/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20578097]

Will it ever be surpassed?

[Anonymous No.20578103]

in gayness? never.

[Anonymous No.20578105]

>>20578103
pleb

[Anonymous No.20578107]

>>20578097
it was mediocre. marcus was coping hard.

[Anonymous No.20578143]

>>20578107
Isn't that what stoicism is?
You are not even coping anymore, you're becoming one with copium

[Anonymous No.20578160]

>>20578097
always has
https://www.26reads.com/library/81825-moral-letters-to-lucilius-epistulae-morales-
>

[Anonymous No.20578263]

actually helped me with my paranoia because of the passage where he says its immoral to accuse people.

[Anonymous No.20578453]

>>20578097
Seneca and Epictetus surpassed it before it was even written

[Anonymous No.20578778]

[Anonymous No.20578863]

>>20578453
Came here to post this.

[Anonymous No.20578878]

Stoicism is cool if you're into TED talks and corporate retreats

[Anonymous No.20579117]

>>20578097
In faggotry? Unfortunately yes.

[Anonymous No.20579166]

>>20578878
This, stocism is the premier CEO philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20579171]

>>20578097
>stoicism
Only a step up from Confucianism

[Anonymous No.20579201]

>>20578097
I cringe now at how much I went on about this copependium to other people. Stoicism, Abrahamic religions, and Atheist philosophy all boil down to the same basic claim: nothing we do here matters.

It can be valuable as a tool, as a temporary measure to alleviate suffering, but it does not provide any real direction or resolution.

[Anonymous No.20579292]

>>20578878
Well put

[Anonymous No.20579901]

>>20579201
>abrahamic religions
>nothing we do here matters?
nigga are fucking retarded?
you can't even jack off, is a sin

[Anonymous No.20580163]

>>20579901
You can sit in a cave doing nothing and go to heaven according to them.

[Anonymous No.20580187]

>>20578097
I liked Seneca more

[Anonymous No.20582087]

based Marcus still filtering plebs till this day

[Anonymous No.20582092]

>>20579201
> Jesus be like "nothing matters"

You are at the low end of the mid wit curve and I don't think you will ever move out.

[Anonymous No.20582111]

>>20578097
>bro just don't feel anything lmao
He was a cuck.

[Anonymous No.20582137]

>>20582111
>Missing the point this hard

[Anonymous No.20582157]

>>20582137
>t. Marcuckus

[Anonymous No.20582466]

I'd imagine most of the plebs who use this board havn't even read it

[Anonymous No.20582707]

>>20582466
Well yeah, of course

[Anonymous No.20582803]

>>20582092
Retard. If salvation is based on faith like you Jew worshippers claim then you could spend a lifetime navel-gazing and be rewarded for it, with nothing material to show.

[Anonymous No.20582996]

>>20582466
i have been posting on this board and fit concurrently for the last 6 years giving strong takes and engaging in frequent arguments whilst having neither lifted nor read a single page or weight in all those years

[Anonymous No.20583082]

>>20582996
Other people do this?

[Anonymous No.20583636]

>>20579201
How in the world do you get "nothing we do matters" from Stoicism?
>>20582111
No Stoic ever said this.

[Anonymous No.20583654]

>>20578878
Explain.

[Anonymous No.20583659]

>>20578878
>>20579166
>wealthy, deceitful, stoic
One of these things is not like the others.
Y’all niggers dumb

[Anonymous No.20585085]

>>20583636
>virtue is the sole good
>nothing else matters
there you go.

[Anonymous No.20585106]

Epictetus is meatier and more insightful.

[Anonymous No.20585121]

>dude just like dont worry bro
wow thanks emperor

[Anonymous No.20585280]

>>20578097
It was retroactively surpassed by Epictetus, Marcus quite literally tells you to go read Epictetus midway through

[Anonymous No.20585996]

>>20582996
Based.

[Anonymous No.20586019]

>>20582996
unironically chad attitude

[Anonymous No.20586029]

>>20579201
>not getting it

[Anonymous No.20586108]

>>20578878
Yes, a philosophy that instructs you to live an ascetic life, pulling away from empty activities and from a 'living death', harmonises well with these kind of modern charades. Bravo >>20579166

[Anonymous No.20586128]

>>20585085
Therefore, does not committing acts of virtue matter?

[Anonymous No.20586165]

>>20578103
fpbp

[Anonymous No.20586207]

>>20578143
>>20579166
True, that book is a treasure because it let us read Marcus Aurelius diary and how he was coping having to rule the Roman empire.
The book might as well be called ¨My diary desu¨ by Marcus Aurelius unironically.

The other side of this would be Epictetus and that is still stoicism.

[Anonymous No.20586271]

>>20582996
What a lost soul you are

[Anonymous No.20586340]

>>20586128
>virtue
>acts
brainlet

[Anonymous No.20586516]

>>20586340
"Acts" is indeed not subtle enough of a term and they are not what constitute virtue, nevertheless, living virtuously as a whole is an act. The essence of your point (I presume) is that current conditions don't matter in light of the perception of x reward/nothingness/outcome later in the 'philosophies' you mentioned, which is not the case, as virtue, and the outcome of virtue, are things that one enjoys in the present in Stoicism

[Anonymous No.20586551]

>>20586340
>implying virtue isn't made up of acting in accordance with reason

[Anonymous No.20586919]

>>20586516
>>20586551

Can virtue be quantified in any sense? Can we ascribe to a certain act a certain degree of "virtue", or virtue inducing quality? If not, then what do these acts matter to the cultivation of virtue?

[Anonymous No.20586979]

>>20586919
At stoicism's height, you just do your duties, whatever they may be, and act on your moral compass. Total subjectivity and moral relativism didn't exist as an idea then, but if your moral compass didn't exist you're just a monster and can't be stoic.

[Anonymous No.20587053]

>>20586979
Suppose:
>Anytus and Meletus may indeed kill me, but they cannot harm me
So if it doesn't harm them, how can it be considered bad, or unvirtuous? The whole thing seems to be some first of all an attempt to reduce one's own suffering, with the whole virtue aspect tacked on.

[Anonymous No.20587076]

>>20585106
Meaty and veiny, exactly how you like it

[Anonymous No.20587084]

There's an undiscovered gem of medieval philosophy somewhere that has surpassed it but we just don't realize it yet.

[Anonymous No.20587097]

>>20586919
>Can virtue be quantified in any sense?
Perhaps not, but it can be qualified

>Can we ascribe to a certain act a certain degree of "virtue"
No, virtue is complete, the essence of a thing either possesses it or it doesn't

>If not, then what do these acts matter to the cultivation of virtue?
They do not, but acting virtuously is inseparable from possessing virtue by logical relation

[Anonymous No.20587141]

>>20587097
So we cannot have virtue in degrees? So by acting virtuously, we are absolutely virtuous, or vice versa? If for a second we act, then for a second virtuous? Or does the attainment of virtue forgo and follow the act, that a virtuous man might not have acted, or might have concluded his action? If this last point is what you mean, then virtue is not intrinsically tied to action.

[Anonymous No.20587146]

>>20587141
>>20587097
For 'tied to action', sub: 'dependent upon action.'

[Anonymous No.20587230]

>>20587053
>So if it doesn't harm them, how can it be considered bad, or unvirtuous? The whole thing seems to be some first of all an attempt to reduce one's own suffering, with the whole virtue aspect tacked on.
The harm is to those who are not virtuous. I hate to sound like a little pseud, but this is fundamental Platonic virtue ethics, did you get through the core dialogues, or Republic (in particular, it's book 9 that covers the misery of the tyrant) before you went to the stoics, or did your curosity escape you?

[Anonymous No.20587264]

>>20587053
There is a degree of ambiguity which is not the result of unquantifiability, but the human inability to quantify. Imperfect knowledge, imperfect wisdom, and so on.
In the case of killing, it is generally destructive rather than constructive. Socrates may not be harmed, nevertheless the very act of killing can be(but is not always) vicious.

[Anonymous No.20587273]

>>20580163
Not necessarily. Sin means "off the mark", which means not taking a shot at the mark to begin with is also sin.

[Anonymous No.20587297]

>>20582996

[Anonymous No.20587345]

>>20587230
I've not read any of it. Suppose I should.

As for this case: a man harms me physically, I do not consider myself harmed however, therefore I am not harmed. He has harmed me physically, and does not consider himself harmed-so how is he harmed by the act? He might well think himself a better man for it, rest easy at night, and recall it fondly.

Even allowing that this causes him harm, though he denies it: rehabilitative measures taken will be against his will, and cause him harm he is conscious of, and punitive measures needn't be taken, because, if no harm were done to others, he cannot be justly punished. So, would this not be the conclusion: we'd be best allowing him to cut off our heads as he pleases.

>>20587264
Seems a bit absurd to separate the act from the individuals it is enacted upon. Following the above, getting angry and killing Socrates is no different from getting angry and kicking a stone.

>>20587273
So then: >>20587141

[Anonymous No.20587360]

>>20587345
To summarise:

Virtue is paradoxically separated from the human experience though it is unique to humans. Coping mechanisms do not mix well with the enforcement of moral standards on others.

[Anonymous No.20587389]

>>20586919
Enslaving Ger*an women and children is the pinnacle of virtue.

[Anonymous No.20587420]

>>20586108
Don't expect /lit/tards to read
>>20587345
>Seems a bit absurd to separate the act from the individuals it is enacted upon. Following the above, getting angry and killing Socrates is no different from getting angry and kicking a stone.
What do you mean? Killing out of anger is not Stoic. Killing out of duty may be, depending on the situation. If I were to defend Anytus and Meletus, perhaps they merely acted on their duty to curb destructive influences on their people.

[Anonymous No.20587427]

>>20586108
If I had pearls under my feet I would not have rando politicians denying me travel or forcing me to take the vaxx.

[Anonymous No.20587439]

>>20587420
>Killing out of anger is not Stoic
I mean that, since the above is true, but the stoic is not harmed by the killing itself, then it is anger which is the ultimate issue to be addressed. So you end up with a refutation of any hierarchy of sin, and come to the absurdity that killing out of anger is no worse than doing X or Y out of anger.

[Anonymous No.20587475]

>>20582466
Just look at most comments. They clearly have not read the book and have no idea what Stoicism.

[Anonymous No.20587512]

>>20587141
>So we cannot have virtue in degrees?
Virtue is, in its essence, reason and hence self-sufficiency and is inseparable from eudaimonia and ataraxia, it is blessedness itself. It is as an object is either straight or it is not, 'virtue' is a platonic measure, you can be closer to it than others, but virtue itself does not admit of degrees

>If for a second we act, then for a second virtuous?
If it were possible to cultivate virtue witin yourself for just a second, then to forget virtue, then yes, (because, as spoken of before, 'act' as language has misleading implications, virtue is not a single act of goodness, like downvoting a hecking racist on reddit is, or if you want to separate it act-by-act, it is an infinite number of small acts that make up living virtuously, like droplets of water in a wave)

>Or does the attainment of virtue forgo and follow the act, that a virtuous man might not have acted, or might have concluded his action?
If one is virtuous (as possessing virtue), they will inescapably be acting virtously at all times to the point that 'acting virtuously' and 'being virtuous' are inseparably the same, even a life sitting in complete, self-fulfilled silence, would such be an act of virtue

[Anonymous No.20587549]

>>20587439
Trying to bigbrain the problem is not stoic. To be stoic means you're going to do what you should do. If something bad happens, don't make any effort to be perturbed and don't complain. Why? No use crying over spilled milk.
Are you a soldier dying on the battlefield? Don't complain. It's your time and place.
Did your home get destroyed by an asteroid? Oh well, time to build another. What, is it going to unstrike itself if you cry long enough?
Should you just lay down and let whatever happens happen? Nope. Just do what is appropriate for a situation. Are you going to philosophize about morals? Stop. You have morals, just do whatever feels right. If you fail in your goals to do what is right, don't sweat it. If you don't know what is right in a given situation then don't worry about it. If you don't have a moral compass then stoicism doesn't apply to you. Don't worry about the theoreticals of other people not having the same moral compass. It's irrelevant whether they are psychopaths or blubbering lovebears.
I see philosophy as perhaps the most unstoic thing possible.

[Anonymous No.20587600]

>>20587512
>Virtue is reason
I think that gets to the bottom of it. But reason describes the application of logic, and we apply it to an end, so ultimately stoicism's end is not living in accordance with reason or logic, but with whatever moral code the stoic devises. This begins with common Stoic ideas, e.g.: 'as nature requires....' but tends to, when pressed, become: 'don't kill people, don't steal etc'. But ultimately they offer no reason as to why these are bad beyond the damage done to one's own psyche in the experienceable manner, which is an issue because if an individual denies, as he is right to, the self-harm caused by acting contrary to these codes, then there is no means by which the stoic can prove him wrong, or even prove his actions wrong.

>>20587549
>Trying to bigbrain the problem is not stoic.
That's what I gathered from this discussion, that Stoicism is a method for coping only. It doesn't mean it lacks utility.

[Anonymous No.20587656]

>>20578097
I can't read Marcus Aurelius for some reason.
In Book 2 paragraph 2 he talks about him being breath and flesh and whatever and I can't understand what he means. Am I just retarded?

[Anonymous No.20587663]

>>20587345
>I've not read any of it. Suppose I should.
Yes, you really ought to have looked at the Socratic/Platonic dialogues before you get into any of the Stoics, Epicureans or Cynics, you're trying to walk in a room before you've built the floor and lot of the questions you're asking, I think, stem from that

>As for this case: a man harms me physically, I do not consider myself harmed however, therefore I am not harmed. He has harmed me physically, and does not consider himself harmed-so how is he harmed by the act? He might well think himself a better man for it, rest easy at night, and recall it fondly.
He is harmed by it, even if the unjust man cannot articulate it or does not explicitly know it, injustice causes disharmony in the soul, it is like a kind of 'civil war'. The unjust tyrant is the most supremely miserable of men, even amidst his vast riches and estates.

>He might well think himself a better man for it, rest easy at night, and recall it fondly.
He could claim to 'think' as he pleased about it, but on some unavoidable level (no matter perhaps how much it is ignored in some unjust men) he would regard the act as unjust and it would cause a disturbance within him

>rehabilitative measures taken will be against his will, and cause him harm he is conscious of, and punitive measures needn't be taken, because, if no harm were done to others, he cannot be justly punished.
From a Platonic/Stoic perspective that is not harm, if he were to suffer from such 'punitive' treatment, it is the cause of incorrect judgement and ignorance of wherein the Good lies. He would be punished, corporeally, for inflicting corporeal harm onto others

>So, would this not be the conclusion: we'd be best allowing him to cut off our heads as he pleases.
It would be considered reasonable as a preferential indifferent to prevent an unjust man from cutting your head off, if to prevent it were in your power, killing him is likewise acceptable in line with what constitutes true good and true evil from a Platonic perspective, as long as you regard it just

[Anonymous No.20587674]

>>20578097
>>20578097
>starts his book by listing every based person in his life
I'm thinking he's based

[Anonymous No.20587698]

>>20578103
lmao gottem

[Anonymous No.20587700]

>>20578878
Stoicism just means becoming and adult.

[Anonymous No.20587751]

>>20587600
>I think that gets to the bottom of it. But reason describes the application of logic, and we apply it to an end, so ultimately stoicism's end is not living in accordance with reason or logic, but with whatever moral code the stoic devises. This begins with common Stoic ideas, e.g.: 'as nature requires....' but tends to, when pressed, become: 'don't kill people, don't steal etc'. But ultimately they offer no reason as to why these are bad beyond the damage done to one's own psyche in the experienceable manner, which is an issue because if an individual denies, as he is right to, the self-harm caused by acting contrary to these codes, then there is no means by which the stoic can prove him wrong, or even prove his actions wrong.
Your argument is a gotcha assuming there is no objective morality.

[Anonymous No.20587768]

>>20587345
>So then: >>20587141 #
The target perhaps has a bullseye, which is perfection, but hitting on target in general might be considered pretty good? Then missing completely might be bad. Etc....

Example: going to Church but having sub optimal will and thoughts while there might be on target but not bullseye.

[Anonymous No.20587808]

>>20587600
Virtue is both what is reasonable and (hence) what is just, you are right in a sense when you say it's a matter of a subjective 'moral code', but as in Plato, there is an objectivity even in man's subjectivity. While cultural values may differ, the soul of man itself will always know some acts to be just/unjust.

>This begins with common Stoic ideas, e.g.: 'as nature requires....' but tends to, when pressed, become: 'don't kill people, don't steal etc'
There are theoretical examples in which both of those things could be considered perfectly reasonable, Aurelius was himself happy to orchestrate the grand campaigns into Germanic territory against the Marcomanni for the sake of preserving the state he had been placed steward of

>which is an issue because if an individual denies, as he is right to, the self-harm caused by acting contrary to these codes, then there is no means by which the stoic can prove him wrong, or even prove his actions wrong.
I don't know if he has a 'right to', but he can indeed claim it, and yes the Stoic couldn't reach into his soul and disprove him in any way he could exhibit to non-experiencing observers, but he has no need to prove it to any who are not already aware of it.

In a similar way, there is not really any point to our continued discussion, no short paragraphs I can write will communicate the core ideas, we be merely dancing around the edges of technical argument, if your interest is sincere in Stoicism (even if to just more accurately speak against it), read the Socratic/Platonic dialogues first. Your understanding and the type of criticisms you are levelling are otherwise going to be inaccurate and very irrelevant in ways that you don't realise because you're arguing from the zeitgeist of modern, vulgar, herd 'morality'

[Anonymous No.20587823]

>>20587600
Virtue is both what is reasonable and (hence) what is just, you are right in a sense when you say it's a matter of a subjective 'moral code', but as in Plato, there is an objectivity even in man's subjectivity. While cultural values may differ, the soul of man itself will always know some acts to be just/unjust.

>This begins with common Stoic ideas, e.g.: 'as nature requires....' but tends to, when pressed, become: 'don't kill people, don't steal etc'
There are theoretical examples in which both of those things could be considered perfectly reasonable, Aurelius was himself happy to orchestrate the grand campaigns into Germanic territory against the Marcomanni for the sake of preserving the state he had been placed steward of

>which is an issue because if an individual denies, as he is right to, the self-harm caused by acting contrary to these codes, then there is no means by which the stoic can prove him wrong, or even prove his actions wrong.
I don't know if he has a 'right to', but he can indeed claim it, and yes the Stoic couldn't reach into his soul and disprove him in any way he could exhibit to non-experiencing observers, but he has no need to prove it to any who are not already aware of it.

In a similar way, there is not really any point to our continued discussion, no short paragraphs I can write will communicate the core ideas, we would be merely dancing around the edges of technical argument (as we have been), if your interest is sincere in Stoicism (even if to just more accurately speak against it), read the Socratic/Platonic dialogues first. Your understanding and the type of criticisms you are levelling are otherwise going to be inaccurate and very irrelevant in ways that you don't realise because you're arguing from the zeitgeist of modern, vulgar, herd 'morality'

[Anonymous No.20587979]

>>20587751
>>20587768
>>20587823
>Internet arguments won+1
Ta lads.

[Anonymous No.20588275]

>>20587979
Very epic btfo'ing with facts and logic there, truly there is no objective morality in this world. See you back on r/atheism

[Anonymous No.20588463]

>>20578097
As one of the worst books of all time? No, I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.20588468]

>>20578097
You should read My Diary Desu

[Anonymous No.20588819]

>>20585085
Yes, and virtue manifests in the things you do. What did you think virtue was? How would you be wise, courageous, just and temperate if not in your actions?

[Anonymous No.20589050]

>>20588275
>>20588275
I can disprove both theism and atheism.

>>20588819
Imagine you have a brave man who encounters no danger in which to exhibit his bravery, is he any less brave?

[Anonymous No.20589068]

>>20578103
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/762670.Marcus_Aurelius_in_Love

[Anonymous No.20589090]

>>20578453
>Seneca
Recently finished his Dialogues and Essays and read Letters a couple of years back. I can now with confidence say that Seneca was a sycophantic cope lord and a condescending midwit. The only reasonable explanation to why anyone would ever put him on a pedestal together with Epictetus is that they've read neither.

Marcus Aurelius is humble, making him infinitely more enjoyable to read compared to Seneca.

[Anonymous No.20589105]

>>20589090
Imagine thinking there is anything intrinsically good about being humble

[Anonymous No.20589117]

>>20589105
It's a good quality in others.

[Anonymous No.20589573]

>>20578097
It never surpassed Seneca's works, so by definition it had already been surpassed at its creation

[Anonymous No.20589595]

>>20589050
Apart from presenting an interesting problem, what are you trying to accomplish? I've been re-reading the reply chain for a while and this reply brings in any value only to the previous anon, yet the main question remains unanswered. Instead of writing everything you think you know like a cuck, defend your original point.

[Anonymous No.20589602]

>>20589105
I wouldn't expect an autistic 4chan poster to have any values.

[Anonymous No.20589609]

>>20578097
Did yuh read di Bronze Age Mindset???

[Anonymous No.20589686]

>>20589117
>>20589602
As Aristotle correctly pointed out, humility is as much of a vice as vanity.

[Anonymous No.20589691]

>>20589686
>Aristotle
LMAO

[Anonymous No.20589708]

>>20589050
>Imagine you have a brave man who encounters no danger in which to exhibit his bravery, is he any less brave?
Some have more of an innate capacity for bravery than others, but that capacity removed from any situations in which it could actually become active would be purely theoretical and abstract.
>>20589090
Bait obviously, but consider actually reading him, he's great.

[Anonymous No.20589713]

>>20589691
Concession accepted.

[Anonymous No.20589725]

>>20589050
I can prove both theism and atheism.

[Anonymous No.20589729]

>>20589050
>Imagine you have a brave man who encounters no danger in which to exhibit his bravery, is he any less brave?
Except that virtue is correct judgement, so the man who has it would live according to it at all times. So even his (in)action, such as refraining from decadence or excess, he would be exercising correct judgement by the act of living virtuously

[Anonymous No.20590023]

>>20589595
It separates virtue from action, that's the whole point. So in this case, you've got a virtuous man who hasn't done anything but, having achieved the goal of Stoicism (attaining and living in virtue) he needn't do anything of substance in the material world. Therefore, what we actually do is not the main concern of Stoicism.

>>20589729
>correct judgement
We'll end up back at moral codes at this rate...

>>20589708
>theoretical and abstract.
But the qualities would remain. Otherwise you could, for example, do something as absurd as determine how charitable a man was by calculating how much he gave to charity, and thereby quantify virtue, which you claim we cannot do.

>>20589725
You can't, one of your proofs will invalidate the other.

[Anonymous No.20590330]

>>20590023
>>correct judgement
>We'll end up back at moral codes at this rate...
I'm just telling you why your initial statement was wrong, prevaricate all you want and keep asking your detracting questions, your claim that Stoicism holds that "nothing we do here matters" is not correct, living a life of virtue matters to the Stoics (and that includes virtuous acts if possible) - not for an uncertain, promised reward, but for the joy it brings. Stoicism is deeply hedonistic, so I say again, actually start with the Greeks before you seek to "win" your next "internet argument" about Greek philosophy

[Anonymous No.20590353]

>>20578097
Eastern philosophy beats it because of its sheer quantity, and development, this is just one book if we had an entire stoic theology and metaphysics, then itd be comparable.

[Anonymous No.20590592]

>>20590330
>but for the joy it brings
Again, you suppose it brings joy to others. Plato saying it does is not a proof. Use your own brain more and stop relying on gay-reek brains.

>if possible
Kek. Proven yourself wrong.

[Anonymous No.20590696]

I won't waste a thread on this: Best books by Seneca?

[Anonymous No.20590705]

>>20590353
What eastern books should people read?

[Anonymous No.20590870]

>>20590023
>But the qualities would remain.
Of course.
>Otherwise you could, for example, do something as absurd as determine how charitable a man was by calculating how much he gave to charity, and thereby quantify virtue, which you claim we cannot do.
Yes, an amount given to charity is an expression of virtue, not the virtue itself. But virtue is inseparably linked with its expression. You'll never find a man who doesn't face opportunities to act virtuously on a daily basis, and that's what a good chunk of Stoicism is concerned with. It's laughable to accuse it of claiming that "nothing we do here matters", if anything, a better criticism would be that it's too focused on what we do here at the expense of solid theory, that's kind of true at least for late Stoicism.

[Anonymous No.20590879]

>>20590696
The Ligma Chronicles

[Anonymous No.20590896]

>>20590696
The Pumpkinification of the Divine Claudius

[Anonymous No.20590906]

>>20579201
You got filtered hard.

[Anonymous No.20590936]

>>20590592
>Again, you suppose it brings joy to others. Plato saying it does is not a proof. Use your own brain more and stop relying on gay-reek brains.
Again, not relevant to your original claim, this is the Stoic position regardless of your opposition to it, they do not claim "nothing we do here matters" as it is you said. Stand your ground on that, instead of fluttering about

>Kek. Proven yourself wrong.
What? The Stoics naturally encourage virtuous action if it can be chosen, by that I only mean grand acts of virtue, the likes of Cato (because you don't seem satisfied with 'acts' as far as how you act in your day-to-day moments), which only present themselves in exceptional circumstances.

However, even if you are bound to a chair, enduring torture is an act of virtue, engaging in philosophy is an act of virtue, even avoiding luxury and living an austere life is an act of virtue, acting according to virtue is inextricable from the possession of virtue.

[Anonymous No.20590937]

Hard to take it seriously when he was such a jobber and a mediocre-at-best emperor

[Anonymous No.20591247]

>>20590937
That is the exact point since it's his diary. As this guy says:
>>20589068
Dude was probably gay and full of dumb desires, he probably knew a lot about the theory but was probably not a good stoic in practice. After all, if I kept a diary where I wrote a lot about how to be more stoic, and full of reminders and doubt too, it's probably because I want to be better at it not that I achieved it.

[Anonymous No.20591364]

>>20590906
>IS THAT S-S-SUFFERING!? I'M BECOMING UN-VIRTUOUS! SAVE ME MARCUS!

>>20590936
Nothing we do matters but the cultivation of virtue. Virtue tends towards action but this is simply an externalisation of values already attained. Doing good doesn't make you virtuous, according to them, but being virtuous makes you do good. That is not the same as virtuous thought and acts being equal, because we have agreed that someone who does two virtuous acts is not necessarily more virtuous than the man who does one. Hence the disconnect between action and 'spirit'. If it can be lost or gained on a whim, or by the second, or by a fleeting change in mind, then it is an entirely ephemeral phenomenon which overrides more enduring, tangible actions and thus the material world subordinated to this abstracted concept.

Build a hospital and save a million orphans in a fire? The second you deviate in thought you are no longer virtuous. Kill 6 gorillion people? The second you act otherwise you are virtuous, should we take action and possession as the same.

[Anonymous No.20591666]

>>20591364
Virtue doesn't come in degrees, but a person's capacity for virtue does, and someone who does more virtuous acts has a more developed capacity than someone who does fewer virtuous acts / more vicious acts. Growth comes from habitual practice, it is neither lost nor gained on a whim. These sorts of basics can be learned by reading a couple of pages of Stoic philosophy, which, I realize, is too much to ask of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.20592002]

>>20591666
>devil trips
Nice try fella. But the simple fact is that you cannot square virtue as a state of being, salvation-like as you describe it, and virtue as a goal that can be attained in steps. You talk about virtuous acts and virtuous men, each possesses virtue independent of the other, if not, then of acts which confer virtue upon the doer, in which case we conclude then that stoicism is entirely concerned with material matters, since virtue cannot be attained but by worldly acts. Either way, it doesn't hold up.

[Anonymous No.20592176]

>>20589708
>Bait obviously
And why is that?

[Anonymous No.20592183]

>>20590696
Just start with Letters like everyone else.

[Anonymous No.20592591]

>>20591364
>Virtue tends towards action
You seek to separate 'action' from virtue, but how could one who has obtained virtue ever act otherwise?

Your examples of 'virtue', the generic "build a hospital and save x" indicate to me that your understanding of the word is from the common, vulgar way it is used today

>If it can be lost or gained on a whim
Do you think Socrates "on a whim" ever had a "fleeting change in mind" and suddenly abandoned philosophical virtue? Although I don't know why I ask that since you've already admitted that you "have not read any" of Plato. I frankly doubt whether you've read any of the stoics either, considering your understanding of virtue amounts to "saving a million orphans". Unironically read more

[Anonymous No.20592616]

>>20592591
I'm phrasing it like that because you're a retard. You define virtue as: 'things Plato likes' so what can I do but throw out feelers to see if there's any substance to it? Evidently, there isn't. Yes, Socrates could change his mind on a whim, especially since Stoicism penalises nothing for it, but a temporary loss of happiness or satisfaction. Stoicism is just an ascetic branch of hedonism, and it's followers crypto-Christcucks seeking desperately for an objective justification for their eternal cope.

[Anonymous No.20592985]

>>20592616
>You define virtue as: 'things Plato likes' so what can I do but throw out feelers to see if there's any substance to it?
You wouldn't have to try and "put out feelers" as to what virtue is if you'd actually read Plato. Still, the way you are fundamentally treating virtue is incorrect, see pic related.

This is sincerely my last effort in this regard, if you do not appreciate the essence of it still, I do not know what more I can do for you, other than stop providing (you)s so perhaps you will instead opt to go and actually read the texts of the philosophies you are spending your time trying to 'win internet arguments' about, as you said

[Anonymous No.20593211]

>>20592985
>win internet arguments
Tongue in cheek you muppet.

Besides, that makes no sense, since no action can be taken without emotional impetus, and reason thus a tool used in service of emotion. I suppose that's that then. Find a few more Greeks to quote so I can refute them next time as well.

[Anonymous No.20593444]

>>20587141
someone who is virtuous will subsequently act virtuous at all times. but that only applies to the ideal man, which is why you can't take any virtuous action and say the guy who did it is virtuous
a virtuous self begets virtuous actions not vice versa.

[Anonymous No.20593742]

>>20592002
You seem to come in with a lot of very strange baggage regarding your definition of virtue, and you're mixing a lot of separate things together. Before eventually starting with the Stoics, looking at some fundamentals of virtue ethics would be beneficial. No, it's neither a "salvation-like state" nor a "goal attained in steps", it's simply a quality in common to understanding and acting.

[Anonymous No.20593976]

>>20578263
>actually helped me with my paranoia because of the passage where he says its immoral to accuse people.
Lol

[Anonymous No.20594585]

>>20578097
Already has been.

[Anonymous No.20594815]

>>20578263
Fucking kek. Based.

[Anonymous No.20596088]

>>20591247
>probably