Stoicism is the philosophy of cuckolds

Yet being flighty and emotional wouldn't make any bit him less of a cuck even if he killed her in a fit of rage.

No but it would make his wife a dead whore

The Mongols were incredibly disciplined you retard. They had hundreds of rules to follow that they'd be killed for breaking.

How does this connect to Stoicism being an aristocratic philosophy?

probably why is promoted so much, I don't mind reading about the virtues of them but I don't find much of it applicable unless someone is critiquing why some idiot like Mark Fisher offed himself. most behaviors are self-fufiling, and people often manifest this shit into their own lives by dwelling on it. that's my take away. otherwise its a not a very effective system.

Stoicism is obviously a passive way of life
Is a stoic character in a story ever the most interesting character?
No because they don't do things, things just happen to them

Those accounts come from a dubious history. Faustina gave him 14 children and people loved her.

>Because I say so
>t. Liberal cuck

>What's wrong with letting your endocrine system and stomach determine behavior instead of your higher cognitive functions.
Because without restraint there would be no society. Eg. Africa.

This is exactly why I'm confused on how /fit/ loves stoicism so much. It's not a philosophy of strength, it's about submission to the inevitable.

What about the story where Marcus killed the guard his wife was having an affair with and forced her to have sex with him in the bed drenched in the guard's blood?

Marcus Aurelius proves stoicism is a flawed philosophy. He tried SO HARD to practice it well. But despite that, he fought to put his son Commodus on the throne. And despite it being obvious to everyone that Commodus was going to be a terrible fucking emperor, he refused to adopt another general or someone who would actually do the job well.

For all the talk about 'reason', he did more damage to the Roman Empire through his emotional attachment to his son than did any other emperor of his century.

How is Stoicism a flawed philosophy if you are criticising Marcus Aurelius for failing to live up to the standard of Stoicism?

Because he's the shining beacon of its practitioners. If nobody can actually abide by its ridiculous standards, then it's not a practicable philosophy.

getting worked up over things beyond your control isn’t strength

>Because he's the shining beacon of its practitioners.
To 16 year olds who like to read inspirational Stoic quotes with marble busts in the background on Instagram, yes. Marcus Aurelius was far from the be all and end all of Stoic philosophy; his meditations are a meme, in the sense that they were intended only for his own eyes and is comprised of short phrases of wisdom that the emperor was writing down to internalize, similar to an 'examen of consciousness'. Because it is so bare (and also because it was the thoughts of an emperor) practicioners of new Stoicism, which it is important to distinguish from the actual ancient teachings of the men of the Porch, and which is a form of self-help that utilizes parts of ancient Stoicism for inspiration--such people, tending to be rather young, will look towards Meditations because it's rather unsophisticated.
>If nobody can actually abide by its ridiculous standards, then it's not a practicable philosophy.
The consequences of such a mentality is moral cowardice. Morality and ease are ofter diametrically opposed. The Moral Life demands indomitable volition. Meanwhile, look at man, who among us has ever reached perfection? It isn't morality which is flawed, but man.
user, you yourself recognize that giving up Commodus to the throne was wrong. The right choice would have been to adopt someone more fit. But doing this is apparently ridiculously stringent, is it? Speaking of ridiculous standards, doesn't it seem a bit absurd to find one sin in the life of a man who held to a certain teaching, and then reject the entire teaching on that ground? I don't think you are ever going to find a moral system where its adherents, even the most eminent of which, have never done wrong. I don't think it needs to be stated that Marcus Aurelius would've been much worse of an emperor were it not for the philosophy. Just compare him to his brother.

emotional states are temporary by nature, whereas reason isn't. reason doesn't change because you're angry or sad, so if you undertake an action due to anger that action may no longer make sense when you cease to be angry

>middle path is ideal.
No, the only option is become extremely rational, curiously just the opposite of what is praised nowadays.

>But despite that, he fought to put his son Commodus on the throne.

He didn't have much of a choice unfortunately
donaldrobertson.name/2018/01/19/why-did-marcus-aurelius-allow-commodus-to-succeed-him/

ok I'm taking the bait
>>the system is all about suppressing emotions (which are natural)
Stoicism is not about controlling emotions, it's about not being controlled by them. It's about acting and thinking such that strong emotions/passions don't arise in the first place or if they do they have less power over you, not that they arise and you then somehow suppress them. The nature relevance is that the Stoics believed these strong emotions/passions were caused precisely by mental states/activity contrary to, and in conflict with, nature.

An example being the "dichotomy of control". Which is rather about what is up to our will, and what is not up to our will. If you try to will something that you cannot will—which is everything that doesn't rest directly on your will; everything other than your mental faculties—then you're handing over control of your mind to that something. You can't sit and will yourself healthy or rich etc. You can intend and attempt to exercise and make money but ultimately you could for eg end up with cancer or never be rich. If you get upset or angry about getting cancer or being materially unsuccessful it's because you are essentially trying to will something that is not up to your will. But on the other hand if, with practice, you will change to your negative judgements about these things then you can remove the unnatural emotions/passions. The cardinal virtues in particular are important for the Stoics because they are symbolic of the only behaviors (and the success of these behaviors) that are ultimately up to the will at all times and in harmony with nature.

That being said I'm not a Stoic, I don't care for the ethics of it. But Stoicism does have very valuable tools, that modern stoicism often misrepresents.

>If I lift enough weights maybe I can avoid death....

Is it not one's own limitations that makes the standards seem so 'ridiculous'?

Attached: 43894716837434.png (622x514, 149.62K)

>My wife is having sex with another man in my bed?
>that’s fine. Doesn’t bother me. Caring is for the weak

Attached: smug-soyjak.jpg (600x655, 32.3K)

all psychological research says that emotional awareness is the best way to control them, not emotional repression as stoics advocate.

ironically the best way to be in control of your emotions is to accept you have them and let them come and feel them, not to try to force yourself into being a robot (which you will 100% fail, btw)

>The weekly stoic thread filled with misunderstood strawmanned criticisms of stoicism and basedjak parodies
It is unironically like the same thread on the catalogue gets copy and pasted every week

Attached: 10934810398.png (1066x600, 276K)

Another outstanding revelation of psychology, I presume this is supported by high quality, rigorous scientific investigation that can be replicated?

Then do a concise response with clear arguments and just paste it every time the thread shows up.

So... you are just saying that the actual stoic philosophy is superior to the stoic strawman that is popular in the retard circles.

>medium article
>the roman gossipers claimed...
Come back with a non-shit source

>not emotional repression as stoics advocate
tell me which stoics advocate for emotional repression

stoicism isnt passive, it's not being a retarded clown over things beyond your grasp and taking care of your affairs that are within your capability.

people who think they know what they're talking about will tell you that it's not about emotional repression but about recognizing that only your rational judgment is within your control and that by disciplining reason you can reach a state of imperturbability or apatheia against the turbulence of human affairs. but from this they take as a necessary consquence the notion that a wise man cannot possibly feel the passions, that he cannot possibly feel fear or grief or love or, as even seneca says, compassion - because compassion inevitably entangles you in worldly affairs.

and this does not merely mean that such passions are nowhere to be found within the highest good but that enduring them means you have fallen actively along the wrong path. Even christian philosophers were able to catch onto the nonsense. Augustine replies by reciting a conversation between Alcibiades and Socrates where Alcibiades gloats that he is the happiest man alive and Socrates demonstrates to him how he is in fact miserable. and Alcibiades realizes he's right and is aggrieved at the revelation. Would we not say then that a man has become wiser in his grief? This isn't even touching the relationship to cynicism, how easily apatheia can turn rapacious, or the early stoa's metaphysics of modality. Stoicism is a painful temptation

This’ll sound like silly joker posting but this “always be rational” mindset becomes especially absurd when it basically encourages being docile. There comes a point where even the rational man becomes justifiably angry, has a slight outburst (not violent) and even they get shunned for it.
This is a bit off topic but even if someone reacts rationally but in a negative way they’re still shunned. It’s extremely silly

yes this is rationalist propaganda

>ironically the best way to be in control of your emotions is to accept you have them and let them come and feel them
Also known as stoicism.

>Stoicism is not about controlling emotions, it's about not being controlled by them
What is the difference between suppressing emotions, and letting emotions come but not being affected by them? Give me a concrete example

Not this user but speaking from my own experience.
My grandma passed away 8 months ago to cancer. I felt very little grief due to the fact that her death was inevitable and I expected it to happen sooner or later. The core principle of stoicism lies in not trying to control the uncontrollable, and not letting the uncontrollable CONTROL you. If I had cried over my grandmothers passing, nothing would change, so I accepted it as something out of my control, therefore it is something I choose not to be affected from, because there is no point in being affected by it. It's more of a feeling of indifference than >letting emotions come but not being affected by them

Not being controlled by emotions isn't the same thing as not being affected by them. Affect is emotion, and if you suppressed emotion it wouldn't be expressed in the first place. Just to get definitions straight.
It's a matter of reason. All emotions serve a purpose, almost always an impetus to action. You can act rationally or irrationally. Expressing emotions is not irrational, and acting on them is not irrational, but powerful emotions can overwhelm reason and lead to irrational actions.
The example you ask for is trivial, and hundreds could be provided. Let's say someone insults you and it makes you angry enough to hit them. (People have been killed over such altercations, in the throes of passion, should the offended party have a knife or a gun.) Hiding your anger would be suppressing it, and a lie. Moreover it demonstrates that you are incapable of expressing your anger without losing control. Note that this is totally different from not feeling anger in the first place, or at least strong anger, in the face of a personal insult.
And so there are many ways you could express your anger without it controlling you, and none of them are right or wrong. What matters is that you don't do it because your anger compels you, but that you do it because it will be useful and constructive for your purposes. For example, you could imagine that slapping the person could be a rational decision depending on the context. That would be relatively rare, but nonetheless it's true. By comparison, spitting on them would more or less never be rational. Mustering strong and well spoken words in your own defence would more or less always be.
I think it's a lot more mundane than you're imagining. People do it all the time without being acquainted whatsoever with stoic philosophy.

holy shit is that real?

Because responding emotionally is nigger behavior. Emotions are instinctual, animalistic responses from our subhuman history.

The sage wouldn't feel compassion because the true good is always available to man, regardless of what fortune has conferred upon him

What's cuckish about that statement? It's to prevent you from reverting to your niggerlike behaviour where you'll be emotional over things you can't control at that moment.
There is nothing preventing you from murdering the thief, skinning him alive and getting your money back when/if you catch him. Because at that moment you can decide on the outcome.

If you find your wife fucking another guy, you don't kill them because you got mad. You kill them because she broke an a sacred union. Intent is what matters, being controlled by your emotions makes you easily manipulated.

This is how I interpret stoicism.

> You kill them because she broke an a sacred union
That sounds like you need meds and not rational lmao

That literally sounds like repression

For you maybe it doesn't matter and you're looking at it from your perspective.
If you're going to get into a union with a woman, she should already know exactly what your ideals and beliefs are. If she acts against those beliefs aware of the repercussions then an equal response is necessary. It's not about being emotional, it's about correcting a wrong in the world. For every wrong you correct, someone else also learns a valuable lesson.

> If she acts against those beliefs aware of the repercussions then an equal response is necessary
First of all, repercussion is not a logical axiom, it’s actually quite illogical as there is no benefit in repercussion just for repercussion’s sake. Second of all, are you implying that cheating has the same magnitude as murder? Also, do you have a marriage contract that make her aware of the repercussions? If not, it’s safe to say that no one in a first world country should expect to get murdered for cheating

It would be if he had wanted to cry and grieve openly, and forced himself not to because that's what a stoic or a real man would do or some such. Unless you want to play psychoanalyst and start reading into his subconscious I guess.

From now on I'll talk from a perspective of a woman being cheated on by a man, so it doesn't look like I'm self inserting.

>repercussion is not a logical axiom, it’s actually quite illogical as there is no benefit in repercussion just for repercussion’s sake
You are correct, if its repercussion just for repercussion’s sake.
If a woman gets cheated on by a man, it means that he transgresses a wide lists of things he should have been abiding by. First of all, this attacks her personal honour where he makes her look weak and incapable. Next, he made a vow that he now openly transgresses. If they had children he impacts those children too. It is essentially a malicious provocation because it could have all been averted by the breaking of the "contract" beforehand. It causes physical, mental and spiritual damage.

It is true that the deed is done, and nothing can be changed at the moment. This doesn't mean that inactivity is a valid option, because a deed like that needs to be punished. Through punishment the woman regains what was taken away from her, as a form of ritualistic cleansing, and can proceed knowing that everything that could have been done-has been done.

>If not, it’s safe to say that no one in a first world country should expect to get murdered for cheating
I never mentioned expectations, but I did mention knowing who you go in the relationship with and the possible repercussions when you thread on the principles of an individual.

> Through punishment the woman regains what was taken away from her
There was nothing taken from her except spooks and what she gets for it is prison time

Niggers are alright. They don't have to live up to no expectations. They live life how they want to, but damned coppers always crampin they style
Proof?

coldsiberia.org/webdoc9.htm#Its message
things that carried the death penalty:
>adultery, sodomy, lying, sorcery, spying, taking sides in quarrels, peeing in water, peeing on ashes, borrowing money and going bankrupt three times, giving food or clothing to someone else's captives without permission, finding a runaway captive and not returning them, not slaughtering animals a specific way, not picking up your allies' stuff for him if he drops them in front of you