STOICS BTFO

File: 278 KB, 684x1416, 1440168666-20150821.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:06:30 2015 No.7083251 [Reply] [Original]

STOICS BTFO

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:12:43 2015 No.7083267

What a fundemental misunderstanding of stoicism.

There is no denial of pleasures in stoicism, only those that serve no rational end. For example, going out and getting locked wif da boyz was fine because the stoics appreciated that socialising is important and a rational end in itself.

Fucking hookers on the other hand, not allowed. You could bang your wife as much as you wanted though, as long as it was for the sole purpose of recreation and you did not let yourself get caught up in it and stop being rational.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:12:57 2015 No.7083268 >>7083251 Stoics were a bit silly with their appeal to nature tbh.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:13:57 2015 No.7083271 >>7083267 >rational end contradictio in terminis

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:15:34 2015 No.7083277 >>7083271 How so?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:17:23 2015 No.7083283 File: 236 KB, 424x448, disgusting2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >webcomic artists

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:19:41 2015 No.7083286 >>7083277 Reason is impartial, therefore it does not have ends. Ends are the result of desires, which are irrational. As the fat lad said: "`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger."

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:27:36 2015 No.7083304 >>7083268 >not appealing to nature when before sleeping wut, how do you do that? basically can't sleep otherwise tbh

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:29:05 2015 No.7083307

>>7083251
Has any ever thought Stoics were to deny themselves ALL pleasures? I thought it was just pleasures without substance that leave you feeling unfulfilled? Following the example used above, my friends might go out on Saturday night, get blind, wake up in poor health and hating themselves. I'd stay in and read a book or shitpost on /lit/, and feel like maybe I'd learned something new or was indulged in some escapism which made me happier. Am I a Stoic? Or is this purely subjective pleasures?

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:31:07 2015 No.7083311

>our way is the best because it's NATURE'S WAY
>your way is stupid because it's AGAINST NATURE

This is the foundation of all Stoics thought and it's defined completely arbitrary, Stoics were idiots who tried to systematise Cynicism and thereby ruined it.

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:31:52 2015 No.7083315

Hedonists believe that momentary denial of pain is pleasure is happiness is good
Webcomic Stoic here believes that denial of momentary denial of pain is self-control is happiness is good

The idea that denial of momentary denial of pain is "pleasure from smugness" is dumb

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:34:08 2015 No.7083320 Stoics are just the fedoras of Christianity (yes, we know they predated Christianity, it really doesn't change anything given God is real). Jesus redid their philosophy in a much more holistic and understandable way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:36:32 2015 No.7083328 >>7083286 Ah, thank you for clearing that up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:37:46 2015 No.7083332 >>7083320 "Given God is real" >2015 >Believing this un-ironically

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:39:05 2015 No.7083335 >>7083332 It is the consensus among philosophers far and wide. That it is the Christian God is a bit more hotly disputed, but Christianity's case for itself is indisputable, really.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:41:40 2015 No.7083340 >>7083335 >It is the consensus among philosophers far and wide. Maybe if you include all the dead silly ones. I hope you don't define scientific consensus that way as well.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:41:41 2015 No.7083341 >>7083335 Why have they concluded the Christian God and not Allah? I'm not trying to start an argument I'm genuinely curious

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:44:32 2015 No.7083350 >"pleasure of stoicism" Wiki=skimmed

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:44:40 2015 No.7083351 >>7083341 That is the part that is more hotly disputed. Muhammad was a rapist pedophile warlord, though, so you do have to wonder who was telling the truth between him and Jesus :^)

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 08:51:01 2015 No.7083369

>>7083251
Why modern people can't see anything but pleasure?

If you can't accept that some one could do something because of God, or because of virtue, or whatever the highest good someone chooses, then you can't really argue with the stoics. You already too much inside Epicurus camp to be able to discuss anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 13:42:07 2015 No.7084155 >>7083320 dibs bedora

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 13:50:09 2015 No.7084194

stoics deny themselves pleasure to inure themselves to temptation and intoxication

it's not about being smug, even aurelius says on many different occasions to never walk around like you're king shit

but what do you expect from a guy who thinks a webcomic btfo a 2000 year old philosophy

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 13:54:58 2015 No.7084209 >>7083251 http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/_files/documents/stoicism1.pdf http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/_files/documents/Stoicism2.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 13:57:42 2015 No.7084218 Stoicism is pretty interesting but has any stuff from Epicurus or some other opposing philosopher survived? Stoicism's surviving works are pretty scarce as it is but I don't think I've seen a work by Epicurus?

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Mon Sep 7 13:58:22 2015 No.7084224 File: 40 KB, 264x464, 1219696039950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7083335 Watch it pal. I got a really big hat and I'm not afraid to use it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:00:52 2015 No.7084232 >>7083351 Being a rapist pedophile warlord does not prohibit someone from being truthful. Saying that one is literally God is a better reason for distrust.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:02:51 2015 No.7084244 >>7084218 Essential Epicurus On the Nature of Things - Lucretius

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:13:39 2015 No.7084274 stoicism is fag shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:15:17 2015 No.7084280 >>7084244 alright, thanks for the recs. Much appreciated.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:16:17 2015 No.7084282 >>7084274 stay attached to externals and remain a slave for the rest of your life lmao

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:20:24 2015 No.7084292
File: 27 KB, 500x375, 1432089602565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7083267
My nigga. I'll never understand how everybody gets stoicism so wrong.

>Hey, maybe go easy on chasing pleasure if it distracts you from the things that matter, causes you harm, or harms others
>Self control is pretty important, since really yourself is the only thing you can control at all.

Somehow becomes

>Hurr, I hate fun

I don't get it, but whatever. That bullshit only bothers me as much as I let it bother me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:21:28 2015 No.7084296 nietzsche wrote that stoicism was a method of damage control compared to epicureanism and is only fit for violent and sudden settings what's your opinion on that

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:31:51 2015 No.7084333

>>7084292
>Somehow becomes
>Hurr, I hate fun

Did you even read the webcomic? It begins with the comparison against hedonism.

It obviously caters to people who are hedonistic and serves to mock the strawman that argues against their lifestyle, while making them feel smart about whoring themselves.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:33:20 2015 No.7084339 >>7083267 >There is no denial of pleasures in stoicism, only those that serve no rational end. But stoicism also encourages you cut people out of your life who are not stoics. So you wouldn't want to hang out "wif da boyz".

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:34:29 2015 No.7084342 >>7083311 Literally every single philosophy ever appeals to human nature. Even lefty faggoty communism and so on. You cannot name one philosophy that doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:35:05 2015 No.7084344 >>7084339 lol what i wish you faggots would actually read the philosophies you're arguing about

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:35:52 2015 No.7084349 >>7084296 he's right because nietzsche is the only philosopher who is pretty much never wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:37:42 2015 No.7084359 >>7084349 neetshay was such a genius tbh don't know why we don't teach his philosophy to children since grade school

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:38:43 2015 No.7084364 >>7084344 ..maybe you should try doing so instead of quoting the one person you likely read. Many stoics know you reflect your company, so you'll reject the company of the drunkard. This is basic stoicism, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:39:48 2015 No.7084366 File: 2.28 MB, 625x352, DFwNOR8.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7084359 Because only the elite will ever get his philosophy, or even try. You cannot democratize his philosophy. When he gets spread far and wide he gets bastardized

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:42:06 2015 No.7084375

>>7084364
ive read aurelius, epictetus, musonius, and seneca. get on my level faggot.

none of them encourage you to cut people off, only to avoid getting dragged down into their low level of discourse, and in fact, be patient with them if they're being assholes.

stop using stoicism to justify being a weeb faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:43:33 2015 No.7084381 >>7084375 I'm not, I'm just pointing out that stoicism does make pressures on the type of company you maintain, which puts a bit of a hitch in your intellectual giddyup.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:44:16 2015 No.7084385 >>7084349 How did he do it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:46:16 2015 No.7084393 >>7084366 >le elite maymay Niit wasn't a biologist, as far as blood is concerned, he has no fucking clue

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:49:39 2015 No.7084415 >>7084385 Heh By being Nietzsche He cleverly does something similar to Stirner but also pulls the rug from under his conclusions

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:50:51 2015 No.7084421 >>7084393 Lol what? Nietzsche says so himself, that only a select few will truly comprehend his work

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:52:06 2015 No.7084428 >>7083311 Pretty much every school of thought tries to harness human nature to a productive end. It's just that they disagree on what that nature is and how it should be harnessed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:55:46 2015 No.7084440 >>7084428 Yeah except those interpretations are not exact nuances People pick human nature to conform to their exact ideological stances.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:57:25 2015 No.7084445 >>7084342 Sartre.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 14:59:20 2015 No.7084463 >>7084415 how?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:01:33 2015 No.7084475 >>7083251 this guy tearing holes in the ancients, what dumb dumbs

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:03:01 2015 No.7084483 >>7084445 Yeah true, there's one but he's a faglord >>7084463 Because the first sin against the Holy Spirit is idle feet ;-)

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:03:15 2015 No.7084484
File: 139 KB, 1130x1600, realphotoofnietscheyesitsactuallyhimitsnotshopped.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7084463
he was just insanely smart, he could easily find the flaws in Stirner or the stoics and debunk their entire arguments just like that

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:04:32 2015 No.7084488 >>7084484 Thar picture looks edited

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:06:45 2015 No.7084500 >>7084488 its not, its just one of those rarer pictures that doesn't get posted much.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:09:02 2015 No.7084512 File: 7 KB, 197x256, images (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7084500 rare nietzsche thread?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:10:45 2015 No.7084519 >>7084512 Not as dank as rare pepes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:40:46 2015 No.7084647 >>7083320 No twelve year old christian scientists on the board thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:50:45 2015 No.7084694 File: 51 KB, 499x499, Überpepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7084512 >>7084519 Why not both?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:53:07 2015 No.7084707 >>7083267 What if I have no wife and bang a hooker to put my sexual energy where it belongs instead of feeling frustrated for the lack of available vaginas? Now that I have rationalized an impulse, am I worthy of stoicism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 15:55:44 2015 No.7084719 >>7084707 >he thinks stoicism just means rationalizing whatever it is you actually want to do reddit is that way m8

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 16:00:13 2015 No.7084740 >>7084694 Best pepe Saved

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 16:15:13 2015 No.7084823
File: 37 KB, 400x529, 1389871997740.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7084719
>he thinks stoicism just means
>just
No. I know stoicism is much more than that with many more words that these, but it is simply a condensation for the sake of argument and a little bit to pull your leg.
But it seems I'm actually mistaken and instead fucked you in the rear, since you seem to be breddy butt-blasted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 18:09:28 2015 No.7085367 >>7084342 Stirner.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 18:12:55 2015 No.7085376 >>7085367 Except he totally does, implicitly >that whole section on love

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 18:13:50 2015 No.7085380 File: 26 KB, 353x500, Ravachol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7084488 >>7084500 It is a picture of French anarchist Ravachol edited to look like Nietzsche.

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 18:15:41 2015 No.7085388

>>7085376
Where does he appeal to human nature in order to devise normative ethics?

Give me an example of where Stirner says 'you ought to act this way because it is natural' and 'you ought not to act that way because it is unnatural' like the Stoics do.

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 18:20:41 2015 No.7085405

>>7085388
>Where does he appeal to human nature in order to devise normative ethics?
>Give me an example of where Stirner says 'you ought to act this way because it is natural' and 'you ought not to act that way because it is unnatural' like the Stoics do.
Human nature doesn't lead to ethics, dummy. It just means you're making statements about the way humans are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 18:22:03 2015 No.7085410 >>7084381 Why don't you quote someone instead of saying what stoicism says?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 18:44:20 2015 No.7085516 >>7083286 yet: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:19:01 2015 No.7085636 >>7085405 Appealing to human nature is something else than saying something about human nature. The former is my problem with the Stoics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:20:09 2015 No.7085639 >>7085516 Thereby being the rational means to an irrational end.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:25:02 2015 No.7085667 File: 12 KB, 255x184, 1430592259745.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7085405 >human nature doesn't lead to ethics

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:29:23 2015 No.7085683 >>7085667 >hasn't read Rousseau >>7085636 Not really. If I say humans are intrinsically good, that has real, tangible consequences for how people are expected to act, without being a normative statement in itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:31:37 2015 No.7085693 >>7083271 nice harry potter spell NERD

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:42:01 2015 No.7085723

>>7085683
>. If I say humans are intrinsically good, that has real, tangible consequences for how people are expected to act
Descriptive statements describe how things already are. If you expect your statement to have consequences you are in normative territory.

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:43:26 2015 No.7085731

>>7084339
>Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.

The Marquis de Aurelius

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:44:16 2015 No.7085735
File: 62 KB, 365x365, a15289.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7083251
"taking pleasure in one's own self-control is still hedonism because you used the word pleasure! HAHA BTFO YOU'RE STILL THE SAME AS ME POPPIN MOLLIES DOWN AT DA CLUB"

wew lad

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:48:38 2015 No.7085746 File: 53 KB, 795x442, nietzsche re stoics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It was Nietzsche who blew the Stoics the fuck out.

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:55:02 2015 No.7085765

>>7085723
No. Descriptions about the way things are do effect normative statements. Just not directly.

I know Hume's razor well and you're misapplying it. If I said "humans do not steal only if they have enough stuff", and "stealing ought to be avoided", then you can combine those statements in a syllogism to make another normative claim.

If you take Rousseau, who says all bad human things are done because of economic conditions, then if you take the one normative premise that we ought to avoid bad things, which is true of literally everyone who's not a nihilist (even if we disagree on what's bad), then other things do follow necessarily.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:57:16 2015 No.7085769 >>7085746 >anno mmxv >accipiens nietzsche serio i used google translate btw

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 19:59:08 2015 No.7085776 >>7083267 >>7083283 >>7085735 >>7084475 >>7084209 >>7083369 >>7083307 >asspained Stoics Rage all you like, it won't restore your ruined rectums

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 20:01:18 2015 No.7085789
File: 145 KB, 406x425, le smug thief face.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7085776
I don't know why you're even against stoicism, it's not like you're some hardcore hedonist m8, you spend your days shitposting on a literature board on a chinese cartoons site

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 20:02:49 2015 No.7085792 >>7083335 There is literally no reason to believe in a personal god, it's delusional as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 20:03:14 2015 No.7085795 >>7085789 my waifu <3

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 20:03:21 2015 No.7085798 >>7085769 >not knowing a good point when you see one no matter who wrote it

Anonymous Mon Sep 7 20:23:27 2015 No.7085889

>>7085789
Theophrastus said it was a greater offense to sin out of pleasure than to sin out of anger. He did not account for the 4chan toddlers of the future, who scream online out of frustration with their own lives but do not even derive pleasure from their shitty in-jokes and trolling anymore. They only keep doing it out of habit because it used to be funny ages ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 7 20:34:28 2015 No.7085937 >>7085516 A passion is something that predicts its own continuation. If you can snuff it out, then it's wrong.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature