[ 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: 47 KB, 800x500, 7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14570561 No.14570561 [Reply] [Original]

what does /lit/ think of epicureanism? Is it better or worse than stoicism in your opinion?

>> No.14570679

>>14570561
/lit/ is currently occupied with better questions, you fucking moron

>> No.14570730

>>14570679
ah yes, important questions such as this >>14568734
or this >>14570095
just admit you're a retard with nothing to contribute

>> No.14570760

It’s far superior to stoicism.
I hear it was the most popular of the two in Rome, but that this is generally forgotten because of Cicero and later Aurelius

>> No.14570860

>what does /lit/ think of epicureanism
It's for bugs
I'd take stoicism over it any day

>> No.14570870
File: 239 KB, 960x1200, DfMHsSrX0AUUVkE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14570870

>>14570561
they're both mistakes

>> No.14570889

>>14570860
Why do you use this meme though?

>> No.14570925

The stoics were opiate addicts and the epicureans were actually disguised maztecs attempting to infilftate European society (like the juice but 1.5x worse).

>> No.14570932

>>14570925
*infiltrate
There is a bandwith issue between my brain and computer interface. This problem should be patched soon.

>> No.14570957

>>14570925
>maztecs
The what?

>> No.14571060

>>14570957
they're everywhere. Even Jews don't have a high enough power level to metamorphize into the dmt spirit realm.

>> No.14571063

>>14570860
>It's for bugs
how so? going by 4chan's meme definition of "bug" or "bugman", pretty much every philosophy and all literature (except Peterson books) is for bugs

>> No.14571071

>>14570889
I have NEVER heard anyone wanting to know why a meme is used

>> No.14571078
File: 165 KB, 1200x800, Screenshot_2015-07-27_15.11.13.0.0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14571078

>>14571063
He probably means moths

>> No.14571081
File: 24 KB, 400x250, 1E3AB993-4713-42A1-A41C-2FF419010956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14571081

>>14571071
Heh.
Just why do you think it’s for “bugs”?

>> No.14571122

>>14570957
My team of engineers has just told me the news and I would like to retract my previous statement, with great sincerity. It is to my embarrassment, that I misspoke in that I attempted to say Aztek, but instead said Maztec cause it just sounds cool bro. Vote for me and Ill put beer in the water fountains and cameras in the girls changing rooms.

>> No.14571126

>>14571081
because it isn't virtuous, its hedonistic/selfish

>> No.14571150

>be me
>love stoics teaching
>they live to be virtue
>lol no
>hate epicureanism teachings
>but they live for hedonism
>agreed
Help I'm conflicted.

>> No.14571160

>>14571150
It's a conflict you are having because there needs to be a synthesis of the two. Why would one or the other be absolute?

>> No.14571183

>>14571122
>cameras in the girls changing rooms.
I don’t need cameras to see girls in changing rooms.

>>14571126
You don’t understand what Epicureanism is. It’s negative hedonism
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hBWDIzHldPg

>> No.14571227

>>14571183
Not him but literally using youtube channels for your "point".

>> No.14571239

>>14570561
Stoicism is better, but much harder to live by.
/thread

>> No.14571327

I suspect no one in this board actually know what epicureanism is. They just read "hedonist" on Wikipedia and form an opinion based on that

>> No.14571338

121:4.1. The gentile world was then dominated by four great philosophies, all more or less derived from the earlier Platonism of the Greeks. These schools of philosophy were:

121:4.2.1. The Epicurean. This school of thought was dedicated to the pursuit of happiness. The better Epicureans were not given to sensual excesses. At least this doctrine helped to deliver the Romans from a more deadly form of fatalism; it taught that men could do something to improve their terrestrial status. It did effectually combat ignorant superstition.

121:4.3.2. The Stoic. Stoicism was the superior philosophy of the better classes. The Stoics believed that a controlling Reason-Fate dominated all nature. They taught that the soul of man was divine; that it was imprisoned in the evil body of physical nature. Man's soul achieved liberty by living in harmony with nature, with God; thus virtue came to be its own reward. Stoicism ascended to a sublime morality, ideals never since transcended by any purely human system of philosophy. While the Stoics professed to be the "offspring of God," they failed to know him and therefore failed to find him. Stoicism remained a philosophy; it never became a religion. Its followers sought to attune their minds to the harmony of the Universal Mind, but they failed to envisage themselves as the children of a loving Father. Paul leaned heavily toward Stoicism when he wrote, "I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content."

121:4.4.3. The Cynic. Although the Cynics traced their philosophy to Diogenes of Athens, they derived much of their doctrine from the remnants of the teachings of Machiventa Melchizedek. Cynicism had formerly been more of a religion than a philosophy. At least the Cynics made their religio-philosophy democratic. In the fields and in the market places they continually preached their doctrine that "man could save himself if he would." They preached simplicity and virtue and urged men to meet death fearlessly. These wandering Cynic preachers did much to prepare the spiritually hungry populace for the later Christian missionaries. Their plan of popular preaching was much after the pattern, and in accordance with the style, of Paul's Epistles.

121:4.5.4. The Skeptic. Skepticism asserted that knowledge was fallacious, and that conviction and assurance were impossible. It was a purely negative attitude and never became widespread.

121:4.6.These philosophies were semireligious; they were often invigorating, ethical, and ennobling but were usually above the common people. With the possible exception of Cynicism, they were philosophies for the strong and the wise, not religions of salvation for even the poor and the weak.

>> No.14571693

>>14571227
Yea. And? My point being to clear up some misconceptions. Watched it yet? Any questions?

>> No.14571729

>>14571693
Make quotations from originals not from a middleman you idiot.

>> No.14571739

>>14571327
Yeah, the irony being that moth understands it better than most here

>> No.14571752

>>14571729
>Follow MY rule of etiquette
Go fuck yourself

>> No.14571756

>>14571752
It really is the mini pause, eh?

>> No.14571765

>>14571756
No, middle of the night and some twit is telling me their rules of engagement on failchan. Get over yourself. You’ve got no questions, you’re just badgering

>> No.14571768

>>14571765
Get some sleep then

>> No.14571841

>>14571768
way to shit up my thread. At least moth gave an actual answer.

>> No.14573412

>>14571338
>These philosophies were semireligious; they were often invigorating, ethical, and ennobling but were usually above the common people. With the possible exception of Cynicism
I have to disagree here. Where is this from?
Epicureanism is easily practiced by “common people”

>> No.14573459

Where to read about Epicureanism?

>> No.14574786

>>14573412
Its from Urantia papers