If a stoic were working for a company, would he seek a raise or a transfer to a better company...

are you retarded butterfly? I thought you actually read...

Chrysippus quoted by Cicero in de officiis

Give reasons why. Cite a relevant passage, please

See

Applying for a raise or transfer is within your power. But getting the raise or transfer is beyond your power, so you should not let the outcome upset you, whatever it is.

> If a stoic were working for a company, would he seek a raise or a transfer to a better company, or would that be in violation of stoic principles because a raise or a transfer is beyond the sphere of choice?

The right answer is that they should seek a raise or transfer to a better company because that is the best course of action for anyone.

So it backs up my statement. A stoic would wait for the raise. Okay.

>it is his duty to put forth all his strength and strive with all his might to win
>put forth all his strength
>strive with all his might
Doesn't sound like waiting to me desu

Only domesticated, modern bugmen work for companies

>but he ought never with his foot to trip, or with his hand to foul a competitor.
>Thus in the stadium of life, it is not unfair for anyone to seek to obtain what is needful for his own advantage, but he has no right to wrest it from his neighbor.
Okay. So he might ask. But he’ll back down when they say “no” or “not right now” as you know a capitalist will do. Stoics are very Christian like

Stoics are coping Nihilists.

Christian humility is the reason most modern people, including you, misunderstand stoicism.
There is no need to back down if they said no. In fact that isn't "striving with all his might" at all. He shouldn't be angry if they say no and let it affect his judgment and actions. And he shouldn't cheat someone else out of the position. But he can strive harder than meekly asking and accepting "no".

god the stoics were a mistake. bring the cynics back

Okay. Just going by what that user greentexted.
I do find some of these junior Egoists grab-everything-you-can mentality rather myopic. Stoicism isn’t all bad.

Epicurus all the way

Agreed Epicurus is good. Divine triple threes :3

Brainlets keep misunderstanding what stoicism is actually like.
Let's say you discover your wife is cucking you with Jamal.

Stoicism is NOT:
>Accepting the fact because you couldn't control it and keep getting cucked
Stoicism IS:
>Calmly divorce your wife in the way that least damages you, without letting the event cloud your spirit

In your raise example,
Stoicism is NOT:
>Passively accept that you're earning less than you'd like because it's out of your control
Stoicism IS:
>Do your best to influence the elements in your power to make that raise happen, and transfer to a better company if that proves to be unfeasible
Also, never forget that all of this has to be motivated by the simple reasoning "Pursuing this will lead to good, influenceable outcomes", and not by greed or fear of failure.

Disregard posts like this one , they're slaves to their small minds for which "Don't be clouded by emotion" is such a foreign thought that they can't even comprehend it.

Attached: 2.jpg (512x512, 43K)

A stoic would be fired for remaining calm and embarrassing some hotheaded superior.

Attached: 7340690054_011450ef57_b.jpg (1024x863, 448K)

good post

I've found that this doesn't happen in the real world.
One of Epiktetus' maxims says "If a friend of yours drinks a lot, never say that he is a bad drunk. Just say that 'he drinks a lot'. If you see them eating in excess, never claim them to 'eat the wrong way', just claim that 'they eat a lot'."
True judgement resides in one's own mind, and leaving others to make their own conclusions will leave you free of responsibility when the obvious is revealed to the mind.

In your workplace example, you claim they would be fired.
In reality, an actually calm individual would be just that. Calm.
Without needing to say so, others will see that. And they will see the superior act immaturely. And his superiors will see that.
The stoic won't say "My superior acted immaturely". The stoic will say "My superior shouted".

And the jury will draw its own verdict.

>Calmly divorce
So Aurelius was bad at it.
>Do your best to influence the elements in your power to make that raise happen,
The capitalist usually insulates himself with a thick layer of management and supervisory positions which will be less inclined to give raises or promotions to their underlings. So what I said before is still true. The stoic will give and give to the company, but has a 50/50 at best chance of getting what he’s after.
Not trying to put down the stoic so much as the capitalist system. This system is geared towards greed

can someone show me how to filter butterfly? at first I ignored her but this is such a ludicrously immature and uneducated take on basic Greco-Roman philosophy (made worse by the fact she poses as an Epicurian) wich is so hamfistedly perverted by psudeo-Marxist panderings that as both a lover of philosophy and a Communist I openly reject and rebuke her.

kek

Seriously?
Oh teach me. Please. What’s the problem?

first, don't answer questions you are obviously ignorant towards, this is not remotely close to the nuanced forms of action permitted in stoicism.
secondly, you then start in with the psudeo-Marxist shit about how capitalism is keeping you down man, therefor you won't likely get the raise. But literally a stoic would say the mode of production is not something within your control. Blaming the system is literally the opposite of stoicism
thirdly, you can't be a Marxist and an Stirner egoist, that's like being a catholic and a muslim

>Blaming the system is literally the opposite of stoicism
Right. Therefore he will patiently accept the lower pay and work harder/smarter inhopes his superiors will give him the raise. You seem to support my claim. Did you want to add anymore nuance? I accept that some will get raises. Though it depends on class, favoritism, and what exactly he does whe he works “smarter”

>thirdly, you can't be a Marxist and an Stirner egoist
Only fools call me a Marxist, user. Right-liberals see anyone else as Marxist. I’m lookin pg into Marxian economics some, but I doubt I will ever identify as Marxist.

*into
The fuck is pg doing there?

Kill yourself

it is totally within your power to ask for a raise or switch companies. the only reason a stoic wouldn't ask for a raise is if he didn't deserve it or he was only interested in increasing social standing/power. whether or not he gets the raise is outside of his control and therefor TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. the last thing that matters in stoicism is the outcomes of your actions. please, please, please don't talk shit about philosophy you obviously haven't read. and 'stop spewing psuedo-Marxist bullshit' goes twice for you if you admit you are not a Marxist. After all, class is just a spook, right?

Ah, so the outcome never matters. The stoic will never ask for a raise. According to the scholar user here Boring

imagine being this ignorant willfully

I willfully asked o be taught here.
Whence cometh?

okay, let me try for a third time.
>Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.
things you should take action to towards are within your control, like asking for a raise
things you cannot take action towards are outside your control, like whether your boss gives you the raise or not
therefore, a stoic can ask for a raise,but he will not be sad if he does not get it, for this is but an appearance outside of his control. his emotions are within his control, so he will remain calm.

Stoics make the best workers since they never stand up for themselves

Based

Class is a spook but the exploitation it causes is real

See

A stoic would not only say he can stand up for himself, but would consider it his duty to do so if possible.

You are confusing a pragmatist with a stoic. They are not exclusively either or, but stoicism is differentiated by an inability to form collective narrators.
In OPs example, a stoic would not be able to choose the raise because collective work is not seen. The stoic simply cannot make an non-solipsitic choice, so the collective narrator of collective work is never seen, and asking for a raise would be impossible.

So for the stoic, they cannot see the situation from above, only from their point of view.

So the raise would be offered or not. So the work situation would be acceptable or not. But asking for a raise is impossible

Which stoic talked about collective narrators? Do you have a source for any of this?

I resent your tone. Why would you expect a stoic to talk of collective narrators? Stoicism is as inconsistent as any philosophy. You have to have stories to make stories but the stories you have limit the stories you can make, and stoicism has no stories of the collective, reducing everything to the ideal of the solipsistic narrator.

If what I say was valid, then how could a stoic ever write of a collective narrator, or even of a narrator when there was no story of any narrator that wasn't solipsistic? It is in the critique of stoicism that those who are not stoics bring up, if not the phrase then the concept of, the collective narrator.

For a direct answer, The Aristotelian ideal of "this man" and "men" implies narrative perspective, but mostly just about all of Heraclitus can be seen as how stories change depending on intent and narrator.

>In our time it is fashionable to exalt work of whatever sort and no matter how it is accomplished, as if it had some superlative value in itself independently of any consideration of another order. Contrary to what the moderns think, any work that is done indiscriminately by anyone solely for the pleasure of acting or because of the need to ‘earn one’s living’ hardly merits being exalted, and indeed it can only be regarded as something abnormal, opposed to the order that ought to regulate human institutions, to such a point that, in the conditions of our age, it only too often acquires a character that without any exaggeration qualifies as ‘infra-human’. What our contemporaries seem to ignore completely is that work is not truly valid unless it conforms to the very nature of the being that accomplishes it and results therefrom in a spontaneous and necessary way, as it were, so that it is no more than the means for that nature to realize itself as perfectly as possible.
- "Glorification Of Work" - René Guénon

(modern) Wagecuck life is essentially infra-human existence.

why don't you guys actually read some Stoic philosophy? It makes for a great read. Pick up Epictetus' Handbook or Aurelius' Meditations. I'm sure you will feel better talking about stoicism after you know what it's actually about.

Because I am not a NPC and don't let others tell my story for me.

>doesn't read
>buys the NPC meme

Attached: 1511856700126.gif (330x166, 2.11M)

The stoic virtue of justice pre-supposes a state (i.e. A collective)

Capitalism is only a tool, not a good basis for a society.

Attached: evola quote marxism capitalism.png (840x741, 583K)

No. It presupposes Platonic Ideal that would be apparent if not for the corruption of the environment that includes others. You changed narrators in your story. The stoic, by knowing these ideals travels a path corruption free, or so they have fooled themselves into thinking.

The idea that justice is an agreement made by a collective is contrary to the idea of a reality and a platonic ideal, simply because it doesn't need it. But it certainly isn't something that Greek Philosophy entertains.

stoicism is far closer to Aristotelian ideals, they absolutely obsess over the virtues... also the idea that the Stoic is only concerned with the individual is absolute nonsense.
>As the proposition, "Either it is day or it is night," is extremely proper for a disjunctive argument, but quite improper in a conjunctive one, so, at a feast, to choose the largest share is very suitable to the bodily appetite, but utterly inconsistent with the social spirit of an entertainment. When you eat with another, then, remember not only the value of those things which are set before you to the body, but the value of that behavior which ought to be observed towards the person who gives the entertainment.

I have read extensively and to a point where I have my own story, and no longer need to hear the same story from many sources to know its faults, just like I don't have to read one more children's book to know that the rabbits I encounter in the world don't have mittens.

don't you get embarrassed talking out your ass and getting constantly corrected by internet randoms? I don't have the ego to open my mouth just to shove my foot in and jerk off about it

It’s a terrible tool

What should I read to get stoic-pilled? I worry and get nervous about the stupidest shit and I want to change.

Epictitus, Seneca, Aurelius and Cicero

I have just read the Meditations but from my understanding a Stoic would ask for a raise and if refuse would try to show his boss why it is in everybody's best interest to accept this raise. But if the boss allows himself to remain unconvinced then the stoic would not be annoyed or angered by his decision. Might look for a new job though.

Note ; This book is my only exposure to stoicism as of now. What could I follow it with?

don't expect any good answers, you just gave a better rundown on stoicism than 90% of this thread. Epictetus is the next big stoic meme, then probably Seneca.

I still have little reason to believe that capitalism is anything but exchange where the producers and the consumers are competitive.

If the producer's exist to maximize the consumer's utility, then the society is essentially socialist.

By this way, I can prove that the state of capitalism, like Feudalism, is just a natural state of affairs given the technology and speed of transactions in today's world :3

This is the right answer.
/thread

By this I do want to make an addendum: under Feudalism, monopolies and monopsonies rules.

Under the new democratic (and wealthy aristocratic developments), 'capitalism' developed from largely new developments in the competitive sphere.

>a stoic would not be able to choose the raise because collective work is not seen
Collectivity is not a main axiom of stoicism, nor is it seen as an imperative by any stoic.
What you call pragmatism is actually stoicism when it is accompanied by an awareness of one's position in life, and a spirit unwavering from the obstacles that life will throw at him.

The main indication of a stoic isn't his actions, it's his attitude behind them.
People too often baggage a stoic with some kind of moral or social responsibility, despite an actual stoic being allergic to either by design.
The stoic acts out of a self-defined virtue, and by the ensurance that whatever the outcome of his actions, having undertaken them IN ITSELF is its own reward.

It doesn't matter that you get the raise or not.
It doesn't matter that the change of company goes well or not.
The stoic will be happy and satisfied with himself after doing everything they can do make those actions end in a success, and if they don't then so be it.

While a pragmatist is entitled to stomping their feet and feeling dejection over failure (since they will be forced into a suboptimal outcome), the stoic will still rejoice, because life has given them yet more proof that nothing can chip at the stoic's marmoreal shield against external influence.

Leave it to the materialist, the pragmatist and the nihilist, to despair at adversity.
The stoic may be killed, injured or diminished, but never offended, for his soul is held within the ironclad shell of his philosophy.

Attached: 1510093426297.jpg (580x710, 50K)

It has been written multiple times before and after that post.
The fact that it's "the right answer" doesn't matter, people wanting to somehow "disprove" stoicism will just ignore it and deliberately misrepresent the movement to make it sound more debatable.

Please crush my cock with your beautiful feet