibility that God is real.

>You are not in a better position logically. You have simply filled in the blank with a guess and called it god and gave it morality etc

Morality doesnt even come into play with this argument so try and stay focused.

[Anonymous No.10274752]

>>10274671
>But if you replace God with yourself as the unchangeable starting point of causation, it functions just as well, if not better, since time is internal and relative.
Not at all its a contradiction, I was created by parents and possess a whole host of traits that are incompatible with an uncreated thing. I can no more be uncreated than a square can be a circle.

>>10274726
>I'm saying that a causality in your sense does not have to exist.
But let me guess it exists when scientists need it to right?

[Anonymous No.10274757]

>>10267773
That's pretty much all philosophy
I still love it

[Anonymous No.10274761]

>>10271242
Please don't make me see this man again.

[Anonymous No.10274767]

>>10267567
>reason.
And this reason doesn't involve metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.10274776]

>>10274752
You as an object were created by your parents, but you as a subject were the fundamental beginning and creator of all things. There is no contradiction here.

[Anonymous No.10274782]

>>10274776
It is when an a supposedly uncreated being has a created component in it

[Anonymous No.10274783]

>>10274739
>However you come in and posit state No - despite accepting causation - this logic is invalid (for reasons I wont say) and is not allowed to be used in this one area! Unlike other fields of inquiry deduction is invalid in assessing what traits an uncreated thing would have.

And you are saying that everything in the known universe has a cause EXCEPT god (this one area!) without giving a suitable explanation as to WHY. You are clinging to this idea of causation even when you make an exception to the rule. The unmoved mover principle is not an established rule. It's a paradox. Ultimately it is your best guess. That's all. To say that you've got it right is insane!

This is where YOUR faith comes into play, creating a permanent exception etc.

[Anonymous No.10274790]

>>10274782
Explain? Wouldn't a human being be a phenomenally created being with an un-created component, i.e. spirit?

[Anonymous No.10274793]

>>10274752
>But let me guess it exists when scientists need it to right?
Sure if it stands up to the scientists' empirical methods.

[Anonymous No.10274820]

"We each exist for but a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

[Anonymous No.10274838]

>>10274783
>And you are saying that everything in the known universe has a cause EXCEPT god (this one area!)
This is what I mean by you not reading I literally made a visual demonstration for you outlining that your understanding of the argument was wrong which is why I changed God to Uncreated so no special exemptions here. For the second time

>Cosomological argument
>Uncreated-->things which come into existence

>You are clinging to this idea of causation even when you make an exception to the rule. The unmoved mover principle is not an established rule. It's a paradox

It isn't an exception though, its the reasonable answer to "how can causation function without infinite regression". Would you care to demonstrate the fault in this logic or how your understanding is superior?

>Ultimately it is your best guess.
Where is the logic faulty? Is saying there are 360 degrees in a circle a best guess and that there might be an undiscovered circle with 180 degrees acceptable to you?

>>10274790
Any element of creation precludes something from being uncreated. Otherwise you would have the contradiction of something needing to create itself or part of itself.

>>10274793
Ah cool so this objective non causation and eternal reversion only comes into play for philosophical and religious issues and then disappears so as not to get in the way with science.

[Anonymous No.10274855]

>>10274838
>Any element of creation precludes something from being uncreated.

What about things that exist a priori in the mind? Again, in the objective sense, these are created when the subject is "created," but to the subject, they exist prior to experience, and so require no creation. They are in fact the basis of the possibility of creation (the only true synthesis). You are still only treating the purely objective sense.

[Anonymous No.10274864]

>>10274783
Also if you are sincere about the pursuit of knowledge check out the link in >>10274107
As it outlines the mainstream misunderstanding of Aquinas and Aristotle with respect to the cosmological argument

[Anonymous No.10274883]

>>10274855
>You are still only treating the purely objective sense.

Because its not worth looking into as it already rules it out. To use an example it would be like if we were having a discussion on who was going to win the 100 meters at the next Olympics and you chastised me for not considering Pheidippides as a contender despite him being dead for two and half thousand years.

[Anonymous No.10274887]

>>10274864
>claim to speak about the truth
>it is just another rationalist talking about ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''árguments''''''''''''''''''''''''''' who publish a book and read other books, like a good little liberal thinking he is doing good

why people cling to their mental proliferation so much?

[Anonymous No.10274900]

>>10274887
Dont you have a rock to kick?

[Anonymous No.10274903]

>>10274883
To use a temporal metaphor when you are trying to make an argument for a notion of causation outside the subjective human understanding of time doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Anonymous No.10274907]

>>10274838
I'm not quite as slow on the uptake as you seem to believe, I understand your reasoning and have responded multiple times. Ad hominem all you want.

>Uncreated so no special exemptions here.
Uncreated is the special exemption! That is the exemption! It is an exemption is every conceivable sense. Point to another example of this. It is strictly a priori. It is a guess and certainly not proven. And it stands in the way of causality itself. I think we both must understand each other at this point. I'm going to bed, I will say I've learned a few things. The unmoved mover principle is NOT a proof though! Good night!

[Anonymous No.10274930]

>>10274907
> Ad hominem all you want.
Its more me pointing out your attempts at strawmanning whether by accident or design.

>Uncreated is the special exemption! That is the exemption!
You know that exemption doesn't mean there being only one of something right?

>we both must understand each other at this point.
The above shows that you still think the cosmological argument equates to all things having a cause so no you dont unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.10274938]

>>10274903
I figured thats how you best understood things given that you did the same by equating an uncreated being with how humans categorise experiances and thoughts.

[Anonymous No.10274975]

>>10274930
cosmological argument
>fallacy of composition, see bertrand russell

[Anonymous No.10274995]

>>10274975
inference doesn't =/= fallacy of composition

[Anonymous No.10275017]

>>10274995
inference doesn't not equal a fallacy of composition
so
inference equals a fallacy of composition?

[Anonymous No.10275068]

>>10275017
I botched that. Inference does not equal a fallacy of composition is what I meant.

[Anonymous No.10275082]

>>10271643
(you)

[Anonymous No.10275092]

>>10275068
botched that too
try again

[Anonymous No.10275099]

All stoicism is for nu-males. You are a nu-male.

[Anonymous No.10275128]

>>10267419
The ideology of der Letzte Mensch.

[Anonymous No.10275199]

>>10275092
How so?

[Anonymous No.10275203]

"Thomas's views of God as first cause, cf. quinque viae, "depend upon the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility; the series of negative integers ending with minus one is an instance to the contrary."[149] Moreover, according to Russell, statements regarding God's essence and existence that are reached within the Aristotelian logic are based on "some kind of syntactical confusion, without which much of the argumentation about God would lose its plausibility."

[Anonymous No.10275212]

>>10275203
>some kind of syntactical confusion
Any more on this part?