What is bad about /Stoicism/ Veeky Forums?

What is bad about /Stoicism/ Veeky Forums?

Nothing, but you know what is patrician!? Combining Stoicism with Epicurism

T. Ricardo Reis

>“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.”


― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Imagine getting mad because you tried to save a horse

/thread

Unnecessarily verbose way of saying what Stirner wrote: the I is more than nature.

Literally the worst thing Neetshuh ever wrote. Imagine being this poor a reader of the stoics...

if you mean the way of life when one tries to be as little perturbed as possible by something he cannot affect anyway than there is nothing wrong with it, but if you mean their philosophy itself it's a rather grim version of fatalism imo

Nothing

this is retarded

bad reading of the stoics

Wrong.

Stirner is for niggers who cant handle sustained thought

did bb just lose their way of life

Stoicism is just life denial for pussies. t. Someone who turned to stoicism after attempting suicide like a pussy lmao

>philologist
>user on Taiwanese fruit cutting board
who will win?

>did bb just lose their way of life

I have no way of life sir

E D G Y

it's not a bad reading just because it isn't charitable towards their silly intuitions

No, more like 'Nature' is simply an arbitrary spook. Stoics use nature as shorthand for 'things we like and want you to do' basically.

From Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Stoic and Epicurean. The Epicurean selects the situations, the persons, and even the events which suit his extremely sensitive, intellectual constitution; he renounces the rest that is to say, by far the greater part of experience because it would be too strong and too heavy fare for him. The Stoic, on the contrary, accustoms himself to swallow stones and vermin, glass splinters and scorpions, without feeling any disgust: his stomach is meant to become indifferent in the end to all that the accidents of existence cast into it: he reminds one of the Arabic sect of the Assaua, with which the French became acquainted in Algiers; and like those insensible persons, he also likes well to have an invited public at the exhibition of his insensibility, the very thing the Epicurean willingly dispenses with: he has of course his "garden"! Stoicism may be quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times and are dependent on abrupt and change able individuals. He, however, who anticipates that fate will permit him to spin " a long thread," does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion; all men devoted to intellectual labour have done it hitherto! For it would be a supreme loss to them to forfeit their fine sensibility, and to acquire the hard, stoical hide with hedgehog prickles in exchange.

>tfw epicurean NEET

wagies better practice hardship, they're going to have a lot of it!

how is that edgy, following a philosophy is like choosing what outfit you are going to wear when you kill yourself

Couldn't be more wrong.

Aside from Nietzsche's definition, what is the actual difference between Stoicism and Epicureanism?
Seneca claims: "he bears the loss of a friend with equanimity", but isn't that the same as stoicism?

To add, the quote is Seneca speaking on Epicureanism I believe.

Epicureanism: Fun things are fun, bad feels feel bad, try to avoid suffering and be at peace living a comfy humble withdrawn life with a group of people you really like and don't get into politics and drama.

Stoicism: You must act in according with nature and to live according to nature is do as we do and practise being a hard cunt and serve 'virtue' and sacrifice yourself to this idea no matter the cost and you have a duty thank you for serving based marines

How else would you advise a person to live who chooses to continue to engage with society and the world around him, as opposed to the Epicurean who retreats from the world to make his own private Eden that he shares with a few select friends but otherwise keeps anyone else out of?

If you have the means, Epicureanism is fine - it's not that far from what the Hippies wanted, to be honest. But it's also not something that can work in all situations. Stoicism, for all its faults, can at least be applied in far more circumstances than can Epicureanism.

I'm interested, why do you think he's wrong?

Epicureanism used to be very popular and it can be seen as a spectrum as well, you don't need to go full commune to be an Epicurean. A lot of people with regular jobs and families can still benefit a lot from his teachings.

What do you mean specifically by engaging with society and the world around you?

Thanks, that was helpful.
What philosophy would it be to act and live according to one's own morals/virtues they have created themselves, but in the stoic way?

but what is "stoicism"?

Existentialism.

Danke.

not sure if Stoics want to live according to nature. plato did throw bitchfits whenever nature did not go his way. I used to think Stoicism was assume but then I realized it was a way of being a smug cunt that leeches off others and has a stick up his ass

plato wasn't a stoic.

but you're right, stoics are mostly smug cunts. they remind me of the 'rational' atheist crowd these days.

do you lack self awareness, go back and read what you post, is this b8

that man truly had the nerve to think he is beyond nature and then die from a fucking wasp.

>got erect from pic, due to cute feet
>realize it's man feet
O for fuck sakes, now I'm a faggot

Lacan's distinction between the subject of the enunciated and the subject of the enunciated can be exposed further through examining his treatment of the liar paradox. This is the paradox of someone saying: "I am a liar." The paradox is that, if we suppose the proposition true ("person x is a liar"), we at the same time then have no reason to believe he is telling the truth when he says: "I am a liar." As a liar, he can only be lying when he says this. But what this means is that we must suppose that he is a sincere truth-telling person. Lacan argues that this is a paradox only insofar as we have wrongly collapsed the distinction between the subject enunciated in the sentence, and the subject of the enunciation. A better understanding of the meaning of this utterance can be garnered by presenting the speech-act in both its two dimensions, as a case wherein (to formalize): person x says: "I am a liar." The point is that the "I" in the spoken sentence here is what Lacan calls "the subject of the enunciated." Of this ego, it may (or may not) be true that s/he is a liar. Yet, this ego is in no way to be identified with what we have called "person x" in the above formalization. "Person x" here is not the subject spoken about. S/he is the person speaking. And Lacan's point is that it this subject of the enunciation that addresses itself to the Other supposed to know in analysis, despite whatever egoic plays and ploys the analysand might masquerade before his/her analyst in what s/he enunciates.

It creates dysgenic incentives.

It's untenable. No man has the strenght necessary on his own to be a Real Stoic, just like no man has the self control on his own to be a Real Hedonist.