Stoicism

Kek

it's not stoicism but rather the self-help atheists who can't stop going on about their cold showers, 12 Rules For Life, stoic mindset and their McMindfulness meditation

See
Wash Your Penis Man swept /pol/ about 2 years ago, I'd say, and their fundamental misunderstanding of Stoicism, coupled with their natural smugness, made any discourse on stoicism pretty much impossible. On a larger scale stoicism has become part of the "How2Manly" or "How2Adult," thing we've seen recently. I say thing because I hesitate to call it a movement, but that would probably be more apt. The issue is that these dudes have no background knowledge, no historical knowledge, read at a very shallow level, and generally only read serious philosophical works once. Which would be fine, if they'd shut the fuck up about it.

Lots of people extrapolate from not being controlled by your emotions to not having emotions at all ().
Others infer that if your actions aren't controlled by emotions then you can not do anything at all.
Adding to this, some infect stoicism with Christian humility and assume a stoic can't work to improve his place in life (increasing power, wealth, etc).
Others take it to be a wholly personal philosophy and neglect the large role justice (which presupposes a society and puts its goals ahead of the individuals) plays in their philosophy.
Some even think it is a secular philosophy when it it definitely not.

could you expand on this please,

Noob here. What is the difference between stoicism and cynicism?

>another retarded tripfag
I have been on this site for 12 years and have yet to find a good tripfag

See

It has become useless and outdated. Most people who support it or try to modernize it end up with a shallow self-help that is super vague. Something similar happens to the doctrine of hedonism since its normal human behaviour to try to reach for your desired moods and states of mind whether your religious or not.

stoicism is not the big brained version of anything

QRD: Stoicism is cynicism lite.
If you want more than that, you need to read.

I think the biggest difference is the Cynics thought virtue could be attained purely through hardship. They weren't interested in metaphysics or logic at all because to them they weren't necessary tools to discover virtue or the right way to live.

No no no no no. How is it that no one understands that Stoicism is basically the Western version of Taoism, that it is an ethic of obedience to divine will? It's not mindfulness--it is a discipline that is aware of the dubious nature of appearances and that much of our suffering is actually illusory. It's not about us having power to make real suffering go away. It's just about us being able to make illusory suffering go away. It is a philosophy about trusting the divine providence through a virtuous life. Redditors and modern publishing has turned it into the biggest cope philosophy, which it absolutely is not. It's a heroic yet unassuming path in fellowship with the divine mind, the One, the Tao, the Logos, whatever you want to call it. That's why the early Christians loved it so much, because it's so similar to their own ethic. Read Pierre Hadot's work on the subject--he was a Catholic neo-Platonist philosopher who wrote on Stoicism as a form of mysticism, which is exactly what it is. How else could you understand the Meditations than the jottings of a mind listening to the heartbeat of God?

Attached: Herschel_Feibel_Grynszpan.jpg (516x800, 136K)

The former is cringe, the latter, based.

People have dumb ideas

The personal issue i had with Stoicism is that i used it as a major cope to justify staying in my comfort zone box. I probably did not fully grasp or understand the philosophy but i feel alot of people make the same mistake i did

In what way is it outdated? Modern cognitive behavioral therapies are heavily influenced by stoicism.

>In what way is it outdated?
Their appeals to nature mostly. There are also a lot of other specific drops like "hurr dont get mad at the things that are out of your control, like other people's choices" for example which is dumb and false. Many of their doctrines consist in staying at a "level 0" in emotional swings, their ideas lean a lot into detachment from things despite a lot of their readers disclaiming that.
Aside from the dopamine fasting self-discipline that they suggest, i tend to find that stoicism is mostly a "common folk pleb" inducing way of being. They try to turn you away from any strong feelings and their desires, giving you a ilusion that you are being "rational". It works the same as religion but not as manipulative and in the interest of the priests but to a more passive ruler that wants to keep their population meek.
Every time stoicism is attacked there always comes a defender saying "but they dont say that" and puts forward a much vague idea of their doctrine.

I didn't get anything of substance from this. Some misconceptions, like the "appeal to nature" and a few things which ultimately amount to disagreements rather than something that answers the question asked. When I ask why you believe something is outdated it doesn't do me any good to say you don't like it. Because you spout off on things you don't know it makes correcting you at least very time consuming so you're virtually unfixable.

There's a traditional quality to it which is naturally repulsive to a certain type of person. Platonism and Aristotelianism will get the same sort of irrational responses. I've seen people reject unrelated natural law arguments simply because it's an old philosophy and therefore must be wrong.

>Because you spout off on things you don't know it makes correcting you at least very time consuming so you're virtually unfixable.
The typical stoic defender response. Everything that attacks it just "didnt get it" and then presents a super vague idea when asked.
I said it has become useless and outdated, two very relative adjectives and you should know of course that they come from my point of view.
>Some misconceptions, like the "appeal to nature"
Even the "neo-stoics" had to re-branch their views and takes on "nature" from the old philosophers, so i dont think its a misconception.
I gave you substance to tackle on, but since you disagree with it you also shy away and say that its simply wrong.

Attached: Stoics.jpg (265x190, 8K)

>outdated bad!
9mm was developed around 1902 and can easily kill you, yet small arms ammunition has developed since then. How is "outdated" a valid charge against something?
Also, what makes it "useless" ? I mean, there is no universal approach to anything (unless there is), and so stoicism probably works for some people.

I'm not sure what super vague idea you're talking about because I don't think I presented anything. You didn't answer the question and I pointed that out, then I said you had some misconceptions which would take more effort than I'm willing to give, especially since you talk nonsense. I have no idea what's meant by "rebranching nature."

I don't owe you anything but I will give you this, if you think the stoics are committing a nature fallacy you are wrong. You don't understand what they mean by living according to nature. The word nature for them is synonymous with reason so they're telling us that we should live according to what our reason tells us is good which is completely unobjectionable and even benign. You're not even criticizing substantive stoic doctrines.

>Others infer that if your actions aren't controlled by emotions then you can not do anything at all.
What is the rational function of doing anything if not to facilitate good feeling? Be aware that I'm not suggesting blindly following your immediate emotions, but rather that I am doubtful of the idea that there are purely "rational" goals or actions that do not involve some form of emotional payoff, even if solely ascetic atarxia in the Buddhistic-Epicurean-Schopenhaueran tradition, because pain is a feeling and preferring non-pain is a feeling-driven preference (like all preferences (so far as I can tell)).

There is a diference between "outdated" and "old"
the outdated means that there are false things in there that have been discovered and approached. Old doesnt mean that and is much more relative.

So, what's false? I'm not a stoic but am interested. Is it just what you posted here ?

Can you can tell me what's wrong with stoicism with reference to the texts? I only ask you to reference the texts because I'm tired of dealing with people perceptions of what they think stoicism is.

>I'm not sure what super vague idea you're talking about because I don't think I presented anything.
You didnt, i simply said that they tend to do it. It doesnt imply you in it.
>I have no idea what's meant by "rebranching nature."
Go look for modern stoicism.
>if you think the stoics are committing a nature fallacy you are wrong. You don't understand what they mean by living according to nature.
"Presumably, the single most difficult challenge that Modern Stoicism faces is its relationship to the core principle of Ancient Stoicism, that is to the principle of “following nature.” In a word, the Ancient Stoics put forward it was unquestionable that in order to live a good life, one needed to live consistently with nature. According to the Ancient Stoics, nature was by definition good and everything which was conformable to nature was deemed good. Moreover, the Ancient Stoics had a teleological outlook on the world, that is, they held that everything in the universe was purposefully and rationally organized to a good end."
Would like to add that even Marcus himself commits the appeal to nature fallacy in his book.
>The word nature for them is synonymous with reason so they're telling us that we should live according to what our reason tells us is good which is completely unobjectionable and even benign.
If you think that's good substance then i think you should read either Stirner or Nietzsche that dive more and much deeper into those ideas than stoics ever did and make them much more clear than that at the end.

Dont have with me any texts that outright shit on stoicism. Best way is to actually read other stuff and tackle the ideas by yourself.
If you are interested then go for it, Im not saying to you that stoicism is something completly wrong, but rather that there are other people that gave much better thought into it.

You goofy bastard, I'm not asking for books that refute stoicism. I'm asking you to quote the stoics and tell me why they're wrong. That's what it means to reference a text.

I don't think it's an appeal to nature if that's the very thing you define as good. Perhaps in an outside discussion it is, but it really boils down to a matter of opinion; is nature good or not?
Furthermore, from what I understand (not as a stoic) is that "nature" refers both to human nature and the totality of the universe (alternatively "reason" ). They had a pantheistic view (I do as well) which would inform their particular definition of nature.
Regardless, I don't care. Dislike with what you will

I don't even understand why you bother. I assume you think teleology is fallacious and you expect people to just accept that without argument? Stoicism needs better critics.

Im not going to be looking at every sinlge main idea of them and tackling them infront of you pal, that just takes a lot of time. It doesnt mean i disagree with everything they say.
>Furthermore, from what I understand (not as a stoic) is that "nature" refers both to human nature and the totality of the universe (alternatively "reason" ).
That's simply super vague.
>I assume you think teleology is fallacious and you expect people to just accept that without argument?
Dont know what made you take that assumption or think it has anything to do with the topic.

It's not vague if you view each apparent thing as an emination or part of the same essence. Unfortunately it's like the Christian trinity but applied to each and every thing, with all things sharing essence with logos on

>Stoicism needs better critics.
Stoicism is already on itself decadent as it is only a anesthesia to the individuals problems. Atleast on a lower sphere of intelligence.
Their ideas are the same as smoking weed or drinking to make your problems go "away". They are not honest to themselves

Hot takes coming through

Do you honestly expect me to writte a fucking essay shittying on stoicism?
I honestly think stoicism should be better taught at schools and to be atleast once part in the life of the young and growning individual, but it also should be part in his life to "overgrow" it and become more honest and life affirming.

I wouldn't read it if you wrote one because I think you're an idiot. I don't respect your opinions.

>you're an idiot if you disagree with muh stoicism boy
Ok untermensch