Is Stoicism a cucked philosophy?

Attached: images.jpg (846x362, 28K)

It's a good philosophy for people who live hard lives.

no. go back to study now.

Essentially, yes.

No.
And Marcus Aurelius' wife was likely not a slut. She was actually a bitter enemy to a very influential guy who was the master of the people who would later write history.

slave morality

Stoicism is homegrown "mindfulness" cuckoldry. So yes.

Compared to the men who wrote the surviving Stoic materials, Nietzsche was a huge failure at life.
Seneca was a very powerful politician and the prime minister of Rome for a while.
Arrian (who wrote the Discourses of Epictetus) was a governor of multiple provinces and a successful general who stopped an invasion against Rome.
Marcus Aurelius was not only the Roman Emperor, but one who was acknowledged as being pretty good at it.

Not unless you read everything disingenuously.

Every single one of those people owe their success to being born into the right families lol.

Plenty of people were born in the right families and they happened to excel above the mean

So master morality?

Seneca was from a rich family, but he rose to power due to his political ability.
Arrian was one of the first Greeks to rise to the highest rankings of Roman politics.
Marcus Aurelius was chosen when he was a teenager to be the future Emperor by Hadrian.

they were all larping bc they could afford to. stoicism is slave morality at its roots.

>childhood circumstance determines the value of your life's accomplishments
what an absolute pleb

yes and it's a cope, but there's nothing wrong with that sometimes

all philosophy is cope

real tired of this meme

Attached: aurelius.jpg (2048x1661, 365K)

I do find the notion that the universe has a great plan in motion (logos), which is inherently good and should be trusted to be somewhat cucked.

The universe is indifferent. It is entirely up to us to determine the relative goodness/badness of things. We should embrace this bias because it is our very nature, a nature which protects its own interests. Although I agree with the deterministic outlook of Stoicism, I do not see the wisdom in second-guessing the role our biases may play in influencing the future.

The worst example is the Stoic idea that a person who harms you is only injuring themselves -- that the harm they do to you is only a matter of your perception. I don't know how seriously they took that idea, but it seems like the archaic precursor to 'If you kill your enemies, they win.'

Stoicism does have good elements (strive for objectivity of perception, respect natural order), so I would advise cherry-picking that and leaving most of the passivity stuff behind.

I don't get to wrapped up in logos. I think it's the fruit of their time - with the lack of empirical evidence. I consider logos to be logic, reason, empiricism lite and used as a framework to exist in reality. It's not a replacement for meaning or a guide through life, merely the tools you can use to best exist within the confines of the world.

Stoics were not passive. Arrian and Marcus Aurelius were military commanders.

The idea of "no one can harm you, unless you perceive so" is not about being passive, but about how you view externals. If someone attacks you, you will defend yourself and you will try to win the fight. That's the virtuous way to act. But if you lose the fight, you are not harmed, since you don't consider "losing a fight" to be an evil. You will not feel bad about it.

It is a little bit hard for most modern people to understand this, since they consider the good to be pleasure (and whatever brings material goods and status) and also consider the bad to be the opposite of this.

I'mAnd just to be clear: if you win the fight it is not a good either. The good is on how (and why) you act and what are your judgements about it.

To add on to that. It's the perception of action that determines the good or bad. If you take the action of inflicting harm onto another and that person who receives harm is mindful to think that what has been bestowed upon him is from the weakness of others, then in the sense they have harmed themselves for not paying their own mind to their actions. They have inflicted a greater bad or the only bad thing to themselves.

/thread/

How about Epictetus tho

No. Stoicism is a Very Stable philosophy and if you start there you can move into Plato easily, into Kant, and from there understand reality.

How is mindfulness cuckoldry? You seem confused.

There are no easy lives.

Cuckoldry is simply things people don't like, user.

YES

Cuckoldry is when you passively let external things, whether they be other agents or nature itself, needlessly take advantage of you.

But that's not what stoicism is

Being black is hard life.

It’s a stupid life

It's defeatist.

Went from a slave to an influential person in the Roman Empire who was friends with Hadrian. He was never rich, but he had a pretty big status in Rome.

How is it defeatist?

."dont let Tyrones big black john-sen invading your wife's womb bother you,instead push on to e a better man,develop a society that hill support there new found family"

Faustina was likely not a slut.
A Stoic would likely divorce a cheating wife (considering her to be worthless due to being a slut) but without becoming overly emotional about it (since he lost nothing of value).
What would be a better way to react to it?

not him, but probably because it looks like you're just accepting other people pressuring you, taking advantage of you, maybe even attacking you, letting the system have it's way because "just don't react it doesn't matter lol"

But you will defend yourself. Likely in a better way than others, since you will have a cold head, instead of being whinny or angry about it.

Nietzsche's criticism was correct. The Stoics made a principle out of something that can't be turned into a principle, or at any rate is a completely arbitrary one at the end of the day, because you're following your way regardless of what you do—suffering and all. The Stoics lacked the foresight to realize what value lies in suffering for life. A life free of suffering is not any more in accordance with itself than a life full of suffering; the idea that suffering is the mark of losing your way is an unscientific one.

isn't that epicureanism, not stoicism?

It really applies to both.

did I just misread a whole school of philosophers
epicureanism: suffering bad, have less of it
stoicism: suffering is neither bad or good, it is natural

Stoicism is about reducing suffering in the world just as much as Epicureanism.

A life free of distress is better than a life with it. Epicurean ataraxia is better than suffering.

I think he is not talking about physical pain. My impression is that he believes that anxiety and unhappiness are good.

yes but to the emotion part the amount of action shown is often the same, war over a kings son put down by his own doing i can agree with the stoics but when the tides of war crash against my shore the blades will raise in anguish over my first born

Not true if you have great ambitions and want to achieve them.

k

If "great ambitions" lead to suffering and distress while the opposite leads to ataraxia, "great ambitions" are something you have to cut out of your life

so stocisms conditioning of mechanical lifestyles

mechanical conditioning

What is the stoic way of fixing my life if I'm a 27 khv impotent manlet?

a shotgun shell to the skull with no hesitation

no, stoicism is about accepting suffering because it is inevitable and often beyond our control

Stoicism will not teach how to pick up girls. Stoicism will teach you on what you should value and how to live a better life.

Stoicism is only triggering to certain people because it suggests that they are mostly to blame for how shit their life is

Exactly, I don't want to pick up girls, I just would like to have the possibility to experience love and maybe have a family one day.

what you're looking for is female romance literature lemao

Why do you want a family?

Read the books. At least they will help you cure your anxiety that is likely what makes you "bad" with dealing with women

Stoicism is basically a philosophy for pseud normies popularized by pseud coach businessmens who wanted to have a intellectual background to sell some bullshit about life.

at the baseline stoicism allows you to realize that the suffering you incur is just another aspect of being human, and you shouldnt apply undue value to it.

My anxiety is derived from my post phimosis hypersensitive penis and my short stature, and the consequential detachment from the woman. The deep disquiet that this has brought to me made me unable to enjoy life and being happy.

I don't unvalue my suffering, it made me a better person and with higher goals, but I don't want it it characterize my entire life.

Attached: baudril.png (726x508, 522K)

Seems like mental gymnastics to me. I appreciate the advantages of perceptual re-framing, but I think injecting delusions about the benevolence of the universe or the priority of perception over result is going too far.