Bertrand Russell found them contradictory and inconsistent...

>Bertrand Russell found them contradictory and inconsistent, evidence of a "tired age" where "even real goods lose their savour". Using Marcus as an example of greater Stoic philosophy, he found their ethical philosophy to contain an element of "sour grapes". "We can't be happy, but we can be good; let us therefore pretend that, so long as we are good, it doesn't matter being unhappy".[7]

>German philosopher Georg Hegel offers a critique of Stoicism that follows similar lines, albeit covering different trajectories. In his Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel attacks the preoccupation with the inner self as a severing, fatalistic barrier to consciousness. A philosophy that reduces all states of harm or injustice to emotional states "could only appear on the scene in a time of universal fear and bondage." The Stoic refusal to meet the world is anathema to Life, a central value in Hegel's philosophical work: "whether on the throne or in chains, in the utter dependence of its individual existence, its aim is to be free, and to maintain that lifeless indifference which steadfastly withdraws from the bustle of existence..."

>M.L. Clarke concurs in his historical work on philosophical ideas, The Roman Mind, where he states "[p]olitical liberty could hardly flourish after so many years of despotism and the indifference to public affairs which it bred. And philosophy fostered the same spirit."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations#Reception

Russell is probably THE most overrated philosopher I've ever read.
How did he become famous anyway?

Every time Bertrand is mention on this board it always causes butthurt

This is a repost of a Veeky Forums thread

Russell sure loved ad hominem. Now let's look at his personal life:

>Parallel to their intense intellectual life, Dora and Bertrand wanted to establish, in practice, a new kind of marriage where instead of fidelity there would be loyalty, where there would be no reason for jealousy, and in which they could talk openly about the sexual adventures each of them had. The gamble was risky, but they took it, and Dora pushed it to its ultimate consequences. Dora, much younger (and sexually more spirited than her husband), put her theoretical convictions into practice and took a young lover, an attractive American journalist, war correspondent, and adventurer named Griffin Barry, who was also open-minded. She was not in love with him, as she was with Bertie, but they went on trips and spent some pleasant times together.

>While Russell was on a speaking tour of the United States (where they ultimately cancelled his contracts because of his “immoral” opinions about sex and matrimony), Dora became pregnant by Barry. When she realized it, she wrote to her husband, telling him the news without much enthusiasm. Since she was a defender of the right to abortion, she asked him if he would prefer her to terminate the pregnancy. The philosopher answered by telegram, saying not to do anything, that they could raise the new little one between the three of them. He recognized, as well, that since he hadn’t been doing “his part,” it was good that another man was doing so, since Dora wanted to have more children. When Griffin Barry found out he was going to be a father, he ran away to Paris like any old seducer, and only returned months later to meet Russell face to face.

>And so Harriet was born, Dora’s third child (after John, the first-born, and Kate, my hostess on this visit). Russell plucked up his courage and initially even recognized the baby girl officially as his own, granting her his famous surname of lords and earls. But at the same time he was growing very close, physically and emotionally, to the children’s governess, Patricia (known as Peter) Spence. While Bertie and Dora carried on their travels and untiring intellectual activity, the marriage now had two phantoms at its side. Perhaps what Bertrand could not abide was his wife’s second pregnancy by the same man. In fact, Dora actually wanted another child with Bertrand, but as he was no longer fulfilling his conjugal duties with her, she became pregnant again by her friend the American journalist. And so Roderick was born. Bertrand, then, felt more comfortable with his new love, Peter, and distanced himself from his wife, perhaps no longer able to maintain in practice his theoretical ideals of sexual freedom within matrimony. This was fine up to a certain point, but it was not possible to overlook the issue of paternity.

I've more or less resigned that every male of note liked to screw around and has shady things in their backstories. As such, I ignore them and focus only on their ideas.

You spelled brainlet wrong...

I love the commentaries of both Russel and Hegel for entirely different reasons

He has some good points, but of course a board like Veeky Forums will dismiss him out of hand because stoicism is their darling philosophy.

Pretty much every autist loves stoicism because it validates their anti-social tendencies and general lack of visible emotion.

>their anti-social tendencies

Stoics are huge on civic duty though. Pretty much all the notable ones from Rome had jobs in government or teaching.

You can think of stoicism as a tool to let you survive and not succumb to your own irrational fears, so that you can then be "free" to pursue your own life.

>thinking most of Veeky Forums doesn’t cherry-pick philosophies
Heh, sorry kid.

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about stoicism on Veeky Forums that wasn't just a bunch of anons mocking it, it's hardly Veeky Forums's "darling." People just hate Russell as well.

The guy didnt like to screw around he was an unironic cuck. Former is forgiveable the latter not.

This

Its just that atheists cant grasp asceticism. Asceticism only makes sense within a context of belief in the eternal in which case asceticism is life-giving. For atheists on the contrary any ascetic tendency is considered as life-denying and/or stemming from some inherent weakness or delusion.

what is the opposite of being stoic? an irrational confused emotional wreck?

the world is composed of pleasure points: like mincraft bricks, the world is made of particles of pleasure: some combine themselves into an apple, some into a rowboat, some into a pet dog, some into a movie, +50 pleasure points, +23 pleasure points, +55 pleasure points, some into fashionable clothing, +39 pleasure points, some into a blowjob +69 pleasure points, and so on. That is all the world is and can be; the game is to get as much pleasure points as possible before you die.

But life also is filled with hardships. how do you deal with those? And what about the hedonistic treadmill? I look at the rich, and some are happy, some are average, but many are miserable.

Stoicism is just not a very comprehensive philosophy. It's an incredibly robust form of introspection, but other than that it's basically just the values of the time. It's definitely not the greatest of the virtue ethics systems.

I should hope that Veeky Forums users are a bit more intelligent than your average /r/stoicism user whose mind is blow by the fact that introspection is a thing that exists, which they only learned from reading Marcus' Meditations.

>Stoicism is just not a very comprehensive philosophy.

>but other than that it's basically just the values of the time.

Is that a bad thing?

Not at all, but it's the reason why the people OP quoted aren't very impressed with it.

>/r/
Are there any other philosophies that can actually improve ones live?

Are there any other philosophies that are not a total waste of time for a normal person?

His mathematical works are much better than his philosophical ones.

Ironic since stoicism is more accessable and useful than anything those people wrote. Academic philosophy is fine, but often too far removed from every day issues.

Academic philosophy is a waste of time for everyone involved

In what ways was Bertrand Russel not stoic?

How can an introvert live a good, stoic life?

Speaking of Meditations, what translation is the best? Casaubon?

I just wanna hear about a single open relationship that didnt end in stupid shit like that. Fucking cucks.

Greg Hays in 2003 is the latest edition. Probably the most modern. Some older ones have "dost thou" and other ancient shit.

>But life also is filled with hardships. how do you deal with those?
how do you not deal with them?

Well, I enjoy that, since it's closer to my native language.