/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2580718]

Is Stoicism a slave's philosophy?

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.2580723]

Insofar as we are all slaves to powers great than ourselves, yes. In terms of our relations to other people, no.

[Anonymous No.2580727]

Give up, OP. You'll never be as edgy as I was as a teenager.

[Anonymous No.2580741]

Is Stoicism an emperor's philosophy?

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.2580748]

The great thing about Stoicism is that it's universally applicable. People from all walks of life benefit from it. It's the everyman's cynicism, adapted for life in society instead of merely a fringe position.

[Anonymous No.2580775]

>>2580718
Certainly not. Stoicism is without a doubt the most robust outlook one can apply in their life. In stoicism we accept pain instead of trying to eliminate it, overcoming our hardship at a more fundamental level. Also we learn to not seek pleasure because the pursuit of pleasure translates to an avoidance of pain. When we concern ourselves only with contextualizing our lives in terms of pleasure and pain we are reduced to the level of an animal. Of course I recognize the current zeitgeist that states we are only animals. I'll just say stoicism is for people who aren't happy with living on those terms. However Stoicism is a practical life philosophy. One only needs to take a glance at /r9k/ to see that for many (read as /r9k/) the avoidance of pain and hardship translates into an unfulfilled life, devoid of experience and genuine happiness. I will admit, as is my plebeian way, I haven't read the Tao or any stoic teachings, but nontheless I've come to appreciate the concept and now I have resigned myself to the pursuit of a stoic existence.

[Anonymous No.2580785]

>>2580775
lol I was thinking of asceticism but the two are related so whatever...

[Anonymous No.2580799]

>>2580785
Cynicism, the philosophy Stoicism is essentially an offspring of, is much more ascetic. One can be a Stoic and live in a palace, but the Cynics took their simplicity very serious and usually lived very austere lives, often homeless and without any possessions other than the clothes on their back. Not needing things beyond what covers your basic needs was seen as freeing one from useless desires and obligations. Living a simple natural life sets one free and leads to happiness.

>Diogenes was knee deep in a stream washing vegetables. Coming up to him, Plato said, "My good Diogenes, if you knew how to pay court to kings, you wouldn't have to wash vegetables."

>"And," replied Diogenes, "If you knew how to wash vegetables, you wouldn't have to pay court to kings."
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Diogenes%20Folder/Diogenes.html

[Anonymous No.2581069]

>>2580799
In The Farewell Waltz, one of Kundera´s characters relates a story about a cynic philosopher promenading around Athens in his ragged clothes. Socrates then comes to him and tells him "I can see your presumption through the hole of your cloak."

Any idea where that comes from, Anon?

[Anonymous No.2581325]

dont forget to use acrylic paints

[Anonymous No.2581934]

>>2581069
It's one of the anecdotes that used to be collected about ancient philosophers. The way he tells it is rather impossible though, since actual Cynicism was founded by Diogenes, who was supposed to be a student of Antisthenes. Antisthenes was one of the students of Socrates. Socrates was dead when Diogenes came along, so Socrates couldn't have met a Cynic. He was the original inspiration for Cynics himself by the way.

I know that quote as Plato telling Diogenes that, which makes more sense. They are shown as philosophical rivals in a lot of anecdotes.There's no way however to say how truthful these anecdotes are, but at least they often give an idea of the ideas of those who are part of it.

[Anonymous No.2581938]

>>2581325
Fucking Art Attack

[Anonymous No.2581947]

>>2581934
I always thought Antisthenes was the first Cynic. There also was a version of this anecdote with him and Socrates in ``Life of the Philosophers''.

[Anonymous No.2581981]

>>2581947
Well, there is plenty of scholarly debate on that matter. I would say he inspired Cynicism, whereas Diogenes embodied it. Antisthenes didn't really have the dog like qualities. Sure, he lived an austere life, but I don't know of any anecdotes where he really practices the simplicity, shamelessness and free speech of Diogenes and his followers. He was a house owner and quite scholarly, writing all kinds of treatises (such as physics or formal logic) about subjects that Diogenes would probably have merely shrugged of.

But now that you mention it, I also remember the version of the anecdote between Socrates and Anthistenes. This is not uncommon though, there's many an anecdote that gets retold in all kinds of ways.

[Anonymous No.2581989]

I am intrigued by the praise stoicism receives here. What should I read? I really don't know much about philosophy between aristotle and Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.2581998]

I think marxists see it as such, they look at buddhism and pacifist philosophies as being there to keep the proles down.

[Anonymous No.2582462]

>>2581989
Start with the The Enchiridion by Epictetus. It's the ultimate guide to practical everyday stoicism. Great little book. Easily found online as well.

>>2581998
Stoicism isn't necessarily pacifist. Neither is Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.2582490]

Seeing how the stoics were the wealthy and therefor had the time to study philosophy...I'd say...no, it is not a slave philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2582494]

>>2582490
Zeno was austere as fuck and a pupil of Crates. Epictetus was a limp slave. Aurelius was an emperor of Rome.

There is no any one Stoic class.

[Anonymous No.2582495]

>>2580741
No, it wasn't suited to his position. That's why he kept beating himself up instead of just living. And also screwed up his son royally.

[Anonymous No.2582501]

>>2581989
Don't bother, it's a philosophy of sour grapes. The logic of the positions falls apart without a good universe ruled by a good god and no, we do not have control over our own minds.

[Anonymous No.2582504]

>>2582494
they were all free men not slaves. Epictitus earned his freedom out of the slave class. therefor not a slave. Slaves in the roman period had zero freedom or liberties, the majority of slaves in the Roman empire wouldn't even be able to read. Study of philosophy was for the wealthy, not even the free class of workers had the time to do it, and again most of them could not read. And, I'm not trying to one up you, I promise. These are just the fact, and that is all.

[Anonymous No.2582512]

>>2582504
...Epictetus learned philosophy as a slave, from a slave.

[Anonymous No.2582518]

>>2582501
I agree somewhat, and I think that Cynicism is superior because it doesn't fall for the traps of theorising like Stoicism did.

Still, I think Stoicism is tremendously benificial for the theists among us. And a lot of the lessons of Epictetus are still applicable without a good universe. Stoicism can probably be tweaked nicely for modern determinism if you give it a try.

[Anonymous No.2582524]

>>2582495
This. As much as I like Marcus Aurelius, and the Meditations is one of my favourite books, Stoicism wasn't very good for an emperor. The renounce to life and earthly pleasures it dictated, at least in late roman stoicism, I think mostly heralded by Epictetus was the product of an economic slowdown in that period, and wasn't exactly what the empire needed at the moment. It needed activity and the lust for glory that so characterised the great men of Rome in the past, with Stoicism, there came perhaps a better life for the individuals that practiced it but some damage to the whole community.

That's my view on it at least.

[Anonymous No.2582525]

>>2582518
Oh, if you've got a loving god it works great.
I never understood why it was so loved on /lit/, since so many claim to be analytic atheists.

[Anonymous No.2582529]

Philosophy is for the confused anyway. All men know right from wrong in their hearts. Stoicism is crap, you'll never be perfect or perfect yourself (you can better yourself) but no one can be 100% stoic in their lives. Don't worry about metaphysics either, that's a dead end. The only slightly powerful philosophy is dialectic (which is just another big dead end). However dialectic will make your mind sharper. Socrates knew that he didn't "know" which is the true root of "worldly" knowledge. Two things were written above the entrance to the temple at Delphi: "Know thyself," and " all things in moderation." But, they still are insufficient for living.

[Anonymous No.2582530]

>>2582504
A lot of learned Greeks were taken to Rome as slaves. Roman families bought greek slaves to teach their kids and stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.2582533]

Is Slavery a stoic philosophy?

[Anonymous No.2582538]

>>2582529
>all men know right from wrong in their hearts
Faggot. You faggot.

[Anonymous No.2582541]

>>2582529
Nah, those who claim not to be confused simply haven't looked hard enough. Everyone needs some kind of mental roadmap to run their lives with, some people get stuck making maps, some people just use whatever they have and refuse to change.

[Anonymous No.2582546]

Why is Stoicism dependent on a loving god?

[Anonymous No.2582547]

human beings are shaped by circumstance, not will. as soon as they deny this, trying to take control, anxiety sets in because although they may wish to empower themselves, there's nothing they can be except what others acknowledge them as.

[Anonymous No.2582555]

>>2582547
The problem is that we have no control over our mental states, the main thing that Stoicism requires. Drugs, a hammer to the head, all these things change a person in ways that Stoicism denies.

[Anonymous No.2582558]

>>2582546
We accept our fate, no we love our fate because that is God's will. I ally my will with God's so my will never fails. I can do this happily because God has a Plan.
Bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2582561]

>>2582541
>haven't looked hard enough

That's philosophy and reasoning douchebag. Looking real hard at the universe and the self.

[Anonymous No.2582562]

>>2582538
Sorry, it is hard to understand the simple things in life, with so much confusion in life. After all, you don't even have to work to be negative and pessimistic, it comes naturally. It takes work to accept the simple things in life that bring joy.

[Anonymous No.2582565]

>>2582555
did that actually make sense to you? I was just doing the stream of consciousness thing where my brain gives my fingers words for the keyboard but my mind never considers it together. I know nothing of stoicism

[Anonymous No.2582577]

>>2582561
"To reason is philosophy"
"People who are sure in themselves do not need philosophy"
"People who are sure in themselves do not need to reason"

[Anonymous No.2582580]

>>2582555
we don't have NO control though. We have control barring injury/disease/drugs/etc.

[Anonymous No.2582581]

>>2582580
Those are the damn things Stoicism is meant to control. IF we have no control, what's the use of Stoicism?

[Anonymous No.2582584]

>>2582565
It was pretty fitting except the last section, which was nonsense.

[Anonymous No.2582586]

>>2582580
No, we don't.
See: determinism.

[Anonymous No.2582591]

>>2582577
Philosophy is not about being sure of oneself. It's about being aware how unsure everyone really is. Socarates never had the answer, but he certainly knew the Sophists didn't.

[Anonymous No.2582594]

>>2582591
Hmm? I thought it was that Socrates knew for sure that he didn't know?

[Anonymous No.2582596]

>>2582594
>Knew for sure that he didn't

Now we're just playing word games.

[Anonymous No.2582599]

Philosophy is for the confused anyway. All men know right from wrong in their hearts. Stoicism is crap, you'll never be perfect or perfect yourself (you can better yourself) but no one can be 100% stoic in their lives. Don't worry about metaphysics either, that's a dead end. The only slightly powerful philosophy is dialectic (which is just another big dead end). However dialectic will make your mind sharper. Socrates knew that he didn't "know" which is the true root of "worldly" knowledge. Two things were written above the entrance to the temple at Delphi: "Know thyself," and " all things in moderation." But, they still are insufficient for living.-- It's so easy to find the answers you are looking for. I spent a large portion of my life searching for the answers, largely in philosophy, and though I would say it was a waste (because it wasn't, I gained knowledge), looking back..it sucks being so lost. It sucks. Once I realized that 'I' didn't have the answers, and accepted that I am in fact confused and a bad source for truth I was free. After all what is my life but a fleeting moment. How could I find the answer, after men have been searching for it for thousands of years and never found it. The road to truth is in fact a narrow (very narrow) path. "Ask and ye shall recieve, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened for you." Obviously I have just exposed my self to you, and that alone will most likely deny my point of view (sadly). Just realize, you who strive for knowledge, (by doing so) are closing a door when you deny my point of view without thinking, and not leaving the door open. That is a narrow and childish way to think.

[Anonymous No.2582608]

>>2582599
>Can't find a perfect philsophy
>So he rejects it all

That in and of itself is a philosophy, And a rather narrow, orthodox one.

[Anonymous No.2582609]

>>2582599
If only you had the power of logic as well as the power to type.

[Anonymous No.2582610]

meh, you cant go full nihilist, your mind wont be able to handle it. now you get to choose between(haha selfreferencing determinism joke -.-) escapism and fatalism of some sort.
examples include existentialism, christianity on the escapism side and stoicism, absurdism on the fatalist side.

[Anonymous No.2582613]

>>2582608
I know, right. He's so fucking retarded it hurts to read his shit.

[Anonymous No.2582616]

>>2582591
" It's about being aware how unsure everyone really is." tell that to Kant, and I dare say Nietzsche. (and I'm aware of his "necessary fictions.") p.s. is everyone arguing minor points just to show how much better they believe they understand these philosophers, or for the sake of truth?

[Anonymous No.2582617]

>>2582599
But you got to that realisation AFTER a life of philosophy, you wouldn't have if you hadn't studied.
Now, if after a life of philosophy you feel enlightened and the reason is you found out you didn't need it, why tell everyone else not to?
The only thing they will come to the same realisation, to the same degree, is to have them spent their lives with philosophy, otherwise they will never know for certain.

So, if you want to share your enlightment about not needing philosophy, encourage people to take philosophy. Impossible to get to the end without walking the way.

[Anonymous No.2582619]

Cynicism teaches one to deal with hardships. Stoicism essentially does the same, but with a lot more theorising and superfluous cosmology.

I don't see why people just stick with the Dogs. One can be a Cynic by living simply within ones means just as well, without the need for homeless poverty.

I'd say the modern simple living and minimalism movement can be seen as a version of Cynicism, if pared with the right attitude.

[Anonymous No.2582621]

>>2582610
>Not using the will to power to reinvent a more just and human morality

Did anyone actually read Beyond Good and Evil?

[Anonymous No.2582623]

>>2582619
*don't just stick with the Dogs

[Anonymous No.2582624]

>>2582619
Whoa there, if I remember correctly, real Cynicism is a harsher version of Stoicism, and same thing, it's only worth bearing if there's a loving god.

[Anonymous No.2582627]

>>2582621
That's all good and well, but what kind of morality would you create? It's the (self)prescriptive part were it becomes difficult. Nietzsche himself is an example of this.

[Anonymous No.2582629]

>>2582617
>Implying "I don't like philosophy" is in any way an intelligent, enlightened sentiment.

[Anonymous No.2582634]

>>2582608
...really? The point is that there is no perfect philosophy. And I definitely don't reject all of philosophy>>2582613 ...do you have any opinions? Not only can you not argue for anything, you can't argue like a man. You seem to only have the power of cheap insults. You obviously know what truth is. I'm laughing right now. Stand up for what you believe, it's called being a man. Stop arguing like a petty plebeian.

[Anonymous No.2582638]

>>2582621
nietzsche is a fatalist. i like the way you jump straight into morality as any concept of value or meaning is of normative nature, and there therefore is no need to talk about existential philosophy when ethics has been dealt with already. nietzsche consequently had to reject it being an error theorist. as he was not a friend of irrationalism he went for a nihilism pretty close to what we would call absurdism nowadays.

[Anonymous No.2582640]

>>2582634
refer to
>>2582577

[Anonymous No.2582645]

>>2582624
Cynicism requires no such thing. There were even atheist Cynics and the original dog, Diogenes, just stuck with the Greek pantheon without any need for benevolence.

Cynicism is aligning yourself with nature, with the way life tends to go. Staying grounded in the basic realities without getting lost in theorising or idealism or unrealistic wants. It seems mostly apathetic towards to gods.

Diogenes got his values from the beasts, not some transcended being.

[Anonymous No.2582646]

>>2582634
No fuck there isn't a perfect philosophy. But no one is arguing for an orhtodox "believe this and nothing else" standard. Take what you will from what men wrote about life and the universe, learn why they think what they do, learn how they assembled their thoughts and arguments, and come away a happier, more enlightened individual.

[Anonymous No.2582651]

>>2582640
>>2582634

And the reason why I said you're retarded is because you say all these things, and it's a philosophy. That means you must be confused. And it's a philosophy cobbled out of cliches of philosophies.

[Anonymous No.2582660]

replace "philosophy" with "exstential philosophy" all over this thread. theres more to philosophy than this deluded search for dreams and throwing aroud word that have no meaning.

[Anonymous No.2582661]

>>2582645
I thought it meant Nature with a capital N, meaning Zeus's plan for creation.
Cynicism was one of the influences for Stoicism, so a lot of it got transferred over.

[Anonymous No.2582670]

>>2582617
You are right. It's just that I feel sorry that others should have to go through all that confusion. Like I said I look back on my life during my search and remember so much pain and disrepair. It is like being lost in the abyss. I Ching: the image of water over water. The image of the abyss. However, you are right. I found my way out (as the I Ching says you can, even though I don't take much stock in the book). If you want to know the truth about life, and whether God exists or not skip the labyrinth and go straight to the source. Just ask him. I worry youths who search for the answers from other men, men who have the same exact nature as themselves. Some get lost in it and never find their way out. It is a wasted life. The world wants you to deny the simple things, the simple good things, because it's not cool. We're taught by tv that to be rich and powerful is happiness, yet the rich and powerful never are...just look at their lives. They're all in pieces, or too self absorbed to even see that they are just as confused as the rest of us (even Socrates knew that and wanted to show the powerful the lies that they convince themselves they KNOW).

[Anonymous No.2582678]

>>2582660
>My philosophy can beat your philosophy

[Anonymous No.2582682]

>>2582670
And you're an Hedonistic Epicurean who's not even self consistent.

[Anonymous No.2582686]

>>2582678
its like parapsychology vs. theoretical physics in science.
deal with it.

[Anonymous No.2582693]

>>2582670
>Just ask him
Please tell me that was sarcasm and you aren't getting your philosophy

>All you poor misguided souls...
Super cool lack of Verstehen. A lot of us manage to study philosophy without falling into dejection.

>The world denies you plesure...
You inconsistent fuck, that's Epicureanism

[Anonymous No.2582696]

>>2582686
Erm dude, if you could read, you might find that we're discussing whether Stoicism is logical once you take away its basic foundations. Since you can't read, it's hard for you to engage in any sort of analytic philosophy in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2582698]

>>2582651
>You are confused
>Because you read philosopy
>Because you read philosopy
>You are confused

It's....It's like logic.

IN A CIRCLE

[Anonymous No.2582699]

>>2582661
Zeus isn't exactly like the Judeo-Christian god. There was a lot of stuff before him, if I remember correctly. The Olympic gods were part of life, not the originators of it.

Cynicism was indeed the main influence for Stoicism, since Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, was originally a Cynic and student of Crates, who was in turn a pupil of Diogenes.

Stoicism, especially later Stoicism, is itself responsible for the whole concept of divine order and the Stoic cosmology. Diogenes and his peers weren't concerned with such matters. They just strived to be content with the basic needs of life, unlearning all kinds of human values and hangups that caused misery and kept one from living to ones nature. Cynicism isn't a philosophy in the sense that we usually use the term now. It didn't create elaborate systems. They just offered to teach the virtuous life which leads to happiness, and according to them that is throwing out pretense and artificiality in favour of a meal of lentils and a wank, enjoying the warm sun.

In retrospect they can be said to be quietistic, in the sense that they tried to remove fetters instead of adding further complications. I've always thought Cynicism resembles Taoism in a lot of ways, if that makes things more clear.

[Anonymous No.2582700]

>>2582696
i just like to mock you people for wasting your time shouting meaningless words at one another.

[Anonymous No.2582701]

>>2582698
"Philosophy is for the confused anyway."

[Anonymous No.2582706]

>>2582700
>meaningless
That means you don't read. Go back to /v/.

[Anonymous No.2582707]

>>2582699
Zeus might not be the creator, but he is the "mastermind", the god with the plan. At least, that's how the Stoics saw him.

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.2582710]

Stoicism is the slave's philosophy par excellence.

Just look to its prevalence in the literati of Nero's day (Seneca, Lucan, Petronius), its emergence in the age of the Hellenistic tyrannies, its most famous expression in the writing of an Emperor of a society driven by ugly, brutish, pointless mores.

Think of the sort of escape it offers its advocates, from slavery to arbitrary, overmighty political power, absurd suffering and the governance of a hedonism that offers no closure.

[Anonymous No.2582716]

>>2582651
"it's a philosophy cobbled out of cliches of philosophies." Perhaps they have been over used but the might be because...those are the primary beliefs in those philosophies. I have studied philosophy pretty widely from easter to western, personally and in college (only for electives). I have read, and studied every major work by Nietzsche, and though I don't like to praise myself I would destroy you in any assumption you most likely have about such a delicate philosophy as Nietzsche's. So relax, I'm not a genius and I can tell you aren't either.

[Anonymous No.2582729]

>>2582716
The problem is that you've got Nietzsche on one hand, and Epicureanism (ie the ultimate Last Man philosophy)
in one paragraph. Do you even understand how terrible it sounds?

[Anonymous No.2582730]

>>2582707
God was seen more as an embodiment of the cosmos, or the other way around if you will, but the Stoic concept of god is hardly the same as that of Greek folk religion as it was known when Cynicism came into existence. One could even say the stoics used the term Zeus for a whole different concept. I agree that Stoicism is very much dependent on such a theology, but Cynicism, being its predecessor and having no such idea, is not.

[Anonymous No.2582733]

>>2582716

I'm beyond philosophy. I don't need to argue Nietzche to know he and others have nothing of value to offer anyone. Unlike you, I'm not confused retard.

[Anonymous No.2582743]

>>2582682
lol, i'm not currently, but I think it's fair to say that I was. heh heh.

[Anonymous No.2582744]

>>2582733
>beyond philosophy
>assigning value to things
>mfw

If anything, you've not even /arrived/ at philosophy. You seem like a commoner who things his own 'common sense' is ground enough to validity of your claims.

[Anonymous No.2582746]

>>2582744
Welp, *thinks of course.

[Anonymous No.2582753]

>>2582729
Now I'm confused. Where is the Epicureanism in what I've said? I thought you were alluding to how i went about my search.

[Anonymous No.2582754]

>>2582743
Dude, I think you still are.

[Anonymous No.2582759]

>>2582744
I don't have to assign the values, they've already been assigned.

[Anonymous No.2582761]

>>2582753
"The world wants you to deny the simple things, the simple good things, because it's not cool."

This is you, right?

[Anonymous No.2582767]

>>2582744
All I need is common sense. I am never confused that way, I am mentally strong and not weak and womanly like the lot of you.

[Anonymous No.2582769]

>>2582761
contd.
Cos what I got out of that was: Be free from pain; don't think too much, enjoy the simple pleasures.

If you're not a Last Man, I have no idea who is.

[Anonymous No.2582776]

>>2582767
And where does your common sense come from?
What does it rely on to say that something is good or bad?

[Anonymous No.2582782]

Enough arguing, Last Man, I have better things to do now.

[Anonymous No.2582789]

>>2582782
>Enough arguing Last Man

Told:
Battle-tolds:
Hypercom-told:
Beyond Good and Told: X

[Anonymous No.2582804]

>>2582759
Typical slave morality

[Anonymous No.2582805]

>>2582769
lol. I like you! However if you haven't realized the leanings of what I'm saying, I'll tell you I'm a christian, and the most hated kind-a born again Christian. I see what you mean though. I didn't mean anyone should indulge in simple pleasure (i.e. sex, drugs, simple fun, etc.) What I mean is that I think every realizes that good things in life come from hard work (physical and mental) and this is a simple thing to know. Simple things make you happy like family, friends, helping the less fortunate, defending the defenseless, giving to others, being kind to others, having patience. Things like this. Not trying to find happiness through convoluted means such as education (which is a kind of happiness and joy, but it isn't lasting happiness. Knowledge is power, no doubt, and power does make you feel better, but it never lasts. The more you learn the more you realize you don't know, so you try to learn more, etc. etc. And obviuosly learning isn't a worthless task, however as my theology major cousin pointed out, it is easy to get wrapped up is yourself when studying phil. It's counter intuitive to take the focus of worry off of yourself and put it on others, yet somehow it always ends up brings joy.

[Anonymous No.2582808]

>>2582805
Dude, those are the Last Man/Epicurean simple pleasure.

[Anonymous No.2582819]

I've just started to get into stoicism and so far I read "Meditations" and liked it alot. Now I'm halfway through Book 1 of Epictetus' Discources and it's interesting too although it's significantly harder to read.

One thing I thought about the other day was a passage in "Meditations" where Marcus talks about how the role of the monarchy should be to protect the liberty of it's citizens, something I can easily sympathize with being politically oriented towards liberalism.

He also talks about the need for man to live according to his own Nature and be it the will of God or just some kind of inherit predisposition, it'd imply (and I think Marcus also says this explicitly) that the greatest fault or the greatest harm one can do to oneself is to act and live againt ones own nature.

[Anonymous No.2582820]

>>2582819
cont.
Politically, this bring my mind to the current form of our societies and how being a member of a state or community is not a choice - it's something that is forced upon every person under threat of violence. Classic liberalism has a great problem with this forced community and argues that each individual must be allowed to chose for herself wether to be a part of community A, community B or no community at all.

Opponents argue that if we were to let all people free like that, there would be no one taking care of the poor, the sick or the elderly. They argue that without taxation any free market would not be able to supply health care for those unable to pay for it and that this is inhumane.

Liberals retort with the argument that if universal health care is something that is good and desired by all people, there would be no need for violence to uphold it. I could argue that meanwhile this is true, there is a philosophical dimension of it saying that if it is not in mankinds nature to form these kinds of welfare structures and societies voluntarily, she does not deserve it. If man can not act humane without the beligirent policy of violence acted out by a minority or a majority over all others, she can not claim moral superiority over the common beast.

[Anonymous No.2582826]

>>2582776
-my heart, it's really simple.
>>2582804
-stop relying on Nietzsche to tell you what is. If you won't listen to your own heart at least listen to your OWN mind
-obviously I'm not a slave I live in America (I realize that might be a relative view)
-and yes I am a slave. A slave in Jesus Christ.
Yes I said that, ridicule me. Go for it. It is easy. Yes, Christianity does seem to be for the simple minded. But, trust me, as I said before I have studied alot of subject both academically and personally. I do have my Bachelors degree. And, if you asked anyone who knew me in the past they would say I was an incredibly complicated person with no shortage of good valid thoughts and questions. Even Nietzsche said, through Zarathustra, he wished his disciples would deny him. Study philosophy if you want but be strong enough and smart enough to find truth in your own way.

[Anonymous No.2582829]

>>2582819
Dude... Is it really according to nature to deny pain, tell yourself it does not exist? Hell no. The Stoic view wants to impose their view of nature on nature, ie man. (I paraphrase from the Nietzsche.)

[Anonymous No.2582834]

>>2582826
And it's the worst form of Christianity, lukewarm. You need real fire to walk the narrow path.

[Anonymous No.2582837]

>>2582829
Denying pain due that is due to things that is totally beyond one's own control may very well be natural.

[Anonymous No.2582839]

>>2582826
Christianity itself might not be wrong. Christianity + Epicureanism is a recipe for lukewarm Christianity.

[Anonymous No.2582841]

>>2582819
"He also talks about the need for man to live according to his own Nature and be it the will of God or just some kind of inherit predisposition, it'd imply (and I think Marcus also says this explicitly) that the greatest fault or the greatest harm one can do to oneself is to act and live againt ones own nature." Couldn't have been said better. Even if you won't even try to simply go straight to the source(God) and find the truth (yes, I claim in a way I know the truth now), at least be strong enough to form your own opinions, so you can be somewhat happy. Instead of leaning on philosophical terms to sound intellectual just to fit in and quote other men. I don't think anyone in any state of being is superior to another (and I don't believe in the overman, it will never exist, so stop saying that), I believe you and everyone is of incredible worth and value. F- the overman, he is a lie, founded upon a lie, founded upon a "necessarily fiction" which is...a lie.

[Anonymous No.2582842]

>>2582837
Are man and beast part of nature? Do man and beast react to pain? Therefore, reaction to pain must be natural.

[Anonymous No.2582874]

>>2582842
Pain could be natural for beasts, but maybe not for rational beings, which beasts most certainly are not.

Stoicism makes it a case to differentiate human from animal in that regard, I think following Aristotle's divisions and differentiations, and giving reason a much bigger cut of the thing. They argue man is not the instincts, but reason. So, if physical pain doesn't damage reason, it's always tolerable, and it is reason's duty to tell it apart.

Not saying I agree with it, but I tried to explain it, however badly it may have come off.

[Anonymous No.2582880]

>>2582839
I'm not Epicurean. There is pain in life no doubt. When did I say life is about denying pain?

[Anonymous No.2582886]

>>2582874
The godly part of man that separates us from beasts has to be assumed to not exist. In that case, there is nothing that separates us from from beasts in nature. Don't go harping about reason, chimps have some form of reason, not full blown. Since higher animals some reason, it would be logical to assume by the Stoic position that it is natural for them to ignore pain, too. That, of course, is crazy.

[Anonymous No.2582892]

>>2582880
"You are right. It's just that I feel sorry that others should have to go through all that confusion. Like I said I look back on my life during my search and remember so much pain and disrepair."

... The Epicurean places pleasure above pain. Simple pleasures in moderation, and the absence of pain. He does not deny pain, he simply does not like it.

[Anonymous No.2582896]

>>2582886
But that is an extreme position of absolutes. Chimps are our closest relative in the animal kingdom and within our difference fits basicly all written texts, painted pictures, composed melodies, built buildings and explained natural phenomena ever.

[Anonymous No.2582897]

Our arguments have turned into frayed ends. And yet again philosophy has show us some new questions, yet we have not found any truth. A blind man leading the blind to...nowhere. Except maybe some divisiveness. Well, it's been fun. But, not really. Take care earnest seekers.

[Anonymous No.2582905]

>>2582886
I do not agree, there is a huge gap between humans and animals in the reason department, even taking examples from the higher animals.
I do aknowledge the existance of the subconcious and reason is not infallible, but you can't compare human intelect to that of an animal.

[Anonymous No.2582915]

>>2582892
The Epicurean places pleasure above pain...He does not deny pain, he simply does not like it.
Um...that doesn't make someone an Epicurean.
Like I said I'm Christian (ridicule me) I don't like pain, doesn't mean I'm Epicurean. And Christianity isn't about pain or not pain. Jesus said explicitly "in this world you will have trouble."

[Anonymous No.2582917]

>>2582915
No, you said yourself, you want the simple pleasures. Among all worldly goods, you prize these.

[Anonymous No.2582931]

>>2582917
And I explained what I meant in another post. That still doesn't make someone an Epecurean. Still haven't proved to me that I am an Epecurean. I said family, helping others, etc. Does that mean Buddhists really aren't Buddhists, they're Epecureans?

[Anonymous No.2582936]

>>2582931
Yes, Buddhists who want these are not Buddhists.

[Anonymous No.2582937]

>>2582931
It definitely makes you a hedonist, and the emphasis on simple makes you an epicurean.

[Anonymous No.2582939]

>>2582915

Christianity is not a comprehensive philosophy it is an amalgamation of previous philosophies particularly of slave ethics/stoicism (as Nietzsche saw it) and platonic idealist ontology.

[Anonymous No.2582944]

>>2582905
>>2582896
It's certainly a massive problem for Stoics, if there are degrees of intelligence, cos all intelligent beings are supposed to not harm each other. If I remember correctly, the only way around it was to say that animals were not really alive.

[Anonymous No.2582946]

>>2582936
Spread the word. You just discovered that people who desire the good and not the bad for others are not Buddhists, Christians, yogins, hindus, they are all really Epecureans... Come on man.

[Anonymous No.2582949]

>>2582892
>The Epicurean places pleasure above pain.
Nope. The idea is that one can be freed ffollowing epicureanism and so attain the greatest pleasures in life. If you experience bodily pain, you do not get this pleasure.
>When we say...that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.

[Anonymous No.2582955]

>>2582946
You said the simple pleasures. A Buddhist who wants the simple pleasures is not a Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.2582958]

>>2582949
"and the absence of pain" ref again to
>>2582892

[Anonymous No.2582960]

>>2582939
according to Nietszche...
Platonic thought does not equal precursor to Christianity. The Catholics supported it more than other philosophies because it fit the best with Christianity. Don't mean it's (or they) are correct. There are many scholars who believe there are precursors to Judaism and Christianity, one big one if you wanted something half way possible would be Zoroastrianism.

[Anonymous No.2582961]

>>2582955
The Second Noble Truth is that all suffering is caused by craving.

A Buddhist who wants or desires, can he be a real Buddhist?

[Anonymous No.2582962]

according to Nietszche... and the following sentence are two separate statements not what N. thought

[Anonymous No.2582974]

>>2582960
Nope, when the Protestants broke, they simply reverted to St Augustine rather than St Aquinas for philosophy. Or was it the other way around?

[Anonymous No.2582975]

>>2582958
You misunderstand. Maybe this will enlighten:
>I have written this letter to you on a happy day to me, which is also the last day of my life. For I have been attacked by a painful inability to urinate, and also dysentery, so violent that nothing can be added to the violence of my sufferings. But the cheerfulness of my mind, which comes from the recollection of all my philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these afflictions.
An epicurean outlook believes in an ability to be freed from bodily pain: You can experience aponia whether or not you have painful kidney stones. This is quite different to what is said earlier, that one will necessarily experience pain in life.

[Anonymous No.2582980]

>>2582961
Everyone has wants and desires, being human does not mean you can't be a Buddhist. The Buddhist strives to eliminate the source of suffering, which is their craving, and consequently reaching Nirvana. They do this through the Eight-Fold Path.

If you want to eliminate your desires for the purpose of achieving enlightenment, then you are a Buddhist. If you want to take part in simple pleasures in life and want to continue to be subject to your cravings, then you are not a Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.2582981]

>>2582974
The ones like Calvinists that believe in salvation being predetermined follow Augustine IIRC. This isn't all protestants though.

[Anonymous No.2582982]

>>2582960

Idealism is nethertheless the ontology of christianity whether incorporated into it via the zorastrians, plato, or (more likely) the presocratics/parmenides

[Anonymous No.2582985]

>>2582975
... He had Ataraxia. He did not have Aponia.

[Anonymous No.2582986]

IMHO the greatest concern in anyone's life is what comes after death. After all, death comes to us all. Mwahaha! Better be ready either way. Peace.

[Anonymous No.2582994]

>>2582980
Sorry, should have restated that.
buddhist who wants simple pleasures cannot be buddhist.

[Anonymous No.2583003]

>>2582994
You can be a bad buddhist. Not every Buddhist is going to acheive nirvana.

[Anonymous No.2583014]

.>>2582975
He admits to suffering from pain, he cannot eliminate physical pain, therefore he does not have aponia. He says his mind is free, that is ataraxia.

[Anonymous No.2583021]

>>2583003
Well... given that it's the central tenet of their philosophy, can they still be called Buddhist if they ignore the central tenet?

[Anonymous No.2583022]

Anyways, gotta sleep

[Anonymous No.2583034]

>>2583021
Achieving enlightenment isn't the central tenet of Buddhism, seeking the elimination of suffering (through enlightenment) is. With emphasis on seeking, not finding. Someone who seeks this is a Buddhist, someone who does this is a Buddha.

[Anonymous No.2583069]

>>2583014
Aponia isn't quite how you think. Anyway:
>For the aim of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear; and once we have attained this, all the storms of the mind are calmed, seeing that the living creature has no need to go in search of something that is lacking nor to look for anything else required to fulfill the good of mind and body. When we are pained because of the absence of pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure; but when we feel no pain, then we no longer stand in need of pleasure. Therefore we call pleasure the beginning and end of a blessed life. Pleasure is our first and closest good. It is the starting-point of everything we accept and everything we reject, and to it we come back, as we make feeling the rule by which to evaluate the good of everything.
>And since pleasure is our first and native good, for that reason we do not choose every pleasure whatsoever, but frequently pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as its consequence a greater pleasure. Therefore, while all pleasure is good, because it is naturally part of us, not all pleasure is worth choosing—just as all pain is an evil but all pain is not to be shunned. All these matters must be judged by measuring one against another, and by looking at the conveniences and inconveniences.
Aponia is a freedom from pain, because freedom from pain means we have no need of anything extra, it calms the mind, and we can clearly evaluate the good and the bad. However, freedom isn't shunning pain, but submitting to it. So though we suffer pain, if we can experience aponia we can continue to live a tranquil life of pleasure.

[Anonymous No.2583072]

>>2583014
Also, ataraxia is freedom from fear, not freedom of you mind. You need aponia and ataxia (and perhaps a few other things) to free your mind.

[Anonymous No.2583836]

>>2583034
". Simple things make you happy like family, friends, helping the less fortunate, defending the defenseless, giving to others, being kind to others, having patience. Things like this. Not trying to find happiness through convoluted means such as education (which is a kind of happiness and joy, but it isn't lasting happiness."

I was replying to him. He said that he wasn't an Epicurean because he was a Christian. He asked if a Buddhist who sought these things as his worldly goal was a Buddhist.

"Among all worldly goods, you prize these" Was the accusation I leveled, and he acknowledged.

The answer, as you can see from his quote and your own seeking to be free from desire, is obvious,

[Anonymous No.2583840]

>>2583034
". Simple things make you happy like family, friends, helping the less fortunate, defending the defenseless, giving to others, being kind to others, having patience. Things like this. Not trying to find happiness through convoluted means such as education (which is a kind of happiness and joy, but it isn't lasting happiness."

I was replying to him. He said that he wasn't an Epicurean because he was a Christian. He asked if a Buddhist who sought these things as his worldly goal was a Buddhist.

"Among all worldly goods, you prize these" Was the accusation I leveled, and he acknowledged.

The answer, as you can see from his quote and your own "Someone who seeks this is a Buddhist, someone who does this is a Buddha.", is obvious. He's merely a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.2583845]

>>2583069
>>2583072
Well, your knowledge of that is definitely better than mine, but the charge against it still the same as Stoicism, how could you claim that it's natural?

[Anonymous No.2583978]

>>2583845
Whoops, I made a mistake there. Anyways not gonna go into technical details, I can only lose. I've based my description on reading Meditations and Discourses, and the usual intro textbook's descriptions of Epicureanism, ie simple pleasures, absence of pain are the ultimate good.

Anyways,
". Simple things make you happy like family, friends, helping the less fortunate, defending the defenseless, giving to others, being kind to others, having patience. Things like this. Not trying to find happiness through convoluted means such as education (which is a kind of happiness and joy, but it isn't lasting happiness."
Textbook definition of an epicurean who claims not to be.