What is the only one true philosophy?

What is the only one true philosophy?
Which one book will give me the answers to every question I will ever have and I should base my entire life and worldview upon?

No theism

Try to answer the questions yourself.

Which one book will teach me how to answer the questions myself?

Hegel.

Stoicism
Just live a simple life, worry about the things you can control and be good.

Didn't they get btfo in pretty much every regard?
I said true philosophy not nice. How much are their claims still upholdable?
Didn't evolutionary psychology respective Nietzsche refute any concept of 'good'?
I'm asking not objecting. If you think it still stands I'm happy to hear your arguments.

>No theism
I'm an atheist myself but this isn't how you'll find the truth.

Wittgenstein

It's to avoid christlarpers posting things they don't even themselves belief

>I'm an atheist but without theism you won't find the truth
wat

>truth
you don't actually believe in this nonsense do you?

There's always the possibility of a religion being true, you shouldn't reject all of them outright. It's a bad method.

As improper of this argument is, Nietzsche was a unstable, unhappy and unsuccessful (in his lifetime). Whereas Aurelius (my favourite stoic) was a successful Emperor.

I find it a practical philosophy in terms of founding a internal space where I can be calm and retreat into in times of stress. It helps when dealing with twats, and find motivation to do well.

In terms of the validity of good, I tend to think of it practically; not harming anyone else, doing whatever I do as best I can, being kind etc

Their ideas about physics are kind of retarded, but their insights into psychology, epistemology, and the practice of introspection are fantastic.

We have a 300 post limit...

I agree somewhat but the problem is without the underlying... foundational beliefs the WHY gets lost. You were meant to be stoic because of these foundational beliefs. Nowadays when people say stoic they seemingly just mean steadfast or disciplined. Regardless of the philosophy.

The popular interpretation (as usual) is rather reductive and simplified.

Stoicism teaches that your actions should be beneficial to the 'whole' or the 'city' or in my interpretation the collective (ie humanity). To dig deeper the 'why' the stoics believe in some sort of universal order and a sense of destiny. We all have our lots and must accept ours. As to their reasoning to this ordering or the universe they look at nature and how everything has its role and it's own lot in life

I'm phone posting so apologies for the disjointed nature of my replies.

>or in my interpretation the collective (ie humanity)
In other words you're just a globalist.

>the 'why' the stoics believe in some sort of universal order and a sense of destiny. We all have our lots and must accept ours
Yeah exactly. Since this seemingly is noneexistant why stay stoic?

And if I say stoic I don't mean just be tough when facing problems. Why stoic calmness is preferable to euphoria or life affirmation in the Nietzschean sensefor example and why is much rather the question.

Not necessarily, and learning from ancient Roman dictators hardly leads one down that path does it? You're reaching.

>order in the universe and destiny do not exist

aren't stoics deterministic? if so how can one be virtuous, if that way of behaving is a mere effect of how you were brought up/ your surroundings?

what I also don't really like about stoics is seeing virtue as an end rather than a means. I think it will give people an egotistic attitude.

This unironically.

How is the order or nature disputable though?
Flowers make pollen, this is their lot.
Bees collect pollen and make honey, this is their lot.
Man is more complicated but the process is the same, one man's lot is to farm the land, another to rule it. But each is their own and you need to recognise yours and accept it's part of the nature of the universe.

No man errs knowingly.
You can be taught to behave poorly or well, some will be part of your nature and thus impossible to change.
It's your duty to educate others of their errors instead of cursing them for their flaws.

>Man is more complicated but the process is the same, one man's lot is to farm the land, another to rule it
It's really not. One man can say fuck the farm and another can get replaced by a different ruler. You willfully ignore the reality of human life to make your argument.
This is exactly why the 'why' matters. Without it all you do is cave in to circumstances not fate. And it is as far from stoic steadfastness as it gets imo.

Nihilism
life has no inherent meaning

Of course you can move beyond your circumstances, I did not mean to be literal. We all have limitations and strengths, some of these we can lose, some we are stuck with.

Say you lose a child in childbirth and nobody did anything to cause it, how can you explain that other than that was the way it was always going to happen?

not meming when i say i truly believe that the intellectual growth for a modern young adult begins here.

>implying stoicism made Aurelius emperor
He might as well be saying jus b urself.

>how can you explain that other than that was the way it was always going to happen?
I'm deterministic and I fully agree people should embrace that beyond our limitations. But that's not stoicism.
The universe for all we know has no goal no... plan. You don't have a role to play.
You seem to reduce stoic philosophy to stoic attitude and that only in bad circumstances. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Did it effect his actions as emperor?

You seem to be more pragmatic than stoic and only using the word stoic for a lack of contemplation on the whole

Stoicism is easier to explain in terms of dealing with hardship it's true. It is also about keeping level minded in terms of extreme circumstances, imagine you have won 250 million in the lottery. Would you allow this to change your immediate attitude? Or would you keep your steadiness of mind? Your perspective of the bigger picture? The knowledge of whatever you do, however much you have that you will die. The same death millions have died before you regardless of their wealth, their character or anything else.

nah

It ensured that he was up to the task for one thing, and it also clearly influenced his judgements when presiding over trials.

>Would you allow this to change your immediate attitude?
Depending on what you mean by this probably. As would you. The issue is that if the why is not true you have no reason to follow the stoic behaviour except that you deem it practical. And thus if what is practical changes for you your behaviour changes. You assert things to stoicism that are not exclusive to stoicism and I assume if a Nietzschean would tell you he embraces hardship in the same sense you wouldn't know how to respond

this
this not bad as well.

Behaviour will change with circumstance but the motivation and logic shouldn't unless new knowledge becomes available suggesting so.

Philosophy doesn't exist in a vacuum so it is likely certain aspects are present in many schools of thought.

An embrace of hardship isn't required in stoicism, rather than all eventualities must be expected (as practical), and responded to without surprise. This is to say that if you were gambling on a roulette board you must expect to win and to lose and not be caught by surprise if the worst happens (and conversely if the best happens). It is not the embrace of hardship but the acceptance of it, since every person in life will experience hardship but will hardly expect it when it happens. The stoic recognises that they will at some point experience hardship but also recognises that anything is endurable, and if it is not endurable it won't matter because you will be dead.

Stoics further assert that men are superior to their primitive desires (lust for example) and that man should recognise these desires as base and not place anymore value on them than is necessary (and thus avoid becoming slave to them).

Drawing from the aversion to hedonism stoics interrogate the motivations that drive each of their actions and will act (or not act accordingly).

I'm feeling as if I am poorly putting this across. I'd highly recommend Meditations even if you end up disagreeing entirely. It's short and interesting and I found the Penguin classics edition useful.

Fucking postmodernism.

...

...

U want it easy uh?
Well, I'll answer the question.
Montaigne Essays.

Wavefunction realism

Related questions: why do americans (and the internet in general) always mention Aurelius but nobody seems to read Seneca?

Seneca was a hypocrite thus less desirable

Good post.

I'm not kidding when I say this book.

This, but unironically.

O thanks

u gonna esplain dat or wat

...

you are all like little children. step aside and make way for The One.

this time with picture

Where can I get this? Can buy as ebook or download