/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15910686]

>daughter gets raped
>son gets murdered
>wife gets insulted
>your boss screws you over
>someone called your mother a whore

>do nothing and be completely emotionless because muh cope
are stoics just mega-cucks?

[Anonymous No.15910701]

>>15910686
Controlling your emotions and not having any altogether are two completely different things.
You'd understand this if you didn't have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old.

[Anonymous No.15910703]

>>15910686
doing something won't undo the evil that has been done upon you anon...

[Anonymous No.15910704]

sperging out won't unrape your child

[Anonymous No.15910706]

>>15910686
If you are able to do something about it, then to it. If not, why sperg out like a pathetic monkey? It’s not going to help anything.

[Anonymous No.15910712]

>>15910686
That all happened after his death you retard

And one of his daughter didn't get raped but executed after his death, and nothing happened to the other one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annia_Galeria_Aurelia_Faustina

[Anonymous No.15910733]

>>15910712
Actually my mistake, he had more daughters but none of them got raped

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annia_Cornificia_Faustina_Minor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibia_Aurelia_Sabina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fadilla

And Commodus deserved to be assissanted anyway

[Anonymous No.15910851]

>>15910686
>>do nothing and be completely emotionless because muh cope
Read actual Stoic sources instead of relying on modern pop-philosophy and Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.15910892]

>>15910851
Jordan Peterson is not a stoic moron

[Anonymous No.15910905]

>>15910686
Imagine unironically not getting the point of something as straight forward as Stoicism.

[Anonymous No.15912185]

>>15910892
That's the point

[Anonymous No.15912189]

>>15910686
>do nothing and be completely emotionless

Literally the opposite of what stoic philosophy is about. What is with these retard stoicism threads popping up everyday? Why not use the time to read the texts instead of embarrassing yourself anon?

[Anonymous No.15912213]

>>15910892
>can't understands what he reads
>posts on /lit/
checks out

[Anonymous No.15912214]

>>15910686
I am a pessimist but the real Stoicism is far more superior than naive bullshite of Nietzsche and you are a retard for not understanding Stoicism.

[Anonymous No.15912246]

>>15912214
Nietzsches goal is not to provide an alternative to stoicism lmao, its to educate you on why stoics are the way they are. He's more of a psychologist than a philosopher

[Anonymous No.15912257]

>>15910686
Stoicism has a genuine negative effect not talked about by most. On the one hand, it's good that Stoicism can keep you from suffering over some things. But the Pavlovian effect that has on you is that you stop getting as much pleasure out of things, and in the absence of pain for other things you settle with mediocrity. High pleasure and high pain are hugely motivating factors. In their absence, you lose motivation and find it very hard to motivate yourself, because the alternative (doing nothing) is something Stoicism Pavlovianly conditions you into settling with just fine. When you become aware of the fact your nerve endings are practically ruined thanks to Stoicism, and you want to change it, you can't, it's too late, and you're stuck in a situation where your brain is permanently deficient in dopamine. It ironically makes you depressed, not in a sort of emotional sense, but mentally you begin to feel you're broken and grow resentful that you can't change anything. And the Stoic antidote to that is...to let that be. Stoicism ruined my life, don't let it ruin yours.

[Anonymous No.15912277]

>>15910686

why are there so many post misreading stoicism?

Did stoicism just trended on the facebooks or twatter or whatevs?

[Anonymous No.15912283]

>>15912257
Good take anon, almost no one talks about the pavlovian effects of the philosophies you take up

But in my humble opinion, settling for "good enough" is always better than striving for perfection, however, with this in mind you need to have some coping mechanism to stop the "good enough" to turn into mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.15912284]

>>15910686
Oh look, this thread again

[Anonymous No.15912313]

>>15912284
Now they are like hourly threads about the same bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15912317]

>>15912246
>He's more of a psychologist than a philosopher
A philosopher has to be many things. Nietzsche was a philosopher since he was all the top things of his time: a philologist, a scholar, a professor, a psychologist, a musician (albeit a mediocre one), etc.

[Anonymous No.15912334]

>>15912246
i am talking about his naive bullshit of le uber

[Old Man No.15912356]

>>15912257
You should have fixed that resentment with more stoicism anon

[Anonymous No.15912360]

>>15912257

TL:Dr

Stoicism is complete trite bullshit and saying that it is a coping mechanism is missing the point. It is only a reverberation of the mind’s hopes and desires and serves only as a defector and a shield, not a bridgepoint, between that and the recognition of your true feelings. Thus leading to a life of self-induced isolation and destruction because you don’t want to recognize your true feelings since you’ve told your mind not to recognize them.

[Anonymous No.15912884]

>>15912257
You are a fucking retard that didn't understood what stoicism is all about.

[Anonymous No.15912896]

>>15912257
you are a dumb nigger, go and actually read some stoics, you dumb psychological faggot

[Anonymous No.15912908]

>>15912884
You would stop acting so aggressive if you really took Stoicism seriously. You can only have reactions like this to people if you don't suspend judgment and small things prove a nuisance to your little ego. So congratulations, you haven't internalized Stoicism, but you presume you can defend it. The Pavlovian effects of Stoicism aren't something you choose when you internalize Stoicism seriously, they're a consequence you don't see sneaking in. It has nothing to do with being dumb, you don't control that aspect.

[Anonymous No.15912922]

It's incredible seeing people defend Stoicism with anger, it's like they don't know that you're supposed to suspend judgment when things prove a bother so you don't get sad or mad. God /lit/ is full of pseuds.

[Anonymous No.15913068]

>>15912360
you clearly didin' t read the Meditations, nor anything from Seneca, that and/or you have an unsalvagable plebean soul.

[Anonymous No.15913120]

>>15912922
I also protest epicureanism by suffering and skepticism by conviction.

[Anonymous No.15913204]

>>15910686
>le stoicism is about getting stabbed and doing nothing but accepting it with a poker face
I thought even high schoolers got past this thought?

[Anonymous No.15913259]

>>15912908
I don't practice stoicism...

[Anonymous No.15913269]

>>15910686
Meditations: foreword by a fucking retard OP

[Anonymous No.15913381]

>When people debunk stoicism

[Anonymous No.15913949]

>>15912257
>grow resentful
>stoicism
Yeah, you're not a stoic.

[Anonymous No.15913993]

>>15913949
You're right I'm not. Did you finish reading?

[Anonymous No.15914014]

>>15910706
exactty. If you cannot change something what is the point of being a fucking pussy about it

[Anonymous No.15914407]

>>15913993
No I can't read too many words on 4chan because I don't care about any of your stupid opinons

[Anonymous No.15914419]

>>15914407
You're the reason the site sucks.

[Anonymous No.15914606]

>>15910686
How did he fuck up so badly with Commodus? Like, that’s the part that always gets me. So called Philosopher-King raises a son who’s reign basically marks the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire. I imagine him as some kind of overly tolerant beta parent.

[Anonymous No.15914617]

>>15914606

He wasn't there for him. Also good parents can have shit sons.

[Anonymous No.15914624]

>>15914419
Summer is soon over.

[Anonymous No.15914630]

ive only been on this board like two weeks and I feel like Ive already seen every type of thread 3 times.

[Anonymous No.15914654]

>>15914606
To be Emperor, it takes a special kind of person. You have to be willing to murder those who challenge your authority. Marcus Aurelius's diary might make him sympathetic, but I can't imagine he was a terribly warm man in life.
It takes iron will, constant paranoia, and a cold heart to maintain autocratic power. Especially in Rome. I think the longevity of his reign made it look more solid than it was. The Principate was a really brittle system from Nero onwards.
He likely wasn't a great dad.

[Anonymous No.15914666]

>>15914617
Even if he fucked that up because he was away in Germania, an honest and impartial character assessment of his own son should have stopped him from appointing him heir. There’s no excuse for that.

[Anonymous No.15914671]

>>15910701
how do i control my emotions, anon? i want to be like a jedi

[Anonymous No.15914686]

>>15912360
it is not a defector and shield, it is a weapon ἐγχειρίδιον literally a little thing in hand like a dagger that every man has within reach,why cant pseuds understand stoicism, its not complex at all

[Anonymous No.15914715]

>>15910686
So according to stoicism, if your child gets raped, you shouldn't do anything about it?

[Anonymous No.15914719]

>>15914666
>an honest and impartial character assessment of his own son should have stopped him from appointing him heir
I've heard that argument, but I disagree.
The Roman system was incredibly dynastic. Their values system was incredibly different from ours. And the Principate didn't function like a modern state. Honestly, it was closer to organized crime. The Princeps's authority came largely (but not entirely) from his status as patron to the Empire, and in Rome, that sort of patronage is hereditary. Romans valued bloodlines. The Senate, the soldiery, and the common people all valued bloodlines. That was something they remarkably had in common.
Even if Marcus Antonius had attempted to pass over his son, in the eyes of plenty of people, Commodus still would've been the heir. You don't have the power to enforce your will once you're dead. Plenty of Emperors left naive, unenforceable wills, and we see the results. (Tiberius attempting to split power between the charismatic, adult Caligula and the child Tiberius Gemellus. Or Septimus Severus attempting to split power between his insane sons.)
When Augustus wanted to leave power to a non-blood relative, he had to literally kill his biological grandson to make sure his will was fulfilled as planned. Marcus Antonius likely would've had to do something similar. It's not enough to disinherit your son. You'd have to take extreme measures.
Also: The Emperors before Marcus Antonius didn't deliberately pass over family. Rather, they didn't have family close enough to leave power to. And their decisions weren't entirely based on merit either. The dynasty "started" when Nerva left power to Trajan, because Nerva was about to be overthrown and needed strong military support. He made that decision based on pure, immediate need. He didn't particularly care about Trajan's virtues or competence, just his power within the army. The idea that they made a policy of ignoring family is a modern invention.
tl;dr: Romans valued bloodlines. If Marcus Antonius wanted to truly disinherit his son, he would've had to do more than write a new will.

[Anonymous No.15914757]

>>15914671
Through discipline and perseverance.

[Anonymous No.15915104]

>>15910686
>>do nothing and be completely emotionless
That isn't stoicism though.

[Anonymous No.15915153]

>>15910733
uhm, anon........noone deserves to be assassinated????

[Anonymous No.15915157]

I hate these threads. But it is true that stoicism is, in a sense, a cope. It is the ethical component to the causal determinism developed by Chrysippus to guard against the threat of metaphysical fatalism to human freedom. Its metaphysics and ethics are actually quite inseparable and to pretend you can pick and choose what you want out of it smacks of antinomian disingenuity. What the early and later stoa presume to be "out of [your] control" is not in fact out of your control, at least not if you don't accept its metaphysical presuppositions. This is all quite apart from the concerns about whether "control" or "mastery" of emotion is really just "suppression" in disguise.

[Anonymous No.15915300]

>>15915157
> Its metaphysics and ethics are actually quite inseparable and to pretend you can pick and choose what you want out of it smacks of antinomian disingenuity

can you expand on this?

[Anonymous No.15915322]

>>15915157
>But it is true that stoicism is, in a sense, a cope

Yes nigga all philosophy is a cope. Nietzsche already proved that, but its necessary to have copes, so pick what suits you best

[Anonymous No.15915338]

>>15915300
The rationale for leading a stoic life disappears without the concomitant belief that everything but your own judgment is [pre]determined. Moral freedom for the stoics is the only freedom possible to cultivate in this world. Without that determinism, there is no need to be a stoic, for there are plenty of things not now within our control that might be, even if they are entirely divorced from the self. If you still insist on being a stoic, it's basically watered down self-help zen shit, and you may as well go join a yoga class or take shrooms and pretend that your ego died.

[Anonymous No.15915563]

>>15912360
>It's another "Stoicism is about repression and ignoring your emotions" post

[Anonymous No.15915612]

>>15912277
Idiots come to lit to become "well-read intellectuals", they see Meditations on a chart and they probably managed to get through about half of it, then threads like these ensue after they inevitably misinterpret what is really a fairly simple philosophy. Some people weren't meant to ever read - just polluting the water.

[Anonymous No.15915662]

>>15915157
>Its metaphysics and ethics are actually quite inseparable and to pretend you can pick and choose what you want out of it smacks of antinomian disingenuity.

Not true, you only say this because Epictetus originally urged his students to learn Stoic physics first before ethics. You do not need to believe in a rational Jupiter guiding reality to realise the emptiness in relying on external indifferent or really much of Stoic philosophy. Same way you do not need to believe in the eternal return of Plato or his theory of forms to appreciate his wisdom. Those who have come before didn't get everything right within their various interpretations and worldviews, but that doesn't mean they didn't absolutely arrive at the truth in certain aspects.

[Anonymous No.15915866]

>>15912277
I don't even know. You would think they would at least look at the Stoicism page on SEP and all the major Stoic philosophers as well before they read these philosophers let alone post about them so as to not appear stupid. But they can't even do that. It kinda tells me that there are a shitton of meming iretards on this board that not only don't read books, but can't even read reliable secondary sources. nice digits btw

[Anonymous No.15915869]

>>15915662
I can appreciate Plato's wisdom, but I wouldn't call myself a "platonist" if I didn't subscribe to his metaphysics. Epictetus actually thought the ethics were the most important part to learn, but the point is that it made up only a part of a whole and that the moral freedom preached by the stoa is a response to the determinism they believed was inherent to the universe. If you don't share these deterministic presuppositions, why should I choose to believe that the things they claim to be out of my control actually are?

[Anonymous No.15915946]

>>15912257
>bases his critisizm on the assumption that any stoic is a loser
Marcus Aurelius was an Emperor, and stoicism in general is about pain-tolerance, and hence useful for people in stressfull jobs like statesman, generals during war, and housewives in third-world countries.

[Anonymous No.15916037]

>>15915869
When did I suppose to call myself a Stoic in the full name-sake? I was referring to your suggestion that you somehow cannot follow Stoic ethical philosophy without believing in an inherent rational characteristic to nature (or other Stoic interpretations of reality) - stop trying to shift the goalposts here.

>why should I choose to believe that the things they claim to be out of my control actually are?
It's fairly self-evident, there's no need to believe in a kind of rational fate to understand that you have no real control over anything beyond your innermost psyche and spirit - and indeed no real need for any of the superficial things beyond, which is the heart of Stoicism. Explain how this could ever require an absolute adherence to antiquated Stoic metaphysics

[Anonymous No.15916400]

>>15916037
>you somehow cannot follow Stoic ethical philosophy without believing in an inherent rational characteristic to nature

Wrong. No goalposts are being shifted. If you don't believe it all, you're not a stoic nor are you following stoic tenets

Also

>no real need for any of the superficial things beyond

does not follow from

>you have no real control over anything beyond your innermost psyche and spirit

Anyway, even that doesn't matter, because Stoicism demands an acceptance of determinism to justify your lack of control over anything other than your rational judgment. There's nothing self evident about any of this.

[Anonymous No.15916411]

>>15910704
No but it could rape the raper

[Anonymous No.15917374]

>>15912257
What's wrong with doing nothing? I have absolutely no ambition and I couldn't be happier.

[Anonymous No.15917380]

>>15910686
getting angry will only harm yourself even more and you cant undo the evil
also being superior is the best revenge you can make

[Anonymous No.15917411]

>>15912257
Wu wei, "effortless action"