My feeing when I'm surrounded by people who criticize hedonism and degeneracy and they are not realizing that they are being duped by ideologies that are demanding them to suffer for someone else's gain.
Stoicism is the ultimate slave morality: demanding obedience and silence.
>another episode of user doesn't understand stoicism
Here are the two different mentalities and their reasoning:
Altruistic: I can find happiness in the beauty of life without hurting others, making for a better world. My life is not as important as everyone else, because I realize that we are all one mind living life, and thus, I am you, so if you are happy, I am happy. The conscious is simply one being, and I can only see out of my own eyes now, but in reality I am seeing of everyone's eyes. Strengthening humans, and taking control of society, is the only way to make a better society, as it is the only way that has worked throughout history.
Egocentric: I can only see of my own eyes and when I die, I do not live again, I must speak for myself and doing so I will speak for others like me, and against others not like me. I know only two things, bad and good, and I want good, and I do not want bad, every action I make is as simple as this, and I focus on creating the most good for myself, as others, and the future do not matter in the grand scheme. Morality is created by the sufferer so that he might live a better life at the expense of others. Morality is saying "It is good to give your money to those who don't have it" but who says this? Only those without money, and those who are wealthy are fooled by society into believing this, and giving their money to the poor, but in reality, how does the poor man speak now, does he give away his own money to another poor man? No, he keeps it for himself. Morality was crafted by everyone fighting for themselves, and thus it gives the idea that all people are equal and everyone deserves to be happy, but in reality, you are considered a better person if you suffer, so that the men who invented morality can be happy in your place.
Except it's Hegel's interpretation. But yeah I'm using it as a shorthand.
This is a false dichotomy that comes from a very restrictive view of morality where pleasure is seen as egoistical and sacrifice as positive.
When sacrifice, renouncing pleasure, not only hurts yourself but others, and when your pursue of pleasure does augment the happiness of others, then the egoist is the stoic and the altruist is the hedonist.
The hedonist might argue for the pursue of happiness for everyone exactly because he doesn't see a moral action on the part of the stoic but just as a way of action dictated by resentment.
The stoic today is the one who, because he is impotent, or because of their insecurities, can't achieve pleasure and is dedicated to deny pleasure to everyone else.
Let's not fool ourselves on the psychological basis of this hate of degeneracy and hedonism.
Up
>criticize hedonism and degeneracy
>stoicism
I think Gabriele d‘Annunzio was a little bit to focused on the outward appearance. Of course not everybody can be a hero the mediocre is, what makes the genius as a category of its own possible. The other point is the meaning hedonism and degeneracy is a wide field. What’s expected or expected is individual to some extend. So, if we are talking about a lack a of moral or decency and we take as a sign of decayy what‘s currently celebrated and presented as the norm or ideal in the press, we shouldn’t forget that what’s truly happening in the bedrooms is another story. I think it isn’t wrong to take pleasure in some things or to do things, because you like them, however you shouldn’t forget the need for hard work and some stoic sentiments. It isn’t wrong that even, if we think that we need to inact great changes in this world we need to take some things as they are for the time being. Taking only the always next available pleasure is also not something I would advise anybody some great pleasures are only for those, who managed to take great risks and suffered immense pain, think of mountain climbing for example. The rush of reaching a summit on a route never done before is insane, but the path between life and death was often narrow. I think the type of hedonism and degenerancy implied in the criticism is mostly the one, which is trying to make the mediocre and even worse the bad example the ideal and gives everybody an excuse; nothing else than a trophy for participation.
*expected or excepted
Read Either/Or.
I did but either or is an incomplete view as all works of Kierkegaard written undr pseudonym. The ethical view is as limited and miserable as the aesthetic. The omitted third the religious way is literally breaking into deleuzian schizophrenic thinking w the loneliness and institutionalization that follows.
In the end the solution by Kierkegaard is to be like a lily in the field, and consign yourself to the care of the other, and certainly critical of these neo-traditionalists returns to family, nation, duty.
>mfw I read stoicism books in coffee shops or on the train during the day usually on the way or in-between multiple nights getting high and going to sexclubs
The very idea of morality consists necessarily in an appeal to something higher than the individual, whether that thing be God or society or whatever. Once cannot "create their own morality", because morality presupposes the possibility of wrongdoing, and it becomes impossible to do moral wrong when you set your own moral standards.
All morality is 'slave morality' (a stupid fucking phrase) or else there is no morality.
There's just something about Stoicism and anti-natalism in particular that people on this site grossly misunderstand
bump
Tell me what I don't understand about anti-natalism.
When you're talking about "something higher than the individual," it doesn't need to be something external to that person - it could simply be a set of personal, self-imposed standards that someone strives for - but doesn't necessarily always meet.
You argue that "the possibility of wrongdoing" becomes impossible if you're setting your own standards, but that is only the case if you change your standards to fit whatever outward action you take. It's up to the individual uphold the standards that they established for themselves.
>inb4 some semantics based argument about the strict meaning of the words themselves that skirts the question of whether or not it's possible to create and abide by a personal moral code
OP's entire outlook perfectly illustrates how atomization and anomie manifest in individuals. There's an entire generation that thinks like OP whether they acknowledge it or not. Congrats on being a living symptom of the decline of our civilization, idiot.
>This is a false dichotomy that comes from a very restrictive view of morality where pleasure is seen as egoistical and sacrifice as positive.
and you literally flip this false dichotomy by saying degeneracy is good for you and for others. just admit you're a selfish degenerate who doesn't value virtues or morals. also, nice reddit spacing.
It's ironic that these self-styled anti-degenerates praising virtues and morals are so common on Veeky Forums, the most degenerate and amoral site on the internet.
>the most degenerate and amoral site on the internet
>except for the anti-degenerates i just mentioned
This. Egoists are just playing into liberalism and capitalism's drive to replace everything in the public sphere with private vices.
They are the equivalent of shoggoths.
Since this is a stoic thread, I have a question
I just bought Meditations and Letters from a Stoic, which should I read first?
The same reasons Wittgenstein gave to show us the impossibility of a private language are the same reasons that lead me to believe a private moral code is also an impossibility. From PI 258:
"A definition surely serves to establish the meaning of a sign. —Well, that is done precisely by the concentrating of my attention; for in this way I impress on myself the connexion between the sign and the sensation.—But "I impress it on myself" can only mean: this process brings it about that I remember the connexion right in the future. But in the present case, I have no criterion for correctness. One would like to say: whatever is going to seem right to me is right. And that only means that here we can't talk about 'right'."