Prove the reasons behind stoicism, if you think there are any

I am sorry, God is no value. God is nothing, he is an idea in your mind to filter and silence all the questions you don't have answers for.
There is no logical consistency to debunk here.
Anyone else here to share his logical consistency as to why he is a slave?

>stoicism has nothing to do with your motivations and goals
No. All Seneca speaks about is how stupid have men spent their time.

>am sorry, God is no value. God is nothing, he is an idea in your mind to filter and silence all the questions you don't have answers for.
Prove it.
Good luck.

You must an r/atheist autist if you think an ancient philosophy is going to have “logically consistent arguments” or needs them to have validity for people.

Stoicism’s main texts have all been lost (no, Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus aren’t main texts - they’re late era practical cliffnotes; trying to understand stoicism through them is like trying to reconstruct Christian theology from Joel Osteen). We don’t know how Zeno demonstrated the importance of virtue or fire’s supremacy over the other three elements.

But it doesn’t matter, either. Stoicism’s popularity endures because it provides a framework for people to endure difficult times, not because it’s logically rigorous.

I will need luck, because tending to the mind of a believer, especially an old one, is really, really hard.
So I will try to escape from the trap of "b-but you don't have prove that he d-doesn't exist, HA HA!!!!!"
How can God, who we know absolutely nothing of, not even his name, let alone his rules or values, be of any relativity as to how you should live your life?
How can God be of any use as to what is valuable or not, what is right or wrong, when we can't even prove that he exists, we have never had any direct or indirect evidence of him.

>enraged stoic
I know it's hard to admit that you are listening to other men telling you what to think and feel, even when they don't make any sense, lol.
By the way, the pursuit of reason will take you do Diogenes, so take a few looks at his quotes.

Stoicism is for pseuds as you can see in this thread it breaks down quickly into trying to feel good and other appeals to emotion. Its totally bankrupt morally and its ontology is almost nonexistent besides copying the earlier Greeks blatantly. It was memed hard on reddit to bug men who work long hours and get cheated on and made its way onto here as Aurelius’ Meditations was being shilled for the holidays. It has absolutely no substance and is one of the most embarassing philosophies ever assembled, Epicureanism for all its small-souled wretchedness is more honorable than Seneca’s teachings

So you have no objective basis for not believing in God and have to rely on the exact same thing for your disbelief that I rely on for my belief: your own subjectivity.

You didn't even try to read what I wrote, did you? preoccupation with action is central to stoicism. This is because the things people do often make them miserable. What this does not mean, however, is that through the removal of harmful practices that "true" values come to light. Stoicism is a negative practice. You can shed the bad things away, but you are only left with the negation. stoicism has never been a project about finding out the capital t Truth.

It was a pleasure to read this, thank you.

...

t. Plutarch

I guess I'm a pseud now

>using flowery language and throwing in the word ontology into my whiny emotionally driven paragraph will sure convince people I'm making an argument.

Can you suggest anything further than cynicism, by the way. I am legit interested in your opinion.
You didn't answer and/or understand my questions. How can something that you can't prove that even exists, let alone what it is, be of value? What exactly do you value? How would your value system be of any difference than having completely no value system, when the basis of your value system is something that doesn't exist (in our dimensions and senses)?
You make sense, but you have clearly not read Seneca recently.

>You didn't answer and/or understand my questions. How can something that you can't prove that even exists, let alone what it is, be of value? What exactly do you value? How would your value system be of any difference than having completely no value system, when the basis of your value system is something that doesn't exist (in our dimensions and senses)?
My value system is Christianity, with a bit of stoicism thrown in.

3x ad hominem
1x straw man
>absolute state of stoics
Thank you for identifying. Now I can prove your God isn't real.
youtube.com/watch?v=AjHk9nKUNNs

you should be stoic because it's better to be one

im not your priest, and i don’t care if you suffer
enjoy being happy cattle

Why? I don't see how it's better to indulge in practice of will power, i.e. mental/emotional suffering, for no reason at all.

If you are the user that bashed on stoicism as well, then just for your own please, do you have a value system and can you explain it?

I had never been more happy than now thanks to Stoicism

>Thank you for identifying. Now I can prove your God isn't real
You're the worst reddit tier pseud I've seen on here in a while. You can't disprove God. Nor can I prove the existence of God. It's a matter of faith and subjectivity.

because it's better for the development of human civilization if more people are stoic.

>obese neckbeard that can't do 5 pull ups calling others cattle
I could snap your neck and fuck your corpse if I wanted to and there's nothing you could do to stop me.

This clearly proves that you have never been happy, you were always miserable. Stoicism, as obviously a philosophical coping mechanism, simply reduced your suffering to an extent. But you are still suffering. (and have no arguments but solipsism)
I did disprove it, Christianity has the same dates as any other paganistic religion throughout the globe, it's scriptures and methods of personification clearly prove that it's all about the Sun.
Btw, you still have no arguments, only ad hominems.

>This clearly proves that you have never been happy, you were always miserable. Stoicism, as obviously a philosophical coping mechanism, simply reduced your suffering to an extent. But you are still suffering.
I know, I'm okay with this

First of all, you couldn't. Because you don't know who or where he is. Second of all, he can always shoot you in an theoretical case of fight between the two of you. You just deducted yourself to a monkey, an animal. He, being smarter than you, will shoot you in 5 seconds, casting your willpower and discipline into inexistence.

>I did disprove it,
No you didn't. You're utterly delusional, men infinitely more intelligent than you have been dealing with these problems for thousands of years, you cringy autist. You can't objectively prove or disprove the existence of God.

I did. Both verbally and with video. The evidence that Christianity is a work of human is right there.
You have got quite a foul mouth, for a christian puppet.

A gun needs to be pulled out, set up, and aimed before it can be used. Try doing that when you're being choked out into a week long hospital stay.

You look quite serious in your statement in that picture, I'll have to be ware of you to shoot you before you come to me.

>every philosopher has failed to do it and it is acknowledged by everyone with a modicum of philosophical learning that's it's impossible
>I did it bro
You have to be over 18 to use this website.

stoicism isn't a philosophy, it's a frame of mind. the reason it makes sense is because it keeps you sane and functioning properly and in a healthy way when life fails you. as i said it's not a philosophy so it can be paired up with any philosophical system that upholds morality and virtue but i think stoicism is the most compatible with traditionalism

to you? fuck no, who the fuck do you think you are?
lol at you

>internet warriors

This is not a Stoic thread anymore, please be good to others.

Take the next step, user.

I disproved Christianity, not God. Your reading comprehension is a bit underdeveloped.
>the reason it makes sense is because it feels good
This is no reason and it most definitely doesn't keep me sane. As you can see in this thread, stoics are insane. They are following a frame of mind that encourages the practice of will power, i.e. mental suffering and emotional suffering, i.e. suffering, for something that they have no reason or meaning for. How is this sane? This is insane. If there is nothing to live, then cynicism and hedonism and nihilism make WAY more sense and are way more sane. And surely feel better too.
ok

I like how Seneca speaks about Epicurus but I'm not following his philosophy.

Is there anyone who would take stoicism truly as it is represented in the writings of the stoics, and adhere to that version completely? Philosophy is the ideology of the philosopher expounded.

>cynicism makes sense
surely you're not stupid to the degree where you don't realize the ironic position cynicism is in?

Everyone should take stoicism truly. Yet few are philosophers to actually do that, outside of their ego-inflated simple mind's perceptions of what full understanding means.

Stoicism + Idealism = Ascension

My premise was that it makes more sense than cynicism.
How is it in an ironic position?

That's a rare Sadler

My premise was that it makes more sense than stoicism ****
fixed

Stoicism + Idealism = Insanity

the ironic position being that cynicism will cancel itself out, necessarily, based on its own belief system

Stoicism is midwit-tier. Neoplatonism is Highbrow.

ITT: Teenage redditor just read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

stoicism is literally a philosophical system with its own physics, logic and ethics

>You must an r/atheist autist if you think an ancient philosophy is going to have “logically consistent arguments” or needs them to have validity for people.
the stoics have been heavily influenced by aristotle who is literally the father of logic

>I disproved Christianity, not God. Your reading comprehension is a bit underdeveloped.
>I disproved a value system when there are no objective values

This makes absolutely no sense. Try again.

Most people only care about Stoic eithics and behavior. Why do you that feel you must adopt the whole of a philosophical system (which was created by imperfect humans)?

Cause Is based in something divine (reason)

Because humans are imperfect in the sense of willpower and sin, a statement given by spiritual industries.
We are perfect in logic, and stoicism or any "value" should make sense, imo.

>objective values exist

Seems like we got a big boy here.

IMO Stoicism is pretty alogical and that's the point, as it admits that human society isn't wholly logical-- if everything in our society was wholly logical we would have no need for philosophy.

>Why do you that feel you must adopt the whole of a philosophical system (which was created by imperfect humans)?
I don't. I was refuting a false claim about there not being a stoic philosophical system.

But then we do need philosophy and since stoicism is illogical, I don't udnerstand why are 2018fags buying into it.

>posts zeitgiest unironically
wew lad

Stoicism is exactly the same as every other philosophy because it provides us answers to questions. Philosophy is comforting-- makes us feel stronger, more important. In a Post PoMo world of no real truth these sort of ideas grow because they create truth, or highlight it, or however you want to think of it.

>thinks proving Jesus never lived would make anyone give up Christianity
I'm not even religious but you are a fool if you actually believe this. Religion does not depend on historical accuracy to be meaningful. Would proving Buddha never existed take away from Buddhism? What about Arjuna and Hinduism? The only people that argue about this shit are bible belt fundies and reddit tier atheists. You obviously don't understand religion in the slightest.

>ad hominem is as far as stoics can get ITT
Stoicism provides 0 answers to any existential dilemma.

How could the world be if everyone was a Stoic?

ITT: Brainlets that don't know that stoicism, as we have it, is incomplete. We are missing all the central works of stoic thought.

Although I shouldn't be so reductionist-- Stoicism specifically is a call-to-arms. You perform your duty for a multitude of human reasons. A lot of young men are attracted to it because most of us are starved for purpose, as we've been told most of our lives that stuff doesn't matter and we've, unfortunately, internalized that.
I have a theory-- the reason PoMo ideology worked and was successful for so long is that it was an alternative to meaning. Pieces like Infinite Jest were fun and novel because we had the frame of reference to things that mattered. Now the entire culture is steeped in PoMo ideas but there are young men who didn't grow up with that old sincirety, so they have no point of reference. Stoicism grants them base level meaning with which to build upon with other Philosophical ideas.
Which brings us here-- Stoicism does not deal with existential problems because that is not what it is designed for in the same way that you wouldn't use your legs to fly. I believe that modern Stoicism is a good foundation that needs to be built upon.

>be stoicism
>be a philosophy solely dedicated to the reduction of human suffering
>be misunderstood by high school kids who hear words like "discipline" and REEE till they're raw in the throat because they literally equate self-control with suffering
activated my almonds and then some

>thinks posting a literal meme like zietgiest is a better argument than saying "wew lad"
you're so far behind I bet you think you're in first place, don't you?

If there are no objective values, you can't objectively disprove a value system as you yourself are arguing from position of own subjective value system, you complete brainlet.

>Asks a question but ends it with "."
>remembers only the historian argument
Mate, my argument in this thread and the zeitgeist video not only prove that Jesus didn't exist based on the historians living at that time. Watch the video and then try to have a conversation or an opinion of it.
Thanks for admitting that your school of philosophy is retarded and blaming it on missing texts or some shit,.
ad hominem

Still no logically consistent argument to explain stoicism, but only ad hominems.
I can't disprove it, but I can disprove Christianity which you said is your religion and God. Sucks to be you, lol.

>Thanks for admitting that your school of philosophy is retarded and blaming it on missing texts or some shit,.
It's not my school of philosophy and it's no more retarded than any other philosophy.

Things I've learned about you
>16 - 21 years of age
>recently started reading some books, now believes he's an expert on things he doesn't understand
>visits reddit.
>probably fat and physically repulsive

>but I can disprove Christianity
Stop saying things you don't understand dummy. You can make an argument for why Christianity is less likely to be true at best, but you can't disprove Christianity. You are the worst kind of psued.

It's definitely more retarded than some schools of philosophy.

Things I've learned about you :
>You can't stay on topic
>You are projecting your own insecurities

You and I, we both know how full of shit you are.

>my argument in this thread and the zeitgeist video not only prove that Jesus didn't exist based on the historians living at that time.
shit tier sentence, but I think you're trying to tell me to watch zietgiest again. I watched it years ago in high school when it was edgy and cool. Then I grew up, got a degree in philosophy, and realized shit like that is actually embarrassing to take seriously. Also there is no question ending in a period in the comment you responded to. Are you ESL?

>no arguments
I'm glad you've finally accepted you're clueless.

English is my second language, burger. Now go watch it again and then tell me that you think Christianity is truthful.
Why is it so hard for people to simply follow the truth, for fucks sakes....?

>had plenty of arguments
Am met with a wall of moronic answers that only keeps asking the same questions over and over again. It's pointless to argue with a man that doesn't even listen to his own reason, let alone mine.

The view of Christianity in zeitgeist is false and not historically accurate. The Christ myth theory is a fringe view not supported by any credible historians.

Why are dumb faggots so angry at stoicism? What is so offensive to you?

>no denying what I said
Which reddit board do you use?

it reddite lole

>another ad hominem stoic cuck that lacks any logic
Prove your statement is true.

They are scared of personal responsibility and hard work.

r/watchpeopledie actually

Not American, actually. My original argument had nothing to do with Christianity being truthful. My argument was that your criteria for truth (e.g. historical accuracy) is not a decent criteria to deal with religion. Proving Jesus never lived, or that he's a representation of Horus, or the Sun, or whatever interpretation you have does nothing to take away from 'the Christian religious experience' writ large. Have you ever read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? There is a really nice parallel in there but I won't go into it if you haven't read it.