>don't enjoy song and dance because they are frivolous and can be reduced to sounds and movements >reduce everything down to it's component parts to remove joy from them because any joy that isn't from your own virtue is bad >the universe has a plan for you and meaning don't ask me to back this up it just does ok so be happy with your shit life
Overhyped garbage. It's just the same repeated shit about being virtuous and rational about everything and avoiding passion like I'm some fucking vulcan. None of the points are backed up by anything. He makes out fun like it's evil and then goes on about how the most fulfilling thing is to be rational and ask dispassionately about everything. And all this shit about "acting in accordance with nature". What the fuck does that even mean? Isn't my nature to do what the fuck I want, what comes naturally to me? This was the least inspiring thing I've read in ages. I don't know where these people are coming from saying this book changed their lives and improved them. I just found it to be a boring, repetitive notebook kept by a monotonous idiot
your nature is such that working hard, being kind to people, reflecting on higher ideals, etc. makes you a more fulfilled and happier person than for example taking heroin and treating people as objects to be used for your own advantage.
At least most people's natures are like that, there are people who I guess thrive being antisocial drug abusers.
Gavin Russell
Epicureanism is better, the Stoics are overhyped
Aaron Williams
I looked into epicurean stuff a bit and it seems more legit from my point of view, so I will take your recommendation. Marcus takes it too far though- he seems to completely vilify pleasure, and it gets boring to read his pantheistic nonsense about the universe having some grand meaning and how we should work towards it. How am I supposed to know what the grand meaning is and act accordingly, or indeed if there even is one? It seems to me to just be a cope for Marcus to distract himself from pleasure
Levi Rogers
you might appreciate Seneca more then.
Owen Bennett
I hope you understand you are citicising someone who wrote to himself and was not being a true philosopher.
You are being an idiot, not marcus. You are asking questions about nature because you did not read epictetus or anything on stoicism. Reading meditations is useless if you dont understand the stoic doctrine and theory. It is an application of marcus in his life, not your stupid ass. Go read epictetus and then maybe return and see for yourself that it is just a practical journal of some of his thoughts he found useful. It is not a book for publication, it is not supposed to be inspirational, it is not idiotic, it is definitely not monotonous. If you have problems with anger, maybe read seneca.
Samuel Parker
This happens when people read a book and neither reflect it nor read anything related or don't even try to understand the author.
>None of the points are backed up by anything as said he was not a 'true philosopher'. Imho he does not need to back up his positions bc 1. it is a philosophy about opinions and 2. the effect on you is the important aspect.
>"acting in accordance with nature". What the fuck does that even mean? If you would study the Stoics you would understand. It means not to interfere with how things happen in the world and to be willing to accept (!) how things happen.
Luis Davis
>None of the points are backed up by anything. It is literally a notebook, not a work of a philosophy It just has philosophical value
Owen Powell
Read Hay's introduction, actually provides a lot of context for you.
Landon Adams
>overhyped >not reading aurelius for historic context >chimping out at not understanding - muh "what does that even mean" >ad-hominem + speaking ill of the dead 300IQ thread
David Diaz
I agree OP. And then you have the whole "don't read books lmao". Hard to believe anyone on Yea Forums would support him. Also his beard was dumb
Jaxson Nelson
My thoughts too. Seneca is generally more permissive on things like pleasure and giving in to self indulgence as long as it’s on moderation and it helps you to barely satisfy that animal part of your self. Seneca was into Epicureanism as well and constantly quotes maxims of said branch in his works. So he might be on a middle ground in that respect..
Ian Sanchez
None of the stoics say you shouldn't enjoy life with song and dance, so where do you get this idea? The recognize that external things are indifferent to their happiness but they also have preferred and dispreferred indifferents. It might not be a bad idea to actually read the stoics and understand what they have to say before trying to critique them. You can't trust 19th century philosophers to tell you what stoicism is about.
Robert Mitchell
>read marx
Evan Davis
>speaking ill of the dead Wait, are we no longer allowed to criticize Hitler because he's dead?
Brayden Phillips
I'm currently reading Meditations right now. I'm almost done with it and it feels like a chore reading it at this point, it's getting very repetitive. I think that the whole book can be summarized with the statement, "Don't forget to be virtuous and don't get pissed off at things that you really shouldn't be pissed of at." This sentiment is repeated over and over again in this book.
Justin Clark
"don't read books" was the "don't play video games" of his day
Mason Ross
It's for people who have trouble not fapping.
Lincoln White
>none of his points are backed up by anything It's because it's his diary, but a treatise Read Epictetus' Discourses and Selected Writings for real meat
>>reduce everything down to it's component parts to remove joy from them because any joy that isn't from your own virtue is bad Rather, don't ascribe weighty notions of "good" and "evil" to fleeting pleasures
