Stoicism is the ultimate edgy athiest numale pseud philosophy. It doesn't matter whether you read Aurelius...

What are the opposite meanings? I only know the one that means "thinking" and it applies in this case.

the act of meditating in the eastern religion sense. clearing your mind. anti-thought.

hmm yes curious indeed *smokes pipe*

How can it be "so deep" platitudes when it was never meant for anyone but Marcus? He was puzzling out the conflicts that his position placed him in and trying to remain stoic at the same time.

OP post your physical body I want to see how skinny/fat and how much you don't respect yourself :)

So it's literally called my diary desu

kind of a dick move by the guy who made that get published

it should be illegal to do that without the author's explicit written consent

You're free to ask Marcus.

Well, in a way it's an act of thinking.Contemplating nothingness etc.

Not really, with mindfulness meditation you're passively observing your mind and sensations while stabilizing your attention on the meditation object. You're definitely not contemplating shit but ideas still pop up some of which can be helpful insights. There are a lot of different meditation practices though maybe some of them include active contemplation IDK.

>wanting earnestly to improve your life and become happy with your lot is a bad thing
>realising your own ineptitudes is a bad thing
Think the real edge is you user. What's wrong with wanting to help yourself?

Stoicism is literally about conforming your will to an external and superlative law (i.e. the logos), by definition it cannot be atheist.

allergic reaction to stoicism is the ultimate mark of an edgy atheist numale pseud

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meditate
>to engage in contemplation or reflection

Marcus Aurelius would've been happier painting happy little trees

>Stoicism
>Aurelius

Veeky Forums cringe thread it is. Bring it on. All we need is some Stirner in here.

Of course it can. Know your Feuerback before mouthing off.

>stoicism, a philosophy that posits that human reasoning is proof of the existence of the divine, that it is unwise to proselytize to others, that one should not concern oneself with things outside of one's power (e.g., politics), is an edgy atheist numale philosophy

Maybe you should actually read the stoic philosophers before mouthing off your silly opinions, kid.

That's actually pretty interesting, haven't read him so I skimmed the wikipedia article. Seems to apply well to stoicism considering the belief that all people partake in the logos as a sort of divine element, so in this way it isn't quite the same as a "traditional" god. Even saying this Aurelius is at least ambivalent towards the divine compared to the pretty zealous Epictetus. I was wandering what you might make of the psychological problems associated with views of humans as essentially "rational", with "passions" as such being universally problematic as regards morality. I can imagine this being reroute via the stoic description of humans as both social and rational animals (again slightly more Aurelius than Epictetus) into some kind of Humean sentimentalist attitude.

as an addition I forgot to add that such a sentimentalist attitude would necessarily involve rationality as constraining its sentimentalism as regards its (externally regarding) morality. For self regarding morals I don't feel like this should be necessary because these can be constrained by reason according to habits in an aristotelian way, but maybe I'm just retarded.

I want to read Lucius Varus' diary. Probably much more exciting.

>Stoicism is literally about conforming your will to an external and superlative law (i.e. the logos), by definition it cannot be atheist.

>that one should not concern oneself with things outside of one's power (e.g., politics),

Stoicism doesn't quite posit that. Stoicism would say that if you can influence politics, then by all means go for it, but at the same time, not to worry about politics needlessly if you're just a citizen since you have so little influence on it. Many stoics were aristocrats and politicians mind you. Marcus Aurelius was Emperoer as well.

I literally bought the book this week, did I do good?
I wanted a physical copy instead of a pirated ebook.

>stoicism is the ultimate buzzwords buzzwords buzzwords

Read the Moral Discourses of Epictetus immediately after

The only thing to note is that this is his personal diary working through stoic ideas. It doesn't actually explain stoic ideas though. So he'll throw terms and concepts at you that he is fully aware of, but the reader might not know, or know WHY they are.

For instance you can break apart this quote: to see a series of stoic concepts.

This is ridiculous, I actually read a book of his on stoicism also. "Ordered according to rational principles" is in no way the same as being quintessentially rational. The literal defining feature of the stoic logos is that it is rational in itself, we cannot say the same thing about the cosmos according to "Einstein's god"

>I actually read a book of his on stoicism also.

Was it any good?

It was actually ok to the extent that it elaborated on some of the meta-ethical components of stoicism. It doesn't say that much that you couldn't get from reading the stoics but it's not the level of garbage you might expect from a book on new hot trendy ethical frameworks

>on new hot trendy ethical frameworks

Really? Stoicism is ancient. The main critique is that it's totally irrelevant and inapplicable to today's world since the world is so much different.

That's a really stupid critique. External circumstances are irrelevant to the application of stoicism, that's the entire point of it.

>letting some douche on Veeky Forums shame you into throwing away a seminal work you purchased

shiggory diggory doo

Also people have not changed that much. The Lawyer, baker, politician, teacher, from 55 BC and 2017 really don't live lives that are fundamentally that different.

I feel like that's a pretty strange criticism, virtue theory as seen in Plato and Aristotle continues to be very relevant to modern ethics despite being ancient. Any ethical theory that doesn't take account of cultural changes is useless so a modern stoicism in this context is far from irrelevant. That being said it's still "hot and trendy" from those who would paraphrase it, we see the same cheapening of stoicism in modern lit as we do with buddhism as regards "mindfulness" and so on

this view is fundamentally incorrect because it doesn't take into account the shift of evaluative predicates that occurs across cultures both temporally and geographically. Specifically the greek use of justice or dikaiosune is for the most part tied to their unchanging social roles and the fulfillment of those roles, in no way is this the same as justice as we may imagine it.

>muh values

The day to day challenges people face are universal. Cultural values are much more superficial than we think. And Stoicism is more of a framework anyways, so it can work in multiple cultural contexts.

How did he jive that hippy drivel with being the Emperor of Rome? You know, that military expansionist, genocidal, slave state, that punishes most crimes with death?

Just imagine as Marcus wrote that, German children would be marched past his tent, destined to be slaves for life in Rome. The teen girls going straight into the brothels.

You espouse that to rule rome you must be ultimately egoistic or even self-described evil?

What emperor has duty before slaves or slave people, for he owes nothing to property, only to citizens.

Marcus seems to be espousing universalism and brotherhood, while being the head of a murderous empire. Not that the German tribes were any better. The ancient world was pretty cut throat. Just that Marcus' rhetoric doesn't jive with the realities.

It doesn't 'jive' because you don't understand what it is that he believes. Slavery, war and genocide are neither good nor evil in the Stoic view, but indifferent. Here's what Epictetus has to say:

"The Iliad is nothing else than appearance and the use of appearances. It appeared to Paris to carry off the wife of Menelaus: it appeared to Helen to follow him. If then it had appeared to Menelaus to feel that it was a gain to be deprived of such a wife, what would have happened? Not only would the Iliad have been lost, but the Odyssey also. “On so small a matter then did such great things depend?” But what do you mean by such great things? Wars and civil commotions, and the destruction of many men and cities. And what great matter is this? “Is it nothing?” But what great matter is the death of many oxen, and many sheep, and many nests of swallows or storks being burnt or destroyed? “Are these things, then, like those?” Very like. Bodies of men are destroyed, and the bodies of oxen and sheep; the dwellings of men are burnt, and the nests of storks. What is there in this great or dreadful? Or show me what is the difference between a man’s house and a stork’s nest, as far as each is a dwelling; except that man builds his little houses of beams and tiles and bricks, and the stork builds them of sticks and mud. “Are a stork and a man, then, like things?” What say you? In body they are very much alike.
“Does a man then differ in no respect from a stork?” Don’t suppose that I say so; but there is no difference in these matters. “In what, then, is the difference?” Seek and you will find that there is a difference in another matter. See whether it is not in a man the understanding of what he does, see if it is not in social community, in fidelity, in modesty, in steadfastness, in intelligence. Where then is the great good and evil in men? It is where the difference is. If the difference is preserved and remains fenced round, and neither modesty is destroyed, nor fidelity, nor intelligence, then the man also is preserved; but if any of these things is destroyed and stormed like a city, then the man too perishes; and in this consist the great things. Paris, you say, sustained great damage, then, when the Hellenes invaded and when they ravaged Troy, and when his brothers perished. By no means; for no man is damaged by an action which is not his own; but what happened at that time was only the destruction of storks’ nests: now the ruin of Paris was when he lost the character of modesty, fidelity, regard to hospitality, and to decency. When was Achilles ruined? Was it when Patroclus died? Not so. But it happened when he began to be angry, when he wept for a girl, when he forgot that he was at Troy not to get mistresses, but to fight. These things are the ruin of men, this is being besieged, this is the destruction of cities, when right opinions are destroyed, when they are corrupted."

The poitn he's making is that it's not external events that destroy men, but their reaction to them. They destroyed themselves. Stoicism is about self-control.

"so deep!"

>litteral copy pasting full comment on a previous thread to make it a thread of itself

if you had been educated in more stoic fashion would you still be a raging mongoloid?
Would you dress-up as a women to get fucked in front of your court to the disapproval of greater men than you?
Are you, dare I say it, the runt of some gladiator's litter?

>muh stoicism is for edgy teenage
>my philosphy is more philossophic
>I am displaying exactly how superior and not edgy I am with this kind of thread

this
stoicism has its limits, but there is way more angst-ridden-edgy-teen currents out there

I'll pick nihilist faggots 1on on 10 any time

cry more faggot

>spams buzzwords
>attempts to insult accomplished classical genius
>finishes with unfounded assumptions.
You're opinion isn't worth anything, and I'm sorry that another thread had to be deleted so that you could spew this shit.