Wtf I love Diogenes now

nope all got burned up by Christians and Muslims
All we have are references and quote of his found in other works that the Muslims considered to not be "anti-mohamed"

A lot of the stories attributed to him are just attributed to him and there's not a lot more other than the slave ones that are interesting.

>tfw Diogenes wrote a lot of texts
>tfw so did many other Cynic philosophers
>tfw Zeno wrote a book about communism and everyone sharing wives and fucking their family
>tfw they're all lost to time
IT'S NOT FAIR

>Zeno the cucked

Plato and Diogenes seemed to have this kind of rival friendship going on where they both thought each other was retarded but seemed to respect each other regardless. Although Diogenes was just being an asshole when he spat everywhere when he was invited into Plato's house.

If all men are cucks then no men are cucks. Zeno knew this.

Zeno sounds like degenerate scum. Thank god the mudslimes burned him to historical irrelevance.

He was the founder of Stoicism. Do not speak about things you do not know about, otherwise you just appear as a fool.

Alexander conquered the known world.

Diogenes lived in a barrel and told a few jokes.

>cultivate a stable state of mind, unswayed by pleasure and pain (so as not to feel too upset at being cucked)

And both are still known more or less equally.

...

Stoicism is the philosophy of cuckolds. Spread the meme!

Alexander conquered the known world because he couldn't conquer himself. His great feats and ambition are proof of the smallness of his mind.

Alexander is arguably the most famous person in history after Jesus of Nazareth.

Diogenes is an obscure Greek cynic with no surviving works.

Guessing you're that moronic Persiboo that's been floating around here since day one. Alexander was a genius in every respect of his life.

He was certainly a brilliant strategist and very intellect in general, but he was no philosopher. A wise man doesn't desire to murder and control thousands. And I've never talked about Persia here before.

> obscure Greek cynic
Diogenes would probably be still in top-150 most famous people. Not on Alexanders level, but just slightly more obscure.

You're an idiot, go outside (scary I know) of your house, pick 35 random people and ask them if they know Alexander the great, and then ask them if they know diogenes

I'd probably rank Mohammed or Genghis Khan higher than Alexander desu

was diogenes the worlds first shitposter?

> Alexanwho? Never heard of him.
> That guy in the barrel? Yes, I remember him.

He desired to conquer the world and gain as much knowledge as possible. The costs were incidental. All those people would be just as dead today, and with nothing to show for it. He engendered a massive cultural diffusion and spread the seeds of Hellas all over Asia.

Both are considerably more recent. Kayne West is extremely well known today, but that's because he's still alive.

Yes; he shitposted to educate.
He didn't conquer the world to gain knowledge, he conquered he because he couldn't conquer himself. He controlled others because he couldn't control himself. All his great feats and his influence on history does not change the fact that he died no wiser than anyone else.

Shitposters are a historical constant

>he conquered he because he couldn't conquer himself

This is drivel. I doubt you know anything about Alexander beyond what you've gleaned from his Wiki page.

He died significantly wiser than anyone else. At that time, literally no one had seen more of the world than he had seen. No one had been to more places, spoken with more people, experienced more cultures. He had witnessed every aspect of human nature. He had mastered the art of war. He had subjugated barbarians and raised up noble peoples. He studied directly under Aristotle and was the embodiment of a philosopher-king. He collected and catalogued specimens of flora and fauna that no Greek had ever encountered. He spoke with the priests and philosophers in distant lands to learn their beliefs and absorb their wisdom. He ran a massive empire spanning three continents. His name is still making headlines today, 2300 years later.

holyfuck if the story about the cup is true this guy is my hero
BTFO Plato while he was still alive is every autistic philosopher's dream
Nietzsche is just a pussy Diogenes

He was a bloodthirsty warmonger who desired control and power. He did many great things and probably learned a lot, but he was still just another man.
>philosopher-king
He was barely a king at all. Rarely do you hear stories of how he ruled because he rarely did, he simply conquered. Why would a wise man want to conquer the world? Why would a wise man enjoy killing humans? Why would a wise man be obsessed about his destiny and legacy? Alexander was obviously intelligent and knowledgeable, be he still had the mind of someone that never left the cave.

Well, there is still Buddha who is known to even more people that Jesus, while being even more ancient than Christ.

but he knew and clearly admited diogenes was more based
get over it, dude

And Alexander praised the shit out of Diogenes and was actually inspired by Diogenes going "Get the fuck out of my sunlight"

And Buddha's very image is based on the likeness of Alexander. Prior to Alexander's conquests, Buddha was represented only symbolically, much as the Prophet Muhammad is today. After his conquests, human images of Buddha began appearing, and they all bore the likeness of Alexander.

Nice reading comprehension.

>If I were not (!) Alexander, I should wish to be Diogenes.

>Why would a wise man want to conquer the world?

How else can one learn what the world contains? One can be a conquering autocrat or one can be a wandering sage. Alexander chose the former. He enjoyed the thrill of battle, not the mass slaughter. Alexander could very well have killed people outside of war if he was so bloodthirsty. But by all accounts he was an exceedingly humane king. His campaigns became more savage as he wandered further into India and dealt with peoples who were inaccessible to negotiation.

>How else can one learn what the world contains? One can be a conquering autocrat or one can be a wandering sage. Alexander chose the former.
Alexander chose the one where he murdered people, caused destruction, and became a tyrant. If he simply wanted to learn he could've peacefully sent researchers and diplomats; he didn't want to learn, he wanted to conquer.
>He enjoyed the thrill of people dying, not the mass slaughter.
>Stalin could very well have killed people outside of war if he was so bloodthirsty.
>But by all accounts he was an exceedingly humane tyrant
>His campaigns became more savage as he wandered further into India and dealt with peoples who were unwilling to be conquered.

You're a moral imbecile, which is the worst kind.

Don't ever put a Monarch like Alexander in the same sentence as a paranoid bureaucrat like Stalin. They are entirely different classes of human being. Stalin was not willing to expose himself to danger in the process of conquering; Alexander exposed himself at every turn. Stalin never fought in a single battle; Alexander fought in every battle, usually on the lead horse. That is the difference between a tyrant and a king. A tyrant luxuriates while a king labors; a tyrant shirks where a king fights; a tyrant takes credit for the deeds of others whereas a king gives credit to those who deserve it. You are not cut out for this line of appraisal. That moral lens is like a colored filter. You'll never see anything clearly through it.

While men like Alexander are likelier much better people than men like Stalin, they are still ultimately tyrants. A king might be fair and smart and courageous, but he is still a man who orders others to their death for his own interests; he is still a man who steals wealth from others to build his grand palaces and armies. A king is man who thinks he is better than others and that he deserves to tell them how they should live their life, not much different than a tyrant.

I get Alexander is your historical waifu and he's a pretty cool guy, but you can still admit his faults and see that he was ultimately not a true philosopher.

Was Diogenes Proto-Stirner?

>A king might be fair and smart and courageous, but he is still a man who orders others to their death for his own interests

False. Doubly false in the case of Alexander.

Alexander's army was initially comprised of native Macedonians and other loyal Greeks. These men were part of a royal army formed by his father and paid as soldiers. They were not slaves or conscripts.

As his conquests continued and his legend grew, more and more peoples desired to join his campaign. Alexander accommodated a panoply of peoples and soldiers in his army. He never fielded even a single troop of slaves. No one fought for Alexander against their will. On the contrary, many fought out of love and devotion to him and his legend. And he loved them in return. When the men said they would not march any further into India, he did not take to cracking whips and driving them on against their choice. He halted the march and turned back for home. When he offered his veterans (many of whom were in their fifties and sixties) a lucrative discharge from the army and safe passage back home, they refused to leave. When Alexander started replacing Greeks with loyal Persians in his army, the Macedonians rioting in front of his tent and flung themselves at his feet, because he had not given them leave to kiss his face. This was not a tyrant. This was a beloved King.

Alexander took lands from other people, it is true, but in most cases, it was a nominal conquest. He was content to receive a pledge of fealty and submission, and in return, the people were allowed to follow their old customs, live in the same places, and worship the same gods. Alexander was very tolerant of foreign custom and religion; too tolerant, in the opinion of many of his fellow Macedonians. Alexander never told anyone how to live their life; he had work enough trying to live his own.

That's what happens when you're the mad version of Socrates.

this thread screams autism. Diogenes is a model for the typical Veeky Forums poster. I'm cringing reading 90% of the posts in the thread. They are literally just repeating what OPs shitty pics says. Its like those children who repeat jokes from the latest scary movie over and over again as if this was some sort way to discuss the movie or be funny.

Alexander might've been well loved and respected, but the fact reminds he to told people enamored with him to go kill other people, and once that was done he told the conquered populace to give him some of their money or he'd punish them. He might not have been a tyrant to his followers, be he was still a conquerer to everyone else. His desire for conquest led to the deaths of thousands. And the fact still reminds: why would a wiseman want war instead of peace and why would he desire to conquer the known world?

you are fukken retarded

retard to the bone

oversimplification is one of the gravest human errors and its what you're doing

consider the culture at the time. These other so called philosophers which you revere in comparison to Alexander [and philosophers in general over time] held some of their own shit opinions, like slavery being alright, easterners being subhuman scum, etc. Everybody winds up dead in the end, not all philosophies encourage livelaughlove, and there is such a thing as war for the sake of peace and unity, ie Alexander's dream to tie the world under one banner

you're so far outmatched by the other guy in this argument you're just reiterating the same shit point over and over cuz you know you've lost but are too stubborn to admit it. here's a bit of sympathy because people know that feel, now its time for you to pull out

You're right, some philosophers can have retarded beliefs, but they're still philosophers because they desire wisdom and the truth. Alexander was just a very great conquerer, intelligent and kind sure, but not a philosopher. He wanted to conquer the world because he wanted to, because he wanted to be great and powerful. He was very much like other great conquerers in that aspect, in that even though they were often decent and reasonable, they still had an irrational desire that led to the deaths of countless people. Alexander's desire for glory and honor show what kind of person he is.

>implying all philosophers praise strictly rational thinking
>implying no philosophers advocate doing what you want because you want it
>implying everyone accumulates wisdom in your subjective way and all other means/motives=wrong

>implying all philosophy shirks from death

"alexander doesnt adhere to my philosophy therefore he is an insecure twat who conquered the world to compensate for inner turmoils"

also lol @ believing that to be a philosopher you must 'conquer yourself'

how many suffering philosophers are there out there who made perpetual battle with existence the entirety of their lives?

do you even philosophy or did you take one course on ancient phil with socrates and plato you sad sack scum

Never implied any of that. I simply said Alexander was not a philosopher and his motives were likely not any different than any of the other conquerors and rulers throughout history.
>he is an insecure twat who conquered the world to compensate for inner turmoils
Most likely the case desu. That tends to be the motive of most ambitious men.

the only reason no more posts are going to oppose you is because you're so delusional [or a strong troll] that nobody can be bothered to spend their time

ITT: People who don't realize they're just plucked chicken

I've developed this theory that the side that is the most arrogant and insulting is usually the one who is wrong. What do you think?

Interesting side note:

Aristotle had a very hostile attitude towards Persians, regarding them as barbarians fit only to be enslaved or exterminated. This attitude did not successfully transmit to his best pupil, Alexander, who from boyhood admired Cyrus the Great and once among Persians found them very much to his liking. The discord in opinion between Alexander and his tutor was so enormous that when Alexander began adopting Persian customs, Aristotle tacitly signed off on an assassination plot against him. Alexander responded by cutting ties with Aristotle.

As far as wisdom and the truth? Alexander undoubtedly knew more about Persians than his teacher, because he conquered their empire and lived among them. Aristotle's experience was limited and his judgment was consequently clouded.

Alexander was a philosopher-king, i.e. a monarch with the mind of a philosopher. Obviously he never produced any philosophical works, but he still thought like one.

See also: Frederick the Great.

>he never produced any philosophical works
Does any ruler who produced any philosophical works of some kind even exist?

Many monarchs produced works of philosophy. Generally speaking, they're political philosophy but sometimes not. As user mentioned, Frederick the Great was a pretty big writer. Wilhelm II of Germany wrote a few treatises both before and after his abdication, The American founding fathers that became Presidents were prolific writers outside of Washington.

Again, philosophers can have stupid unfounded beliefs, but they're still people dedicated to wisdom and truth. Alexander didn't seem to care for much beyond conquering shit and fighting people. Beyond Alexander being highly educated there's no reason to think he was a philosopher and his behavior doesn't seem to reflect a sage or one who strives to be like one.

Took me a minute to find this so I didn't include it in the original post, but one of the more famous criticisms of Descartes came from a princess and he was so BTFO all he could really reply was You just don't understand because you have a vagina

plato.stanford.edu/entries/elisabeth-bohemia/

Wow. Alexander was history's first weeb.

>alexander conquered the nanda empire as well
you learn something new every day.