[ 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: 581 KB, 1024x768, Hydrangeas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534739 No.2534739 [Reply] [Original]

Has /lit/ read 'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius?

If you have, what are your thoughts on this book?

Do you practice being stoic?

Picture unrelated.

>> No.2534754
File: 51 KB, 495x600, zeno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534754

I'm more sympathetic towards the Cynics myself for all of their extremities, but Stoicism is amiable because it's so compatible with society at large. I'm not a practising Stoic, but I do tend to visit their realm for advice sometimes.

I have yet to get into Aurelius and Seneca and perhaps others, but I've read Epictetus and his work is highly recommended.

>> No.2534874

>>2534754
Yes Epictetus is what I'm likely going to read about next.
Thanks for your contribution, though. I strongly recommend reading 'Meditations' also.

Anyone else here on /lit/ ever dabbled with Meditations?

>> No.2534901

Hope you don't mind me asking some somewhat relevant questions in your thread, OP.

Where can I find a good translation of Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers and
Plutarch's Lives?

Also, is Penguin a bad choice for these sorts of books?

>> No.2534905

Meditations has been my stress relief for about 5 years now.

>> No.2535047

I read Meditations when I was worried my girlfriend might be pregnant. I am normally an anxious person and I think that book was the only thing that stopped me from losing it. She wasn't pregnant, but now I find myself reading Meditations whenever things get difficult.

>> No.2535438

bump

>> No.2535454

If any of you guys who read it have the time, how would you describe Meditations then? I'm looking at it now, but that translation looks like it's only meant to be old written. It's not trying to be plain, just use a lot of thou.
Sorry, I'm not English. Can get stuck at some points.

>> No.2535571
File: 67 KB, 450x600, anisthenes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2535571

Bump for worthwhile thread.

>> No.2535719

isnt stoicism just
>do your duty and dont worry, you'll die soon
?

its as fine as anything else, btw.
didnt mean to sound flippant.

>> No.2535721

>>2534901
Bump for answers.

>> No.2535736

>>2535719
There's a lot more to it than that. It's more of an attempt to live a truly sagely, rational life and not letting your actions be affected by emotional turmoil and the like. Read a wiki or something, the basic ideas aren't hard to wrap your head around in a short time.

Stoics also spend a lot of effort in the very methods to achieve their ideal. It isn't merely theoretical thought, it has a counterpart in action that is just as important, if not even more so. Writers like Aurelius and Epictetus deal with this practical side of things a lot.

In that way Stoicism (and Epicurianism, Scepticism, Cynicism and every great philosophy) resembles Buddhism, for example. It is a whole way of life, a culture in itself almost, not merely a set of values.

>> No.2535741

Stoicism is bad because people should act like human beings, not plants.

Stoicism/Buddhism/Quietism will impoverish your soul.

>> No.2535751

>>2535741
>clearly doesn't understand Stoicism, Buddhism and Quietism
>implying a body is impoverished when tumors are cut away
>implying a rosebush doesn't blossom more beautifully when pruned

>> No.2535759

>>2535751

Fine, go and be a fucking plant then.

>> No.2535802

>>>merely a set of values

That phrase made me laugh.

>> No.2535846

I am a practising Neostoic, in that I adhere to the Stoic system based on a Christian theology. None of the ethical, moral psychological or emotional elements of the philosophy are thereby impinged. I personally find Epictetus' Discourses far and away the most useful and challenging contemporary text, with Seneca's letters to Lucilius and his longer essays/dialogues (De Ira, De Beneficiis, De Providentia...) coming next. I've also got more out of the relevant parts of Cicero's De Finibus and De Oficiis than I have from Meditations.

I did get a couple of useful aphorisms from it.
"If any man has done wrong, the harm is to himself. But perhaps he has not done wrong."

"Remove the judgement: get rid rid of the 'I am hurt', and you are rid of the hurt itself."

I'll have to look into it again in greater depth.

A phenomenal modern text for understanding and beginning to practise Stoicism is Tad Brennan's The Stoic Life. It's full-on scholarly; there's no dilution like you can find in The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. But at the same time, it's clearly written and actually entertaining (as in, it's really funny). You'll have a far better conception of the philosophy if you use it rather than solely relying on the surviving original works.

>> No.2535867

>>2535846
With The Stoic Life, you mean http://www.amazon.com/The-Stoic-Life-Emotions-Duties/dp/019921705X ? Looks good, might try it. Hope it's for download though, might not be entirely comprehensible for me as a foreigner.

>> No.2536941

>>2535846
Not OP, but thanks for the recommendations. Quite nice to see a Christian living by Stoic principles instead of flopping around the floor like a maniac.

Are you denominational or churchgoing in anyway or more of a lone wolf?

>> No.2536954

Why don't you practice self-immolation like a good little white american buddhist?

>> No.2537346

>>2536954
>Stoicism
>Not part of the very basis of Western society
>Not being one of the most practical and attainable ways of life ever to have been created
>not authentic as fuck

I sincerely hope you get cancer.

>> No.2538663

Can someone explain how stoicism differs from buddhism, please? :)

>> No.2538757

>>2538663
Stoicism is an honest mistake, borne of a philosophical system that searches for meaning

Buddhism is religious dogma, condescended to by orientalists

>> No.2538759
File: 34 KB, 278x522, tV4YF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2538759

>>2538757

>> No.2538761

>>2538757

>honest mistake

>religious dogma

This naive use of language is amusing.

>> No.2538766

>>2535867
Anyone got an e-book version of this? Looks like a great resource.

>> No.2538774

>>2538759
>>2538761
Orientalists detected. Tell me again how the Dao is so much deeper than corresponding western systems by virtue of having no attempt at formal logic behind it. Aphorisms and koans are where it's at.

>> No.2538781

>>2538774
Formal logic fails per definition in an all encompassing worldview. It's merely a tool.

>> No.2538785

>>2538781

>presupposes an "all encompassing worldview".

>> No.2538788

>>2534901
Youwillnevergetanansertoyourquestions.jpg

>> No.2538790

>>2538774
Not sure if I'm right, but, the point of buddhism is to get rid of your ego, which can't be achieved when you are thinking about it. It's all about practice. Being here and now moment after moment.

someone should correct me if I'm wrong.

>> No.2538795

>>2538785
Well, once one gets to know the limits of logic it is better to merely use it for what it is then to try and explain life itself with them. This is why Cynicism is superior to Stoicism. It might use logic to figure out how to steal some beans, but not to explain the essential nature of God.

>> No.2538796

>>2538781
Sure, ultimate scepticism and all that, but the same is true of any writing, saying, or belief. The Tao's simplistic quietism and the innumerable vague parables of Buddhism are just as undermined by the impossibility of objective reason as any other system, from West to East. This is an ancient truism that no one really cares about. The difference is the Greeks moved beyond the vague aphorisms and musings of the pre-Socratics, into actual inquiry into truth and reality.

The Western tradition creates Spinoza out of a dark age. The Eastern tradition gets Neo-Confucianism that is barely as sophisticated as Roman/Hellenic philosophy, in the middle of a golden age and with virtually uninterrupted prosperity. The Buddhists get a few more mysterious catchphrases every time a new sect shoots up, whether in India or Japan. In the modern era we get Husserl and Heidegger, and the Indians get Krishna sects that are indistinguishable from folk religion. Modern philosophical Buddhists are the equivalent of C.S. Lewis at best.

>>2538790
"The point of Buddhism is getting rid of your ego" carries as much weight or utility as "the point of Christianity is nearing yourself to the transcendent perfection of the Godhead because your soul is inherently sinful." They both reflect folk traditions, they both have internal theological systems to justify themselves, and they are both ultimately religions.

>> No.2538814

>>2538796
What? How? Ego. Google that shit.

and you didn't focus on the other part.
>which can't be achieved when you are thinking about it

>> No.2538818

>>2538814
What? How? Soul, evil, etc. Google that shit. Or substitute the fiat metaphysics of any gnostic faith (much more interesting than Buddhism) or Zoroastrianism, and Google their intitial premises, which are founded on shaky, shitty logic - but at least it's logic.

I didn't focus on that for the same reason I don't focus on the fourteenth premise of Manichaeism.

>> No.2538823

>>2538818
Okay, well, let me just replace ego with the chatter in your head

the point of buddhism is to get rid of the chatter in your head, which can't be achieved when you are thinking about it. It's all about practice. Being here and now moment after moment.

Do you want me to explain why do they want to get rid of the chatter inside their heads?

>> No.2538826

>>2538823
Pretty much every religion on Earth seeks to reduce "chatter." They just disagree on how to define chatter. If you define it as any thought whatsoever but the correct sort - be it nirvana, comprehension of divinity, whatever - then you can still find plenty of examples in other faiths, eg. Christian asceticism. If you define it as illogical or non-virtuous thinking, there are infinite examples.

>> No.2538829

>>2538823

>replace ego with the chatter in your head

That isn't ego, though. You can have chatter in "your" head, without having an ego. In fact, you can think any of the current thoughts you do now, without an ego, and they would be the same thoughts.

>> No.2538831

>>2538796
I understand your disapproving of mindless Orientalism, but you're not giving Buddhist philosophy enough credit here. The cultural context is different so it may seem like vague catchphrases to you, but it is often actual serious philosophy. Try to leave the hippies who raped it out of the equation.

What I don't get is your dismissing of the no-self context. Getting rid if your ego in the buddhist context is merely realising that there is no actual, fixed self. Something very much in harmony with modern science, as opposed to the other religious traditions you mention.

>> No.2538832

>>2538831
*no-self concept

>> No.2538834

>>2538826
How does that make buddhism wrong?

>>2538829
Yeah, I agree.

>> No.2538841

>>2538831
I understand Buddhism can be serious philosophy, and I respect it on the same level that I respect Neo-Confucianism. It's stagnant because of its cultural associations, just like scholastic Aristotelianism or early Christian/Gnostic neoplatonism were.

I don't reject the lack of a fixed self. I agree with it. Kant's transcendental apperception is probably an arbitrary association of a fixed "I" or ego with subjective experience, that makes experience possible to begin with. That still hasn't been reconciled with how conscious experience "feels" or "seems" possible to us, but at least dudes like Heidegger are trying. I haven't seen anything similar in the Eastern tradition yet.

>>2538834
It doesn't make Buddhism wrong, but Buddhism hasn't been established to be right. It does show that its intuitive spiritual aspects aren't unique, though.

>> No.2538844

>>2538796
>out of a dark age
Dark age is a misnomer.

>> No.2539060

>>2538841
>That still hasn't been reconciled with how conscious experience "feels" or "seems" possible to us

I guess we seek different things. Buddhism's only 'goal' is to give some peace of mind. What else do you really want, though?

>Buddhism hasn't been established to be right
right in what way?

>> No.2540960

Zeno was too weak to be a Cynic, that is the only reason he founded Stoicism.

>> No.2541632

no

>> No.2541663

Not very related, but has /lit/ read anything about epicuriansm? I am getting interested in it and I'd like to have recomendations of books

>> No.2542288

>>2541663
It is very much related. That said, I know everything I've read about it from online sources. Stanford is always a good place to start.

>> No.2542338

>>2541663
there's a lot less major stuff than for stoics. you get a few surviving sayings of epicurus, lucretius, diogenes of oenoanda's inscription, and fragments of philodemus.