Was Nietzsche a stoic?

An obstacle is an endeavor

No. He was an anti-Epicurean, but not a Stoic.
That said, he would probably be a happier person if he was a Stoic or an Epicurean.

>anti-Epicurean
Can you back that up? I remember him praising Epicurus on multiple occasions.

“I spit on the noble and those who emptily admire it, when it doesn’t make any pleasure.”

But you know what to expect of the geometry book so you feel calm and prepared

>emptily admire
You're making assumptions here, my man.

My gold is accomplishment through noble endeavor. I feel pleasure, you are dishonest with yourself.

If you truly gain pleasure from suffering, then I'm applauding you and advise you to keep your current lifestyle.

"So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won’t see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to enjoy life. That is what life means and what life is for."
George Mallory

No. His take on suffering is about embracing it with joy, gaining new strength from it.
Aphorism 326 of The Gay Science is an outright rebuke against those who would make us think life is full of pain that must be stoically endured. Furthermore he accuses them of exaggerating.
>is our life really so painful and bothersome that we must trade it for an existence of stoic petrification?

He never actually said that. Holy fuck, nobody here has actually read him it seems.

typical

"To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities..."
The Will to Power

?

>embracing it with joy, gaining new strength from it.
Embracing to gain strength

No, I don't remember which part exactly, but he basically shits on them in BGaE and calls them pussy ass faggots that are to weak to retaliate against the world.

>the greatest human is indistinguishable from a non-verbal retard

Sounds about right for NEETzsche.

Imagine unironically calling a professor a neet

Attached: 1568956567297.jpg (1200x1327, 180K)

was Nietzsche a pansexual agender bicurious butch demisexual genderfluid queer intersex
hermaphrodite lesbian polyamorous skoliosexual transvestite?

Attached: b96554fe3b5a45a4be9e358e7704d976--vintage-photography-erotic-art.jpg (236x257, 13K)

Rule 1 of being a stoic: Never ever fucking tell anyone, at any circumstances that you are a stoic

nietzsche was a lot of stuff, changed his opinions on several topics a lot and combined several points which were previously polar opposites to one another. so yeah, his concept of amor fati is somewhat stoicist, but at the same time he advocate an übermensch who was strongly influenced by the dionysian and who still has tendencies of insanity (to give birth to a dancing star).

Kek

The whole modern "Anything that causes suffering or discomfort must be eradicated" mentality is why people have become so weak, and the world is going to shit. Polishing your character through exposure to suffering is how man becomes stronger, to the point where he is almost indifferent to suffering itself. Having state and technology remove all obstacles from life instead of having to overcome them by yourself is the ultimate sign of the numale.

>Having state and technology remove all obstacles from life
Don't conflate becoming more efficient via means of technology with "removing suffering"
Actually I can't even come with an instances where technology replacing something where you suffer isn't the better option

> Actually i cant even come with instances where technology replacing something where you suffer isnt the better option.

Taking meds to alleviate depression.
Porn to alleviate sexual frustration.
Social media to alleviate social alienetion.
Consumerism as alternative to identity.
Media consumption as distraction from suffering.

There are tons of instances where technology replacing suffering isnt the better option.

>Consumerism as alternative to identity.
>Media consumption as distraction from suffering.
Have both nothing to do with technology
>Taking meds to alleviate depression.
"Lol depression not real"
>Porn to alleviate sexual frustration.
>Social media to alleviate social alienetion.
Only ones where I'm inclined to agree

Stoicism is a piece of idealism according to that passage. Also, this

Do you claim that the rise of consumerism has nothing to do with technology? The fact that products are marketed so widely by corporations is a direct result of technological progress. Ads used to be posters and billboards on the streets, now with the increased dependency of people on tech devices ads are everywhere. The same can be said about the entertainment industry. Due to the spread of the internet (technology) media consumption is able to reach way more people and be accessible easier than even a decade in the past. Pop cultures growing influence has also alot to do with the spread and dependency on tech. Anyone who spends even a second thinking about this will realize that limiting technology will reduce consumerism and media consumption

user, consumerism has been a thing since the existence of a distinguishable middle class, it just wasn't available that much to the average Joe before.
Technology and human progress is just a catalyst for it, it's like trying to fight time itself.

stoic just means you're some repressed rage dumbfuck

Based and ironpilled

True. My point still stands, that being that the increasing availablity of products and brands to the population has been a result of tech progress. And that because of this many peoples identities now revlove around identification with brands/products and celebrity advocates of them. This in turn provides people with an easy way to feel a sense of "identity" , instead of actully going through the struggle of figuring out who they actually are.

t. gay autist

It doesn't. Dunno why some people like you think Nietzsche was a Stoic. If he were a Stoic, he would not be a "repressed rage whatever". He would be a happily married guy or something like this.

>happily married guy
lol is that your example of a stoic. any modern day "stoic" is some autistic guy who overacts how smart he is and how he has his shit together. in reality he's just someone filled with random useless facts that he can never apply because he's an autistic dumbfuck.

Is it a good rhetorical strategy for a Nietzsche fan to get into the "who is the biggest failure at life" game?

who i was a fan?
but i know you're a "stoic" so lol

who said*

You obviously are. I'm more of a Platonist than a Stoic, but there is a whole lot of wisdom on Epictetus.

>And that because of this many peoples identities now revlove around identification with brands/products and celebrity advocates of them
This has always been a thing. Literally in ancient Greece people identified with famous philosophers while barely knowing what they're even talking about
Romans fucking loved cult of personality.

Do you want to live "according to nature"? O you noble Stoics, what a verbal swindle! Imagine a being like nature - extravagant without limit, indifferent without limit, without purposes and consideration, without pity and justice, simultaneously fruitful, desolate, and unknown - imagine this indifference itself as a power - how could you live in accordance with this indifference?8 Living - isn't that precisely a will to be something different from what this nature is? Isn't living appraising, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And if your imperative "live according to nature" basically means what amounts to "live according to life"- why can you not just do that? Why make a principle out of what you yourselves are and must be? The truth of the matter is quite different: while you pretend to be in raptures as you read the canon of your law out of nature, you want something which is the reverse of this, you weird actors and self-deceivers! Your pride wants to prescribe to and incorporate into nature, this very nature, your morality, your ideal. You demand that nature be "in accordance with the stoa ," and you'd like to make all existence merely living in accordance with your own image of it - as a huge and eternal glorification and universalizing of stoicism! With all your love of truth, you have forced yourselves for such a long time and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to look at nature falsely, that is, stoically, until you're no long capable of seeing nature as anything else - and some abysmal arrogance finally inspires you with the lunatic hope that, because you know how to tyrannize over yourselves - Stoicism is self-tyranny - nature also allows herself to be tyrannized. Is the Stoic then not a part of nature?.... But this is an ancient eternal story: what happened then with the Stoics is still happening today, as soon as a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates a world in its own image. It cannot do anything different. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the spiritual will to power, to a "creation of the world," to the causa prima [first cause].

Haha why are you so desperate for me to be his fan, i agree with you that NEETchee was a failure at life
>I'm more of a Platonist than a Stoic
lol

Because usually in this board, the people who misrepresent Stoicism the most tend to be Nietzsche fans.

why do you have to be his fan to know that stoicism is autistic dogshit lmao

The will to power is probably the shittiest book since he "wrote". Try BGE

Nietzsche attacks a straw man here. While the “is” of the situation is that we, by definition, cannot live differently than our own nature, my impression of the Stoics is not that they make this a “should”: “One should live according to nature.” They don’t “make a principle out of what they themselves are, and must be.”

The whole point of the Stoics was that our suffering comes from our wish that nature be other than what it’s not. It’s not nature that makes us suffer, it’s our opinions that nature “should be” different that make us suffer.