/lit/ - Literature

>>12817172
What is obvious now may have been considered profound back then

>>12817172
Mundane and obvious advice that you still don’t follow

>>12817173
But why do people here push it so hard. I read it and it was nothing to be amazed by. I found that the way he wrote made it hard for one to assimilate his advice and cosidering he wrote so much it makes it frustrating to go through the book without properly learning anything - as I said before, due to the nature of the language and analogies.

>>12817183
This, the most important truths are often the simplest.

>>12817183
For the most part it has always been a part of how I think, but you're right I don't follow all his teachings.

How to know Anon is a brainlet? He will say Meditations is a book about the obvious.

>>12817183
Are there translation of the book that are vastly different?

>>12817193
Meditations is like one of those posters or a desktop background with a quote that simply reminds you of the obvious, but for some reason it's nice being reminded.

>>12817172

>>12817186
The thought that he wrote that nearly 2000 years ago is pretty amazing. Given its historical context, it really makes it an exceptional piece of work. Dude, 2000 years ago people were fucking savages.

>>12817172
reminder Marcus never ment to publish it was simply a self meditation in writing

>>12817256
So this is the kind of people that unironically like meditations, huh.

>>12817256
>Dude, 2000 years ago people were fucking savages.
Fucking brainlet

>>12817172
I think that what he has written is not so so obvious. How many people think virtue is the greatest good and how many people think physical pleasure is the greatest good?
The book is good for after you have learned Stoicism well enough, not before that.

>>12817256
The study of ethics was in a better shape 2000 years ago than today.

>>12817288
>The study of ethics was in a better shape 2000 years ago than today.
LOL
your brain on /pol/

>>12817296
obsessed

>>12817186
>it makes it frustrating to go through the book without properly learning anything
If the advice is correct and so obvious to you then why don't you actually follow it? Knowing something that you should do, but only knowing it and not actually doing it, is pointless. Congratulations, you already knew everything in the book, and you're still a worthless piece of shit.

>>12817186
remember that this work was never intended to be literary. It's just Marcus's own personal diary.

This guy having his period all over the place is just more proof the Aurelius was the first JBP

>Let's try reading this book
>Huh, what he's saying here makes sense
>Yes... yes... I agree with this too
>Why didn't I think of any of this before?
>It's all so obvious
>Wow, what a stupid book
>I didn't learn anything at all

>>12817317
wash phallus, buckus.

>>12817278
>>12817267
>>12817256
fucking lol

>>12817296
Virtue ethics >>>>>>>> Modern ethics
Deal with it.

>>12817172
Maybe... Just maybe... It's because it is not a book.

>>12817390

>>12817172
Almost like he didn't write it intending to be read by anyone.

Wasn't it literally just written as reference material for himself?

Anybody else here use Stoical philosophy in their day to day lives to combat anxiety?

Why is /lit/ just teenage retards shitting on classic literature now?

>You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.

>>12817172
i dislike it. when i read it i was like "o...k...". the preface of the book i read subordinated it to christianity, saying it was some precursor in want of christianity, which placed it in historical context i guess. there is absolutely no reason to read meditations today outside of historical curiosity
i honestly think that anyone who like stoicism or says shit like "you need stoicism," they're just little boys who think "stoicism" is "manly"
stoicism is for pseuds. fuck "stoicism" and "nihilism". none of these little boys even know what those mean. they're just stupid little boys who think "stoicism" is "manly" and "nihilism" is "cool"

>>12817779
>nietschze was autistic
Wow, this is truly eye-opening. Thanks anon.

>>12817782
>Hurr Durr philosophy bad! Just like do whatever you want bro! May as well shit your pants and watch hentai all day because like, contemplating our purpose in life is for pseuds!
Imagine being this stupid.

>>12817795
nah buddy, i love philosophy. but stoicism is for brainlets. stop projecting
here, let me quote some hegel for your brainlet ass

>Stoicism
>Φ 198. This freedom of self-consciousness, as is well known, has been called Stoicism, in so far as it has appeared as a phenomenon conscious of itself in the course of the history of man's spirit. Its principle is that consciousness is essentially that which thinks, is a thinking reality, and that anything is really essential for consciousness, or is true and good, only when consciousness in dealing with it adopts the attitude of a thinking being.

>>12817795
>>12817835
Φ 199. The manifold, self-differentiating expanse of life, with all its individualization and complication, is the object upon which desire and labour operate. This varied activity has now contracted itself into the simple distinction which is found in the pure process of thought. What has still essential reality is not a distinction in the sense of a determinate thing, or in the shape of a consciousness of a determinate kind of natural existence, in the shape of a feeling, or again in the form of desire and its specific purpose, whether that purpose be set up by the consciousness desiring or by an extraneous consciousness. What has still essential significance here is solely that distinction which is a thought-constituted distinction, or which, when made, is not distinguished from me. This consciousness in consequence takes a negative attitude towards the relation of lordship and bondage. Its action, in the case of the master, results in his not simply having his truth in and through the bondsman; and, in that of the bondsman, in not finding his truth in the will of his master and in service. The essence of this consciousness is to be free, on the throne as well as in fetters, throughout all the dependence that attaches to its individual existence, and to maintain that stolid lifeless unconcern which persistently withdraws from the movement of existence, from effective activity as well as from passive endurance, into the simple essentiality of thought. Stubbornness is that freedom which makes itself secure in a solid singleness, and keeps within the sphere of bondage. Stoicism, on the other hand, is the freedom which ever comes directly out of that spheres and returns back into the pure universality of thought. It is a freedom which can come on the scene as a general form of the world's spirit only in a time of universal fear and bondage, a time, too, when mental cultivation is universal, and has elevated culture to the level of thought.

>>12817795
>>12817835
Φ 200. Now while this self-consciousness finds its essential reality to be neither something other than itself, nor the pure abstraction of ego, but ego which has within it otherness-otherness in the sense of a thought-constituted distinction-so that this ego in its otherness is turned back directly into itself; yet this essential nature is, at the same time, only an abstract reality. The freedom of self-consciousness is indifferent towards natural existence, and has, therefore, let this latter go and remain free. The reflexion is thus duplicated. Freedom of thought takes only pure thought as its truth, and this lacks the concrete filling of life. It is, therefore, merely the notion of freedom, not living freedom itself; for it is, to begin with, only thinking in general that is its essence, the form as such, which has turned away from the independence of things and gone back into itself. Since, however, individuality when acting should: show itself to be alive, or when thinking should grasp the living world as a system of thought, there ought to lie in thought itself a content to supply the sphere of the ego, in the former case with what is good, and, in the latter, true, in order that there should throughout be no other ingredient in what consciousness has to deal with, except the notion which is the real essence. But here, by the way in which the notion as an abstraction cuts itself off from the multiplicity of things, the notion has no content in itself; the content is a datum, is given. Consciousness, no doubt, abolishes the content as an external, a foreign existent, by the fact that it thinks it, but the notion is a determinate notion, and this determinateness of the notion is the alien element the notion contains within it. Stoicism, therefore, got embarrassed, when, as the expression went, it was asked for the criterion of truth in general, i.e properly speaking, for a content of thought itself. To the question, what is good and true, it responded by giving again the abstract, contentless thought; the true and good are to consist in reasonableness. But this self-identity of thought is simply once more pure form, in which nothing is determinate. The general terms true and good, wisdom and virtue, with which Stoicism has to stop short, are, therefore, in a general way, doubtless elevating; but seeing that they cannot actually and in fact reach any expanse of content, they soon begin to get wearisome.

Φ 201. This thinking consciousness, in the way in which it is thus constituted, as abstract freedom, is therefore only incomplete negation of otherness. Withdrawn from existence solely into itself, it has not there fully vindicated itself as the absolute negation of this existence. It holds the coent is held indeed to be only thought, but in doing so also takes thought as a specific determinate thought, and at the same time the general character of the content.

>>12817835
>>12817838
>>12817845
Never have I seen so little stated in as many words.

>>12817658
PewDiePie

>>12817296
argument?

>>12817996
I didn't make the thread friendo

>>12817936
you're a cock-sucking brainlet piece of shit. you know that, right?

>>12818001
>friendo
fuck yourself, i'm not friends with brainlet pseuds who don't understand hegel

>>12818002
>seething so hard that you forgot who you were replying to
Hahaha. Hegel BTFO.

>>12818022
i deleted the post you fucking retard
what's it like having an IQ below 70?

People like these books today because they are "wisdom books" from "long mysterious people" who wrote, quite nicely for the audience that likes to read in tweet-length bits about how to live life to the fullest etc

Meditations, the Art of war, Book of five rings, these aren't actually useful, and people who are seeking "wisdom" and good books to read(because god-forbid you try a book don't finish it even if it's terrible) should just start reading and not bullshit themselves

>>12818034
Yet you made it. And you call me the low iq one? Hmm... Sounds like a load of projection to me. Maybe you're the pseud.

>>12818039
>practical advice isnt useful
That's a hot take

>>12818039
>popular thing bad!

>>12818052
kill yourself you mentally retarded faggot piece of shit

>>12818063

>>12818083
I never claimed you were pretending, I implied that your opinion was rooted in contrarianism.

>>12818097
I'm not that guy or OP but I did D R O P this book 8 years ago. >>12817309 is my opinion. Wash your phallus, buckus.

>>12818063
>>12818057
I was pulled into the meme and had read it, there are a ton of books that are more useful, practical and popular than this. The book would be nothing more than a self-help guide if it wasn't written thousands of years ago.

People are pulled into reading through these memes almost always because they aren't readers themselves and so they stick to everything that has a nice buzz to it, "ancient", "wisdom", "emperor", "secrets". Ever wondered why regular people might read Aurelius but not Plato? because it's not as easy.

>>12817936
t. brainlet

but yeah Hegel is difficult to read.

>>12818117
I believe you missed the point. Aurelius was born into a lifestyle not many of us can afford. His meditations were simply the logical endpoint of the thoughts that any man would pursue if he did not have to worry about where his next meal was coming from, so to speak. Free from the distractions of a lower class lifestyle he had all the time in the world to think on the important questions in life.

>>12817782
Truly a dimwit.

>>12818179
I believe you missed the point. Marcus Aurelius was the first trans man and historians hide this from us to preserve the cishetero m*le order

>>12818194
fuck yourself up the ass with a sybian you aspiring transexual. liking "stoicism" doesn't make you any less of a faggot. if you genuinely like stoicisim and aurelius, you have the intellectually capacity of a woman, and so deserve to get fucked like one by real men who know that stoicism is pseudo-intellectual faggotry

>>12818071
>seething

Your femininity is too apparent, anon.

>>12818205
>>12818199
So this... Is the power... Of schizophrenia. Woah.

>>12818205
Anon, just stop it. You're embarassing yourself in front of everyone.

>>12817641
yes

i like the book because its the mans personal diary and it lets me look into his point of view on things, kind of like The Pillow Book, i don't give a shit about the philosophy separate from the person

>>12817835
>>12817838
>>12817845
Hegel is the 19th century version of Lacan.
Gibberish.

>>12818508
>For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men.

>Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, was, according to his contemporaries, only attracted to men, and his thought had no prohibitions against same-sex sexuality.

it's not your fault that your stepbrother liked to cum on your face though, anon

>>12818514
Dunno about Zeno, but whoever wrote this was bullshiting a lot about Alexander.

>>12818534
it's from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

>>12818514
Zeno believed that women should be held in common and be treated like sex slaves so he was actually pretty based and redpilled.

>>12818557
based
wtf i like stoicism now

>>12817172
Aurelius, Marcus. Dislike him. A cheap philosopher, outdated and mundane. A prophet, a passive thinker and an inefficient writer. Some of his musings are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary philosophy seriously.
"Meditations". His worst work. Ghastly reclusive.

3 answers on this thread are actual answers. Everthing else is just gay trash pesuds

>>12818556
Whoever wrote it was bullshiting about Alexander

>>12818584
Based and laconicpilled

>>12817173
The ancients were far more profound thinkers than us plebified moderns. If anything he was a nonentity for his time, especially compared to Plato, Aristotle and even other stoics.

>>12818584
Ymous, Anon. Horrible poster. His disjointed ramblings are dishonest and hold no meaning. All style, no substance.

>>12818603
>2,000 years ago
They took life advice from Epictetus, who said people should aim to become "Godlike".

>Now
People take life advice from Wednesday Martin who says people should aim to become Bonobos.

>>12817172
I don't like how Stoicism has been monetized, for one. Two, Stoicism is never sold in the whole package - the metaphysics are typically completely ignored, and vague feel-good platitudes abound instead. Three, Meditations and the Handbook are lazy shortcuts to the doctrine, and most "practitioners" and podcast listeners will stop at those, if they even bother at all (Seneca is the only Stoic worth anything). You can expose any self-proclaimed hack Stoic by simply asking them what Reason is. Four, it's quite literally life-denying drivel; self-help crap that belongs on suburban mom Facebook pages; fatalistic garbage that has no place among living men. It is the mindset of a Eunuch, a self-neutering subhuman.

>>12818732
>Four, it's quite literally life-denying drivel; self-help crap that belongs on suburban mom Facebook pages; fatalistic garbage that has no place among living men
See my succinct summation of your post here >>12818199 followed by a hivemind post of someone pissed off guy here >>12818205

>>12818732
>Two, Stoicism is never sold in the whole package - the metaphysics are typically completely ignored
That's a tradition that existed within ancient Stoicism as well, e.g. Aristo.

>>12818732
The Stoics were manlier and happier than Nietzsche

>>12818732
>Four, it's quite literally life-denying drivel; self-help crap that belongs on suburban mom Facebook pages; fatalistic garbage that has no place among living men. It is the mindset of a Eunuch, a self-neutering subhuman.

based
as
fuck

>>12818789
Stoics love fate as a slave loves a master. Nietzsche loved it like a man loves a woman.

>>12818843
cringe

>>12818843
>implying men aren't slaves to women

>>12818843
As a stoic I'm not offended by your opinions at all, in fact would you like to fuck my wife? She has a supple derrière, you can have her as much as you'd like, since I am only affected by my own judgement and not external circumstances.

>>12818860
A stoic would not help other people arrange immoral behavior. That being said, the "cuck" insult you're going for is rather silly. Are you saying it's better to have your emotions be controlled by a woman? That your well-being is determined by something that you cannot actually control, i.e. whether a woman stays faithful to you? You are the woman's slave, basically.

>>12818843
Very cringe

>>12818856
And there is that too. Men are slaves to the women they love.

>>12818892
>Men are slaves to the women they love.
nah, they're slaves to sexual pleasure
love is a lie constructed to justify sex
only platonic love is love. sexual "love" is a business arrangement

>>12818732
>life denying

How? it teaches we should stop wasting our precious limited time on irrelevant bullshit take time to truly appreciate it while we have it, that is life affirming as hell.

>fatalist

'everybody dies, live well while you can' is not fatalism you child. EVERYBODY has a limited amount of time, that is a simple fact most people never face or deal with. Its a very positive philosophy.

>>12818913
>How? it teaches we should stop wasting our precious limited time on irrelevant bullshit take time to truly appreciate it while we have it, that is life affirming as hell.
Apparently being "alive" means that you have to be enraged about things that you can't control and let your emotions and desires lead you around on a leash.

>>12818892
saying cringe in lieu of an actual insult is itself very cringe, nigger

>>12818949
Never mind how unhappy some people become when told all their emotional reactions and actions in general are choices.

>>12818976
I think they find some comfort in thinking that their behavior is "determined"; e.g. if they experience a certain trauma then they are free to let it ruin them. Things are no longer their fault, but the fault of something external. They never had a choice. And they criticize Stoicism for being fatalist.

>>12818966
yikes

>>12817172
IMHO the book itself is less interesting than the cultural background, historical background and process that produced it.

>>12818976
>>12818993
You guys are just deluding yourselves and the fact that you're going to start going off about "trauma" and whatever as a reason why everyone on the planet isn't a stoic is proof of what insincere retards you actually are.

>>12819014
I was using trauma as an example of an excuse that some people use to believer that their emotional responses and behavior are not under their control. It's not a reason that people are not Stoics.

>>12818993
You see the same with people who claim they are 'naturally' obese, as if it was anything other than a deliberate choice to eat too much and exercise too little.

>>12819014
But its true, every time someone becomes 'offended' that was something they chose to do, thee chose t become annoyed. Nobody can force you to be angry.

>Stoics
Don't like them. Bugmen pretending to be wise greeks, so they can disregard their own culture and traditions without mercy. They usually remain atheists because they fear losing social status among their gymbros. Often used as an excuses for schizoid personality disorder.

>>12819122
Its absurd to follow a tradition if it is immoral or irrational. And the idea that stoicism promotes atheism is simply unfounded. I have no idea where the gymbro comment comes from, you can't be a stoic if you care what random bros down the gym think about your philosophical views.

>>12818732
>Four, it's quite literally life-denying drivel; self-help crap that belongs on suburban mom Facebook pages; fatalistic garbage that has no place among living men. It is the mindset of a Eunuch, a self-neutering subhuman.

retard

>>12818913
you don't need a philosophy to tell you to ignore Becky's gossip at work. stoicism goes further than that - it endorses the conscious regulation of all passions, favoring instead the ruthless rationality of an AI as an ideal. it's preposterous to human sensibilities. the idea that the average drone has no idea they have a limited amount of time on the planet is simply ridiculous as well. "everybody dies, live well" is the vaguest, most sentimental nonsense I have ever heard, more appropriate for a Ke$ha lyric than a Roman emperor.

>>12818949
trading one leash for another, fascinating.

>>12817172
While there is a note of sour grapes & noble moping to it, Aurelius having been under-endowed with a sense of humor, especially compared to Seneca, whose stoicism is more persuasive and amiable, I can't hate the old Eagle Scout for it either. If only his adoptive father Antoninus kept a diary. From scraps attributable to him, and anecdotes about him, one gets the feeling that, of the emperors, there was more to him than any of the others.

>>12819431
Then why do most people utterly waste their lives?

And the only reason they call stoicism 'fatalist' is because they are scared of everything related to death and refuse to confront or think about it.

>>12817172
It was never meant to be published. It was his 'my diary desu'
He just wrote down some thoughts for himself.

>>12819486
>It was never meant to be published.
So why do the stoic /lit/ and reddit edgelords try to force us to read this trash?

>>12819496
Because they're 20 years old

>>12819496
>stoic
>edgelords

Its easier to communicate if you use words properly.

And something not intended for publication can still have value.

>>12817172
It's literally just the guy's diary.

>>12819431
>it's preposterous to human sensibilities.
Is this supposed to be an argument?

>>12819496
>stoic edgelords
WTF
Stoics are about as non-edgy as it can get.
Stoicism is not like the philosophies of Nietzsche or Stirner.

>>12819527
Please

>>12819539
Atheistic guys are much more likely to be fans of Nietzsche or Stirner than they are of being fans of the Stoics.

>>12819539
but that does not even resemble stoicism. This is about as accurate as calling Epicureanism wild hedonism.

>>12818039
keep shitting on other books you fucking gatekeeping piece of shit. To be that negative you must be a seriously depressed loser. do the world a favour and kys reddit cunt

>>12819588
>OI CUNT NECK URSELF U UTTER, UTTER MONG. YOU ABSOLUTE TWAT! YOU POOFTA, COONT!!!!!!!!!!

>>12817653
I’ve been a stoic for the past 3 years. The most important aspect of it is believing that everything happens for a reason. I’ve made mistakes by focusing entirely on maintaining a state of emotional contentment, which made it so that I ended up alienating people who saw me as being “cold” even though I’ve been described as extremely kind and motivating. You’re still meant to embrace and express your emotions, but see everything as having an instrumental purpose so that you’re content with whatever life throws at you. You want to focus on making the most of everything you’re faced with

>>12819539
Stoics believe in God and objective moral good from virtue. They want to live in harmony with nature

>>12819908
I'd rather become cold but that's just me. Maybe I'm a sociopath.

>>12819496
Because it's the writing of a stoic Roman emperor who did pretty well with what he got.

>>12819486
Finally, a man of culture.

>>12817172
>The language and analogies are outdated

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>12819908
>I’ve been a stoic for the past 3 years

>>12820207
You know what he means you faggot.

>>12817399
Fuck I saw that coming

>>12819574
Kek. Accurate, but not so academic: Lately I've been thinking about what makes the meme, as a form, so congenial to slander, but I'm not getting anywhere with it, since brightly as the fires of hatred burn within me, they instantly subside with distance from the object. The only thing to do about it is stew on these boards, immerse myself in their air of saturated hostility, self-experiment to the threshold of schizo self-loathing, and suffer the hideous fate of love's amputees. Barring that, I can go on casually adding these bugs to my collection, a jewel-scarab here, a REKT moth there--food to quiet my despicable side. That's Epicurean too, though for the same reason even the more boisterous among them can't meme, since too much of a bad thing is just as hard on the stomach.

>>12820224
lmao who the fuck claims to be "a stoic" like it's some sort of religion. that guy is autistic af

>>12817173
There are tons of people that live a life of unquestioning indulgence of their passions, and in fact believe it to be evil to not be allowed to do so. There is nothing obvious about stoicism to the average modern man.

>>12817172
seems pretty based and redpilled for basically his diary

>>12820338
>lmao who the fuck claims to be "a stoic" like it's some sort of religion

The Stoics did

>>12820328
yikes

>>12817173
It's still not obvious for most people today

>>12819496
Because stoics and redditors are retards. Stoicism turns most people into apatethic cucks. It is only suited for powerful intelligent people, like the emperor Aurelius, and even then there's great potential lost.

>>12820471
What would you consider to be "the good" that the Stoics are losing out? What are the alternatives to Stoicism? Consumerism and hedonism?

>>12820501
Stoics are not missing out on goodness. They are missing out on greatness. If you think stoicism, consumerism and hedonism are the only paths you can take you should maybe read more books.

>>12820515
And what would be greatness?

>If you think stoicism, consumerism and hedonism are the only paths you can take you should maybe read more books.
In practice, Stoicism is not that different from what Socrates, the Buddhists or the Christians would preach.

>>12820528
Greatness is reaching the highest peaks of human potential. Experiencing every passion and pain and overcoming the greatest obstacles to create something new. Stoicism might make you happy and give you an emotionally stable existence. But I do not believe it can spark a great soul aflame.

>>12817183
/thread

>>12820572
>Greatness is reaching the highest peaks of human potential.
OK

>Experiencing every passion and pain and overcoming the greatest obstacles to create something new.
I disagree that this is greatness. Passion and pain (by pain, I believe neither of us are talking about physical pain) are weaknesses. I see a Socrates as a much greater human being than someone consumed by his passions.

>>12820596
Passions are not something to be afraid of. If you need to control your passions, then there is something wrong with your instincts and you are sick. Good instincts will always beat rational thinking, because instincts are faster and intuitive. Socrates controlled his poor passions with his Reason. But someone with good passions will be superior to Socrates, as he need not burden himself with useless reasoning. Socrates had to run away from his sick passions. He admitted this himself, saying he had learned to master his vices when some guy -who could tell people's personalities by looking at their faces- told him he looks like the kind of dude who touches little boys. I see someone consumed by good passions as an almost God-like being.

>>12820641
What do you mean by passions?
By passions, I meant "emotions caused by faulty judgement".

>>12820673
That is incredibly gay, biased and retarded anon.
>passion
>/ˈpaʃ(ə)n/
>noun
>strong and barely controllable emotion.
Pretty sure this is a very good definition. Passions are not controlled by any kind of judgement. They are instinctual and cannot be controlled.

>>12820706
Ps. Or yeah: they can be controlled, but they can't be changed. They'll always be there under the mask of Reason.

>>12820706
I think that this is how the ancients defined passion.

>Passions are not controlled by any kind of judgement.
Let's think of a passion. Suppose someone called you a coward. If you judge that being insulted is a bad thing, you will get angry. If you consider that the other guy is ignorant of your bravery and that you lost nothing by him calling you a coward, you won't get angry.

>>12820409
ok, fair enough
if that's what you believe in, if that's your value system, good for you

>>12820572
The Nietzschean ubermensch is actually the archetypal definition of evil. stoicism, christianity etc is the opposite

>>12820746
What do you even gain by being a Nietzschean Overman over being for example an Epicurean sage?

>>12820731
The ancients were just as biased.

I will get angry only in the latter case because of his ignorance. I hate ignorance. And disorder: he being an inferior speaking out of turn to a superior. If I really was a coward and got called out for it I wouldn'y get angry because he was right. I might take it as a challenge and try to prove him otherwise and it would be very rewarding if I could do that.

>>12820746
>The Nietzschean ubermensch is actually the slave moralist definition of evil
ftfy, read genealogy of morals

>>12820784
>>12820756

>>12820775
If someone can change your mood that easily, he is your master, your superior. And you gain absolutely nothing by getting angry with an ignorant person.

>>12820826
if you have to ask, you'll never know.

>>12820827
Yeah totally: just let Jamal fuck your wife while you play on Nintendo. After all, getting mad and throwing Jamal and his BBC out would just make him your superior.
>you gain absolutely nothing by getting angry with an ignorant person
If I murder that ignorant person I gain one less ignorant retard on this planet. This idea that you can't gain anything by following destrutive passions clearly stems form powerlessness. You can gain a lot, it might be difficult though.
This is why I fucking despise stoicism. These are the kind of people it appeals to.

>>12820850
A Stoic would divorce an unfaithful wife, but without being angry about it.

Your second part of the post was... Cringey.
And I'm quite sure the likes of Marcus Aurelius had much more power than you do.

>>12820882
>umm achtually a stoic would
Sure they would. Totally wouldn't be absolutely seething about it and unable to do anything because "muh virtue"
>Aurelius had much more power than you
Yes, as I said in my first post I think Stoicism can be suitable for intelligent powerful people, because it can make them 'good and just' leaders, if that's what they want to be and value the most.

>>12820850
jesus all memes aside what the fuck is wrong with you people that project your fantasies with black dudes and their penis'

>>12820914
All the memes aside, BBC is the ethos of our age.

>>12817172
I made the mistake of reading a version translated by a real Victorian British Lord type and the language was so unnecessarily convoluted and intricate. He tried to preserve every feature of latin grammar and nuance of every word as much as possible and it lead to like 200 word sentences that went to the fucking moon and back. The register was really stilted, like an engine stopping and starting. Still got through it and thought it was good but it made it more of a chore than it had to be. This is it:


http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html

Some bits are fine, but in the denser parts of the later chapters the writing style really drags it down. Maybe you're reading a similar one and that's why the language feels outdated.

Inefficient and unnecessarily long is true of any version of the text though. It's not a cohesive work but a bunch of essays on very similar themes so its very repetitive.

>>12821062
"A branch cut off from the adjacent branch must of necessity be cut off from the whole tree also. So too a man when he is separated from another man has fallen off from the whole social community. Now as to a branch, another cuts it off, but a man by his own act separates himself from his neighbour when he hates him and turns away from him, and he does not know that he has at the same time cut himself off from the whole social system. Yet he has this privilege certainly from Zeus who framed society, for it is in our power to grow again to that which is near to us, and be to come a part which helps to make up the whole. However, if it often happens, this kind of separation, it makes it difficult for that which detaches itself to be brought to unity and to be restored to its former condition. Finally, the branch, which from the first grew together with the tree, and has continued to have one life with it, is not like that which after being cut off is then ingrafted, for this is something like what the gardeners mean when they say that it grows with the rest of the tree, but that it has not the same mind with it.

As those who try to stand in thy way when thou art proceeding according to right reason, will not be able to turn thee aside from thy proper action, so neither let them drive thee from thy benevolent feelings towards them, but be on thy guard equally in both matters, not only in the matter of steady judgement and action, but also in the matter of gentleness towards those who try to hinder or otherwise trouble thee. For this also is a weakness, to be vexed at them, as well as to be diverted from thy course of action and to give way through fear; for both are equally deserters from their post, the man who does it through fear, and the man who is alienated from him who is by nature a kinsman and a friend. "

Picked at random.

>>12821062
>He tried to preserve every feature of latin grammar
It was written in Greek

>>12821099
See I did know Romans generally preferred to write philosophy and art in Greek. I guess because I knew he wrote it just for himself and often while on campaign I assumed he'd write it in his native language like Caesar's commentaries.

>>12820843
If you can’t answer then you’re just a pseud

>>12820908
Why would you be seething about a woman who doesn’t care about you? The stoic option is to ditch her and find someone to lead a virtuous, trad relationship with

>>12821139
>tfw he's mad he'll never know
>tfw everyone who asks questions is a pseud
never gonna transvaluate

>>12820908
Why would a stoic be bound to stay with an unfaithful wife? How is it virtuous to stay in that relationship? Of course a stoic would still leave her, but he won't be controlled by her by allowing her to make him angry. What would you do if your wife was unfaithful to you? What do you gain from anger?

>>12817172
Worth a read, but it's strange how popular it is.

>>12817172
It's called meditations not Thrills'n'Spills you fucking retard. Writing down a book of common sense is a fucking incredibly good idea, that's why it's part of the canon.

>>12821142
>>12821891
Because stoics are cucks, as this thread has clearly illustrated.

>>12822071
Nothing in this thread has done anything to show that stoics are cucks. Just saying "you're a cuck" is not an argument

>>12822126
Oh how dare I use suboptimal arguments against these dazzling intellectuals just screaming cringe when they understand how retarded their premises are

it's quite repetitive

>>12817196
i guess that book that is his "essentials" or maybe "selected" since >>12822779
If I were to buy his stuff it would be an abridgment

>>12817317
this

"Oh you noble stoics!"

>>12817173
The single most pretentious and destructive idea in all of human thought

Brainlet here, should a stoic even marry? By definition being in a marriage(or any kind of relationship) would only be a distraction, that's probably why some are saying stoics are cucks, but wouldn't it be a better definition to call them celibate? I would like if someone more knowledgeable could explain

>>12823845
The one calling Stoics cucks is an ignorant edgelord.

A Stoic would marry, but not because he believes it will lead to happiness, but because having a family is virtuous.

>>12823845
Epictetus said a true stoic should only marry a true stoic, he named an example I think.
As most women were not suitable philosophers, he didn't recommend it for most people