Stoicism

[Anonymous No.14635244]

"nothing natural is evil"
-Marcus Aurelius (Meditations)

How accurate is that?

[Anonymous No.14635249]

>>14635244
Very. Pretty much a similar statement to the only evil is ignorance.

[Anonymous No.14635252]

is anything naturally evil? (other than venomous snakes and spiders)

[Anonymous No.14635256]

>>14635244
he was a junky, that was his excuse when he was out of his mind on opium again and people kept criticising him for not running the empire and giving it away to the joker in the end

[Anonymous No.14635271]

>>14635244
Fairly. One has to define what is "evil" though.

[Anonymous No.14635309]

>>14635252
No animal is evil, they are just doing their thing to survive. People like Ted Bundy, the boys who killed Junko Furuta etc were evil imo

>>14635256
I thought he was considered a good emperor?

[Anonymous No.14635739]

Rape is natural

[Anonymous No.14635753]

>>14635271
He only took opium because he was in pain.

[Anonymous No.14635760]

>>14635244
everything is natural

[Anonymous No.14635762]

>>14635244

Nothing is unnatural lmao

[Anonymous No.14635771]

>>14635753
>stoics needs medicine to ease pain
lmao

[Anonymous No.14635843]

the only evil is circumstance

[Anonymous No.14636027]

I always liked Neitzsche's rebuttal https://throughablogdarkly.blogspot.com/2012/10/nietzsche-on-stoics.html

[Anonymous No.14636069]

how about a snake bite you fag.

gonna enjoy it? go for it.

[Anonymous No.14636105]

>>14635309
He was. He was on campaign for most of his reign, but nobody really cared as he didn't really screw over anyone. Commodus though, oh boy. Aurelius really messed up naming him heir.

[Anonymous No.14636113]

>>14635271
he just did

[Anonymous No.14636160]

>>14635244
Useless statement rooted in semantics. If he had said nothing evil is natural we would have a better prescriptive statement through which we could know the world.

[Anonymous No.14636193]

>>14636069
Just because something is painful doesn't mean it's evil

[Anonymous No.14636217]

>>14636160

Get a load of this nobody on boards.4channel.org/lit who thinks he’s wiser than en emperor. Post your manifesto faggot

[Anonymous No.14636237]

>>14636217
I'll likely shy away from a manifesto if I write anything that grand. It almost sullies the point of life to prescribe to others its meaning.

[Anonymous No.14636271]

>>14636105
if he hadn't named Commodus heir, Commodus would've been a threat to his appointed heir, and the two wouldve probably fought it out
there was no good option
from Marcus's perspective, his son either had to reign or die
he wasnt cold enough to kill his issue (like Augustus was, murdering his grandson Agrippa Postumus to keep the succession clear)

[Anonymous No.14636274]

>>14635244
Yes because evil is a corruption of the natural order. It's pretty straightforward if you understand the historical context.

[Anonymous No.14636379]

>>14636193
well it isnt just painful, it is deadly.

[Anonymous No.14636382]

>>14636379
4 u

[Anonymous No.14636407]

Entirely inaccurate. Good and evil are human constructions. Nothing is unnatural even if created by people because people themselves are a product of the natural world. So good and evil are both therefore natural.

Also fuck stoicism and particularly Marcus Aurelius. Baby's first pseudo-philosophical inquiry, none of it is even worth reading in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.14636415]

>>14636379
It's natural to the snake to inject venom and to kill. Evil and naturalness are relative terms. Stop being anthropocentric ya dingus.

[Anonymous No.14636427]

>>14635739
>>14635753
>>14635760
>>14636160
>>14636407
>>14636415
"Natural" in this sense means the natural order, which as a concept of ancient cosmology is pretty much antithetical to evil.

[Anonymous No.14636436]

>>14636407
Nihilist cope

[Anonymous No.14636450]

>>14636427
All that exists is natural. There is no "outside" of the natural order for evil to exist in opposition to it.

[Anonymous No.14636451]

>>14636415
well ok i concur. but then, that phrase is saying nothing, or it is trying to indirectly say that the notion of evil is senseless.

in any case, humans have a defined perspective that cant be changed and is there for their survival.

[Anonymous No.14636462]

>>14636407
Cringe

[Anonymous No.14636501]

>>14636450
You still don't seem to understand the concept. Read more greek philosophy and you might get a better grasp on it.

[Anonymous No.14636520]

Evil=ᾰ̓-good.

[Anonymous No.14636553]

>>14636027
Tbh it's a pretty weak rebuttal overall, mostly just semantics with no actual argument. Stoicism weakest point is that it gives no perspective for what to actually look for in life. For the stoic, being an emperor is the same as being a farmer. Yet how does one choose what to become in the first place? How does one gather motivation? Stoicism does no answer these questions directly. It's main focus is to allow you to see clearly, and think logically. The assumption being that with said clarity, motivations and what to do become natural. Personally I think it's a large oversight by the stoics, yet there is nothing to suggest that you cannot use stoicism and another philosophy to fill that hole.

"You don’t love yourself enough. Or you’d love your nature too, and what it demands of you. People who love what they do wear themselves down doing it, they even forget to wash or eat. Do you have less respect for your own nature than the engraver does for engraving, the dancer for the dance, the miser for money or the social climber for status? When they’re really possessed by what they do, they’d rather stop eating and sleeping than give up practicing their arts."
- Marcus Aurelius.

[Anonymous No.14636614]

>>14636553
Much of the Meditations mentions working for the greater good, for the best social good, which I believe naturally implies that you should be aiming for the greatest product of your own ability and what society needs.
Abiding by your own nature, as is also mentioned often, means taking into account your own inclinations, so in totality you would be aiming for the best possibly alignment of ability, inclination, and social welfare.
I don't think there is any part of stoicism that says you cannot use another philosophy in addition to stoicism, it is not a sort of religion that necessitates exclusion of all else.

[Anonymous No.14636634]

>>14636501
Perhaps my view is simplistic. I'm trying to say I believe that they exist in opposition because they are in a single natural order. To me it sounds ridiculous to try and separate the concepts and claim one of them is unnatural, especially with how much the idea of evil has varied across cultures and time. Ultimately if one exists then the other does too. No matter how evil something is, or what it is, it would mean nothing as a concept without what is good to exist alongside it, therefore both exist within a single natural order. Same goes for what I think is being said about the natural and unnatural, they would mean nothing without each other and therefore exist together in an even higher order that has to exist as long as the concepts are tied to each other.

[Anonymous No.14636643]

It's more like "Evil is always unnatural". Very similar statement, but in the modern lingo "natural" has a very different connotation.

[Anonymous No.14636647]

>>14636450

That’s a bit of a stretch. Computers aren’t natural.

[Anonymous No.14636654]

>>14636647
They are created by humans, which are part of nature.

[Anonymous No.14636661]

>>14635244
What does natural mean?

[Anonymous No.14636672]

>>14636647
Is a tree unnatural because it doesn't behave like a star? Or is one person unnatural because they don't speak the same language as another person?

[Anonymous No.14636680]

>>14636614
>best possibly alignment of ability, inclination, and social welfare.
This assumes you can find these out, as I said "The assumption being that with said clarity, motivations and what to do become natural.". Many times, this is simply just not the case. No one has the time to try out every path in life, and many times there are no correct or rather optimal answers. It might be that you get along with trades workers more so than office, yet your actual work is fitted to the office. Should you follow your nature with people similar to yourself in trades, even at the cost of your worksmanship? Or instead should you defy your natural outlook ,and attempt to adjust to an office culture? What if you are impeded in your work due to your natural differences in outlook? Stoicism assumes that your logical mind can find out easily, should you cast away your false perceptions. Which again, is where the weakness lies; the assumptions.

Still I think we both agree on the topic for the most part, look for the answers elsewhere and make your own philosophy out of the mashup. So long as you have some kind of goal for what we refer to as reality, stoicism is a fantastic tool when used correctly; and I don't think anyone can refute that ever.

[Anonymous No.14636686]

>>14636661
Most of the disagreement here seems to be around this.

[Anonymous No.14636704]

>>14635244
What the heck is unnatural? What are you taking away from this stateme- this thread sucks, and stoicism isn't seeming very based. /lit/ is a bunch of larpers, collecting knowledge for it's own sake.

[Anonymous No.14636707]

>>14636672

None of that is remotely the same and us really REALLY a stretch just for argument’s sake. Natural exists without being created by man. Now the natural-ness of man and his creations can be argued all day and is fair game and goes in numerous different spiritual and philosophical directions.

[Anonymous No.14636730]

>>14636672
>Is a tree unnatural because it doesn't behave like a star
trees are fucking weirdos
should not be trusted

[Anonymous No.14636733]

Dolphins rape and torture other animals including dolphins

[Anonymous No.14636737]

>>14636707
That's where people asking for the definition of natural showing up in this thread are coming from. To me what is natural is simply what exists and has happened to bring about what exists. Trying to ascribe anything on top of that is only important for human beings to understand the world around us, but human beings ascribing ourselves some divine-like power to create otherwise impossible things is just plain wrong. We've only ever learned to use things that already existed. Everything needed to make computers already existed. We just made the object itself, not the potential for it.

[Anonymous No.14636789]

>>14636407
>Baby's first pseudo-philosophical inquiry
>Good and evil are human constructions
>Nothing is unnatural

10/10 self awareness

[Anonymous No.14636796]

True. It isn't good either. It's just nature.

[Anonymous No.14636799]

>>14636737
Then you're making a dishonest assessment of what is actually being talked about. Aurelius didn't even use the English word "natural" so you what the fuck is your point?