Why do people here make fun of stoics so much? They're pretty harmless overall

Nietzsche ended the stoics

A lot of people think this but Dr Sadler says what Nietzche means by nature isn't what the stoics meant by nature. I've read most of Nietzche and the stoics myself and I agree with him. Even if we pretend Nietzche was correct there's nothing he said that would amount to a refutation of the stoics. I don't know why this idea has gained so much traction.

I don't know how you can read the stoics and come away with this take. Cosmopolitanism is very important to them.

>tfw been a stoic my entire life

What now?

It’s kind of like how the guilty flee when none pursueth- stoicism is a sound philosophy that requires self sufficiency and affirming suffering and people who feel entitled to more from life cannot fathom that someone would actually ask them to do that
Fuck off worthless retard- you’re not original in any way

So, aren't stoics just submissive faggots who let others walk over them? Any philosophy that thinks "anger is bad" is not worthy of consideration.

Do you think an emporor of Rome let everyone walk all over him?

why do people like this continue to post on lit, if you're not even going to take the time to attempt to understand a subject why would you come onto the literature board and post your worthless one-liners about things you have no knowledge of

stop being a retard and post like a normal person you absolute degenerate nigger

what is wrong with you? why do you use the trip code? do you have a low iq?

Whoa there: Don't refer to Rei in that manner. You'd be better off reading a book than doing that...

Attached: 1551371560154.jpg (480x480, 45K)

Rei insists on spamming this whole damn site with his derivative edgy and racially charged bullshit, he deserves a fitting response for all his efforts

Since we're on the topic, is this worth the read?

Attached: images (17).jpg (447x687, 42K)

Most certainly

yes but be forewarned a lot of it is literally like household or health advice

growing culture of narcissism

I do think stoicism is more of a step rather than a destination. It's definetely worth diving into, even if it is just in means of an anti-thesis to aknowledge the necessary synthesis.

You're not quite right. Superfluous men came from the monied classes. Stoicism is the ethos of slaves who, having virtually no freedom, train themselves to accept the limitations imposed upon them.

then what's the ethos of the master?

PLEASE kill yourself

These sorts of questions are so stupid

Most are redditors. It's philosophy for people who have never read philosophy. Stoicism itself is dead and meaningless. All that has survived of the philosophy is too vague for "stoicism" to mean anything. Just take a look at the stoicism subreddit. They give in to their vices in the name of their mental health. This goes directly against stoicism, seemingly, yet if you look at their reasoning it doesn't. Modern stoics are contradictory and stupid. The ancient texts should only be used as self-help.

If Reddit is our measure then everything is shit.

hey guys i had to read nietszche for a high school book report, nietszchhe HaTeD stoicism and shopenhoor !!!! nietszche is the coooolest atheist who haTeS jesus

read marcus aurelius and nietszcheesy side by and side, nietzcho was just cutting the fat off the stoics lardy asses (the pathological nihilism). he didnt end them, he was the DARK STOIC.

Attached: fsddfssdf.jpg (1024x1349, 178K)

But Marcus Aurelius explained how important it was to give back to the community you belong to, as it is in the nature of man to collaborate with his fellow men, and how slackers and egotist are unnatural assholes.

I genuinely wonder if any contemporary critic of stoicism has read them because when I bother to engage with them, I'm correcting them 100% of the time.

Aren't you that vaporwave mexican with the broken caps lock key?

it sounds like nobody in this thread, rei included has read a single word of Seneca.

stoicism is also just as much about ensuring that you don't become a 'master', the same way that you don't become a slave to passions and lusts. a morbid freak like nietzche could never understand how that is "living in accordance with nature"

anger must be tempered and used with reason. a man that is constantly angry and lacking in control of his emotions is not only useless, but self destructive. if you're going to be angry, you need something sufficient to be angry about, and the reason to use it in a constructive manner. otherwise, you're worse than an animal. try reading primary texts instead of wikipedia pages in this lifetime

Mate, what's your endgame? A nouveau hispano-iberian empire? Mexican world domination? Genocide for all non-latin peoples?

Epicureanism

Maybe self centered was the wrong word. Solipsistic is more accurate. I didn't mean to imply that they are the same as Ayn Rand, but when the root of their ethics is primarily based on ones own composition, an egoist perspective can be a common side effect. I've read the stoics

>but when the root of their ethics is primarily based on ones own composition
But that's not what they are.

Summer is coming