I've read the Stoics and I want to learn more about Virtue Ethics. Where to?

I've read the Stoics and I want to learn more about Virtue Ethics. Where to?

Nicomachean Ethics

this and then "On Virtue Ethics"

this then "Atlas Shrugged". I'm not even memeing, but if you want to go down the road of virtue ethics, Rand's works are basically virtue ethics shoehorned into a narrative of economics.

Read them again.

same

alasdair mcintyre after virtue

neo virtue ethics or eudaimonism is an entire school of philosophy

read nietzsche's critique of eudaimonism as a last gasp of christian thought in will to power

Virtue ethics is just pretending very hard that the arbitrary character traits you like in people are more than just that.

Better to commence with the Cyrenaics.

morality isn't real user, you're wasting time, please pick up a book on mathematics, science, logic, medicine, law or maybe even religion if you'd like to study the evolution of human social cohesion and narrative building, but please don't attach yourself to the moral propensities of dead men who knew nothing about the brain or matter.

scum

this won't work anymore, not enough of you, growing number of me. I don't care what you call me. Morality isn't real, pick up a book on neurology, evolution, anatomy, history, mathematics or engineering and stop being a faggot. Or just learn about law and keep your fucking mouth shut when its time to talk about philosophy or religion. Of all the traditions to latch onto which are incompatible with the material universe, stoicism is one of the most embarrassing, hedonistic nihilism is probably less pitiful

Oy gevalt that's not very virtuous of you.

what the fuck

Stoics truly is sad.

>n-nature wants you to be indifferent lads

alasdair macIntyre's after virtue

that book is such a ridiculous hodge podge, ugh. OP don't read it, trust me.

SHIT RECOMMENDATIONS

macintyre & this

Why abandon a belief merely because it ceases to be true? Cling to it long enough and it will turn true again, for so it goes. Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor.

>ugh
post feet

>punch a stoic
>he doesn't punch back

You're thinking of a pacifist

>incompatible with the material universe
>stoicism
How exactly? If anything, it's the old philosophy compatible with human nature.

Stoics are not pacifists, not do they disdain action. I'm sorry but you have a meme understanding.

>all these people shittin on stoics
the best part about being stoic is seeing shit like this and continuing to not give af

What would be the stoic response?

aggression, vendettas, planning, ambition and desire are good and advance human interests. indifference is passive slave morality
>narrativizing a nonexistent identity for yourself that isn’t true because you were affected enough to respond already

you’re all a bunch of maggots

>aggression, vendettas, planning, ambition and desire are good and advance human interests
To what end? Your argument makes no sense unless you specify an end to which those are orientated. Stoicism doesn't hate any of those apart from "vendettas" and that's arguable, it's aggression, planning, ambition, desire towards a specific end point without which we aren't saying anything.

Looking to begin reading the Stoics, anyone have a reading chart? Where do I start? Seneca?

Arrian - discourses of epictetus
Then Seneca then Aurelius

with the greeks you mongrel

...

>to an end
no that’s the function of existence, to kill and desire and strive there is no end, its not predicated on a logical program of any kind. its irrational, violent, indifferent towards you and demands that you resist and become more or you’ll be eaten alive in excruciating pain

nietzsche was a gay thinker who wanted the being to fuck him tragically

he thought that this must be again and again. cyclically

Then we're already imagining not being eaten alive or being in excruciating pain as an objectively good end point in itself. In no way is this "no end" shown in your argument