[ 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: 41 KB, 798x644, EfXCE01UYAA8csO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18682242 No.18682242 [Reply] [Original]

Nietzsche's critique of stoicism is unfathomly retarded

>> No.18682259

>>18682242
What is it

>> No.18682261

>>18682242
Nietzche couldn't even read he had the eyes of a mole and would drool bile onto the pages.

>> No.18682270

>>18682242
Stoicism = cuck
Übermensch = based

>> No.18682285

>another thread for people who haven't read N to debate people who didn't understand him about whether it is based and redpilled to agree with him or not

>> No.18682288

>>18682259
>You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.

>> No.18682831

>>18682288
Ha goteem

>> No.18682836
File: 102 KB, 1448x816, 1616066882445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18682836

>>18682288
Another flawless btfo from Neetch-sama

>> No.18682924

>>18682288
based

>> No.18682925

>>18682288
one of the best take downs in the history of philosophy, op is a fag, as always

>> No.18683180

>>18682288
It sounds profound at first but when you start to think about it, it kinda collapses in on itself. One could used this line of reasoning against the Ubermensch no problem. If nothing is unnatural, then what the stoics are doing, living according to nature is natural. And you could conversely say that it is natural to hate and criticize stoics. Don't know what all the redditors are talking about, That's really just a non-point.

>> No.18683193

>>18682288
Holy shit stoicucks BTFO. Bravo, Nee-chan.

>> No.18683220
File: 10 KB, 179x170, 1602721671565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18683220

>>18682242

>Stoics
>I am in perfect control of my emotions. Nothing you say can effect me in any way though you are welcome to try.

>also stoics
>NOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST DESTROY STOICISM IN A SINGLE NONCHALANT PARAGRAPH LIKE THAT! I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED AND INFLUENTIAL PHILOSOPHERS OF ALL TIME I READ MEDITATIONS LAST SUMMER AND IT CHANGED MY LIFE!

>> No.18683444

>>18683220
Nietzsche was a loser incel who got cucked by his best friend while Marcus Aurelius was a literal emperor

>> No.18683482

>>18683444
Marcus Aurelius also lived at a time when emperors were decided purely by relation in simple terms he became heir to the throne by no will of his own
Nietzsche on the other hand was born and lived his early life as an average commoner and rose to prominence through sheer merit
In this sense Nietzsche's accomplishments are in fact more impressive

>> No.18683813

>>18682288
Does he confuse "Nature" the abstract concept that encompasses life and the universe, with "human nature", as in the sum of the parts that make us human?

Kind of sounds like it.

>> No.18683835

>>18683813
Read the Stoics, he's making a contextual reply.

>> No.18683842

>>18682242
all of Nietzsche is unfathomly retarded

>> No.18683854

>>18683482
Emperors of the time were coopted early on by their predecessors by choice. Marcus Aurelius was obviously not a nobody since he was from the family of Hadrian but he certainly reached the throne through ambition, imposing himself to Antoninus. Besides he could have sat on his throne which he didn't do.

>> No.18683863

>>18683835
But doesn't "living in accordance with nature" from the stoics just mean:
>figure out what a human is
>figure out what a human is in the broader context of nature
>live in accordance with that
>don't try to be something a human is not

>> No.18683891

>>18683863
Right, and that's precisely what he's contesting, especially the last two parts.

>> No.18683914

>>18683220
>>Stoics
>>I am in perfect control of my emotions. Nothing you say can effect me in any way though you are welcome to try.
>Neechcel
>NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! NOT THE HORSEY NOT THE HORSEY NOOOO I'M GOOOOOOING INSAAAAAAAANE!!!!!
>>18683482
>Hereditary appointment precludes any concept of merit even if you're one of the greatest emperors in all of Roman History.
Nice cope there pseud

>> No.18683916

>>18683891
Hm...
But a pig will be happy living as a pig. If you force a pig to live as a human it will be miserable. Just like a human trying to be a super-human will make it miserable.

Is that why he's so mad at the stoic bros? Because they preach to be content with your human nature?

>> No.18683953

>>18683916
>Because they preach to be content with your human nature?

but it's literally the opposite...
The whole point of stoicism is that it is AGAINST human nature it essentially sets itself up as an antidote to human nature as if it is something to be cured in the first place

>> No.18683968

>>18682285
There is like 100 interpretations and the criteria for "understanding Noetsche" changes every 10 years or so.

>> No.18684017

>>18683953
I don't know, I've read the late stoics. And their writing doesn't sound like that.

This seems more like the Spock from Star Trek caricature. But I guess Nietzsche predates Captain Kirk's adventures in space.

>> No.18684197

>>18683914
Whats this about a horse?

>> No.18684202

>>18683914
>one of the greatest emperors
Couldn't have been that great, seeing as he was the last good emperor

>> No.18684216

>>18682288
How is he wrong? Shows pretty well how its all just a big larp

>> No.18684272
File: 22 KB, 680x538, 1625940935290.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18684272

A true stoic wouldn't care what this fag thinks. I certainly don't. I'm worrying about me not what some dead mentally ill faggot thinks. What's equally embarrassing is the people that literally just regurgitate everything N says. Where's that based Schopenhauer quote about fags who read too much and get their philosophy from others are cucks that don't think for themselves. That's everyone ITT.

>> No.18684278

>>18684272
A lot of words and insults for a man you supposedly care nothing about

>> No.18684281

>>18684278
Typical NPC response. I BTFO you then this is the script that gets triggered.
>Y-y-your a stoic yet you made me look like a retard
Yeah I know it's funny as fuck too lol.

>> No.18684288

>>18684281
It sounds like you need to take your meds because this is the drivel of a man desperately trying to seem care-free.

Look at the words you use and tell me you don't care. Honestly

>> No.18684321

sneed

>> No.18684467

>>18683916
No Nietzsche's issue with the stoics is that they projected their own character onto nature and then pretended that they were truly discovering some true essential nature upon which human character is built.

>> No.18684612

>>18682242
It’s because you’re a frog poster.
Frog posters are unfathomably dumb

>> No.18684792

>>18682242
Nietzsche is stoic with right understanding nature's nature.

>> No.18684803

>>18684612
not as dumb as all the EpicSNOREians that the Stoics make fools of.

>> No.18685152
File: 473 KB, 220x124, 94B012C6-107A-413B-A02B-E2564202E309.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18685152

>>18682288
Meh

>> No.18685163
File: 216 KB, 521x937, 1626740829852.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18685163

>>18682288
Sounds based to me

>> No.18685184

>>18682242
Yeah. He didn't even understand what the Stoics conceived of by "nature" and proceeds to base his entire argument on the strawman in his head (basically what he thinks nature means, not what the Stoics did, who had their own metaphysics).

>> No.18685187

reading philosophers for their own interpretation of other philosophers is retarded

>> No.18685192

>>18685184
>who had their own metaphysics
But that's what his critique addresses

>> No.18685195

>>18683953
>The whole point of stoicism is that it is AGAINST human nature
You don't understand Stoicism. Stop reading Nietzsche and actually read some Stoic literature for once. Nietzsche uses strawmen more often than not because his critical intelligence was not that developed.

>> No.18685199

>>18685192
No, it doesn't, it imputes a false meaning onto "nature" and thereby totally disregards the fact that the Stoics had an entirely different conception of nature, very similar to Heraclitus: Fire is the logos, which is nature. Nietzsche didn't mention this fact once.

>> No.18685232

>>18685199
How doesn't it? His critique addresses two different definitions of nature and his point is that their idea of nature is still their own, rather than something universal that they discovered.

>> No.18685233
File: 101 KB, 747x751, 1599743055374.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18685233

>>18685195
>everybody who criticizes stoicism just doesn't get it
Just give it up anon master Nietzsche has already destroyed you with facts and logic saving us all the trouble

>> No.18685284

>>18685232
>His critique addresses two different definitions of nature
Neither of which are the Stoics'. So he is arguing with shadows. Besides, if their "idea of nature" is just their own, then so is Nietzsche's, so Nietzsche's own critique here >>18682288 completely falls apart, because he argues with his own "idea of nature" (which nonetheless is totally different to the Stoics').
Additionally, it's obvious that Nietzsche and the Stoics both have different things in mind when they think of "nature." This does not mean the Stoics' idea is merely subjective. Nietzsche still has yet to show that, all he has shown is that they define the terms "nature" differently. It's not actually a substantial debate in this sense, it's Nietzsche struggling to grapple with terminology.
>>18685233
If I based my critique of Nietzsche on the assertion that the will to power is plainly false because not everyone seems to want power, you'd be irritated as well.

>> No.18685301

>>18685284
>Besides, if their "idea of nature" is just their own, then so is Nietzsche's
Is that supposed to be an argument against Nietzsche? Because it isn't. And you're still missing his point, which is that, regardless of their definition, it's one of their own making. Whatever they "discover" about nature they have actually just invented, and their moralizing towards this nature amounts to nothing more than "live according to our ideas." They just dress up "our ideas" as "nature" to give it greater importance (whether they did this consciously or not is another story).

>> No.18685333

>>18685301
>Is that supposed to be an argument against Nietzsche? Because it isn't
It is. Perspectivism is not a tenable position when you're attempting to "refute" someone.
>regardless of their definition, it's one of their own making
Which, again, does not in the slightest actually refute them. You've just admitted that Nietzsche's entire argument amounts to semantics, which is the point I was trying to convey.
>hatever they "discover" about nature they have actually just invented
This is entirely false. Giving a new word to something is not "inventing" something, it is merely giving it a name or a new name. By the same logic, proto-Germans "invented" "bread" because they decided to call it "brot" rather than "bread" or whatever other name other nations already used. Stoics redefined nature, a pre-existing term, to coincide with what was truly nature, and not merely appearance (which is the same thing Nietzsche thought he was doing with the will to power). They did not "create" anything except a new definition, which is explained fairly clearly throughout their texts (which Nietzsche did not bother to read to a great enough extent). Nature, in the sense Nietzsche described it, and nature in the Stoic sense, are still two distinct ideas which the Stoics themselves would recognize, and thus is the reason why the Stoics would also reject Nietzsche's critique, and explain to him what they even mean by "nature" (which is certainly not just "being content with what appears to be").

>> No.18685373

>>18685333
>Perspectivism is not a tenable position when you're attempting to "refute" someone.
It is when that someone is claiming that their perspective is universal truth.

>You've just admitted that Nietzsche's entire argument amounts to semantics
You don't know what a semantics argument is. He's not just disputing their definition of nature, but their PHILOSOPHY of nature.

>Giving a new word to something is not "inventing" something, it is merely giving it a name or a new name.
Have you read Kant, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche at all? The "something" in question is an invention. They are not giving a name to something universal that they discovered, but to something they invented and posited as universal. It's their own idea of nature, not "nature as such" that they moralized over. Nietzsche is disputing their epistemology above all here.

>> No.18685386

>>18682242
thats why i wrote my own

Stoicism is an aristocratic perspective. Although veneered in asceticism and a poverty of desires, its true character is altogether lofty and magnanimous. One turns away from the world and to the divine- that's not a tendency of the vulgar masses, outside of romantic stereotypes. It's a tendency of the rich, heeled, and well-to-do. Aurelius was an emperor, Seneca was carried around in a sedan between estates by teams of slaves, Epictetus ran a school for the privileged to study philosophy. Today its advocates are executives, pro athletes, venture capitalists. And people think this is a worldview for coping with hard times! On the contrary its advocates have never truly known hard times. They are so showered in fortune they need a framework to transcend the hierarchy they've already summitted. Stoics are not struggling with setbacks, they're struggling with success. The philosophy of aloof detachment from externals they espouse serves to lengthen the distance between them and the common man. A king is not only not distressed by the lives of the peasants, he cannot even relate to them, theyre as inconsequential to him as beasts in the field. This is the exact perspective of stoicism toward everything in the world. What kind of commoner can afford that kind of detachment? Only men of wealth and means can pay the costs incurred by caring for nothing but their personal virtue. The more resources you have, the less you need fear loss. The more options you have, the less you need fear chance. Normal people by definition have only a normal amount of these things. Having a huge surplus of them is what makes one an elite, an outlier at the top. And this is why it's the rich and powerful who you find pushing stoicism, contrary to its facade of folksy humility. It is the philosophy of the 1%, and not fit for common people.

>> No.18685394

>>18685373
>It is when that someone is claiming that their perspective is universal truth.
A negative is a universal truth too. Stating X is false is equally as universal as X is true. Ergo, perspectivism can suffer universal refutations as much as it can suffer universal affirmations, which is to say, not at all.
>They are not giving a name to something universal that they discovered,
This is just your assertion. Where is Nietzsche's actual argument against Stoic doctrine? Oh wait, there is none, because he didn't even bother reading more than a few pages into Marcus Aurelius before making his mind up on what Stoicism "is"
>It's their own idea of nature, not "nature as such"
I've literally just been over this. Please, read my post again. "Nature as such" (which is really just Nietzsche's idea of nature) and "nature" (the Stoic idea) are clearly distinguished by the Stoics. They are not conflated terms.
>Nietzsche is disputing their epistemology above all here.
Where? All he does is impute false beliefs to them and then refutes those false beliefs as though he had actually refuted Stoic doctrine.

>> No.18685422

>>18685394
>A negative is a universal truth too. Stating X is false is equally as universal as X is true.
No it isn't, learn2logic and maybe actually read Nietzsche.

>Where is Nietzsche's actual argument against Stoic doctrine?
Posted above in this thread, but you don't understand him so you don't realize what his argument even entails.

>"Nature as such" (which is really just Nietzsche's idea of nature) and "nature" (the Stoic idea) are clearly distinguished by the Stoics.
So the Stoics were aware that they were projecting their own ideals onto nature and were teaching others to simply live according to the lifestyle they personally admired and desired? That's the stance you're taking?

>> No.18685461

>>18683813
He's a brainlet and loudmouth. That's why he's so popular here.

>> No.18685488

>>18685422
>No it isn't, learn2logic and maybe actually read Nietzsche.
Yes, it is. It's basic logic. X is false, X is true, are both universal as assertions; one precludes the other. Nietzsche is implicitly a firm believer in the excluded middle, which is that X is neither true nor false, so one cannot either affirm nor deny Stoic doctrine from this perspective.
>Posted above in this thread, but you don't understand him so you don't realize what his argument even entails.
I already dealt with it, and you still haven't addressed my points which is what we're arguing about right now.
>So the Stoics were aware that they were projecting their own ideals onto nature
Again, I just told you they didn't project anything onto nature. You're still conflating two entirely distinct ideas, because you lack intellectual subtlety (like all Nietzscheans and Nietzsche himself).

>> No.18685558

>>18685488
>Again, I just told you they didn't project anything onto nature.
I think Neet-szhe anons are worse than even I expected. They refuse to consider that something as polysemic as that word can be given meaning through a definition or explanation by any author using it, not only by Nietzsche.

>> No.18685637

According to the Stoics, the Universe is a material reasoning substance (logos), known as God or Nature, which was divided into two classes: the active and the passive. The passive substance is matter, which "lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion". The active substance, which can be called Fate or Universal Reason (logos), is an intelligent aether or primordial fire, which acts on the passive matter:

Neetch-bros...

>> No.18685656

>>18682288
>word salad to impress incels and french pedophiles
Nietzsche fell the moment he abandoned Schopenhauer

>> No.18685741

>>18685637
>Neetch-bros...
What? Is your description of stoicism based or cringe? I can't tell. Please tell me so I know

>> No.18685750

>>18685637
What is the difference between this and Platonism? Don't they also think there is some prime matter that in a way lie dormant without form. Is logos the stoic equivalent of forms?

>> No.18685752

>>18685741
neither, it just totally refutes the strawman attacked by neetch

>> No.18685766

>>18685750
>Is logos the stoic equivalent of forms?
No, it is immanent and active. Logos is the Platonic equivalent of the world-soul, in juxtaposition to the demiurge and forms, which are two separate aspects of Platonic cosmology.
>Don't they also think there is some prime matter that in a way lie dormant without form
Yes, it's called Necessity in Platonism.

>> No.18685784

>>18685386
more, pls

>> No.18685790

>>18682288
The way certain words are capitalised kinda makes it seem like a Ben Shapiro transcript.

>> No.18686066

>>18684272
Based

>> No.18686100

>>18683444
>ad hominem

>> No.18686103

>>18682242
>unfathomly retarded
And you're unfathomably retarded

>> No.18686113

>>18682242
>unfathomly
>thread proceeds to fathom quite adequately how retarded it is
Perhaps it is you who is the cunt.

>> No.18686161

>>18682242
Nietzsche is a manlet who spent all his life suffering from various diseases. All his "philosophy" is a wet fantasy. Anybody who takes it seriously is retarded (or just in his teen phase).

>> No.18686184

>A true stoic wouldn't care what this fag thinks.
As a social being, it is only natural to be interested in the opinions of others, especially when the opinions concern matters of philosophy, upon which the welfare of the people and the state depend. Certainly no reason to become hysterical about it.

>> No.18686187

>>18685386
Interesting perspective but I wouldnt fit all of stoicism through that lens

>> No.18686203

>>18682288
>Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain
The Stoics did not mean this by Nature. They believed in a divinely ordered world which was governed by fate. Neitzche doesn't seem to know this so he is arguing against his own understanding of living according to nature, not the Stoics'.

>> No.18686277

>>18685386
Fact is that this already strawman-ish paragraph by anon is still much better than Nietzsche.
If OP is dead set on "btfo" stoics he could refer to the critique by Pascal in his discussion with Saci on Epictetus and Montaigne.

>> No.18686309

poopoo peepee

>> No.18686314

>>18685195
I only read Meditations, and what I got out of it was something like: to let things happen that are out of your control, and to control your emotions... not let them control you... not really very complicated stuff, it's more like "being at peace with" nature and focusing your emotions into useful productivity

>> No.18686475

>>18686100
ad hominem? You mean that thing neetzsche did all the time?

>> No.18686524

>>18686314
I read Nietzsche, and what I got out of it was something like: be yourself. Don't let things that aren't you control you. not really very complicated stuff, it's more like "being at peace with" yourself and focusing your emotions into useful productivity

>> No.18686531

>>18685488
>>18685558
>X is false, X is true, are both universal as assertions
It's always the same shit with this board... no one knows how to read Nietzsche because no one here understands him. No, Nietzsche is not saying "X is false" as a universal assertion anywhere in his critique. Nowhere in his philosophy does he claim anything universally. Such assertions are not possible for perspectives without being fraudulent (and that isn't a universal assertion, for all the myopic retards reading this).

>they didn't project anything onto nature.
Except everyone does. The Stoics are no exception. Nietzsche is no exception. You and I are no exception. We each have our own understanding of nature. Read Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche if you don't understand how this works.

>They refuse to consider that something as polysemic as that word
If you admit that the word is polysemic, then where do those multiple meanings come from if not different perspectives? And if they come from perspectives, what makes you think a perspective is capable of grasping a meaning that is universal? The more perspectives one understands, the CLOSER one gets to an "objective" meaning — but complete objectivity is impossible for a perspective. You haven't read enough philosophy if you're confused about this.

>> No.18686541

>>18682242
projecting much?

>> No.18686574

>>18686203
>They believed in a divinely ordered world which was governed by fate.
If you read further into that quote, he then talks about "nature" as "life," which is what you're referring to here.

>> No.18686600

>>18686574
>he then talks about "nature" as "life,
Which still isn't understanding the Stoic perspective.

>> No.18686611

>>18686600
He's not concerned with what they mean by nature so much as the redundancy of making a morality out of living in tune with nature, because nature either 1) refers to "life" which means you are saying "live according to life" which is redundant, or 2) refers to the subjective universe which means you are saying "live according to myself" which, again, is redundant.

>> No.18686644

>>18686531
>It's always the same shit with this board... no one knows how to read Nietzsche because no one here understands him
I've read him, and I understood him better than you. Yes, when you "refute" someone, you are saying "they are wrong". Refutations imply universality, because otherwise it would not be a refutation, only a different opinion. If you can't understand these basic but subtle distinctions, I cannot help you further.
>Such assertions are not possible for perspectives without being fraudulent (and that isn't a universal assertion, for all the myopic retards reading this).
How is this not universal? You cannot state, "all life is will to power", and then say, "it's not actually universal though, because I say so." That's just pure self-refuting nonsense. It won't let me post longer, otherwise I'd refute it properl
>No, Nietzsche is not saying "X is false" as a universal assertion anywhere in his critique.
Yes he is.
From your quote: " and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically" - so he is implying that the Stoic view is false. How can a view be false according to perspectivism?
He is also saying, "Stoics can only live according to nature", which is another universal assertion, which he then implies is what their doctrine actually means (which is, as I already stated, wrong to begin with, because Stoics use the term "nature" differently to Nietzsche). Do Stoics live according to nature only from Nietzsche's perspective? Is the Stoic view only false from Nietzsche's perspective? If that's the case, then why is Nietzsche's perspective relevant and why should I even consider his "critique" of Stoicism?
>Except everyone does. The Stoics are no exception.
Nietzsche projects, the Stoics don't. Not everyone is a perspectivist.
>Read Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche if you don't understand how this works.
I already have, I do not agree with them in general, especially on this point.
>then where do those multiple meanings come from if not different perspectives?
Deeper meditation on a topic. Nature is a particularly troublesome word in general, because no one in common parlance has defined it in a way that everyone agrees with. At best, there is a very general meaning which people understand, but its true meaning can be extracted by deeper meditation. Of course, there will always be people who claim that their idea of nature is slightly different, which might be more or less erroneous. That's fine, but what matters is that the general idea of nature (which has no useful meaning, and only refers, generally, to the sum of physical reality, which is how Nietzsche uses the term) and the specific idea are distinct. The specific idea is relevant to the Stoics, not the general. And in this way we see the falsity of Nietzsche's supposed critique, even ignoring the issue of perspectivism. Because ignoring "perspective", he has not even understood the ideas the Stoics are working with before he critiques them.

>> No.18686650

>>18686611
>He's not concerned with what they mean by nature so much as the redundancy of making a morality out of living in tune with nature
Please actually read Stoic doctrine before posting again. This is true, but it's not Stoic doctrine, so Nietzsche falls flat, arguing with ghosts again.
>or 2) refers to the subjective universe which means you are saying "live according to myself" which, again, is redundant.
Or 3) it refers to the objective universe, which is what the Stoics were doing.

>> No.18686653

>>18686650
>objective universe
Unknowable.

>> No.18686670

>>18686653
Nope.

>> No.18686673

>>18686650
>>18686653
Also, Diogenes Laertius quotes Zeno as having said the following:

>The end may be defined as life in accordance with nature or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe.

Is that not accurate of Stoic doctrine?

>> No.18686675

>>18683444
the rest of the stoics were literal slaves though

>> No.18686688

>>18686670
You'll get over this phase once you read some philosophy and science from the 18th century and onward.

>> No.18686695

>>18686673
That still doesn't tell you what nature is. For that, you need to read Stoic physics and metaphysics.
>>18686688
Already have, it's sophist rubbish.

>> No.18686704

>>18686695
>That still doesn't tell you what nature is.
But is it accurate to Stoic doctrine or not?

>Already have
Doubt.

>> No.18686815

>>18682242
Nietzsche is unfathomably retarded. Literally the definition of a pseud

>> No.18686849

>>18686704
>But is it accurate to Stoic doctrine or not?
Yes, but as I said, there is a huge glaring hole in your understanding of that passage if you haven't already understood the physics and metaphysics. That passage is accurate, but you cannot understand it without further elaboration.

>> No.18686881

>>18682288
i dont get what he said. Why can't philosophers write simply?

>> No.18687055

>>18686849
>That passage is accurate, but you cannot understand it without further elaboration.
Unless "further elaboration" demonstrates that the Stoics were consciously making a principle of virtue out of their own desires, then it's irrelevant to Nietzsche's argument.

>> No.18687100

>>18682288
based

>> No.18687375

>>18686644
>Yes, when you "refute" someone, you are saying "they are wrong". Refutations imply universality, because otherwise it would not be a refutation, only a different opinion.
When a scientist disproves an existing theory previously considered true and proves a new theory, does he do so thinking that his new theory is irrefutable? If so, that would make him a poor scientist and historically ignorant, wouldn't you agree? Now apply this to Nietzsche's philosophy, which is in line with the epistemological structure of science. One perspective can be found "truer" than another (truthiness in both science and perspectivism essentially means durability) without declaring that any perspective will ever have the final say on the matter. Further, the idea that any perspective could be final is directly at odds with the idea of evolution, which expresses the notion that perspectives are constantly changing, an idea that Nietzsche took very seriously.

Basically, there's no point in talking to you if you don't grasp this because you won't grasp Nietzsche or his critiques otherwise.

>> No.18687514

As someone that felt really connected with Stoicism and having bought my first philosophy book Meditations 1-2 weeks ago, I'm a bit confused by the discussion that's going on here. I read this quote >>18682288 and I don't recognize anything written here in what I read in Meditations. It just feels not applicable at all.
Extravagant? Indifferent? Without purpose or consideration? That's not what Stoicism is.

>to see Nature FALSELY
Marcus writes about observing nature as it is. How can that be false if it's objective?
>Don’t you see the plants, the birds, the ants and spiders and bees going about their individual tasks, putting the world in order, as best they can? And you’re not willing to do your job as a human being? Why aren’t you running to do what your nature demands?
>You don’t love yourself enough. Or you’d love your nature too, and what it demands of you.”
The question is what "your job as a human being" is or "what your nature demands", sure. But it sure isn't staying in bed all day doing nothing, wasting your life away, not taking care of yourself, not taking responsibility for your own life. For that is not what nature is when we observe nature objectively.

>BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?
This feels like a strawman, but I'm not sure how to analyze it. What's wrong with nature allowing herself to be tyrannized over?

>> No.18688381

>>18682288
Stoics ruined for eternity lol.

>> No.18688844

>>18687514
Well to be fair Epictetus, Seneca and Aurelius are late period Stoics and earlier stoics said some whacky stuff.

Still I think he is attacking a strawman. His critizism does not apply to any modern stoic. Is he attacking corpses?

>> No.18688986

>>18688844
>Is he attacking corpses?
It seems like he was attacking Zeno (>>18686673), who is considered the founder of Stoicism.

>> No.18690515

>>18682261
kek'd hard

>> No.18691982

>>18685656
How smooth does your brain have to be to not have the reading comprehension to understand that paragraph and call it a word salad? I bet you only read Schopenhauer’s wiki page and now call yourself a “pessimist”.

>> No.18693324

>>18682288
Holy cringe

>> No.18693338

>>18687514
Yeah any introductory reading can show you how Neetch was completely wrong.
He didn't read anything by the stoics.

>> No.18693363

>>18693338
Any time I look into anything Neitzche wrote it turns out to be baseless opinion.

>> No.18693978

>>18685386

Not a bad take but completely disregards that average people don’t go near philosophy so naturally it’s the playing field of the rich and educated.

>> No.18695309

>>18685386
Cringe

>> No.18695360

>>18682288
how needlessly verbose

>> No.18695387

>>18684272
>What's equally embarrassing is the people that literally just regurgitate everything N says. Where's that based Schopenhauer quote
the irony

>> No.18696190
File: 115 KB, 768x580, nietzscheinthegarden.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18696190

>>18682288
Nietzsche was, at his core, an existentialist aesthete inspired by American Transcendentalists and Eastern religions. It makes a lot of sense why he would, in his personal conception, view anyone who said, believed, and preached that they had found an answer to living--which is why he disliked parts of German culture, the Church, different schools of philosophy, and certain people--as at best harmless morons and at worst dangerous and ignorant zealots.

His problem is that he's missing his own point--because his whole philosophy, like all others, seen through the lens of his own conception is as flawed and as forcible against the true nature of Nature as Stoicism is.

But that's why you have to be self-aware with Nietzsche when you read him. He's not someone you read for really technical and ethical explanations/frameworks for how to live life; you just kind of read him for the feeling he conveys through the passion he had in his work and in his life.

>> No.18696701

>>18684202
Yeah it's how people always claim everything good about the current president is the fruit of the prior one or everything bad is the fruit of the prior one depending on their affiliation. Arguably Aurelius' success had nothing to do with him, and it's a fact that he failed considering that success didn't live on after him despite having inherited success himself. If you actually read Meditations you get the sense that he is exhausted and totally overwhelmed by the position as he details spending half his life marching to nowheres to deal with bullshit.

>> No.18696837

>>18685386
>Rich people don't have problems in life
This dumb pasta again? Kys

>> No.18696872

>>18682285
umm, hello? based an redpilled department? yah, we got some one who is BASED and REDPILLED, right here.

>> No.18696971

>>18682242
How do you fathom a retard mate? Do you cast your depth line up his anus?

>> No.18696976

>>18695360
Improve your vocabulary faggot

>> No.18697001

>>18682285
>another post on the thread about nietzsche by someone who claims to understand him better than everyone else but in reality is just a subjective opinion amongst a sea of subjective opinions

>> No.18697046

>>18683482
>Lived a normal, if not slightly difficult life due to the death of his father. Got free ride to school because dad was a state employee. Became a paid intellectual whose job was to sit around and think.
>Ruled an entire empire and had to manage the survival of a nation while also finding time for philosophy.
I still find the achievements of one intellectually a more amazing feat than the other. Previous status does not change the merit of the work, but when considering who had it harder in terms of producing their work, the emperor did.

>> No.18697916

>>18683482
Wrong actually. At that time emperors would adopt their preferred successor based on merit and talent.

>> No.18698333

>>18696837
I wrote it, I've posted it 4 times and I'll continue posting it to my heart's content. If that bothers you then you aren't stoic, checkmate

>> No.18698364

>>18682242
NO ONE FUCKING CARES YOU PHILOSOPHICAL FAGGOT NO ONE THINKS YOU'RE SMART NO ONE THINKS YOU'RE INTERESTING NO ONE LOVES YOU AND WILL EVER LOVE YOU JUST FUCKING KILL YOURSELF YOU FAT UGLY RETARDED PSEUD WHO FUCKS COCKROACHES JUST FUCKING KILL YOURSEEEEELF

>> No.18698588

>>18698364
Sneed

>> No.18698961

>>18686881
You can't read that? Honestly, when I read it I thought OP was just paraphrasing just from how easily it read

>> No.18698989

>>18682242
Stoicism is cuckphilosophy for literal slaves.

>>18682288
Based.

>> No.18700618

>>18682242
stoics are the biggest critic of stoicism.
modern self-styled stoic gymbro conservatives that decry vague abstracts like 'degeneracy' are not stoic.
true stoics aren't on social media pissing their pants about people they don't know in places they currently are not inhabiting.

>> No.18701075

>>18683914
he went insane because he had a disease not because of a horse

>> No.18701118

>>18682288
This is a complete misreading of stoicism and it’s frankly embarrassing that /lit/ falls for it. Read more.

>> No.18701163

>>18682288
Pathetic

>> No.18701206

>>18682288
I cannot imagine being a Stoic after such a thorough BTFO delivered by Nietzsche (PBUH)

>> No.18701831

>>18701118
How is it a misreading? Zeno said what he quoted.

>> No.18702275

>>18682242
Nietzsche is a bug-man himself, it's no wonder he never achieved anything other than becoming the banner boy of pseudo-intellectual faggots that think democratic socialism is a good idea.

>> No.18702276

>>18693363
perhaps try reading Nietzsche instead!

>> No.18702307

if stoicism actually worked the stoics wouldn't be seethings over nietzsche's criticism

>> No.18702309

>>18702275
you have literally never read a word of Nietzsche as he literally writes endlessly about how shit like cuckstianity, feminism, democracy, produce bugmen

>> No.18702880
File: 49 KB, 441x696, images (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18702880

>>18682288
>Stoicism is self-tyranny
Yes.
>is not the Stoic a PART of Nature
No. Everyday more like a god.

>> No.18703081

>>18702309
to each his own, but this is just the pattern that I observed.

>> No.18703132

>but immanent in the material universe was a spiritual force which acted through them, manifesting itself under many forms, as fire, æther, spirit, soul, reason, the ruling principle.
Neet BTFO

>> No.18703145 [DELETED] 
File: 47 KB, 742x481, Alexis-de-Tocqueville-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18703145

>>18702275
Wrong.

>> No.18703164

>>18702309
Wrong. Nietzsche was btfo by Tocqueville. The Ubermensch is the ultimate goal of democracy.

>> No.18703453

>>18703164
Define democracy

>> No.18703868

>>18696976
All he really said was,
>Nothing that occurs in nature can be unnatural so there is no value in living according nature.

niggas really think they profound by writing 900 pages of incoherent mental masturbation.

>> No.18704849

>>18682288
Very cringe

>> No.18704868

>>18682288
I fucking love big N and this passage was unironically a huge red pill the first time I read it. Sublime destruction of redditards

>> No.18704891

>>18685284
BULL SHIT. You trying to tell me all those Stoic nature analogies and parables don't mean to draw an anology between the natural world and the human condition? There is no way in hell that the Stoic interpretation of Nature pertains to some mathematical/metaphysical order, it is quite clear that the Stoic Nature is present in material. You are the one that is confused, projecting a Platonic ideal on the Stoics Nature.

>> No.18705185

>>18703868
First of all, that's only part of what he said, and second, there's nothing incoherent or masturbatory about it (Stoics are the masturbators here, turning their own condition into a universal principle of virtue).

>> No.18706019

>>18705185
If everything is natural according to N, then you can't criticize the stoics because what they teach is by definition natural. If you actually think about what that nigga said, he proved it doesn't matter how you live your life. He invalidates his entire philosophy just to own the stoics.

>Stoics are wrong because like, life is pointless. But listen to what I have to say because ya know life is pointless, ok?
That's more or less the extent of his argument without flowery words.

>> No.18706108

>>18706019
The Stoics' principle of virtue is self-righteous pomp because it dresses its own desires as the desires of the universe itself. This is not something all teachers of virtue do. I don't know what part of this critique you're having trouble with.

>Nietzsche is saying life is pointless
lol

>> No.18706120

>>18701831
He is ignoring the fact that "Nature" is a very approximate translation of physis, the term used by the Stoics, to which his objection doesn't apply.

Similarly, he is ignoring the context and circumstances under which the Stoics advocated indifference, and what it meant to be "indifferent" in the context of Stoicism

>> No.18706136

>>18706120
He addresses "nature" to mean "life" which carries the same point as physis does. Zeno's statement is still a nonsensical redundancy that only serves the purpose of narrowing life's complexity down to only having one goal or meaning, the one desired by the Stoic mind. It's tyrannical.

>> No.18706184

>>18706136
Nope

>> No.18706292

>>18682288
Has anyone ever surpassed Neetch in his ability to utterly BTFO entire worldviews with an almost flippant remark?

>> No.18706302

>>18706184
Your word against an actual philologist's and philosopher's.

>> No.18706567
File: 11 KB, 231x196, E7650DE3-300A-49BC-81E8-0B81C84CF069.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18706567

>>18706302
And? They (and you) small brain

>> No.18707168

>>18682288
wrong and gay. neetch fags are delusional

>> No.18707590

>>18682288
Based

>> No.18707801

I'm convinced people here just feel threatened by anything that challenges their cynical outlook of everything. Anything even remotely positive that goes against this mopey, languishing view of existence prevalent here elicits a kneejerk negative reaction, even something as simple as Stoicism's "accept what you can't control". Luke Smith's recent video is relevant and timely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMJ00viJIZY
Just a pathetic lot who want to wallow in their misery and drag everyone down with them.

>> No.18708192

>>18707801
You have it backwards. The Stoics and their defenders are the cynical mopes. No one with great ambition has ever been a Stoic.

>> No.18708503

>>18706292
The ancient Cynics.

>> No.18708762

Now that the dust has settled, who was right, Nietzsche or the Stoics?

>> No.18708800

>>18703164
Based

>> No.18709650

>>18708762
Both (i.e. Nietzsche)

>> No.18709696

>>18709650
Cringe

>> No.18711286

>>18708762
The stoics

>> No.18711298

>>18708192
>No one with great ambition has ever been a Stoic.
At least look at the wikipedia.

>> No.18712969

>>18709650
Terrible post

>> No.18712988
File: 61 KB, 525x503, 1625533907751.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18712988

>>18709696
>>18712969
Compelling arguments.

>> No.18713082

Assume an epistemology that like science allows for forming new hypotheses over time. Doesn't that still support the Stoic argument, to observe Nature as it is and follow it? Being a victim of one's circumstance is something that can be helped through study but ultimately can't be changed, which is another Stoic tenant, to focus on what can be changed.

>> No.18713743

>>18682288
Nietzsche is utterly based and his takedown of Stoic faggots (modern day consumerist "philosophy") is extremely on point. Everyone who unironically considers themselves a stoic is a soiboy consumerist.
I read all of his major works, and the stuff he criticizes is always utterly blown out like your asshole OP.

>> No.18713793

>>18682242

Nietzsche's takes on a fuck ton of things are shockingly retarded. Don't ever let anyone tell you that overwrought arrogance doesn't work on mass groups of people.

>> No.18713814

>>18682242
Nietzsche generally was, by most standards, a sloppy scholar, even though he was acknowledged for his prodigious intellect. It might horrify you to know that he didn't actually read a lot of philosophy and actually resembled a /lit/izen more than most people would like. For his knowledge on most things philosophy, he relied on Kuno Fischer's history of western philosophy. He only ever read abstracts of Kant's works and heavily relied on Lange and Liebmann for anything pertaining critical idealism. He attacks the Stoics but grossly misrepresents the technical concept of to homologoumenous tei phusein zen (in popular consciousness 'living according to nature'), which you can forgive laymen for doing but not a professional scholar of the Classics. It remains unclear whether he does it intentionally, is being facetious or simply doesn't know. Either way, it is, quite frankly, retarded. These flaws often get overlooked and defended as, 'oh no he's an INTJ', or 'he's looking at the big picture'. On my view, these defects should simply be acknowledged and should rightly mitigate how much or how seriously we take anything he has to say about anything.

The idiot Nietzsche and his charge against stoicism that it contradicts itself is, then, unsurprisingly, braindead. He, among many things, also wants to suggests that the Stoics, by telling you to live according to nature but then seemingly tell you to supress your emotion, which is against nature, contradict themselves. In truth, this is not what the Stoics are saying and this interpretation has come down to us through translation of the word pathe which is often rendered as emotion. Pathe is not emotion in the way we understand it. It is an excess that you cannot stop or control. So when the stoics are telling you to temper your anger, they are not telling you to never get angry or upset in the way we understand it. For them, this isn't really anger bc as long as you can be reasoned with, you aren't experiencing a pathe. What is pathe, however, is what we would describe as destructive anger, or rage or pure wrath, i.e., the state you're in when you are overcome by overwhelming violence and nothing will stop you until it has ran its course. The kind of anger you later you regret and can't fathom why you were even so angry in the first place. This is pathe, and the stoics will tell you to avoid this bc in excessiveness it is not so much in accordance with nature but a kind of distortion of it, just as much as the opposite, a lack of affect can be understood to be unnatural. The difference between a pathe and and a positive uncontrollable emotion like laughter, is that a pathe is self-destructive

>> No.18713867

>>18713814
So he's literally meme?

>> No.18713888

>>18713814
>Words words words
It's a cuck philosophy for literal slaves. Papa Neetch laid it plain

>> No.18713891

>>18713867
Not quite. None of this is to discredit his acute mind and sense of diagnosis. What this post is meant to do is really to curtail any pubescent notion that Nietzsche is some kind of prophet with insights into the world that are deeper than anyone before and after him. He was just an intelligent and educated man who often said really retarded things and liked to pretend that revelling in his mental mud somehow elevated him above the sheep, when all it did was expose him as a mere swine.
The Genealogy of Morality is a genuinely good work

>> No.18713924

>>18713814
>It might horrify you to know that he didn't actually read a lot of philosophy
>He only ever read abstracts of Kant's works
factually incorrect, there are studies showing that he read ~3 books per week, he also read all of Kant's major works
>he wants to suggests that the Stoics, by telling you to live according to nature but then seemingly tell you to supress your emotion, which is against nature, contradict themselves
where does Nietzsche say this?

>> No.18713925

>>18683220
Based

>> No.18713935

>>18709650
This is underrated. Nietzsche attacks a lot of different things and ideas but he's not necessarily rejecting them, just discussing their place in the world and why they exist. He's the philosopher of difference after all and he thought philosophical views are a product of a person's innate character, so this follows naturally. In other passages he defends stoic like asceticism as a way to enhance life for some people, as a means of will to power. Creating a one size fits all philosophy and worldview is precisely what Neechuh is arguing against.

>> No.18713939

>>18713924
>factually incorrect, there are studies showing that he read ~3 books per week
How does this suggest that this is necessarily philosophy?
>he also read all of Kant's major works
factually incorrect

>> No.18713977

>>18713939
Brobjer, Thomas H. “Nietzsche's Reading and Private Library, 1885-1889.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 58, no. 4, 1997, pp. 663–693. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3653965. Accessed 24 July 2021.
>More scholarly and philosophical books are also missing, and Nietzsche
read a considerable number of such books, some of which he returned to frequently, such as those by Lange, Spir, Ree, Schopenhauer, Emerson, and others.
>Nietzsche's reading increases dramatically in 1887. The main fields are
again philosophy, the history of literature, and prose literature

It's on libgenis, there is a list of books he read and it shows that he worked trough Kant (not only reading, but taking notes etc.)

>> No.18713988

>>18713977
cont.,
>In the field of philosophy Nietzsche read Spinoza, Kant, Mill, possibly Pascal, Simplicius, and he reread Schopenhauer

>> No.18714003

>>18713988
also, he literally thought greek philosophy in gymnasium and university

>> No.18714005

>>18713814
Just because you're emotionally invested into some retarded systematizing doesn't mean that someone has to know the ins and outs of that system to criticize it. Nor is there any necessity to give it the benefit of the doubt. You don't need to study the Koran or the bible thoroughly to reject Islam or Christianity.

Neesha makes fun of scholars and philosophers constantly for these and other reasons, and he gets away with it because it is genuinely a powerful critique. How can you consider yourself wise if you are blind to the mediums that you engage in?

The stoics are retarded because they want to live according to "nature" but their definition of "nature", instead of being universal as they claim, is just some bullshit internal to themselves. Trannies say it is natural to be a tranny. Is it? Maybe, but only for trannies. The same goes for stoics.

>> No.18714083

>>18713939
>factually incorrect
There are heavily annotated versions in his private library which is kept Weimar
Why are stoicucks so fucking embarrassing?

>> No.18714091

>>18714083
He is probably just an academic, who is resentful at his own strawman of "dilletante Nietzsche"

>> No.18714140

When people try to bring up Nietzsche as some sort of effort to refute Stoicism it just tells they don't understand Stoicism or Nietzsche, who was far more fond of the Stoics than they realize.

>> No.18714204

>>18714140
He wasn't a stoic obviously but his worldview shared some similarities.
>materialism
>determinism and possible ekpyrosis
>coming to terms with fate/necessity
>no hinterwelt
>heraclitus fanboyism
>dislike for excessive hedonism

>> No.18714209

>this thread has been up for 5 days

>> No.18714387

>>18714005
So what is similar to stoicism that's not retarded? ie fighting pleasure (internet, porn, smartphone, sugar), seeking happiness, controlling emotions (entitled and controlling people can show really bad behavior, also people with trauma can get very irrational or addicts and then stoicism or the Serenity prayer etc can really help).

>> No.18714422

>>18682288
Not sure how this implies to stoic for I haven't read much of them, but the critique itself applies itself very well to many school of thought who claim to fallow what is natural.
Once you adopt an idealogy it warps how you see the world and confirmation bias makes it seem so everything in the world is going according to your worldview.

>> No.18714458

>>18714209
It's a very slow board please understand

>> No.18714497

>>18682242
Nietzsche is extremely retarded in general

>> No.18714523

>>18682288
>To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature?
Uhh, pretty sure life occurs in nature

>> No.18714539

>>18682288
This is the worst thing I've ever seen a philosopher write. This is as much a takedown as my old /r9k/ posts about how women not fucking me means that the Western world is doomed.

I refuse to believe that /lit/ is taking this seriously.

>> No.18714633

>>18714422
Good point. It's also worth noting that Nietzsche was quite a fan of Diogenes Laertius, even signing his name as "son of Laertius" once, who (to the dislike of many academics) often quoted sources without verifying them and often concerned himself with what the public thought of someone rather than what that someone thought or wrote.

Nietzsche often does the same, or in this case, takes a single line and extrapolates on it rather broadly and until the other's stance is something of a caricature, and the reason why is because he is wrestling not with individuals themselves but with their ideas and the existence of those ideas beyond the individuals who conceived of them. To attack the resulting ideologies and group biases is to tackle something far deeper in the end and leaves us with a critique that is more robust. The critique's value isn't so much in its takedown of Stoicism but in its takedown of a certain prevalent meme associated with Stoicism, a specific ideology that the Stoics helped create. He did the same with many others, like Darwinism for example. Academics hate this about Nietzsche because they are, well, academics, so they have to do everything by the book, but that also means they usually turn a blind eye to society's bigger issues and the consequences of their constant need for fact-checking.

>> No.18714653

>>18714497
Based

>> No.18714665

>>18714539
Just think, Nietzsche was in his 40s when he wrote that.

>> No.18714784

>>18683220
"Nothing you say can AFFECT me in any way though you are welcome to try."

Fixed that for you.

>> No.18714800

>>18682242
>Schopenhauer plays the flute, he therefore isn't a real pessimist

>> No.18714864

>>18714800
>Life is suffering!
>*dances a jig*
>All action is futile!
>*clicks feet in the air*

>> No.18714926

>>18683220
Damn are you trying to outcringe nietzsche?

>> No.18714937

>>18714864
The dancing plagues in the middle ages were literally this.

>> No.18716102

>>18682242
If I CAPITALIZE words then these cozy Mediterraneans who lived 2 thousand years ago will care what I, a random wigger that would've been killed in a single blow by even the weakest Roman centurion, has to say.
OH you PRESUME to equate yourself with EPIC nature? Nature which is SUPER complicated? YOU would are just chill and COMFY? OH NONO my sweeet summer child... Ever heard of a black hole? Your PUNY metaphysics could NEVER match the cosmic scale and indifference of this natural phenomena... wow... such spectacles are only rivaled in beauty by brave trans women (of which I AM a one).