/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17427501]

>amor fati
>Nooo not like this stoicists, you're weak

[Anonymous No.17427583]

Nietzsche's amor fati is superior to the Stoics'

[Anonymous No.17427590]

>>17427501
Stoicism is Normie philosophy

[Anonymous No.17427606]

>>17427501
can someone tl dr on how do they differ? Did Nietzsche dislike all of that "stay in your role dictated by nature" stuff stoicism constantly repeats?

[Anonymous No.17427626]

>>17427583
How?

[Anonymous No.17427667]

>>17427606
You can see it as arriving at a love of the self from two different angles (because one's fate ultimately means the self). The Stoic reaches it through a quieting of the self (living in moderation through the ascetic, abstinence and self-discipline) while Nietzsche reaches it through an acceleration of the self (uncompromising egoism and challenge-seeking).

>>17427626
It's a matter of perspective, but I personally find that Nietzsche's is more complex, as well as more difficult to attain, since there is an element of chance involved in it. The Stoic wants to suppress that element while Nietzsche embraces it.

[Anonymous No.17427672]

>>17427667
You haven't read the stoics.

[Anonymous No.17427677]

>>17427672
I've read Seneca and Aurelius.

[Anonymous No.17427868]

>>17427501
Amor Fati is in accordance with nature, amor fati allows you to act out for example, where stoicism doesnt, stoicism allows room for control; sorry if this reply isnt satisfactory, I once wrote a big paper on this where it clicked but I've grown too unconcerned and disinterested.

[Anonymous No.17427882]

>>17427868
what I mean is that stoicism focusses on reason, where amor fati focusses on instinct, it is in a sense, the same goal with opposing ways to reach them

[Anonymous No.17427893]

nietzsche was right about this stoicism in todays age is cringe and people only like it because on a superficial level its the closest philosophy to self help books
>just live according to nature bro, nature totally has a plan if you dont believe in any gods
>just dont feel any emotions bro fuck art and growing from pain
>just care less about your life bro stop wanting to live so much brb quoting epictetus on my instagram page next to my acai smoothie bowl

[Anonymous No.17427932]

>>17427677
Read them again.

[Anonymous No.17427934]

>>17427626
Amor Fati is a kind of alchemy where all is transmuted into Joy. It is also not really attainable by anyone who isn't the Ultraman, and from our perspective it would look like a madness. In this sense it is superior to the stoics, but the stoics have one up on it by actually be accessible to Humans and not some hypothetical state achievable only by Shadow The Hedgehog.

[Anonymous No.17427951]

>>17427501
Amor fati is the ultimate filter, and less than 5% of posts on this board about it reflect even the most basic understanding of what it is.

[Anonymous No.17427976]

>>17427932
Can you explain what I got wrong? For example, with the Stoics, there is an interest in meditating on death regularly so that one no longer fears it. This is a suppression of fear, essentially chance; the Stoic doesn't want to feel surprised when death finally rolls around.

[Anonymous No.17428025]

>>17427934
I don’t think stoicism caters to humans at all. It can be attributed to an animals unwavering instinct and that’s what leads them to live so harmoniously with nature, so humans should try to emulate that. Nietzsches amor fati is closer to humans in what he described as the “Dionysian spirit”. We should live to our passions and ambitions as opposed to some set code. Nietzsche thought of nature as a flow of energy, the stoics believed it was some high order.

[Anonymous No.17428033]

>>17427976
Ah you've read the Wikipedia articles on Seneca and Aurelius

[Anonymous No.17428036]

>>17427976
But seriously, show me one passage from either Seneca or Aurelius which supports what you've written down
Not something similar
The specific doctrine you state the follow

[Anonymous No.17428052]

>>17427951
No
>>17427882
this guy gets it

[Anonymous No.17428123]

>>17428033
>We should be sensible, and our wants more reasonable, if each of us were to take stock of himself, and to measure his bodily needs also, and understand how little he can consume, and for how short a time! But nothing will give you so much help toward moderation as the frequent thought that life is short and uncertain here below; whatever you are doing, have regard to death.
Seneca, Letter 114.27

>Do you, however, always think on death in order that you may never fear it.
Letter 30.18

>To what, then, shall this friend of yours devote his attention? I say, let him learn that which is helpful against all weapons, against every kind of foe, – contempt of death; because no one doubts that death has in it something that inspires terror, so that it shocks even our souls, which nature has so moulded that they love their own existence; for otherwise there would be no need to prepare ourselves, and to whet our courage, to face that towards which we should move with a sort of voluntary instinct, precisely as all men tend to preserve their existence.
Letter 36.8

So can you explain what I got wrong?

[Anonymous No.17428160]

>amor fati
>Nooo not like this Christians, you're weak

[Anonymous No.17428180]

>>17428160
>Christ cucks cope with suffering by seeing it as a “test” by some bearded man in the sky and to “trust the plan”
Literal q anon shit

[Anonymous No.17428187]

>>17428123
>If I take some random passages that describe half of my claim, the second half is also true
Try again

[Anonymous No.17428203]

>>17428187
You already accused me of not reading any Stoics, without explaining where I went wrong, but there are clearly passages showing that I'm right. Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong then. Give me passages that refute me.

[Anonymous No.17428216]

>>17428187
Why are stoics always massive annoying faggots?
>nooooo you’re misrepresenting my incredibly simple and straight forward philosophy
lol you’re not a Hegelian or a kantian. Idk why you complain about people reading the Wikipedia as if it’s an incredibly complex philosophy that cannot be simplified

[Anonymous No.17428239]

>>17428203
dont effort post when you're talking to a troll, he should do the work, not you

[Anonymous No.17428269]

>>17428180
Not even as a test, but to love God even when there's no reason to do it (love of God for God's own sake).

[Anonymous No.17428285]

>>17427667
>>17428123
>>17428216

>conflating ascetism with moderation and self discipline
>correctly describing the process of "meditating on death", then decides to make a value judgment on it AS A BAD THING, as if death isn't inevitable for anything that exists
a lot of you guys are just retarded and should post less

[Anonymous No.17428286]

>>17428269
So literally just
>trust the plan

[Anonymous No.17428297]

>>17428285
How about your moderate this cock Into your mouth lol

[Anonymous No.17428299]

>>17428285
Everyone understands Stoicism to be about those things but you. I wonder why that is?

[Anonymous No.17428300]

>"one should be brave and fearless without any grounding, without any metaphysics, without any thought," says the nietzschean as he is reduced to a mental patient after seeing a horse being abused

[Anonymous No.17428314]

>>17428299

aurelius was a roman emperor, seneca was a wealthy man in one of the most powerful positions of rome. you do not know what an ascetic is, you are delusional and retarded

[Anonymous No.17428330]

>>17428314
>aurelius was a roman emperor, seneca was a wealthy man
What do those things have to do with Stoicism?

[Anonymous No.17428343]

>>17428330
>"You can see it as arriving at a love of the self from two different angles (because one's fate ultimately means the self). The Stoic reaches it through a quieting of the self (living in moderation through the ascetic, abstinence and self-discipline) while Nietzsche reaches it through an acceleration of the self (uncompromising egoism and challenge-seeking)."

[Anonymous No.17428350]

>>17428343
Ok?

[Anonymous No.17428379]

>>17428350

imagine asking "where am i wrong", falsely conflating asceticism with self discipline and moderation, and then having the nerve to pretend like you have an argument. newsflash moron, you can't be a roman emperor/scion and be an ascetic at the same time

[Anonymous No.17428387]

>>17428379
Lmao So you’re literally just arguing semantics?

[Anonymous No.17428393]

>>17428387
>/lit/

[Anonymous No.17428405]

>>17428393
Lol you’re not even disproving him your just saying
>ackshually it’s moderation not asceticism
I fucking hate stoics. They are the astrologists of the philosophy world

[Anonymous No.17428409]

>>17428405
>retard
I'm saying that 90% of /lit/ is arguing semantics.

[Anonymous No.17428424]

>>17428387

>This is a suppression of fear, essentially chance; the Stoic doesn't want to feel surprised when death finally rolls around.

no i was mostly baffled by how the sentence above was framed to be a bad thing in any way. the lack of understanding the semantics just shows your stupidity

[Anonymous No.17428452]

>>17428424
He was right tho. Why ponder about it rather than just accept it as inevitably and move on?

[Anonymous No.17428453]

>>17428424
>I can't BELIEVE there are people who think differently than me!

[Anonymous No.17428470]

>>17428452
Because it's fun, exciting and/or interesting..

[Anonymous No.17428495]

>>17428470
Honestly nietzsches solution of
>living life to the fullest so the inevitability of death doesn’t seem so bad
Sounds a whole lot better than
>well I think about death all day everyday, waiting for it as an inevitability. So that when it finally comes I can say “heh, saw that one coming.”

[Anonymous No.17428555]

>>17428286
No, it's loving God even if there's no plan. Literally amor Fati.

[Anonymous No.17428605]

>>17428555
>even if there’s no plan
>literally amor fati
>amor fati means love of ones fate
You have 0 idea what you’re talking about don’t you

[Anonymous No.17428662]

>>17428605
>loving one's fate even when it is suffering and there's no reward at the end.
Yes, a 20 years old nun was more Nietzschean than Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17428735]

>>17428662
But there is a reward? It’s literally the entire basis of the religion lol

[Anonymous No.17428799]

>>17428735
No, it's love even when there is no reward, don't you understand that there's no value in loving God only as an exchange for salvation? All saints have loved God for being GOD, thus loving their faith for being their fate.

[Anonymous No.17428810]

>>17428799
fate* for being their fate

[Anonymous No.17428827]

>>17427501
Are you supposed to love the fate of whether you develop amor fati or not

[Anonymous No.17428904]

>>17428799
>I love my imaginary friend that I created
I seriously think it’s a love of ones on projections and ideals. It’s the love of a self created security that god exists. Humans cannot exhibit selfless love and to say so is blasphemy

[Anonymous No.17428918]

>>17428904
You are correct, and that's the fault of original sin. However humans can endlessly try to exhibit selfless love and God will forgive any errant selfishness for as long as you recognize your errors.

[Anonymous No.17428937]

>>17428918
>mental gymnastics
Do Christ cucks really

[Anonymous No.17428946]

>>17428937
>if I post a frog and call everything I don't want to think about cucked I've contributed to the conversation
Ok.

[Anonymous No.17429016]

>>17428946
I’m not just saying it’s blasphemous to try to perform selfless love, it’s literally impossible for humans to perform. To say that you love god looking for absolutely no gain is a gigantic lie and an attempt to appear virtuous at the expense of god himself

[Anonymous No.17429031]

>>17429016
I literally agree. Humans cannot unconditionally love because of original sin. However for as long as they still try to do so they are forgiven.

[Anonymous No.17429178]

>>17429031
>they are forgiven
That’s a cop out and a non answer. I’m alluding to the fact that they try to perform (yet fail) Amor fati on god, they ultimately prove that they are self serving in regards to “loving” him. So why mention it as an argument at all when you literally admit that it’s just a crock of blasphemous nonsense?

[Anonymous No.17429386]

>>17429016
Yes, it's loving something for it's innate attributes. You ought to love the greatest being ever i.e God because of his tremendous magnificence, since his qualities (infinite goodness, infinite power, infinite mercy) by themselves deserve all the praise and the love forever. It's not impossible if you participate from his own qualities by accepting his grace.

[Anonymous No.17429587]

>>17427501
It is helpful to remember the context of Nietzsche's ideas and their belonging to a historical tradition of thought. Amor fati, very much belongs within the German aestheticism movement, many of the ideas espoused first by Schiller, Holderlin, Novalis, and Schlegel, figures instrumental to the formation of the romantic school in Jena. It is best to see Nietzsche's philosophy not as some outlying thing from our perspective but as more at one with his time than is usually understood in English scholarship. Another key to understanding the concept is the relationship between amor fati and Goethe and his role in culture, and how in many ways he was the model for the ubermensch for Nietzsche, strangely also Emerson in this category. I would recommend reading Frederick Beiser on this topic and really anything related to German philosophy, as Paul Guyer the great Kant scholar and translator has noted that Beiser has "rewritten our understanding of German history" these are big words.

[Anonymous No.17429658]

>>17429386
Don’t be so conceited. You only admire them because you have something to gain from the so called magnificence. Like you described, it’s infinite goodness,power, mercy that you WANT to believe exists so it can envelop you entirely. If these options didn’t exist or if they were denied from you that appreciation would cease to exist. Hence believing in god for “respect” is just a farce, it’s just placing all your bets on the existence of a concept and that you’re included in that concept

[Anonymous No.17430159]

>>17428495
This. Stoics BTFO.