Why aren't you a practicing stoic?

Controlling emotions is literally what stoicism is all about.

>Expressing your emotions is letting them rule you

No. It's neither necessary nor sufficient for it.

>You haven't actually read any stoics, have you?

I have, and I've read Seneca.

>Expressing your emotions is letting them rule you, you twat.

Are you retarded? Since when? How the fuck do you validate that statement? Please explain to me how expression of emotion is the same as letting them rule you, and please explain to me how Seneca forbids the expression of emotion when he regularly expresses emotions in his on writings.

You can express controlled emotions.

Controlling your emotions meant to not show them. What, you think everyone couldn't control their anger? Their love? They could. Stoicism is about not feeling, or at least not expressing said feelings.

It's cancer.

not him but I'm pretty sure
is "I don't know anything anout stoicism: the post"

Because I don't believe in the eternal recurrence. Time has a direction, the universe does not simply repeat itself over and over forever.

>and please explain to me how Seneca forbids the expression of emotion when he regularly expresses emotions in his on writings.

hehehehehehe, so you've read Seneca. In Latin? In the form he wrote it, not in translation, so you are able to actually make that statement?

i.e. You've read Seneca's words and not a translation?
hehehehehehehehehehe

>I have, and I've read Seneca.
Why lie on the internet?

You can't into simple logic right? What do you think 'letting emotions rule you' meant in ancient Greece, if not expressing your emotions?

But nah, the Modern Translation of ancient works is how you judge your philosophy.

AND IM WRONG. HA.

since when was that a prerequisite to controlling your emotions and being equanimous?

>Controlling your emotions meant to not show them.

That's false.

Take for example that someone makes you angry. There's a significant difference between screaming at them and socking them in the face (an uncontrolled emotional response of anger) and telling them that you're angry and need to calm down. (A controlled emotional response).

Stoics acknowledge that it's REALLY fucking difficult to flat out do away with negative emotion, they merely advocate control. And they advocate only worrying about things WITHIN your control. Why chimp out over things you have no influence over?

Additionally, stoicism emphasizes the avoidance of negative feelings and vices, not all feelings. They're all for experiencing joy as long as you're not making yourself a slave to vice and pursuing pleasure at the expense of virtue.

>hehehehehehe, so you've read Seneca. In Latin? In the form he wrote it, not in translation, so you are able to actually make that statement?

Nice goalpost shifting.

Carry on being a retard. I've read Seneca in English, if that's not good enough for you and you really want to win an argument well done, you win. Have you read Seneca in Latin? Please, tell me all about it. In latin, if you don't mind, and no copy-pasting bullshit either, eh?

Those are minor features of Stoicism. It's core belief was in the eternal recurrence, and the need to remain apathetic (stoical) in the face of this horrific reality.

>Have you read Seneca in Latin? Please, tell me all about it. In latin, if you don't mind, and no copy-pasting bullshit either, eh?
Nope I haven't. But I can understand what he meant with his words and I don't take translations at face value :^)

Simply put you cannot see how in ~10BC, or at least attempt to see that expressing your emotions was the same as letting them rule you, the reason why stoicism was so popular because they hid their emotions. Everyone showed their emotions, if you were angry you would be angry, I mean you would control it so you didn't just kill as soon as you became angry, but you would show that anger.

Obviously they were not advocating becoming autonomous robots, they had no concept of a fucking robot. But that is the goal of stoicism, you completely misunderstand it's ideals if you see it any other way.

Again, stoics are cancer and cannot even understand their own philosophy.

>HURR U NO RED HIM IN LADIN SO U DUN NO NUFFIN
>I HAVNT RED HIM IN LADEN EIVER BUT I NO WAHT HE MENT BEKOZ I R CLEVVA :^)

Nice stoicism there, bud.

Bcuz Muh feelings.
There, are you satisfied?

>But I can understand what he meant with his words

So you read him in English?

>But that is the goal of stoicism

Prove it. Find me a quotation - you can do it in English because I'm not a pedantic dipshit, but if you want to do it in Latin be my guest - where a relevant stoic explicitly advocates for the elimination of all emotion, rather than control of negative emotion and discipline in regards to vice. You won't, because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I'm not the retard you were arguing with, I was just floored by your hypocrisy and mendaciousness. No wonder this board is shit, it's full of literal faggits like you.

>So you read him in English?
I like how you cherry picked. AND I DON'T TAKE TRANSLATIONS AT FACE VALUE - that's the important part, funny how you left that out.

>Prove it. Find me a quotation - you can do it in English because I'm not a pedantic dipshit, but if you want to do it in Latin be my guest - where a relevant stoic explicitly advocates for the elimination of all emotion, rather than control of negative emotion and discipline in regards to vice. You won't, because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Hehehehehehe, I like how you latched onto a small part of my post. I have proven this with all my posts, with the fact that stoics do not show emotion. That's the fucking point. If you actually think about how it is written you will come to the same conclusion, i.e. you are fucking taking translations at face value.

Again since you glossed over, you know, another very important point.

I shall post it again.

>Simply put you cannot see how in ~10BC, or at least attempt to see that expressing your emotions was the same as letting them rule you, the reason why stoicism was so popular because they hid their emotions. Everyone showed their emotions, if you were angry you would be angry, I mean you would control it so you didn't just kill as soon as you became angry, but you would show that anger.

Care to explain your utter retardation? And why you dodged this point?

Simply put, you are applying modern times (where stoicism is in effect, everywhere) to ancient times where stoicism didn't exist and the onset of it.

You're an idiot. I will make it fucking easy for you and even give you a google definition.

Again, nice stoicism. I like how you missed the point.

>he actually replied.
Triggered much?

Also, in regards to Seneca, you are aware he wrote an entire work called "On the happy life"? Or, since you love latin, De Vita Beata.

Stoicism is all about happiness, it just emphasizes doing away with the needless shit.

>HURR

I've never claimed to be a stoic. You, however, are certainly retarded.

I'll take that as you failing to find a quotation.

>with the fact that stoics do not show emotion.

Prove it.

>the reason why stoicism was so popular because they hid their emotions.

Prove it.

Why did Seneca literally write a treatise on happiness if he did not think happiness was worth attaining?

Showing joy was not a flaw to stoics, it was merely about control. Prove me wrong. You're shit-talking, but you're not proving arguments.

Also the modern definition for the word 'stoicism' which you helpfully googled is a pretty big indicator that you have no idea what you're talking about, because anybody who's actually read the stoics is aware of the fact the modern word "stoic" isn't representative of the philosophy.

>Stoicism is all about happiness, it just emphasizes doing away with the needless shit.
How can you be so wrong? It's about being content.

>On the happy life
What the fuck, how is this an argument? He mentions emotions therefore you are wrong? Okay.

The title literally implies it's something lost to seneca as it's separate from him. He also wrote something entitled "on Anger" what does that have to do with anything?

You cunts don't think about words, do you?

>he is still going
Jesus man, you can stop at any time. Stoics are not meant to get angry, such as you are.

You genuinely are stupid. I'm not just saying that. Also, you are a terrible Taoist. Do you even know The Way?

I did prove you wrong, with you know. THe most broadest definition of Stoicism.

You are done, blood.

You are becoming a blubbering retard. YOu know you could make more points, other than names of works.

>he did not think happiness was worth attaining?
How can you misunderstand literally everything I am saying? Stoics feel, they do not show they feel. That's the cancer you mong.

Holy fucking shit.

>Also the modern definition for the word 'stoicism' which you helpfully googled is a pretty big indicator that you have no idea what you're talking about, because anybody who's actually read the stoics is aware of the fact the modern word "stoic" isn't representative of the philosophy.
>that justification
Just stop. Even if I had Seneca right here you would still fucking denounce it.

YOu're delusional. Just be wrong, for once.

>the google definition is wrong
>as I am right and it proves me wrong
hehehe.

I do know The Way, but I refuse to follow it. My way diverges when it comes to personal pleasure and suffering, I Will not follow the way I will follow my way.

So let me get the straight.

You believe that the stoics advocate that you should not express emotion - no good emotion, no bad emotion. That's your argument, am I correct? You acknowledge they don't advocate the elimination of all emotion, so we agree there. You posit they advocate that you show no emotion. You display no happiness, you display no sadness. Is that right? Am I correct?

Prove.
It.

And none of this "hehehehehehe" shit. Find me a fucking quote by Seneca or anybody that says "veil your happiness."

Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?

Like I said, you're a terrible Taoist. Also, retarded.

>Simply put you cannot see how in ~10BC, or at least attempt to see that expressing your emotions was the same as letting them rule you
Is this true?

>Prove.
>It.
heheheheh I fucking did you delusional fuck. Look how angry you are. If you expect me to repost things I have already posted over and over again? I will not.

Feel free to link this quote, take it to mean I have no evidence (even though I have provided you with ample amounts of evidence - translations, meanings and the like)

Let's just agree to disagree shall we? If you refuse to see anything I think I can safely move on and let your blissful ignorance be.

I am a terrible Taoist, yes. As you are a terrible stoic.

>heheheheh I fucking did you delusional fuck.

How, exactly? You haven't substantiated a single claim you've made regarding your position on stoic philosophy besides saying "translations are inaccurate even though I haven't read the original latin anyway". You haven't shown me a single stoic - in English or Latin - who at any point advocated what you claim they advocate. This is pretty basic shit. If you argue "x argues for x" you show where they argued it.

>even though I have provided you with ample amounts of evidence - translations, meanings and the like

You literally said "have you read it in latin? me neither but its probably wrong lol" You didn't indicate that you've read a single stoic text with any argument based in what a stoic philosopher has said.

>meanings and the like
A google defintion for the word "stoic"? Is that the depths of your knowledge on stoicism or are you going to find me a single quote from a stoic text that indicates they argue for what you posit they argue for?

>Let's just agree to disagree shall we?

Let's. You can feel nice and smug about it if you like, carry on being a retard. Maybe actually read something by a stoic so you have actual evidence to back up your claims next time.

Holy shit this is a bad thread.

>You literally said "have you read it in latin? me neither but its probably wrong lol" You didn't indicate that you've read a single stoic text with any argument based in what a stoic philosopher has said.

Well I asked that as you said you've read seneca's words. Which you haven't. You read who ever translated it, heheheheh.

>How, exactly? You haven't substantiated a single claim you've made regarding your position on stoic philosophy besides saying "translations are inaccurate even though I haven't read the original latin anyway". You haven't shown me a single stoic - in English or Latin - who at any point advocated what you claim they advocate. This is pretty basic shit. If you argue "x argues for x" you show where they argued it.

>google definition is not proof as it directly proves me wrong
>I shall just ignore that
>It's wrong because reasons

>A google defintion for the word "stoic"? Is that the depths of your knowledge on stoicism or are you going to find me a single quote from a stoic text that indicates they argue for what you posit they argue for?

What are you even doing? You understand Seneca's defintion of what t meant to be a Stoic is different than Zeno? The most broadest definition (which is googles) is you do not express your emotion. YOu can take that to mean not feeling all you want.

This user hit the nail on the head, funny how you haven't replied. >Let's. You can feel nice and smug about it if you like, carry on being a retard. Maybe actually read something by a stoic so you have actual evidence to back up your claims next time.

You are so angry it's not even funny.

Cya later, barry.

But I am

>Well I asked that as you said you've read seneca's words.

If you're going to be pedantic, nobody's read seneca's words because even the latin is a replication. Stop being such a fucking moron, have you read Seneca in either language? Can you please provide me any evidence that the translation is inaccurate enough that it makes the underlying philosophy of the English translation flawed?

>google definition is not proof as it directly proves me wrong

The word 'stoic' has taken on a different meaning to stoic philosophy. Taking a dictionary definition doesn't magically mean you've got a complete understanding of an entire philosophy, which might surprise you because you're obviously a wikipedia expert.

>You are so angry it's not even funny.

I'm fine, it's kind of funny that you haven't found a quote yet.

>Cya later, barry.

Later man, I'm glad you feel dumb enough that you're ditching before you look like a bigger retard. u mad etc

>If you're going to be pedantic, nobody's read seneca's words because even the latin is a replication. Stop being such a fucking moron, have you read Seneca in either language? Can you please provide me any evidence that the translation is inaccurate enough that it makes the underlying philosophy of the English translation flawed?

I never claimed to have read Seneca's words though, like you did. Why are you so angry about this point? If you don't want to get called out for being a retard, don't be a retard.

>Taking a dictionary definition doesn't magically mean you've got a complete understanding of an entire philosophy, which might surprise you because you're obviously a wikipedia expert.
It directly proves you wrong though.

>Later man, I'm glad you feel dumb enough that you're ditching before you look like a bigger retard. u mad etc
so mad, phew, calm down, lad.

>I never claimed to have read Seneca's words though

Oh good so you're actually just plain talking straight out your ass.

>It directly proves you wrong though.

Have you ever heard of a "spartan bedroom"? Do you think that the word "spartan" accurately reflects everything about being a Spartan?

>so mad, phew, calm down, lad.

Didn't you say you were leaving?

Badmon, just calm your tits. It's over. Why so angry for?

>Oh good so you're actually just plain talking straight out your ass.
hehehe, this is the point. Yeah. xD

>Have you ever heard of a "spartan bedroom"? Do you think that the word "spartan" accurately reflects everything about being a Spartan?

That's what, you know, the definition is for. xD

Please stop posting

Are you actually expecting him to find a quote out of hundreds of chapters of writings which express this ideal which straight up says "don't express emotion"

are you an idiot?

Wait, don't answer that, you are.

I think we're done here, you've made an ass of yourself.

If it'll shut you up I can say you won the argument and I'm super pissed about it, does that help?

I think if he can't find a single quote out of hundreds of chapters of writings that in any way proves his argument he's got a pretty fucking flawed argument. There's your answer.

idk

Nice try samefag. He made a claim, he can't back it up because he was wrong, rather than admit being wrong he made a complete tool of himself instead.

You first, bud. Glad you are finaly done.

(for the third time)

xD

YOur whgole point is literally "stoics dont let their emotions rule them" somehow not meaning "don't express your emotions"

Actually hilarious how you won't even touch that point. Can't imagine your feelings when you see it. I can tell you are having trouble hiding those feelings though, as you are still posting.

Shi stoic/10.

You still haven't even proven that stoics advocate for not expressing emotions, user, besides the fact that the word "stoic" indicates it.

You could actually quote a stoic philosopher but that requires you to have read them, so that's tricky, isn't it?

What do you think the writings are for though?

>Nice try samefag
?

>What do you think the writings are for though?

What do you mean?

You might as well just quote some things from the Stoics that make it clear they're advocating not being ruled by emotions, as opposed to completely doing away with them (or not expressing them).

>You still haven't even proven that stoics advocate for not expressing emotions, user, besides the fact that the word "stoic" indicates it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>You haven't proven me wrong except for the explicit thing WHICH proves me wrong.
How can you be so utterly delusional, seriously? I want you to explain this logic.

Again, for the 4th fucking time

I will even put it in this post.

Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?

I would like you to provide evidence from the stoics which you have read (and I for some reason haven't) which proves you correct, should be pretty easy, no? WHy haven't you done it earlier?

Remember, I am saying Stoics simply do not show their emotion. They feel all the same, they simply do not show them.

That's literally what it means to be a stoic and if you ask anyone from the old world what it means to be stoic (I mean I have been to a fucking psychologist (that's where I became aware of the idea of stoics)), but no, user on the internet is correct.

Because reasons.

hehehehehehe, you're done.

You too, are missing the point.
>as opposed to completely doing away with them
This is not what I am saying, and shows you too do not understand stoics.
>or not expressing them
THIS is what I am saying.

ANd now I would like you to explain how "Not being ruled by your emotions" and "not expressing them" are any different in 10 BC Greece.

No point missed, the "or" is there for a reason.

>ANd now I would like you to explain how "Not being ruled by your emotions" and "not expressing them" are any different in 10 BC Greece.

I'd rather have you support your repeated claims that our understanding of being ruled by one's emotions is different from 10 BC Greece's understanding of it.

>No point missed, the "or" is there for a reason.
Or in that sense explicitly means they are one in the same.

>I'd rather have you support your repeated claims that our understanding of being ruled by one's emotions is different from 10 BC Greece's understanding of it.
Well I did, you just can't see it. Stoics literally infest every facet of modern life. You can understand it wasn't always like this, right? And is why Stoics are a thing? Because they were, at one stage, separate from everyone else? They did something different? i.e. they hid their emotions?

Why is a google definition of the most broadest term not enough for you?

Go ask your grandmother if she is still alive or grand father what it means to be a stoic. I cannot cure your ignorance if you are adamant in remaining delusional.

Stop being such a fucking child for a second, would you? The spamming is unnecessary, especially since I've already asked you to prove to me - with a quote from a stoic rather than a modern dictionary definition - where a stoic advocates for not showing any emotion.

If you don't realize why a word definition isn't the same as a big, broad philosophy with literally thousands of pages of explanation with actual nuance that you've ALREADY ADMITTED you haven't read. Also I'm just going to draw attention to this awkward thing you did:
>You haven't actually read any stoics, have you? I suggest you start with Seneca.

I answered I did and you did a silly shuffle about translations because you were embarrassed, then later on you admitted YOU hadn't read Seneca despite advising I do. Are you perhaps concerned that you're talking out your ass and running yourself in circles with pedantic arguments and trying to dodge answering any question I ask you to prove your statement?

In regards to your dictionary definition that apparently shuts down any dissent, I don't know what to tell you, but I can run you through some words that don't mean the same thing as they meant a hundred years ago, much less a word taken from a misunderstood philosophy that's over two fucking thousand years old. Let's start with gay. If I call you gay, what does that mean? What did it mean a hundred years ago? Are you starting to conceive of how certain words can mean certain things yet somehow not be representative of an entire concept?
Your dictionary definition is not definitive proof of your argument, just letting you know. But let's not get distracted. Let's not worry about "not feeling emotion" because as I expressed here we apparently agreed on certain things.
This addresses the thing you spammed the shit out of. I asked you to prove that the stoics tell you not to show emotion, with a quote from a stoic. I'm still waiting.

>Why is a google definition of the most broadest term not enough for you?

Because some things are a tiny bit more nuanced than a dictionary definition, anonymous. You might find some day that googling a word and reading the defintion doesn't make you an expert.

Then again, the way you're behaving, you might not. I kind of envy you, you must think you're really clever with your superficial understanding of things.

>I asked you to prove that the stoics tell you not to show emotion, with a quote from a stoic. I'm still waiting.
Wow, you actually went again. You're delusional, just stop. There is no helping you. You are literally asking me to post over and ovr the same thing so you can ignore and claim I have made no claims simply because the very definition proves you wrong.

Again, you are fucking done bro. I will make it easy for you. Call your grandma, right now. Say you love her, it will make her day. Then start a conversation, and ask her what it means to be a stoic.

You are done. I am done. SImply stop I have moved on, I am arguing with someone else now.

>Because some things are a tiny bit more nuanced than a dictionary definition, anonymous. You might find some day that googling a word and reading the definition doesn't make you an expert.

But it directly proves you wrong though? If you can understand the definition of what it means to be a stoic so easily, why is your definition not googles? Are you implying they are willingly spreading misinformation? Or are you trying to imply you have some understanding that the people over at google do not have?

>Then again, the way you're behaving, you might not. I kind of envy you, you must think you're really clever with your superficial understanding of things.

Ad hom doesn't add to your claims, I thought you were better than that.

>simply because the very definition proves you wrong.

I repeat: The definition of the word "stoic" is not representative of the stoic philosophy, how can you not wrap your brain around this? How can you be so adamant about not even giving an actual text by a stoic even a cursory glance to try and prove me wrong? How devoted are you to remaining ignorant about a philosophy while still professing to be an expert based on a DICTIONARY DEFINITION?

>SImply stop I have moved on, I am arguing with someone else now.

You said you were leaving ages ago, user, I'm still waiting for you to actually validate your claim or fuck off, either is cool with me.

>he went again
xD
>he literally post the exact same thing again
>which I said was the reason I was done

I honestly can't tell if you went down the "I'm just pretending to be retarded" route after you realized you were talking out your ass or if you're actually this stupid. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

Stoicism and Buddhism threads always bring out the retards

"God hath made all things in the world, nay, the world itself, free from hindrance and perfect, and its parts for the use of the whole. Not other creature is capable of comprehending His administration thereof; but the reasonable being Man possesses faculties for the consideration of all these things-- not only that he is himself a part, but what part he is, and how it is meet that the parts should give place to the whole. Nor is this all. Being naturally constituted noble, magnanimous, and free, he sees that the things which surround him are of two kinds. Some are free from hindrance and in the power of the will. Other are subject to hindrance, and depend on the will of other men. If then he place his own good, his own best interest, only in that which is free from hindrance and in his power, he will be free, tranquil, happy, unharmed, noble-hearted, and pious; giving thanks to all things unto God, finding fault with nothing that comes to pass, laying no charge against anything. Whereas if he place his good in outward things, depending not on the will, he must perforce be subject to hindrance and restraint, the slave of those that have power over the things he desires and fears; he must perforce be impious, as deeming himself injured at the hands of God; he must be unjust, as ever prone to claim more than his due; he must perforce be of a mean and abject spirit."

Just answer the question.

>But it directly proves you wrong though? If you can understand the definition of what it means to be a stoic so easily, why is your definition not googles? Are you implying they are willingly spreading misinformation? Or are you trying to imply you have some understanding that the people over at google do not have?

Go ask your grandparents what it means to be a Stoic.

For the fiftieth fucking time. I am correct. Like it cannot be argued like you are tying to, I have a literal definition in support of my claims which delusional retards refuse to see(it's actually the Oxford Dictionaries definition, not googles). All this can be cured with a simple phone call, but you won't do that, probably too socially awkward to even start a conversation with your grandparents

>shit flinging ad hom
You guys happy?

you've got it the wrong way round. that cosmological shit is the minor feature, the absolute core is the personal practice aspect.

Could you stop looking up dictionary definitions for a second and actually read a stoic text to support your claim?

Next you're going to say the word "platonic" is an accurate summary of all of Plato, and all you need to read. Fuck actually reading Plato, the dictionary's got you covered.

Tell you what, let's agree on this. The dictionary definition of stoic says that you shouldn't express emotions. If that's the depth you want to take your knowledge of "stoic", congratulations. That argument is won. You've got that on lockdown. You're good. I lose. You win. We're done. That argument's over: The dictionary agrees with you.

Now that's out of our system can we discuss stoic philosophy? You know, the actual writings of stoics. You're inching towards it with Zeno quotes.

The important distinction to be made here is that we're not discussing "stoic", we're discussing "Stoic". It's unfortunate that the word has entered the language where the lowercase version does not accurately represent the Stoic philosophy, but that's just how it is. See if you want a fine example of how the definition of stoic is not compatible with Stoicism. There are, of course, numerous other quotes that could be gathered from many Stoic philosophers that say similar things.

Hahaha, nice.

>defintions do not mean what they mean as they prove me wrong
>stoics
are not
>Stoics

They're not, you're finally getting it. Again, it's like saying "Platonic" encapsulates actual platonic philosophy. It doesn't. It's a word.

Did you know the word "dumb" means both 'stupid' and 'deaf'?

>Now that's out of our system can we discuss stoic philosophy? You know, the actual writings of stoics. You're inching towards it with Zeno quotes.
I did. With literally my first fucking post. which we can now agree on, which for some reason triggered you. Which literally proved y first post

>stoics are cancer

Thanks.

If anything Stoics are not meant to show their negative emotions, they are to be controlled. Why are you, in a thread about Stoics, going on like a raging retard? Did YOU read those philosophies? obviously not?

Why are you basing your whole argument on the projected fact that I haven't read any stoics?

Again, stoics are cancer. As you have proven.

I'm arguing with you.
Are you angry? If you answer yes, cool off and come back when you've settled down a little and you've regained your capacity for reason.
If you answered no, congratulations, you've proven people can argue without being pissed.

>Why are you basing your whole argument on the projected fact that I haven't read any stoics?

Because of the fact you literally admitted it and also the fact you adamantly refuse to actually utilize stoic philosophy to prove an argument you made about why you don't like stoic philosophy.

>If anything Stoics are not meant to show their negative emotions, they are to be controlled.

>Again, stoics are cancer.

You've got the correct understanding of the difference between Stoic and stoic now, thank you.

Hehehehe, you understand one of those definitions literally includes the school of stoicism?

Why can't you just admit you are fucking delusional and the broad term proves you directly wrong.

How you think you understand it doesn't matter. You are simply wrong, I like how none of you have touched on the fact that I am telling you to ask someone else.

Obviously if you won't believe me there is nothing I can do past tell you to go and ask someone else, but you won't. Asking older people are better for understanding this idea. That's why I mentioned grandmother.

Stop bringing up the definition if you don't want to accept it, fine. It does not refute what I am saying though - it simply proves your ignorance.

How about this. Instead of asking me to prove what I am saying, let's have you prove what you are saying.

Prove to me that Stoics are not about not showing their emotions. Again, before you even try feeling =/= showing.

>Because of the fact you literally admitted it and also the fact you adamantly refuse to actually utilize stoic philosophy to prove an argument you made about why you don't like stoic philosophy.
Care to point me to this post.

I'm Loving these cherry picked arguments. Like that's literally the most irrelevant point in that post. I like how you ignored the rest.

Let me link you to my first post in this thread.
:^)

>to go and ask someone else

You mean a random guy off the street who, like you, has never read a single stoic in his life and goes based entirely on a dictionary definition.

Gee, I never considered that.

>Again, before you even try feeling =/= showing.

Ok, lets start with Seneca expressing his emotions of joy in one of his letters. He is speaking to Lucilius about a book he recently wrote

"I was not merely pleased; I rejoiced. So full of wit and spirit it was!"

There you go, a literal expression of an emotion by Seneca, the guy you told me to read.

Letter XLVI if you want to open up the Latin copy you have at your bedside and translate it personally just to be sure.

>You mean a random guy off the street who, like you, has never read a single stoic in his life and goes based entirely on a dictionary definition.
>Gee, I never considered that.
Kek, literally said to ask your grandparents.

>"I was not merely pleased; I rejoiced. So full of wit and spirit it was!"

This means literally nothing. Stoics are not against feeling emotion? I never said that. Seneca is for the expression of positive emotions, it neither refutes nor proves what you are saying - as I have said, there are many school of stoics. It mainly revolves around negative emotion, but it does also include positive feelings.

>This means literally nothing.

You asked, and I quote:
>Prove to me that Stoics are not about not showing their emotions.

I gave a direct quote from Seneca where he explicitly, in writing, expressed joy. Joy, you'll understand, is an emotion. Emotion, you posit, even with your handy dictionary definition you've been latching to, the stoics were against. Now you're shifting the goalposts to negative emotion which is closer to the actual philosophy, so I guess we've got a start. Rejection of negative emotion is indeed an ideal of stoic philosophy.

>I rejoiced
Not him, I suggest you read pic related. Can you actually tell him or me what """"""Seneca""""""" meant by that? Keep in mind Rejoiced is a word of French origin and has no Latin roots.

It doesn't refute what you are saying, but it also doesn't prove what you are saying.

>Prove to me that Stoics are not about not showing their emotions.
Well you picked one emotion.

Onto the rest now.

lol what

Are you fucking serious my man?

You first refused to defend your argument with a SINGLE QUOTE from any stoic whatsoever and now you want me to list every emotion expressed by a stoic to prove they expressed emotion?

Sorry, friend, I already showed you Seneca expressed emotion in writing. Your argument was not "the stoics were against expressing every emotion in a convenient list from start to finish" your argument was "the stoics were against expressing emotion" which I demonstrated, unless we're going to start nitpicking translations in which case god help us all.

Think. You are reading a translation which uses an old french word to attempt to express a latin idea.

You understand therein lies the whole fault in our language and translation? Meaning is lost through translation, that is no hidden fact, it's readily accepted by an scholar out there.

So how can you use a translation as literal meaning? It's neither here nor there.

Why do you think pic related exists?
Because of the inherent problems with translation and subjective meaning.

>You first refused to defend your argument with a SINGLE QUOTE from any stoic whatsoever and now you want me to list every emotion expressed by a stoic to prove they expressed emotion?
Well you want me to find a quote which says what I says, so yes, I expect the same from you.

You picked on singular positive emotion, which yes, I said some stoics (seneca among them) are not immune to.

Onto the rest now.

>You picked on singular positive emotion, which yes, I said some stoics (seneca among them) are not immune to.
Before you get all flustered.
>as I have said, there are many school of stoics

>Well you want me to find a quote which says what I says, so yes, I expect the same from you.

Which you still haven't done, so you got the quote from me gratis.

>You picked on singular positive emotion

Yes, and? You didn't tell me I had to find an expression of literally every emotion. You told me to find an expression of an emotion which you - with your repeated citation of your infallible dictionary definition - claimed the stoics chose not to express. Now you've changed it, evidently, to negative emotion.

So tell me, is your new position that the stoics were against the expression of negative emotion? If so, you are closer than when we started to the meat of it. The stoics DID idealize the rejection of negative emotion. NEGATIVE emotion. Your dictionary definition also suggests this by providing the example of pain and hardship in advance of "not showing emotion." A stoic might argue 'If your wife died and it was out of your control, why should you grieve? What good does it do you?" Basically 'No use crying over spilled milk." I would not see a stoic argue "If you got married, why should you feel pleased? Pleasure is bad."

> 'If your wife died and it was out of your control, why should you grieve? What good does it do you?"

"The will of nature may be learned from things upon which we are all agreed. As when our neighbor’s boy has broken a cup, or the like, we are ready at once to say, “These are casualties that will happen”; be assured, then, that when your own cup is likewise broken, you ought to be affected just as when another’s cup was broken. Now apply this to greater things. Is the child or wife of another dead? There is no one who would not say, “This is an accident of mortality.” But if anyone’s own child happens to die, it is immediately, “Alas! how wretched am I!” It should be always remembered how we are affected on hearing the same thing concerning others."

Because it tells me to deal with and accept pain, rather than defeat and surpass pain.

>as I have said, there are many school of stoics

Certainly. I'm pretty sure you've not read a single one, but if you have please feel free to indicate to me an inconsistency between schools on the matter of expressing emotion.