Stoics thread

Neoplatonism had a bunch of "spiritual exercises" so to speak that are all about bringing yourself into union with The One (No, not Yahweh, fuck off Kike). Other Greek traditions apparently practiced literal naval gazing among other things. It's possible Stoicism had something similar.

If you want two other non-European philosophies/religions/whatever-you-get-the-point that have such "spiritual exercises" look at Buddhism and Taoism. Both have vast array of mental exercises that, within the context of the philosophy/religion/whatever do any number of things, but, at least with Buddhism, have objective mental effects entirely separate from their spiritual effects. These mental exercises are, of course, meditation.

I'm not well read on Stoicism, but, I'd wager the Stoics wouldn't say you should just dive in head first and not get angry and such. Rather, you should train yourself not to.

Modern "Stoics" are weak.

They want Stoic happiness without having Stoic virtue. That is, they want Stoic peace of mind, but will still use drugs, binge drink, have casual sex, etc. Meaning they didn't understand what is virtue. That when they don't support some kind of liberal moral nihilism. Because moral nihilism is totally compatible with virtue ethics.

The problem is that people who don't get pissed off or disappointed about things tend not to do very well in life. I mean why do you think we still get these emotions after all these tens of thousands of years of evolution? Why do you think stoics are nearly non existent? Stoicism properly followed leads to reproductive failure.

>Because moral nihilism is totally compatible with virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics and moral nihilism go together quite well actually, since virtue ethics would be a fundamentally internal ethical standard.

>The problem is that people who don't get pissed off or disappointed about things tend not to do very well in life
Ah, but it's very important to distinguish which "things" you are talking about. Stoicism only promotes mitigating your negative reaction to things which are out of your control. Things that are IN your control however should warrant the same reaction and attention if you slack and don't do them, not give them your all or what have you. Though with the important caveat that once you realized you have failed you should not ponder on these things and dwell on them for too long, but asap reset, get into the present, realize your mistake and start again.

It's very pragmatic and practical and can help people get out of misery or pathetic lives, but nonetheless does not impede greatness.

As long as they can enjoy those things without being dependent on them for their happiness that behaviour is fine in moderation. If they are completely fulfiled by doing that, then why stop them as long as they're not hurting anybody? Most likely they won't be though and will stride to act morally outside of these activities and probably limit them to moderation since they know their happiness isn't dependent on it.

>Virtue ethics and moral nihilism go together quite well actually, since virtue ethics would be a fundamentally internal ethical standard.
I disagree. Even Alasdair MacIntyre would disagree. Read his After Virtue.

Even if you use virtue ethics in tandem with biopolitics, you eventually have to establish one ethical standard (such as the minimization of suffering).

>Mfw all the things that seem to make sense to me like stoicism and mindfulness ask of me to take in all that is inherent in the present and to make me aware of all its contents, yet doing so asks of me to face the terrors of my extreme case of visual snow and tinnitus which I can virtually do nothing about and of which I spend most of my day trying not to think about which causes me to slip into inaction and makes my mind slip away which increases the brain fog and passive nature of my day so I find very few answers of how to live life properly

>As long as they can enjoy those things without being dependent on them for their happiness that behaviour is fine in moderation.

Casual sex, binge drinking, drug usage and so on? This is not moderation.

>If they are completely fulfiled by doing that, then why stop them as long as they're not hurting anybody?

"As long as they are not hurting anybody" is not the Stoic standard. Stoic standards are much higher than this weak ass shit that comes from a misunderstanding of liberalism.

>Most likely they won't be though and will stride to act morally outside of these activities

They are still immoral in these activities.

>and probably limit them to moderation since they know their happiness isn't dependent on it.

Casual sex, drug usage and binge drinking is not "moderation".

If they are as you describe, then one should probably hesitate to call them stoics, yes. However, the belief that moderation equals virtue for everyone isn't really the case in stoicism. It puts a lot of emphasis on whether or not the individual can handle these external "surface-level" things without being dependent on them.
This passage from Seneca comes to mind:

>Well then, shall we act like other men? Shall there be no distinction between ourselves and the world?" Yes, a very great one; let men find that we are unlike the common herd, if they look closely.
>If they visit us at home, they should admire us, rather than our household appointments. He is a great man who uses earthenware dishes as if they were silver; but he is equally great who uses silver as if it were earthenware.
>It is the sign of an unstable mind not to be able to endure riches.

Seneca is the most easy going of the Stoics, certainly the most enjoyable one to read.

Which is fine. Understanding that moral values are subjective and baseless doesn't mean you can't hold moral values. What makes virtue ethics well suited to moral nihilism (in which morals could only ever be personal) is the fact they relate to evaluating your self against an idealized consideration of yourself, the person you wish to be.

>Casual sex, drug usage and binge drinking is not "moderation".

Says you.

>The problem is that people who don't get pissed off or disappointed about things tend not to do very well in life. I mean why do you think we still get these emotions after all these tens of thousands of years of evolution? Why do you think stoics are nearly non existent? Stoicism properly followed leads to reproductive failure.

Wow it's not like the christfags borrowed like half of their teachings from Epictetus, Seneca, Rufus&Aurelius or anything...

really? what teachings in christianity comes from stoicism? I can come up with little overlap

>easy going

>If they are as you describe, then one should probably hesitate to call them stoics, yes

That's what I'm saying.

>However, the belief that moderation equals virtue for everyone isn't really the case in stoicism.

It is.
Temperance is a virtue. If I remember correctly, you are talking about Seneca's "On the Happy Life". He is talking about having wealth in this chapter, not on how to deal with pleasure.

Not totally related: Something interesting we can see on "On the Happy Life" is that we can see Seneca's faults (he mentions that himself). Greed for material goods was what has undone Seneca (not in the sense of causing his death).

And Stoic doctrine.
Epictetus was celibate and wrote about avoiding getting drunk.
Rufus considered only sex in marriage for the purpose of having kids to be lawful. He also wrote about how to eat, etc. Epictetus followed his teachings.
Marcus Aurelius praises himself more than once on the Meditations for having kept his chastity.

underrated post

>Epictetus was celibate and wrote about avoiding getting drunk.
>Rufus considered only sex in marriage for the purpose of having kids to be lawful. He also wrote about how to eat, etc. Epictetus followed his teachings.
>Marcus Aurelius praises himself more than once on the Meditations for having kept his chastity.

What would they know about Stoicism?

The problem is that sometimes just by believing the impossible can become possible it actually becomes possible.
Stoic thought encourages conservative thinking.

In a sense only caring about what you can change is a call to simply be conservative and give inot the status quo as it is now.
This made more sense in ancient times as people lives pretty static lives.
Today society is much more fluid and changing partially due to technological advances.
You can say that theoretically you can control or partially control everything so again the call to only care about what you can change essentially means only care for what you think can be changed now or only care about what society allows or tells you you or it can be.

Well yeah, unless he has some sexual fetish relating to silver plates. But it's interchangable. Pleasure derived from sex or pleasure derived from material wealth are interchangable in this context.

Adding to it is that intense emotions are a good catalyst for action and change. This is why the younger more emotional generations usually bring about change.
They are more free to think outside the box cause they are not so completely consumed by the box as older generations who have lived and embedded themselves in it.

and this is antethetical to capitalist democracies and with the idea of giving everyone a chance to "change their destiny" and end up a billionaire from a modest start.

Rich aristocracy/NEETs could always allow themsleves to be more lethargic and unbothered, they had slaves or near slaves to worry and be emotional abou their hard life.

I don't see how if you can see a goal in the future where you could see it potentially being possible and then working towards that goes against stoic teachings. The people who chase 'the impossible' believe that it will be possible when others don't. Stoicism doesn't advocate conforming to society in the slightest. It very much encourages the individual to find their own place and think for themselves. And on the way to chasing the impossible, obstacles appear, and the way you respond to those obstacles is somewhere where you can apply stoicism to keep you on track to your 'impossible' goal

I just think stoicism is simply a description of human life with an emphesis on less excesses.
Sure, many people are "stoic" without knowing what stoicism is but IMO its more telling of the writers and supporters of stoicism and who they were than a tool for one to liv a better life.
Maybe think about yourself and your life's history and your position in life at the moment and figure out why stoicism seems appealing to you.

I mean that anyone espousing how one should live his life is simply doing so because of his own position and place in lifw and attitudes towards life.
Stoicism is always a part of our lives but naming yourself as a stoic or supporter of stoicism says moer about you than about some ideals way to living.

>Stoicism is always a part of our lives but naming yourself as a stoic or supporter of stoicism says moer about you than about some ideals way to living.
What are you trying to say here? Yes stoicism presents its own ideas of how to live, as do all other philosophies and belief systems. Has anyone claimed otherwise?

Philosophy doesnt always present or suggest ideal ways of living.
What im essentially saying is that I would never call myself a "stoic".
Its an interesting perspective on life but defining yourself as a follower of stoicism seems naive to me because excess is not nessecarily bad, nor is worrying about things beyond your control.
Being composed can be ok for an analyst but not for an actor.

Posting best stoic. Greek writers can't compete. She rides a bike named after a God

Definitely not an expert on the matter, but Jesus Christ was pretty much a stoic

"how to live" ideas seem both too general and too specific to me.
On the one hand hey create a pretty overwhelming doctrine you must follow and on the other focus on something specific or find causes that are too specific and strict and thus are not perticular enough and do not take all the different perticularities of the life of an individual into consideration.
They are interesting ideas, certain perspectives on human life but I can never actually try to hgold on to them, rather examine my life in its subtelties and perticular events that i become a part of.

>what teachings in christianity comes from stoicism?

Turning the other cheek

That verse isn't about being a cuck to invaders like some athiest/pagans imply

Its about not responding to petty insults and being apathetic to small issues not faithed-based. This is to counter the typical Jewish neurotic paranoia where they flip thier shit at the slight insult to them. I.E. mainstream media.

Let me be a bit more concrete after giving it some more thought.
In certain ways being a stoic is nessecary. For example if ytou are an emprror or ruler or rich slaveowner of buisnessman.
You need to keep calm, analyse and consider things and project a certain air of proffeciency and control.
In other times letting your emotional urges loose is nessacary and good because it is a way of communicating things you feel strongly about.
You cannot reload events like in a game after you considered how to handle them.
In the moment you have to make the level of your desire to discontent known cause you are faced with important or hopless situations.
People cannot read minds and letting go of your emotions is a way of characterising yourself and exposing yourself.
In buisness and power struggles this might many times be a bad move but on the other hand can sometimes be a good one as well, like when leading and army or looking to inspire others.
Being a stoic or writing about such ideas seems to be like battling with yourself, over reacting and generalizing because you have certain demons of your own you are looking to calm.

Of course one should be in open dialogue with oneself and critical of which parts of stoicism one thinks is true and sound and not buy it all wholesale, especially considering these are texts written some two thousands years ago. If you then find that there are ideas here that are missing which you can pick from some other bucket of ideas, then sure I could see you not being comfortable of calling yourself a stoic.

In the examples you mentioned though I feel like stoicism have answers.
>Excess is not necessarily bad
Which stoicism acknowledges, it just stresses the importance of learning to be able to handle wealth and excess without needing to rely on it to make yourself happy.
>Being composed can be ok for an analyst but not for an actor
Except there's nothing in stoicism which prevents the actor from reaching those heights of emotion in his craft. The stoicism would more kick in when before going to an audition, the actor has in his head to not expect to get the role should he not get it, and to quell his nervousness before doing the audition by analyzing his emotions in that moment. Then when he goes into the auditon he acts his heart out. I see no contradiction here.
If you're thinking about the actor needing to live some excentric lifestyle to achieve his craft, then there's no contradiction there either, for instance, Epitectus says:
>If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.

>in the moment you have to make the level of your desire to discontent known cause you are faced with important or hopless situations.
If it's a situation where nothing can be changed and it's all out of your control, then nothing can be changed by you getting angry. If it's an important desperate situation which people around you are not taking seriously or what have you, then by all means employ your whole emotional breadth. This is all in line with stoicism. I feel like you're making the classic mistake of interpreting stoicism as being emotionless in all situations. This is not true. It's only about mitigating it when it's not needed when dealing with circumstances that are not under your control.

But this is what im talking about. The judgment of what things are under your control and which arent and when, is exactly a privilage of a certain style of life of a certain class.
A static life where one is in relative control.

A life of structured privilage.

No matter where you are on the social ladder you still have things that are under your control and things that aren't. It's not a privelege for anyone to do that assesment of the situation, anyone can do it. Naturally a rich man or an emperor have more things under their control than a slave, but that doesn't matter. The slave still has things he can control.