Why do Stoics still exist when Nietzsche BTFO them with one aphorism?

>Do you wantto live"according to nature"? O you noble Stoics, what a verbal swindle! Imagine a being like nature - extravagant without limit, indifferent without limit, without purposes and consideration, without pity and justice, simultaneously fruitful, desolate, and unknown - imagine this indifference itself as a power - howcouldyou live in accordance with this indifference?8Living - isn't that precisely a will to be something different from what this nature is? Isn't living appraising, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And if your imperative "live according to nature" basically means what amounts to "live according to life"- why can younotjust do that? Why make a principle out of what you yourselves are and must be? The truth of the matter is quite different: while you pretend to be in raptures as you read the canon of your law out of nature, you want something which is the reverse of this, you weird actors and self-deceivers! Your pride wants to prescribe to and incorporate into nature, this very nature, your morality, your ideal. You demand that nature be "in accordance with thestoa," and you'd like to make all existence merely living in accordance with your own image of it - as a huge and eternal glorification and universalizing of stoicism! With all your love of truth, you have forced yourselves for such a long time and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to look at naturefalsely, that is, stoically, until you're no long capable of seeing nature as anything else - and some abysmal arrogance finally inspires you with the lunatic hope that,becauseyou know how to tyrannize over yourselves - Stoicism is self-tyranny - nature also allows herself to be tyrannized. Is the Stoic then not apartof nature?.... But this is an ancient eternal story: what happened then with the Stoics is still happening today, as soon as a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates a world in its own image. It cannot do anything different. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the spiritual will to power, to a "creation of the world," to thecausa prima [first cause].

>aphorism
>wall of text
no thanks, lrn2write Nietzsche

>waaahhhh
>too meny woooord
>am babby and no can reeeead
Youll fit right in around here

...

Why does Nietzsche write like someone from /r/atheism?

>reject Christianity values
>falls down crying watching a horse get whipped

the virgin Nietzsche vs the Chad Paul

isn't getting cucked the true stoic stance?

No

why not? marcus aurelius was a cuck

Basically stoicism is just a highly dishonest way of living.

stop lying then

Stoicism still exists?

>It's another "I'm retarded and have no understanding of Stoicism" thread

The stoics lie only to themselves. Not an easy thing to stop doing.

>t. Cassius Dio

nietzsche in english looks terrible lol

Explain or dont bother commenting

just image the post had an smug anime girl, i don't have any saved right now

I consider myself to take a lot of influence from stoicism so I will explain why I do so. I do agree with Nietzsche in that living "according to nature" is not really addressing the actual issue in ethics, however there is more to the stoic philosophy.

The main point in the belief is that one can be nearly entirely self sufficient when it comes to their purpose, happiness, and even ethics. It is not about looking to nature, but the opposite; instead if looking around you, try to figure yourself out first before moving on. In this sense it does still remain simplistic then, in that it is essentially telling it's followers to fix themselves before fixing others, but I do think that is a noble endevour, despite the simplicity.

As far as global ethics goes, the stoics got it totally wrong, as pointed out by Nietzsche. I personally would agree with you, and I do advise over looking this.

Because straw man arguments based on wilful or ignorant misunderstanding are not convincing arguments. Perhaps if he was a bit more stoic, he wouldn't have suffered a complete mental breakdown and lived the last years of his life as a complete lunatic.

t. jordan memerson

>instead if looking around you, try to figure yourself out first before moving on. In this sense it does still remain simplistic then, in that it is essentially telling it's followers to fix themselves before fixing others, but I do think that is a noble endevour, despite the simplicity.
This is life denying.

but Stoicism is low energy, user.

It's not in the sense of ignore everything else, and I am sorry if I left ambiguity there. The idea is that happiness and virtue are found within, and not from the outside. I.e. you don't need things to be happy or virtuous, but you need to try to make yourself a valuable person.

Society is rotten precisely because sick bastards who have grown up to view you as human cattle have been in charge for centuries. This is the common rhetoric which they have fed you in order to self-terrorize your psyche into submission and avoid entertaining the idea of holding them responsible for their crimes.
Observe how agressively the narrative of "human nature" has been pushed, especially concerning our role in natural destruction. It all goes back to Christianity and Judaism when the invention of the existance of the inherent sinful nature of mankind was engineered, in order to indoctrinate and guilt-trip common people into mental slavery. You're parroting satanic judeo-christian garbage without even realising it.
Also Nietzsche could sense the grand deception but was so mentally handicapped which caused his partially correct observations to spiral into a schizophrenic rant full of contradictions. His biography is a relic of this emotional splitting occuring inside his subconscious, resulting to a fragmented view which introduced madness.
"Belief" is itself emotional sickness and so taking the unrealiable views of a confused person like Frederic seriously is not a good idea.

1. You sound far more cynical than I, but I think we can agree that, at least in a lot of cases, organizations have been in the wrong, and sometimes downright tyrannical.

2. I never said it was passive, or involves restraining yourself from action. A stoic is entirely allowed to contribute to society as a whole, they merely see themself first as an individual.

All of this is to say that meaning, happiness, and virtue all function on an individual level, and are found within ones self. You do not need to look to others things to become a valuable person. That is not to say you cannot wish for things, or that you cannot have influence on society. On the contrary, I believe you should do all of those things. My claim was that of meaning, happiness, and virtue being on an individual level. That is the piece if stoicism I will defend, and I have yet to ever see it actually refuted.

Seneca et hoc genus omne

Das schreibt und schreibt sein unausstehlich weises Larifari
Als gälte es primum scribere, deinde philosophari.

How much do you want to bet that Nietzsche lived with a Christian morality apart from from what he wrote? Maybe he was more like one of those niggerwalks memes

It's still not an aphorism

>Society is rotten precisely because sick bastards who have grown up to view you as human cattle have been in charge for centuries.
"the man" is keeping you down.

made me kek

I'm not telling you that the basic idea is not valid, instead I propose that the underlined reasoning of the rhetoric is lacking despite being valueable. It forgets to mention that in order to assess your real value as individual you need to first taking notice of the environment and culture you evolved through and taking into account the implications it had to your psychological reality.

Individuals can't grow in an unnaturally constrained environment, especially when being in the dark about the evil in which social reality emerged from. You have to finally dissect the narratives and further investigate their origins. Ideas that were given birth inside the system are bound to be seriously fragmented, although they can appear superficially sound. That's all of course if you're already in the know that all ideas which are presented to you are byproduct of an ominous origin, but that's something that can't be possibly explored through this imageboard format.
I hope you realise that I don't exactly disagree with you on the value of stoicism and the possibilities it offers. Just more food for though, I could be talking to myself for all I know.

Is not "the man" really because the rulers of this world evolve through an entirely different reality altogether and the values which they adopt are antithetical with the narratives they choose to present us with.
I don't think they see themselves as merely "the man", that would be too ordinary and unambitious for them to begin with.

That being said, it sounds like you would agree that there is a universal good in the world, which is an essential premise. This being said, it is not acceptable for one to simple rely on what their society deems "good", but they must look inward in order to actually make themself as good a person as they can. We can then take this further, and the stoic says that ethics, or the universal "good" is in no way to be derived from a given culture. That is not to say act in a lawless manner, but rather that ethics transcend laws. For example, in living in Nazi Germany, it would be good to not follow Nazi teachings, even when coming in conflict with the law. Then, more directly, the teachings of the stoics is to allow yourself to learn from your culture, but do not apply everything you learn from it. It would suit an individual better, rather than learning the cultural normal and "fitting in", to understand what is truly good, and be a good person.

Moving away from morality, however, it seems you are arguing that we should understand history and be involved in critical thought. As for that, I do not see anywhere in which we disagree.

Have you read Beyond Good and Evil or The Genealogy of Morales? I'm guessing not.

>Behold! I give you the stoic

pretty cute desu :3

reddit translation

Kaufmann

Why do people from r/atheism write like Nietzsche? Reversed, your question answers itself.

You are an ignorant faggot, suck more elite dick you pathetic cuck