Is stoicism the superior philosophy of life?

Is stoicism the superior philosophy of life?

I have no strong opinion towards one way or another

When is something a superior philosophy of life? Stoicism is pretty much dead and its members don't breed like rabbits.

kek

it is the most reasonable one

Neat.

The number of adherents doesn't necessarily determine the quality of the philosophy.

Let's define superior as having the most positive contribution to a person's life.

>he fell for the 'stoics are emotionless zombies' meme

Stoicism can be a philosophical preparation for a good satanist or a good catholic. I hope you get what I mean.

All I know is, my gut says maybe.

It's a fine philosophy, but I'd contend it expects the impossible (as I recall some Stoics themselves would have agreed as they were divided on whether or not one could actually truly be a sage). Also, I disagree that pleasure should not be sought out and pain not avoided. While it's helpful to remember that neither is good or bad, they both exist in our minds for a reason and serve a purpose.

If you're born a senator or emperor, yes.

If you're born a slave, no.

>pain
>not being avoided
>exist in our minds for a reason

filthy existentialists

stoicism gives some good tips

>2016
>tipping

ISHYGDDT

But pain IS pleasure...

Up to a certain point of course.

Epictetus was a slave, dolt.

I don't think it expects the impossible so much as idealizes the "perfect stoic" in the sage. It gives you a goal, but most stoic philosophers acknowledge it isn't really attainable.

>Also, I disagree that pleasure should not be sought out and pain not avoided.

The premise of stoicism isn't to avoid pleasure and embrace pain. Pleasure is to be embraced, you just need to mentally be prepared to not enjoy it again. The practise of depriving yourself of pleasure or causing yourself discomfort is an exercise to make you not take pleasure for granted, so that you enjoy it more. It's not so much a tenet as an occasional thing to make you more mindful.
It's sort of the idea of "hunger is the best appetizer" - depriving yourself of food for a day will make you really enjoy a basic meal, whereas if you're constantly gorging yourself on fine foods you'll take it for granted and probably not enjoy it as much. Stoicism doesn't argue "don't seek pleasure" it argues "be wary of excess, always be mindful of what you have, train yourself to enjoy the little things, and don't let pleasure rule you."

Explain.

Why is a stoic philosophy detrimental to a slave?
I always hear this argument almost solely because Marcus Aurelius was a practising stoic. He an exceptional example of a stoic, and plenty of less privileged individuals practised it.

It sounds remarkably similar to Epicureanism when you put it like that.

They're very similar in quite a lot of ways.

.

Right there with Buddhism and Schopenhauer.

>but I'd contend it expects the impossible (as I recall some Stoics themselves would have agreed as they were divided on whether or not one could actually truly be a sage).
yes goy, stay an hedonist goy

Tell my wife I said "Hello."