[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 46 KB, 590x443, 1566931397865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14540809 No.14540809 [Reply] [Original]

This has more to do with /lit/ than /adv/ because the latter wouldn't understand my dilemma. I've an opportunity to work at a highly desirable position thanks to my father. I feel I'm qualified for it, but the other candidates would
be applying directly for it(without any help from others,) Should I then, also apply directly to test myself so that we're on equal footing? If so, wouldn't I've to give up my home, money etc. too? I thought of applying directly but now feel I'm a hypocrite because while I might let this particular moment of Nepotism go in pursuit of virtue, I'm still enjoying other opportunities. What is the right thing to do?

>> No.14540847

Become Catholic because the Catholic Church is the rightful sucessor to all those traditions and synthesizes them with divine revelation for a complete anthropology, theology and philosophy of life

>> No.14540860

>>14540847
How the fuck does that answer Anon's question?

>> No.14540876

>>14540860
He had a question?

>> No.14541239

Bump.

>> No.14541265

>>14540809
You know what the right thing to do is.

>> No.14541281

>>14541265
What is?

>> No.14541500

>>14540809
Take the job, idiot.

>> No.14541519

>>14540809
Everyone will hate you set work and you will never know if anything good that happens to you is by your own hard work or being tested favorably without deserving it. You will forever be miserable.

>> No.14541558

It literally doesn’t matter because you’re entirely missing the point of Stoicism, which doesn’t advocate for taking a position at a company by way of nepotism nor does it advocate you earn the position at the company. You’re supposed to live your life in ascetic service full stop, actually seeking hardship, not as a careerist who works to earn a profit either for the company or yourself. The very idea of a corporate position, especially one which isn’t at least mostly focused on service, would be completely foreign to the Stoics. Marcus Aurelius was a Military commander who lived his life on campaign in a tent risking harm for service of Rome. If you really want to live a stoic life, join the Military. Otherwise, you’re just LARPing by pretending this job can in any way align with Stoic philosophy. At most Stoicism implies that one should live in presence with the moment, not what is to come. Asking this question betrays that mandate. Others may disagree. That’s my genuine opinion.

>> No.14541667

Take a job, show your dad you are a man and give your best at it.

>> No.14542099

>>14541558
Right about everything except
>If you really want to live a stoic life, join the Military
Fighting wars for Politicians and Bankers.

>> No.14542120

>>14541558
Why does this board have such a fukcing hard time grasping Stocism. your an idiot if you think stocism comes with some sort of occupational demand. fucking Seneca was one of the richest niggas around

>> No.14542140

>>14540809
Take the job.
Marcus Aurelius got his job in parts because he impressed Hadrian and in parts because of his family.

>> No.14542162
File: 772 KB, 1722x1160, Start with the Greeks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14542162

Even the Hebrews started with the Greeks...

>> No.14542195

>>14540809
lol marcus aurelius never said that. That's the most unstoic thing a stoic can say.

>> No.14542206

>>14542195
A mistranslation? What did he actually say?

>> No.14542220

>>14540876
he didn't, he's lost and i believe you offered a good solution.

>> No.14542242

>>14542206
It is a horrible mistranslation. Here is a better quote from http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.2.two.html

>Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence? But in truth they do exist, and they do care for human things, and they have put all the means in man's power to enable him not to fall into real evils. And as to the rest, if there was anything evil, they would have provided for this also, that it should be altogether in a man's power not to fall into it

But regardless the following quote is so retarded. This goes against one of the basic views of stoics:
>If there are Gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

>> No.14542269
File: 6 KB, 190x266, priest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14542269

>>14540809
Stoicism is low iq as you still value your life and don't reject everything. As long as you take another breath, you are deciding to not reject your self, and will continue to act based on your natural instincts to feed, to drink, to sleep. You are still a slave of your instincts like anyone else, just in a worse condition.
If you are choosing to live, then you should live to satiate your inner instincts the best you can. If you are high IQ, after achieving it all, you shall realise the worthlessness of everything, and should develop yourself spiritually. Start by reading the upanishads, and finding the ultimate biasless truth. And hopefull by the time you will understand that there is no life and death, they are mislables by intellectually and spiritually inferior ignorant beings who did not realise that at the most fundament level, there is no difference between self, and anything in existence.

>> No.14542379

>>14542120
Please explain to me how a man who dedicates at least half of his waking hours to being a Banker, an occupation built on a philosophy of money as future-oriented investment and which exists for the sole purpose of profit maximization, lives a Stoic life. I’m being genuine. Wealth doesn’t imply occupation or more importantly, vocation, so I fail to see how that is the implication, but maybe I am not understanding.

>> No.14542397

>>14542242
Thank you.

>> No.14542422

>>14541558
>>14542120
We really need to start properly distinguishing between Greek and Roman stoicism.

>> No.14542512

>>14542242
Were all stoics theists? Did the concept of Atheism exist back then?

>> No.14542796

>>14542512
All stoics I have read about were theists in a more classical context and as far as I know atheism wasn't really a movement back then. Our modern concept of atheism most likely doesn't apply to the antiquity since being an atheist back then meant that you were a godless (a- meaning without and -theist meaning someone who believes in a god/gods) person according to the society you were living in. Plato's version of Socrates died on charges that he was godless but we all know that he wasn't an atheist in our modern context. There were definitely some presocratics though who were somewhat atheistic and would eventually influence people like Epicurus whose thoughts are a bit more in line with OP's image.

>> No.14543359

>>14541558
Thanks for your insights me shekelberg