Is this literally Good Goy: The Philosophy?

Is this literally Good Goy: The Philosophy?

It's just the most uninspired, banal philosophy the greeks ever shat out. You know it's lame shit when the romans adopt it wholesale.

Also nice quads.

top kek
you're an actual retard

Why, because it offers practical and useful advice? Would you rather read obsolete theories about forms or motion?

t. marcus "assblasted" aurelius

Stay jelly.

This.

"Good goy" in what way?

Epicureanism did it better, to be fair.

The emptiness which proceeds the emptiness in the cup is in your head

It's literally an anti-consumerist philosophy. Not Jewish at all.

Combine in with Rousseau's thoughts on the shit institutions of society, and you get people wanting to never work and become self-sufficient rural farmers for the simple life.

It is a life denying feel good garbage. No successful person is a stoic.

>Would you rather read obsolete theories about forms or motion?
If I'm going to obsess over an ancient philosophical school, I'm at least going to pick an interesting one.

>Epicureanism did it better
debatable, but a legit gripe I guess. still doesn't discount stoicism for what it is

so is Christianity and Buddhism

>successful

Care to elaborate, goyim?

> it offers practical and useful advice
Practical, useful and as banal as you need to not forget how to breathe. You should not give a fuck about things that you can't change?! You need to be a retard to give a fuck at the first place, for the fucking sake. Can you honestly name one advice that wouldn't be a some kind of trivial banality, for example? Just try to do this and you will see why stoicism is a joke.

>No successful person is a stoic.

But what is it? A play-it-safe hodgepodge with few if any original ideas.
If it helps someone live a better life then that's great, but then again so can most philosophies.

You obviously don't understand the exact concept you just named at all. You're getting mad at his response, when it isn't in your control. You are whoring your mind to him as we speak.

Read the Enchiridion a few times. It will help in understanding.

You are just uniformed. I recommend that you read the Enchiridion and give stoicism a fair chance instead of dismissing it so flippantly.

retard hedonist cuck detected

>minimalist
>not retarded

pick one

Just admit it..you're a NEET waifu hugging failure. That;s why you garbage hedonism.

>learning to be happy with less
>retarded

> You obviously don't understand
Being mad and whoring my mind is my conscious choice in this situation. So can you name at least one non-banal advice or not? Seems like you can't do this and trying to ignore question instead.

wow i thought stoics are supposed to easy-going and content with their lives.

so much for that, your blood vessels are popping all over the place m8.

Maybe you can offer practical and useful advice of so called wisdom of stoicism? Just to show that a book worth to read, for example.

"Epicureanism"
top kek
Young faggot : the philosophy

>something isn't 100% original
>therefore...

Therefore what, exactly? Even if it is "banal", which is what you claimed and therefore you have the responsibility to show it is banal, what's your point?

Can someone explain that meme about how you can't be both stoicist and hedonist? It here some kind of contradiction between philosophies or just fan clubs being mad against each other?

>you need to be a retard for giving a fuck in the first place

So you literally admitted you're retarded.

epicureanism is stoicism for those who aren't depressed losers

Not the same guy, what do you want ?
Because Enkheiridion is extremely short to read.

It's a very very short book. Less than 10 pages. If you need a primer to a book that is essentially a primer, you should not engage yourself in philosophy quite yet, and learn literacy first.

> you have the responsibility to show it is banal
Well... If it wasn't banal you could already prove that by sharing some interesting advice, isn't it? Seems pretty self-evident to me.

With your definition, it seems like you consider yourself a stoic ; in that case, you should start acting as such.

>vacuous happiness

Just smoke weed m8

I don't know if every single idea presented in the Enchiridion had already been proposed by another philosopher prior to Epicurus, so perhaps we assume that everything is "banal."

Again, what's your point?

>Is this literally Good Goy: The Philosophy?
What the fuck does that even mean you memeing wanker

>vacuous happiness

You don't really think that phrase means anything, do you? Do you truly believe happiness to be grounded upon consumerism?

It would be harder to me prove that an entire book is banal than for you to counter my point with just an one counter example of legitimately interesting advice.

When you are going about any action, remind yourselfwhat nature the action is. If you are going to bathe, picture to yourselfthe things which usually happen in the bath: some people splash the water,some push, some use abusive language, and others steal. Thus you will moresafely go about this action if you say to yourself, "I will now go bathe,and keep my own mind in a state conformable to nature." And in the samemanner with regard to every other action. For thus, if any hindrance arisesin bathing, you will have it ready to say, "It was not only to bathe thatI desired, but to keep my mind in a state conformable to nature; and Iwill not keep it if I am bothered at things that happen.

>happiness

Your argument is premised upon "banal = bad" and that doesn't make any sense. Do you like saying it because it sounds like anal?

The entire book is filled with things that seem self-evident, however, few people put into practice the "advice" in their daily lives, and allow themselves to devolve into simpletons who whore out their will to others. You read it often, and then try to act in accordance with it.

> Again, what's your point?
My point is slightly different. Stoicism maybe was an original line of thought for its time, but now it is dated in that sense that it was ingrained to deeply in modern culture and known to everyone anyway. It seems very banal to me because of it. Banal as cliches from old movies, figuratively speaking.

I can agree with you on that. However,

>I
"Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion (turning from a thing); and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices (magisterial power), and in a word, whatever are not our own acts. And the things in our power are by nature free, not subject to restraint nor hindrance: but the things not in our power are weak, slavish, subject to restraint, in the power of others. Remember then that if you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and the things which are in the power of others to be your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame both gods and men: but if you think that only which is your own to be your own, and if you think that what is another's, as it really is, belongs to another, no man will ever compel you, no man will hinder you, you will never blame any man, you will accuse no man, you will do nothing involuntarily (against your will), no man will harm you, you will have no enemy, for you will not suffer any harm."

>XX
"Remember that it is not he who reviles you or strikes you, who insults you, but it is your opinion about these things as being insulting. When, then, a man irritates you, you must know that it is your own opinion which has irritated you."

cont.

This, books like the Enchiridion or the Meditations are books of aphorisms. You're not supposed to just skim through it once and move on, you're supposed to read them repeatedly until you internalize the principles in it and it becomes habit.

>XVI
"When you see a person weeping in sorrow either when a child goes abroad or when he is dead, or when the man has lost his property, take care that the appearance do not hurry you away with it, as if he were suffering in external things.[7] But straightway make a distinction in your own mind, and be in readiness to say, it is not that which has happened that afflicts this man, for it does not afflict another, but it is the opinion about this thing which afflicts the man. So far as words, then, do not be unwilling to show him sympathy,[8] and even if it happens so, to lament with him. But take care that you do not lament internally also."

>XXI
"Let death and exile and every other thing which appears dreadful be daily before your eyes; but most of all death: and you will never think of anything mean nor will you desire anything extravagantly."

>XXII
"If you desire philosophy, prepare yourself from the beginning to be ridiculed, to expect that many will sneer at you, and say, He has all at once returned to us as a philosopher; and whence does he get this supercilious look for us? Do you not show a supercilious look; but hold on to the things which seem to you best as one appointed by God to this station. And remember that if you abide in the same principles, these men who first ridiculed will afterward admire you: but if you shall have been overpowered by them, you will bring on yourself double ridicule."

cont.

>XLVI
"On no occasion call yourself a philosopher, and do not speak much among the uninstructed about theorems (philosophical rules, precepts): but do that which follows from them. For example, at a banquet do not say how a man ought to eat, but eat as you ought to eat. For remember that in this way Socrates also altogether avoided ostentation: persons used to come to him and ask to be recommended by him to philosophers, and he used to take them to philosophers: so easily did he submit to being overlooked. Accordingly, if any conversation should arise among uninstructed persons about any theorem, generally be silent; for there is great danger that you will immediately vomit up what you have not digested. And when a man shall say to you, that you know nothing, and you are not vexed, then be sure that you have begun the work (of philosophy). For even sheep do not vomit up their grass and show to the shepherds how much they have eaten; but when they have internally digested the pasture, they produce externally wool and milk. Do you also show not your theorems to the uninstructed, but show the acts which come from their digestion."


Also, look at the I, it's the starting point.

Well, I guess this one is interesting. I wouldn't follow it but I must admit that I was somewhat wrong in my evaluations of stoicism.

I'd take the time to read the Enchiridion. It's so short, but there are great lessons to be taken from it.

Thanks mate.

Yes. I will give it a try.

Nobody is asking that you suddenly start identifying as an Epicurean and begin proselytizing for the philosophy, by the way. But I promise that you will take at least a few positive lessons from the Handbook.

Good luck, friend.

THANKS DAD

how is stoicism life-denying?

epicureanism is the ultimate impractical feel-good philosophy. even hedonism is less gay

This.

I'll admit it''s not for everyone, as you need at least the basics of a normal life to make it work.
However if you're a homeless, friendless, joyless bum, then stoicism is the path for you.

>No successful person is a stoic.

Dude, seriously? You do know that the most famous of their philosophers was a fucking Emperor, right?

I think both Epicureanism and Stoicism have useful lessons to teach people as philosophy, and I feel they nail what I consider to be the most important aspect of philosophy: teaching people to lead better, more fulfilled lives. That said, I don't think one should follow either just for the sake of living up to them; take what is useful to you from each and discard the rest.

>Epicureanism

Seek Pleasure

>Stoicism

Avoid Pain


this is the major difference

Actually, Stoics don't advocate avoiding pain. You should neither seek pleasure as a good, nor avoid pain as an evil with Stoicism. Epicureanism suggests doing both of those.

but they do stupid faggot read a book sometime

I've read a book, you fucking asshole. The Stoics advocate pursuing your moral duties as befitting of your station, regardless of the pain doing so may cause you.

don't shit up the thread you retard. avoiding pain is not something they advocate. they advocate facing pain head on, since it's unavoidable. Marcus Aurelius states this almost verbatim in meditations.

source: books

>successful

How would you define success? Because I've grown up surrounded by rich people in a sunny state who think they're valuable because they went to good schools and closed lucrative deals, but are empty worthless people that have no function beyond making imaginary numbers grow.

The only success a human can achieve is balance, love, and contentment with the realities of life, and being your brand of "successful" is not conductive to any of that.

yeah and he's such a happy-looking guy too

literally what does this mean

If you have nothing useful to say, feel free to just not post anything. there's no need to feel obliged to shitpost

Those that purported to be Stoics also practices Polemics.
Those that purported to be Zen also took up weapons.
Those that purported Peaceful religions took up swords and bombs.

Peace is a lie, but this doesn't mean war amongst ourselves is necessary.
We are to fight intellectual dishonesty and suffering. After a fair and honest fight we can sleep well at night.

What's the best book for stoicism?

but a waifu hugging neet is usually a hedonist

Because you can't combine virtue ethics with hedonism at all?

Are you going to be doing any fighting, or will you just post inauthentic statements from a position of false courage to try to appeal to romanticized sentiments of just warfare? If so, then fuck off and go read Ivanhoe instead of trying to break societal advancement.

>trying to break societal advancement.

look at

>dude just be happy lmao

Meme philosophy with shit tier practical advice.

Mystic traditions that emphasis practices like meditation and prayer are far danker.

wow, nice reading comprehension. it's probably the best practical philosophy there is. it's about facing pain and adversity, not avoiding it. plus, meditation is something they bring up. mindfulness. please read more than a wikipedia article before you post

>but now it is dated in that sense that it was ingrained to deeply in modern culture and known to everyone anyway
Known is not the same as practiced.

Wew lads, this thread was fucking dead because we showed Stoicism is GOAT already. Let it stay dead.

My god, it was a spook all along.

More like
>Stoicism:*take bong rip* 'suffering is, like all in your head dude...
>you can like, tell your mind pain is ok and you'll just, like be OK with pain maaaaan.....

>I don't understand it all

That's okay, user. We understand reading is hard.

That's basically what Epictetus said, though. Like, he literally believed that only your opinion of things was evil. So while you might feel pain, you only suffer because you think pain sucks.

The bong rips were just for comic effect.

>stoicism is deeply ingrained into our modern culture
stoicism is so vastly contrary to what our culture believes today, you can say a certain word starting with the letter 'n', and everyone will lose their minds.

>you only suffer because you think pain sucks.
Or because pain actually does suck.

He didn't consider them evil, just unvirtuous, as in you were living up to your highest self.

That said, you can totally discipline yourself to better handle adverse conditions, and stoics advocated a sort of meditative practice of constant introspection as a means to do so.

This is something people often miss about Stoicism. It wasn't just a matter of holding certain beliefs, to them adhering to a philosophy was a matter of practice; an actual skill that one had to hone.

stoics are the true cucks really

>Avoid pain

Wrong.

>What is Marco Aurelio

who's that some italian?

...

...

What we have today, in fact have been having for 3 centuries, is some liberals and libertarians who cling to the idea that liberalism should not be about unbridled hedonism.
Of course, these people fail to stop being hedonists and the remaining people are completely hedonist.

People here really don't have much of an idea about Stoicism.
Where did the people that absolutely hate it learned about it?

>No successful person is a stoic.

Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius are revered as some of the greatest rulers of all time.
Arrian was the greatest historian of his age, the greatest philosopher of his age, and a powerful Roman Emperor that stopped a large Alan invasion.


Stoicism is completely at odds with popular culture.

Stoicism is just a safer version of cynicism.
And that's perfectly okay because not everyone can bear the burden of being Diogenes.

If you're not a stoic, you're literally a woman/child. Not a man.

Then you only have the most basic, superficial "understanding" of stoicism. Its purpose isn't "denying life."

>the vast majority of men throughout human history have actually been women and children

Yeah OK, that's stupid.