/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10918925]

give me one good reason why stoicism isn't the most based philosophy of all?

[Anonymous No.10918939]

They don't allow crying.
Without crying where would we be?

[Anonymous No.10918941]

DUDE YOUR EXTERNAL CONDITIONS DON'T MATTER

Did i mention was an emperor....

[Anonymous No.10918947]

>>10918925
he would've conquered the germans if it really worked.

[Anonymous No.10918958]

>>10918947
Germans are beyond human and beyond being conquered.

[Anonymous No.10918966]

>>10918958

[Anonymous No.10918984]

>>10918966
>map showing where Germany let foreign powers think they had won
Nice try.

[Anonymous No.10918991]

>>10918984

[Anonymous No.10919045]

it's kind of stale and stiff

[Anonymous No.10919049]

“You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.”

[Anonymous No.10919052]

Epistemology

[Anonymous No.10919055]

>>10919049
It appears that Nietzsche thinks man lacks an intellect. Man is more then an animal he has a mind and if he so desires can reject his nature and instinct. Nietzsche also fails to realize that the very wanting of a greater ideal, spirituality etc is natural to a man.

[Anonymous No.10919059]

Nature does not exist.

[Anonymous No.10919069]

>>10919055
>Man is more then an animal he has a mind and if he so desires can reject his nature and instinct.
>Nietzsche also fails to realize that the very wanting of a greater ideal, spirituality etc is natural to a man.
you've managed to contradict yourself in the span of two periods

[Anonymous No.10919113]

>>10918925
doesn't include buddhist meditation

[Anonymous No.10919118]

>>10918939
Not true
>>10918941
Not true
>>10919059
Not true

[Anonymous No.10919119]

>>10919069
I’m not seeing it

[Anonymous No.10919124]

>>10919049
Is this the biggest strawman in history?

[Anonymous No.10919132]

It's like a shit-tier version of mystic traditions. You have all the ascetic practices, but none of the ecstatic contemplative experiences. Worst of both worlds.

[Anonymous No.10919140]

>>10918925
weak metaphysics, there's no cosmology or teleology, so it's not a complete system, it's just common sense helpful advice for remaining detached during troubled times , but sometimes rage and hatred and passion have their place

>>10919045
this

[Anonymous No.10919145]

>>10919049
If truth is a woman... what then?

.....

If truth were - let’s say - a woman? perhaps? what then? that is the question

...
..
:..

The question is this: if truth, oh mighty truth that we search for so highly and such, were a woman (female) what then?

...

what then...

[Anonymous No.10919147]

>>10918925
What's the point? If God doesn't matter then you may as well be a libertine sensualist and there is no good argument to be an Aurelius instead of a Sade. Only the transcendent is a basis for morality and teleology.

[Anonymous No.10919148]

>>10919049
>quoting nietshitzche unironically

[Anonymous No.10919149]

>>10919119
Not >>10919069, but I don't under stand how you can't see it? What your saying is Nietzsche agrees that man is more than an animal, but you said that wanting a higher state is natural for man. Which is what Nietzsche says...

[Anonymous No.10919155]

Read Pierre Hadot
Nu-Stoicism sucks, reddit tier philosophy
Focus on the primary source

[Anonymous No.10919157]

>>10919147
this is correct
but it requires metaphysical intuition to grasp the impotence of stoicism; most plebs don't care about metaphysics so the choice between being Aurelius or Sade is legitimate; Aurelius is safe and conducive to most people's nature while being a Sade is contrary to most people's nature and would be a big hassle and require too much plotting.

[Anonymous No.10919159]

>>10919147
>God doesn't matter
This isn't Stoicism

[Anonymous No.10919171]

>>10919159
stoicism is mostly a methodology, a practical philosophy, not a complete system; God and gods are very tangential and metaphysics mostly ignored. It can supplement religions or other philosophies though.

[Anonymous No.10919181]

>>10919119
yeah we're already established that you're dumb

[Anonymous No.10919292]

>>10919149
>>10919181

That wasn't me, but I think you completely misread what I said.

I was showing the contradictory nature of Nietzsche thinking, I don't know you misread me showing how Nietzsche is contradictory as me being contradictory.

[Anonymous No.10919296]

>>10919149
Nietzsche, claims that too live by nature is horrible and stupid and implies to strive for greater ideals is unnatural. If anything Nietzsche is the hypocritical one.

[Anonymous No.10919300]

Soyicism is the official philosophy of cucks and hence its enormous following on reddit
>dude why are you mad at her it already happened lmao

[Anonymous No.10919308]

>>10919292
You said that man can reject his nature through the use of reason. You said in the next sentence that this very capability and wanting for elevation above what is considered to be "nature" aka what you call "a greater ideal" is itself nature.
Contradiction. If the rejection of nature is natural then man isn't actually rejecting his "nature" since this rejection is itself natural and instinctual.

[Anonymous No.10919310]

>>10919308
How is that a contradiction? Man yearns for meaning in life, he can through his intellect destroy this though. You aren't very perceptive are you.

[Anonymous No.10919317]

>>10919310
You're dense as fuck, reread what I wrote
.

[Anonymous No.10919327]

>>10918925
It isn't life affirming. It's a philosophy for the resentful.

[Anonymous No.10919329]

>>10919317
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10919333]

>>10919329
Your post wasn't either, cretin, you didn't addres what I wrote.

[Anonymous No.10919340]

>>10919333
I addressed it and all you said was
>hurr you dumbo just read what i said

[Anonymous No.10919343]

Stoics are just nihilists in disguise

[Anonymous No.10919357]

>>10918925
*Blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.10919367]

>>10919340
I'll walk you slowly through this since you lack the capacity to do it yourself.
Your first point:
1-Man can reject his nature through the use of reason. The proposition "Man can reject his nature" means "Man can do what is not natural to him"
Your second point:
2-The use of reason to "reject his nature" is natural
These are two contradictory statements, since when man thinks he's rejecting his nature he's still doing a natural act, thus not actually rejecting his nature (not doing what is not natural to him).

[Anonymous No.10919370]

>Stoicism is best!!
>No no, Nietzsche is best!!

Oh No No No

[Anonymous No.10919371]

>>10919140
>weak metaphysics, there's no cosmology or teleology, so it's not a complete system
Didn't most of the early stoics works get lost though?

[Anonymous No.10919372]

>>10919371
Probably because they weren't worth keeping

[Anonymous No.10919384]

>In any case, by passing into the realm of the jhāna, as we shall now do, we find that ascetic realization removes those horizons that limit the Stoical doctrines as well as all "superman" theories. Let us briefly discuss this point. The limit of Stoical ascesis is apatheia, the destruction of any possibility of disturbance of the spirit through passions or outside contingencies. A well-known symbol is the rock that remains firm and still while stormy waves break against it. To this is added tranquility of mind based on consciousness of one's own rectitude and a certain amor fati, that is to say, a confidence in cosmic order. From this standpoint, the irrelevancy of all that is purely individual and terrestrial is considered and experienced. As for the doctrines of the "superman," they are based on the reinforcement of the vital energies and of the "I" such as will produce invincibility and superiority to all tragedy, to all misfortune, to all human weakness, a pure force that, though it may be bent, cannot he broken, a will to power that defies men and gods.
>In the sphere of the Buddhist jhāna, both of these forms of ascesis are surpassed since the human condition in general tends to disappear. Only if the discipline of the Ariya were to stop at sīla and samadhi could its achievements be likened to that of the most enlightened Stoicism. But Buddhism —like all initiations- has higher and freer realizations, and so, instead of the rock against which stormy waves uselessly break, the simile of air that one may try in vain to capture in a net or cut with a sword is far more appropriate. Imperturbability and calm fixedness (samatha) equivalent to the Stoical apatheia, along the path of awakening is, in fact, considered at a certain point as a bond from which one frees oneself in order to approach the domain of "nonexistence.' At the same time, the "sidereal" element here encourages such detachment as will induce Olympian quality in all higher states of consciousness and destroys in that detachment any residue of hybris, of pride or of will for power attached to the "person." To "life" —even at its summits— Buddhism opposes that which is "more than life." The term superman uttamapurisa-- -also figures in Buddhism as an epithet of the Ariya ascetics. But this ideal is here transfigured, it is carried effectively onto a supersensible plane in which the dark tragedy that is always hidden in the "titan" and the "superman" is completely resolved. We shall see almost at once that in order to achieve such an ideal a special enlightened use of sentiments such as love and compassion is even employed: a technique that carries us far beyond the plane of the contradictions against which fought without hope, for example, the soul of Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky. We mentioned this in dealing with the two ways of overcoming fear (cf. p. 116).

[Anonymous No.10919386]

>>10919045
That is what she said.

[Anonymous No.10919389]

>>10918925
wasn't he a literal cuck that ruined everything by giving the throne to his wife's son?

[Anonymous No.10919392]

>>10919367
>The use of reason to "reject his nature" is natural

Oh I get what you're saying now, yes it is true that man yearns for meaning naturally, this is expressed more through the subconsciousness that influences that conscious. This need for a greater meaning can sometimes be so great that he will override he's more animalistic and realistic needs.

For instance a man who commits to the philosophy or religion that practices pacifism, may fulfill a moral need, it will however not serve the obvious need of self preservation. This is why i advocate a combination of the two into one, through the use of the same tactics of religion one can create a so called cult of nature, that gives lift itself meaning.

[Anonymous No.10919401]

>>10919392
>he will override he's more animalistic and realistic needs
I've already finished explaining to you that there is no such distinction but for some reason you keep not wanting to understand. Farewell!

[Anonymous No.10919410]

>>10919401
You're a moron, man needs to fulfill both needs which do both come to him naturally. If you can't understand that you're a idiot.

[Anonymous No.10919425]

>>10919132

Bullshit. Stoic philosophy includes meditation, the idea of death and the relationship between the individual and the Cosmos.

[Anonymous No.10919438]

>>10919401
>there is no such distinction
how is there not? it's called frontal lobe, humans are not consistent, unified beings and part of our nature can overwrite other parts, that's kind of the reason why human babbys are useless for years, they are still building up knowledge and habits to function that other animals just possess as unchangeable instincts from day 1

[Anonymous No.10919442]

>>10919425
You're basically repeating what he said. Only yours is the Rick and Morty version

[Anonymous No.10919457]

>>10919438
>humans are not consistent, unified beings
They are though. Everything someone does is a function of himself being himself. Every distinction is illusory and does not make sense metaphisically.
>>10919410
>man needs to fulfill both needs
Irrelevant to what I said. I'm claiming the distinction is illusory (and possibly animalistic, but that's another point).
By the way, ss that plotinus pic supposed to add weight to your post? Because it only makes you look like a moron.

[Anonymous No.10919462]

>>10919457
>Irrelevant to what I said. I'm claiming the distinction is illusory (and possibly animalistic, but that's another point).

The distinction is there otherwise a man would not be torn by his duty to chaste and his lust.

>By the way, ss that plotinus pic supposed to add weight to your post? Because it only makes you look like a moron.

He completely proves what I said that man has both the divine and animalistic in him.

[Anonymous No.10919482]

>>10919438
>other animals just possess as unchangeable instincts from day 1

but other species do have high degrees of behavioral plasticity

[Anonymous No.10919492]

>>10919457
>They are though. Everything someone does is a function of himself being himself. Every distinction is illusory and does not make sense metaphisically.
there's no "himself" there's a bunch of causal forces pushing him in a certain direction, anything else is memeing and rationalizations caused by those same forces

[Anonymous No.10919494]

>>10919462
>The distinction is there otherwise a man would not be torn by his duty to chaste and his lust.
Did you miss the point where I said "metaphisically"? Does something being illusionary means you don't experience it? Fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.10919496]

>>10919482
>but other species do have high degrees of behavioral plasticity
yes, a dog is more like us than a mosquito

[Anonymous No.10919522]

There are two different things that can be referred as "Nature": the logical side of nature, reason, and the passional side: animals, feelings, etc

As humans are the only animals who can understand reason, their purpose is to live according to reason (logical aspect of nature), and not lower themselves at the same level than other animals, and thus reject their animalistic side (passional aspect of nature)

[Anonymous No.10919527]

>>10919496
Do you like that chain of being idea?

[Anonymous No.10919534]

>>10919494
You're grasping at straws now. The way you implied illusionary was that it wasn't real.

[Anonymous No.10919550]

>>10919534
Nope.
>They are though. Everything someone does is a function of himself being himself. Every distinction is illusory and does not make sense metaphisically.
I could go on and on about this and how every supposed rejection of nature is itself a act of nature on every coinceivable level and how stoics rethoric (not practice) is retarded. Reddit philosophers for redditors.

[Anonymous No.10919553]

>>10919327
stoicism is specifically tailored to those that consider themselves students, and have to improve themselves.

Raising a family on stoicism is hard and will cause alot of emotional trauma

[Anonymous No.10919559]

>>10919527
i didn't know about it but i like it

[Anonymous No.10919563]

>>10918925
cuz it promotes apathy and is disavows life and seeks supremacy in the human intellect rather than rejoicing in the human spirit and emotion

[Anonymous No.10919598]

[Anonymous No.10919670]

>>10919550
>i-i could beat you *tips fedora* but only if i wanted to *sheaths sword*

[Anonymous No.10919682]

>>10919670
Not him but his argument is well known and has no refutation

[Anonymous No.10919723]

>>10919682
>not him

[Anonymous No.10919729]

>>10919723
>he doesn't know how to check for samefags
Back to reddt newfriend

[Anonymous No.10919763]

>>10919729
>felt the need to say not him regardless

[Anonymous No.10919931]

>>10919370
every time...

[Anonymous No.10919997]

>>10919442

No idea about that awful animation show.

[Anonymous No.10920024]

>>10918925
>just be calm lmao
trash-tier philosophy

[Anonymous No.10920038]

I would rather strive to be a divine antagonist of stoics. I mean, they have to suck it up and put up with my shit if its part of the divine will of the universe.

[Anonymous No.10920412]

I've decided that I'd like to start reading philosophy sometime in the near future. Given the fact that the first book on my list alone is 1000 pages, could I have some tips for optimizing the reading process. Is it easier to schedule regular/daily reading of philosophy alongside other literature, as opposed to reading it exclusively/binging. I read somewhere that you should read painfully slow, like 10 pages an hour. I was thinking I would just set targets of something like 10 or 20 pages a day of whatever I'm reading, this means that I'll be making slow as fuck as progress but is it worth it in the long run?

[Anonymous No.10920807]

>>10919159
It literally is.

[Anonymous No.10920890]

>>10919124
That's what Nietzsche did; he caricatured.

Like in the Gay Science,
Book 3 aphor. 141 Too Oriental

"What? A God who loves men, provided they believe in him, and casts an evil eye and threats upon anyone who does believe in his love! What? A conditional love as the feeling of an almighty God! A love which has not even become master of the sentiments of honour and vengeance? How Oriental is all that! 'If I love you, what concern is it to you?' is a sufficient criticism of the whole of Christianity."

God loves his creations, men,
>provided they believe in him
It's just not true. It's little shit like this that Nietzsche does. It's all straw. This is just one example. I don't know why the fuck people let Nietzsche get away with fallacious premises and assumptions.

[Anonymous No.10920924]

>>10920890
another:
aphor 110, Origin of Knowledge
>Such erroneous articles of faith which were continually inherited....The strength of knowledge does not depend on its degree of truth but on its age, on degree to which it has bee incorporated, on its character as a condition of life.
I mean, that's really the genetic fallacy. Could not a man escape the cave he was fostered in? Then he would know what is true, yes?

Another weak assumption from Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10921799]

bump

[Anonymous No.10921815]

>>10920924
How is this a genetic fallacy?

You are assuming there is a truth independent of the cave you were fostered in, that you can ever free yourself from the framework in which you were taught to see through. It might be possible, but we all know Neechee's stance on this.

[Anonymous No.10921832]

>>10920412
Binging is best solely because you might have to re-read some of what you were reading last time in order to see how the train of thought/arguments proceed, but yeah...
A professor of mine said in the first class "if you are reading 3 pages an hour and have never read philosophy before, know that this is a good speed" - I think you should aim to be better than that but rather than focusing on hours try focus on getting through chapters/arguments since it really depends on how familiar you are with a specific topic and an author's writing style. Read it out loud, rewrite passages or summarise them if you are having trouble understanding the arguments etc.

[Anonymous No.10923384]

>>10919559
plato pls