Will stoicism cure my social anxiety?

It's a way of life or a method, especially in regards to dealing with life's problems.

not if it's a chemical problem

Chemicals can fix other chemicals

Just because you logically agree with stoic principles, it won't cure your anxiety, because anxiety stems from emotion, not logic.

take SSRIs and everything will be alright

A lot of the practices that make up cognitive behavioral therapy are derived from stoicism, so yes it help you with social anxiety. Check out Donald Robertson because he's a psychotherapist and he books focus primarily on the practical aspect of stoicism.

Meditation alters the chemical balance in the brain. Of course not every problem can be fixed through that. But anxiety can be.

"Meditation" in the modern sense was not part of ancient Greek stoic philosophy.

Going for a walk changes the chemicals in the brain. Everything does. This meditation shit is a meme.

It helped me a lot. But it took some years to absorb it.

It reduced mine by a lot. It also made me a much happier person, as well.
I think this whole pessimism thing people like you have is very counterproductive.

You don't know what it's like to be an anxious person. You had a bit of anxiety like most people, but you were never an anxious person.

I took a combination of Anxiolytics and SSRIs for years.

Yeah

Attached: received_1694961420568734.jpg (576x576, 19K)

>Jew medicine
What a moron.

You realise SSRIs are like someone telling you "doc I have a broken leg" and then he just chops it off?

Well, you claimed I was never anxious. I was, to the point I took two kinds of medicine for it.

You know the doctors were lying to you when they said your depression and anxiety was a result of a "chemical imbalance" or some problem with dopamine production?

That doesn't prove anything but that you're a gullible retard.

I can go take aids medicine, doesn't mean I have aids.

My doctor never said any of that. The medicine was supposed to help in the short term, while therapy and changing the way I lived were the way I would get better long term.

Uh, and what exactly could prove it?

Wrong, anxiety is an emotional symptom of logical conclusions.

Defeatist copers like you need a serious waking up. Do yourself a favor and remove yourself entirely from society. You will not find happiness in your present circumstance. Go join some mountain monastery or something.

Yes.
Your judgements affect your emotions.

>muh happiness
God you're pathetic

Agreeing with stoic principles isn't stoicism either; you have to put them into practice and live it. Strange hill you've chosen to die on.

If you have to rely on Stoicism to cure anything, you can't be a Stoic. It's an oddly self-effacing belief system.

Basically, just do the best you can with what you've been given. Read a lot. Watch a lot. Listen to a lot. And not just things or art, but people too. Live the best you can with an open mind and a sound body of principles. That's the best anyone can offer you, and the most you can offer yourself.

Or is it?

Unhappy defeatists like you shouldn't be calling others pathetic

>You're unhappy!
Since when can you read minds? I never said I was unhappy.

>If you have to rely on Stoicism to cure anything, you can't be a Stoic.
Stoics viewed philosophy as medicine for the soul. They didn't agree with you.

It doesn't take a mind reader to know you are unhappy.

>I'm just going to pretend you're something you're not so I can dismiss you more easily
Chug those jew pills faggot

Anxiety doesn't exist, it's a spook. Just grow a pair and stuff man.

>I'm just going to pretend you're something you're not so I can dismiss you more easily
Isn't that what you did?
And it is not hard to guess that people who have a defeatist, pessimistic view of life and who defend their defeatist view online are not exactly the happiest of the people.

Not saying you should discard philosophy at all, but it also seemed to me that they were saying placing value in external works or objects was a dangerous route to self-destruction. They wanted people to internalize their ideas, co-opt the lessons into their own experience, and shape their lives as such, moving forward with a hybrid of the Stoic teachings and each individual's own experiences.

No one can truly be a Stoic because no one ever was one--we were all just us first. It's good to hold them up as an ideal, but even then, make sure you're doing it for you and for good reasons, not just because you think that's what you need to be happy or calm.

>Isn't that what you did?
You admitted to taking pills.
>And it is not hard to guess that people who have a defeatist, pessimistic view of life and who defend their defeatist view online are not exactly the happiest of the people.
You're here too retard, by your own logic YOU'RE the miserable one.

Any books about Stoicism that you'd recommend, anons?
I try to be the most analytical and logic during crisis, and accept my feelings while I'm feeling them, but honestly haven't read much on the matter.

>You're here too retard
Except I'm not here with some weak ass emo message about how everything sucks and you can't do anything about it.

Epictetus selected writings (penguin)
Marcus Aurelius Meditations
Seneca Letters From a Stoic (penguin)

They were not relativists.

>doing it for you and for good reasons, not just because you think that's what you need to be happy or calm.
Achieving eudaimonia is a pretty good reason.

>Except I'm not here with some weak ass emo message
No, you're here with some weak ass "bro life is great just apply yourself haha" bullshit you don't even believe otherwise you wouldn't be wasting time here

Thank you user, I'll add them to my reading list and hope to improve this chaotic life of mine

"Study philosophy and do something to improve your life" is a much better mindset than your weak "just give up you will always be unhappy".
I'm here because I want to help people follow a good road instead of following your defeatist weak crap that only makes yourself and others who might listen to you unhappier.

There's no sure way to achieve that. Even Stoic teachings would emphasize this. You can try, and most great man have, and maybe some did, but to say that there's only one road someone MUST follow in order to achieve that state seems dogmatic to me.

Not that it's wrong. It's just a matter of personal taste and interpretation.

Give me an example of a "stoic principle" that you can "live"

No. Nothing will. The genetic code dictating your life can never be changed or eliminated, just suppressed to the best of your ability. Yes, through effort you will improve. No, you will never be cured of what you are.

Stoics were not relativists who believed "anything goes and every way of life can lead to happiness". I frankly think many of the problems in our society are due to this kind of relativism.
They believed virtue was the only way to achieve happiness.

>defeatist defeatist defeatist
You're like a broken record.
BTW, you've also used the word "coper", but I don't think you quite know what it means, since spouting those happy-go-lucky platitutes (like you do) is pretty much the definition of a coping behavior.

Take things like a man without protest, understand your limitations and don't hope for things that are impossible, read good authors everyday and every time you read find at least one quote to write down that will help you get through life, don't live extravagantly either presenting yourself as wealthy or poor, etc. Stoicism is a very practical philosophy.

Social anxiety does not exist.

Effects of meditation is pure placebo. Proof that people will believe in anything that soothes the unrest in their mind.

no, but it will help

Then why does my voice tremble when I speak to a girl, why do I blush when I'm the centre of attention, why do I keep close to the walls when I'm inside a building, why do my palms sweat and why do I bite my nails to the point they are perpetually hurting? You don't know shit, armchair psychologist.

The coper post is not mine. And if we are discussing "defeatism" vs "trying to do something for your life", of course the word defeatism will be used.

Slave mentality. Most unfortunate people are stoics not by choice but by force. If you have a choice, then why would you choose stoicism when you have the potential to achieve meaning in life?

In a debate between
>there's nothing you can do, just give up bro
and
>just be happy bro, don't complain, everything is your own fault bro
both sides are wrong and cringe-pilled.

Unfortunate people are not Stoics. They care about the same things you do. And following Stoicism will make you happier than believing happiness is in external things, no matter if you are a poor philosophy professor or the Emperor of Rome.

Because your father was a weak person

There is a whole lot of study and practice to be happier, it is not something that comes out of thin air.
My point is that it is better to do all of those than to be whining with self-pity.

My father is a very masculine working class man. You don't know shit.

You've never read stoic literature have you? You can live every principle. In fact you have to if you want to be a stoic. This is reiterated in every piece of stoic literature.
>Don't put value on material things
>Don't let impulse compromise your independence
There you go.

>slave mentality
Stoicism is literally the opposite. You are a slave to nobody.
>why would you choose stoicism when you have the potential to achieve meaning in life?
What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive? Did Marcus Aurelius not achieve anything meaningful? What meaningful things can't you do when you're a stoic? Is throwing a tantrum when you get hurt more meaningful than accepting that you're in pain without letting it interupt your thoughts? Is accepting that you shouldn't worry about things you can't control not meaningful?

Are you a stoic? How has your journey been? Apart from reading, what would you recommend to a person getting into stoicism?

>My point is that it is better to do all of those than to be whining with self-pity.
There's literally nothing wrong with a bit of self pity, because many things that go wrong in our lives are simply not our fault.
Tell the holocaust victims they should have just stopped whining.

You don't pick and choose what you care about, that's biological. All those practices you said, are practices done by people every single day in the poorer parts of the world, whether they're self-proclaimed stoics or not. Now let's not mince words, a poor philosophy professor about to be visited by loan sharks would be made happier by money, an external thing, and stoicism would disappear.

No one is not slave to nobody. Everybody is slave to something, be it the law, fate, or death. Not everything can be found within you. To think external things have no value, that is a privilege rather than universal truth.

Cut out the crap. We are discussing here doing something for yourself vs having a defeatist attitude.

Marcus achieved things because he had great genes, not because he was stoic, and was made happy by his genes and circumstances, not his stoicism, because happiness is a biological feeling fostered by biological impulses fulfilled. A poor man might not be made happier by stoicism, in fact letting out all his rage and throwing a great tantrum against fate might be his only meaningful act in an otherwise hollow and pointless life.

So stoicism only applies to those fortunate enough not to be affliced by great troubles?

So why are you on the literature board? If your attitude is literally, "nothing matters. nothing can be improved. people just do things to fulfill their biological duty as dictated by their genes."

If you've got life figured out, why are you here? Maybe our happiness as dictated by our biology is to read about stoicism.

just cheer up dude

I wish i had an aeroplane

Attached: d7bea09d22788ba782d28bb631b5a07b.jpg (705x1200, 92K)

>You don't pick and choose what you care about, that's biological.
Other than food and drink, no, they aren't.
Cultivating virtue is in large parts about this and this is not something exclusive from Stoicism.

>All those practices you said, are practices done by people every single day in the poorer parts of the world, whether they're self-proclaimed stoics or not.
You don't even know what Stoic practices are. Why in the fuck are you talking about something you have no idea of? Why? Did you come from /his/? Do you think no one would find your ignorance?

>Now let's not mince words, a poor philosophy professor about to be visited by loan sharks would be made happier by money, an external thing, and stoicism would disappear
You didn't get my point and the Stoic sage would be happy no matter what.

This is the 5th post in which you've used the word "defeatist" - so could you please define it for me? I find it hard to talk about vague concepts.

test

Na, just end it bro

based and skyking-pilled

No, where did you get that impression?

I'm not happy. I practiced stoicism for about 2 years and I wasn't happy then either. Nothing makes me happy, because my brain is fucked. Why am I here? Because I'm mad. As for yourself, I guess intellectual exercise is as fulfilling as any exercise which of course has biological imperative, but it still won't lead to happiness or be fostered by it unless biological imperatives are fulfilled, which are very clearly defined, and while in some tertiary way may be helped by reading or discussing or practicing stoicism ultimately as time goes on if fulfillment is not achieved stoicism must be cast aside since it's clearly no good for those practicing, if it is practice by choice in any case, which means happiness is independent from stoicism.

just be a zen-master, you get to be smug in people's faces and smack them with a stick and you don't even need to learn anything

>Take things like a man, without protest
What the fuck? Literally
>just be a pushover bro

Let me guess, upper-middle class?

Just dab on the haters

Even most scientists reject biological determinism. I don't wanna psychoanalyse you but do you think this belief system you've developed, which holds absolutely no water in science or philosophy, could have arisen from your depression?
If a stoic has the power to stop himself from being beaten up or killed, he will. If he doesn't have the power he will go to the gallows with a calm demeanour and not a single worry in his heart, because he knows that it is not in his power to resist.

>The Stoic sage would be happy no matter what.

Attached: 385.jpg (317x267, 22K)

youtube.com/watch?v=VWmEcig0uO8

Attached: skyking.jpg (1280x720, 56K)

Attached: 1563275829366.png (785x1000, 254K)

>Even most scientists reject biological determinism.
they should if they want to keep their jobs

Porco Roso didn’t kill himself

>Even most scientists reject biological determinism.
>this belief system holds absolutely no water in science
It holds more water than stoicism does.

Every single fiber of the universe is hellbent on one singular action: to reproduce. Every structure, every mechanism, every thought, has reproduction in its ultimate sight, no matter how indirect, even antinatalists are just self-aware failed experiments gently removing themselves from the laboratory. If it wasn't this way, it would have never been, because nothing without reproduction in mind can by definition last the test of time.

Finally, if a stoic marches to the gallows with nothing stirring his heart, then what stirs him to live at all? Fate can't be fought against, death can't be fought against, so what spark light the stoic's when in protest to the inevitable he still chooses to rebel by living another day?

Your belief that nothing can be done to improve your life and you will be unhappy no matter what. This is a harmful belief and not only you are miserable but you want to spread your misery to others.

sometimes i come here because i forget how worthless and crackpot this place is but then someone like you reminds me and i can leave again, thanks

Stoicism isn't a science.
So what are you saying? You think every action is performed in the interest of reproduction. Why do I play chess?

I'm trying to be. The simple answer is to act stoically. Be conscious of your actions. If you're feeling bad, remind yourself it's your body feeling bad, not your mind. It's difficult, of course. You're going to have to be specific if you need advice.

>No one is not slave to nobody
As long as you have control over your own thoughts nothing can enslave you. Nobody and nothing can force you to mentally accept a falsehood as being the truth. There's a fundamental understanding you need about the difference between body and mind that's central to stoicism.

His son commodus had the same genes, necessarily, and he fucked everything up, so that's not the only deciding factor, clearly. Also Aurelius wasn't happy. He was pestered everyday by statesmen trying to swindle him, everyone around him wanted things from him, he was sick at the frontlines of a war, all of his sons except one died, etc. He could have easily ordered boatloads of wine with which to sedate himself but instead he was stoic, and did the best he could following stoicism.
>A poor man might not be made happier by stoicism
It will allow him to accept his situation and act rationally. Epictetus was a literal slave and he never complained.

If you spent two years practicing stoicism then surely you must have clued in on the fact that happiness is not something stoicism guarantees nor is it something to necessarily strive for. Also, stoic literature makes it quite clear that suicide is a valid option in any situation. If you can't live then die. If you can't die, then accept whatever you feel.

No, treat others with justice. Don't consciously harm people, but if people get harmed by what you're doing when acting according to your nature (so, self defense in this case) then so be it. I don't think "take it like a man" is a good way of describing stoicism, though.

It doesn't.

Chess is a game, and if you want to know what biological basis a game has, just google it. But it's obvious. Why do cats take joy in fake hunting? To practice for the real thing.

>Your belief that nothing can be done to improve your life and you will be unhappy no matter what.
I don't think anyone would actually hold such a ridiculous belief.
You're punching a strawman here. What I (and presumably the other poster) am saying, is that some negative things are outside of your power to change, and it's OK to feel "self-pity" because of that.

name one (1) thing Steve Sailer has ever been wrong about

The discussion came much earlier than the self-pity part. You were showing this crappy attitude in this thread and so are some emos saying everything is biological so don't even bother.

Except that it does. Psychologists have identified some things that are proven to increase the feeling of well-being (or "happiness")
>health
>physical safety
>social acceptance
>romantic pair-bonding
And others.
Conversely, the lack of those things causes un-happiness. And you can't just magically conjure happiness simply because you've read a fucking book.

lmao

Just become a Christian instead, it's like stoicism but dumbed down so even the biggest pleb can benefit from it.

Attached: 1411766298558.jpg (800x772, 248K)

That's ridiculous. If that were the case we would only be interested in games that help us perform some biological function. Chess literally has no use outside of chess, despite what some patzers would have you believe.

>As long as you have control over your own thoughts nothing can enslave you
The "you" in your brain is a very small part with no great physical bearing over the others. For example, a schizophrenic, no matter how hard he fights his ailment, will always fall to delusions.

>If you spent two years practicing stoicism then surely you must have clued in on the fact that happiness is not something stoicism guarantees nor is it something to necessarily strive for. Also, stoic literature makes it quite clear that suicide is a valid option in any situation. If you can't live then die. If you can't die, then accept whatever you feel.
Exactly, except there is an inherent defeatism in accepting how you feel. Sure acting out you rage might be considered irrational and non-beneficial by stoicism, and by circumstance it may actually get you farther and give you more satisfaction than before. So why follow stoicism when it can in fact inhibit your happiness? Sure you may be a less virtuous soul when you die, but so what?

Not gonna argue this point. Evolution dictates that what we enjoy is based on what benefits us, even in the most indirect way, otherwise it would not be passed on throughout the entire species.

They didn't.
And "Happiness studies" are very rudimentary and can't prove anything yet.
You have happiness studies saying Mormons are super happy and happiness studies saying Mormons are super unhappy.

>Not gonna argue this point.
You're just wrong. There is NO biological function that is made easier to perform by playing chess.

what's with the toilet-paper-demon?

What a ridiculous statement.

>may actually get you farther and give you more satisfaction than before. So why follow stoicism when it can in fact inhibit your happiness?
I'm not the one you are discussing with.
Stoicism does not inhibit your happiness. It reduces your desires, which increases your happiness.
You don't get happier by having more, you get happier by desiring less.

>"Happiness studies" are very rudimentary
>some happiness studies say one thing, and some another thing.

Maybe, but certain things are undisputable, like for example that being healthy is better than being unhealthy, or having some "emergency money" is better than constantly stressing out because you're poor.

On the other hand, happy-go-lucky platitudes like "a stoic sage would be happy anyway" or "happiness is all in your head bro" have ZERO backing in science.

Ah, the buddhist nihilist standpoint then. We all saw how well that worked for Culadasa.

>becoming self sufficient instead of being a slave to your ever changing desires is nihilism

Attached: 1545221687648.jpg (200x200, 10K)

You can be happy and sick. You can be unhappy and healthy.
Money or lack of it stresses you depending on your value. The likes of Diogenes and Epictetus were poor but happy with their situation. There are many millionaires that have tons of stress about money. I know some, myself.

And happiness studies are really weak nowadays. It will take some decades for them to be decent.

This is not nihilistic. It is just different values from materialism and hedonism. I would like to point out that materialism and hedonism don't make you happy.

Oh, those horrid desires, right? Completely nonsensical and independent of you? Just try and have some greater desires than fapping to blacked for the 12th time today, then we'll see how stoic you are.

>For example, a schizophrenic, no matter how hard he fights his ailment, will always fall to delusions.
Then that's his nature, nothing more. It would be rational for both the patient and the people close to him for him to get help.

> except there is an inherent defeatism in accepting how you feel
You can also see it as being free from the puppeteering strings of impulse. If you feel defeated then clearly you have not accepted that feeling defeated, too, is nothing more than that- a feeling. I personally feel liberated from whimsy, and attained a profound tranquility knowing I'm not jerked around by something I can easily put myself above. I like knowing that no matter what, be it a horrible accident or a large argument, or some other serious situation, I can control myself and do the rational rather than impulsive thing.

>and by circumstance it may actually get you farther and give you more satisfaction than before
Stoicism is also quite clear in that if you can find something more worthwhile than courage, self control and rationality, then by all means go for it, and see what happens. Do it as long as your scrutiny is sound. However, the things you can gain by throwing a tantrum, for example, or weeping, are generally already things a stoic will have rationally decided not to be worth anything.

>the studies are actually wrong, you see, being broke and unhealthy actually has no effect on happiness because [anecdotal evidence of a long-dead person]

Attached: mp,840x830,matte,f8f8f8,t-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u1.jpg (750x1000, 65K)

You can be happy and sick. You will be happier healthy. You can be unhappy and healthy. You will be unhappier unhealthy. Basic logic.

No, it will rob you of the motivation to try and cure your anxiety.

LOL the Stoics have reduced to anecdotes. The logic and empiricism of stoicism everyone, it's the best philosophy as long as you don't involve the truth.

Nobody disagrees with that. If you're poor and unhealthy it's going to be harder for you to be happy. But with stoicism it's possible.

I read David DeAngelo's Double Your Dating when I was 15. It has a lot of lines to say in very specific situations. It really did help me back then.

You think Stoicism entails not going to the doctor when you're sick or not stealing when you're starving?

I thought we've already established stoicism is not synonymous with happiness, since that's clearly paradoxical in the world we live in for most people.

>Then that's his nature, nothing more.
So who am I to choose to practice Stoicism then, when it's against my nature, and why would it be presented as a universal route for happiness, when like all practices it's not fit for everyone?

>You can also see it as being free from the puppeteering strings of impulse
Essentially enlightenment then? Again, I find more value in impulse, since what seems rational is often misguided, and what seems impulsive may often prove you have more control over your fate than you previously thought.

>a stoic will have rationally decided not to be worth anything
And how does a stoic judge the worth of a thing? How does he weight weeping for instance, the emotional relief from the trauma he suffered not worth the few minutes he could have spent further preparing dinner?

>since that's clearly paradoxical in the world we live in for most people.
lmao some stoics were literal slaves

They lived better lives than most wageslaves in today's globalized world.

>If you're poor and unhealthy it's going to be harder for you to be happy.
What? What is this DEFEATIST attitude? Jut be happy bro.

Do you know anything about slavery in those times or are you just talking shit?

Why do people get so triggered by stoicism? You never see people get this riled up over epicureanism or platonism.

cause epicureans are just innofensive dude-weed-lmaos and platonists are just mathematicians, stoics are incels or cucks, much more dangerous

Probably because self-proclaimed stoics tend to be very preachy

>that picture

Attached: It all falls down.png (312x390, 143K)

He is the end result of of a coomer who uses toilet paper to wipe up his splooge.

Internet stoics are the kind of person to walk up to a father grieving the death of his only child and tell him to stop complaining

>So who am I to choose to practice Stoicism then
Nobody is forcing you. In fact I would advice against it.

>Essentially enlightenment then?
Maybe?
> I find more value in impulse, since what seems rational is often misguided
I doubt it. If someone hits your car I don't think you're going to have a fit of rage, for example.

>And how does a stoic judge the worth of a thing?
In my specific example I was aiming at material wealth, but it really depends on what we're talking about.

>How does he weight weeping for instance, the emotional relief from the trauma he suffered
You can cry. Just don't get consumed by it, but don't get consumed by not crying either. If there are things to be done, or if a family depends on you, then it's best to pull yourself together. It would be easier to explain if there was a specific example.

>self-proclaimed stoics tend to be very preachy
Which is unfortunate, because stoicism tells you to not be like that at all. Epictetus advises students to not even tell people they're stoics, and to not say anything when philosophy comes up. Stoicism is very easy to misinterpret and it has been misinterpreted.

>In fact I would advice against it.
Why?

In any case, we come to agreement that stoicism like enlightenment is not fit for the nature of all men.

>You can cry. Just don't get consumed by it,
Bad advice. I don't cry regularly but when I do I love to lose myself in it and weep heavily for an hour or so. It's therapeutic.

It takes an amount of strength and perseverance that most people don't want to or can't display.

Yes.

Great if it works for you, but from my perspective it's better to eliminate the elements that necessitate this therapy in the first place.

no but aristotle will teach you to grow some balls

Attached: Aristotle stare.jpg (900x750, 116K)

>eliminate the elements that necessitate this therapy in the first place
Those elements are either outside of me or they are part of my nature which is impossible to overcome.

lmao what? Aristotle is nowhere near as practical as the stoics

no, aristotle instead asks you what youre made of, and tells you why being a pussy makes you a retard. aristotles ethics are geared towards correct function as a human, not merely some vague emotional want of what a man should be or some divine command.

Psychology is in a very poor shape nowadays, with the replication crisis showing that a large percentage of the most famous psychology studies were not "correct".
The best psychological therapy is based on Stoicism, not on psychology studies.

This is not what Stoics believed. They believed that virtue was necessary and sufficient for happiness.
I do believe that a sick virtuous man will be happier than a healthy vicious one.

In real life, Stoic actually does work. So much that it is the basis for the best psychological therapy.

>I do believe that a sick virtuous man will be happier than a healthy vicious one
You're out of touch with reality.

Except that iterated choice and behavior influence the neurological chemistry that changes your tendency/lack-there-of the submit to biological impulses. Habitual choices that run into the realm of addiction (drug use, masturbation, overeating) actually change a person's dopamine reactions, creating a recursive influence for repetiting the behavior. If they have a burst of willpower one day and submit to rehabilitation therapy and commit to changing, their chemistry eventually normalizes.

>I do believe that a sick virtuous man will be happier than a healthy vicious one.

Attached: mp,840x830,matte,f8f8f8,t-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u1-1.jpg (750x553, 143K)

Stoicism is not the only philosophical school that believed this.
And being vicious does lead to unhappiness, regardless of health or wealth.

Great argument, m8. Illuminating.
Socrates would be awed by your frog posting and say "damn, virtue really is not that important".

Frogposting is the only sensible response to someone who just says
>I believe that XYZ
without any justification whatsoever.

>oh yeah bro im homeless and freezing but im happier than the CEO of this law firm I'm sleeping outside of because i adhere to some arbitrary principles from Antiquity that the CEO does not

So what? It's not worth it. You can't iterate yourself into greatness and happiness. You can improve just a little, that's why it's always said to compare yourself to yourself rather than others, because if you did you'd realize it's all pointless.

Diogenes lived in a pot and he was the happiest man in history.

No.

I used to feel embarrassment at my lack of social skills and things to talk about but now I don't, in a kind of stoic manner, where I know during those moments that there is little I can do to change the situation.

But normies are vicious people who abhor all non-normies. They will hate you. They hate me

I was just saying I agree with them. You didn't provide justification for the opposite opinion.

Your problem is that you look at everything from the point of view of money and pleasure. You believe that if one has more of both, one is necessarily happier.

Modern day homeless people are not exactly virtuous

Wow, great nihilistic truth bomb. The best thing about the meaning vacuum is that a person is free to define for themselves what is meaningful, so I guess my viewpoint is perfectly valid! Human neurology, psychology is built to incorporate a spiritual and philosophical. Whether or not it is objectively true under some transcendent microscope isn't the point. It's provable that the slot for "fulfillment" is better filled by a belief system than by nothing. And Stoicism, as a mental exercise, can help insulate the fleeting mind against the pain that entropy brings to our transient existence.

You're not free to define what is meaningful. Someone who's been continuously traumatized into not enjoying anything would not find anything meaningful, and so wouldn't be able to buy into stoicism.

If you need externals in order to be happy, then it’s not happiness. It’s pleasure.

>oh this child is unhappy because he grew up in an abusive home? maybe he should stop seeking pleasure then

That's not what he said, you dishonest fucktard

Parents are external, home is external, health is external, many things are external yet tantamount to happiness.

Stoicism is about making peace with your emotions, not throwing them away. Not that I'm favoring either path, but it might depend on the person. Or, maybe coming to terms with enough of them helps throw away the excess.

Someone can be happy without any of this.

I was able to do it through a combination of emotional numbing and arrogance. You eventually get so sick of it that you just don't care any more. That allowed me to put myself into new situations, which led to an improvement in my social skills. Now I wonder if I like people instead of whether or not they like me.

You can read all your stoic books, self help books etc, but if you don't apply those ideas in the real world, then you won't cure shit.

In the end you'll probably always be a little anxious, but when you push through it you'll notice you now handle the situation a lot more better every time.

Attached: 1490630542727.jpg (734x729, 91K)

But people who are happy thanks to them aren't truly happy?

everybody disregard this post because this man has no idea what he’s talking about

You aren't happy thanks to those things. At least not directly. They affect in a different way: having parents that give you a good education in the sense that you don't become a drug addict or promiscuous due to their example will help you in having habits that will make you happier.
But if you have loving but morally nihilistic parents, it likely won't end well for you

Personal experience: reading and thinking alone don't help at all. Only doing helps. If you consider literature to be helpful to change your behaviour use it but if it keeps you passive it only increases your problems.
I was depressed and had anxieties. Lifting cured both in a matter of weeks. Swallowing the iron pill is the way for week people like us.

As Seneca said, "All cruelty springs from weakness", both a weak body and weak mind is meant, and it includes cruelty against ourselves. Being physically weak prevents you from becoming a true stoic, just like being mentally weak. Overemphasising one will only lead to misery.

/pol/ bullshit

So, a person so injured by life that they can't function as a normal human being isn't able to do something a normal human being would? And it's not in their interest to attempt to better their lot? They should just give up?

Drug addiction and promiscuity do lead to unhappier lives.

What about people who overcome trauma or who suffer greatly but do not become traumatized? The suffering trauma victim has nothing to learn from their examples?

Some things cause permanent damage. Of course it's better to try and improve, but not everything can be cured.

What examples? Same circumstances giving different outcomes means different natures. Some will easily get over trauma while others will walk listlessly through life until suicide.

Stoicism isn't a magical self-help cure-all, you know.

it can be if you take the suicide thing seriously

>Doing helps

Essentially agree. Reading is only useful as a tool to help you distill/extrapolate meaning from your own lived experience and to help you contextualize your suffering in a way that is ultimately constructive. Philosophy is a roadmap, great works of literature are amalgams of the authors' thoughts on life. But you can reach all their conclusions on your own and your own independent ones.

I realize I'm running a "no true Scotsman" fallacy here, but I agree with you that there are some people who won't ever get it together. But it's not that there's no chance in eternity that they ever could, just that the circumstances of their lives are such that the right ray of light never falls into their eye and the right tools don't fall into their hands. But that's a minority of human beings. And some broken people (and believe me, I work with them) just can't for physiological/psychological reasons: you can't will away bipolar disorder or celrebral palsy. But those kinds of people aren't "normal" people, same as psycho/sociopaths. An ant that lives alone or a sheep that lives among tigers is not an indication of their whole species: they define the norm by being different. And the average person, in the absence of wild developments, can benefit.

>Effects of meditation is pure placebo
Hi i am a negative user who hates the world and reads nietzsche.
I like to put everything down but, unfortunately, I am 115 IQ so i just call everything a placebo.
I have such a shit outlook on life, and i feel the need to spread it to everyone!

Attached: d26s345-0eb5efce-2233-4d97-8782-af65c4a778fd.jpg (182x250, 17K)

lol I have social problems, but at least im not a faggot like you

Examples:

James Stockdale (Stoic specific)
Giles Cory
Thich Quang Duc

Worked for me after thinking about killing myself every day for 3 years. Get deeper into Nietzsche than that though/