Stoicism

It sounds like a cult/propaganda. If that's not it thend I just really dislike the wording an how it's being presented I guess.
The biggest lie told through out human history is that good people don't do bad things.
Also never liked philosophies devoid of pleasure or look down on it. It's not a bad thing.
Some people are more inclined to have an addictive personality. That's when it starts to become 'bad'
I feel like some of the older philosophies are 'irrelevant' with new findings on how the human brain is wired.
Hopefully makes sense.

For anyone who doesn't know, the real basic version is:

The only thing we control is our will i.e. our reactions and judgements. Everything external to this is outside our control and therefore you shouldn't worry about it.

Throughout our daily life, impressions arise. These are treated as involuntary.irrational thoughts. After this is processed we assent or dissent to these impressions(this is voluntary and IN our control as it is a function of the will)
an impression could just be
>I hate him, he's such a bad guy
which you would not assent to,in the stoic framework, seeing as good and bad only lie in the will, with externals being indifferent.

It's the most noble philosophy I've ever come across, with it being used in even modern CBT therapy.

please educate yourselves

If I could do it over again, I'd take "Simeon" as my Confirmation name.

explain to me how stoicism, cynicism and asceticism are distinguishable

I've hardly read much of anything on philosophy desu

>I feel like some of the older philosophies are 'irrelevant' with new findings on how the human brain is wired.

This is true, but stoicism is one of those philosophies that is completely compatible with modern discoveries. It's all about self control and moderation, any psychologist will tell you that's a healthy mindset to adopt.

Stoicism is a very old philosophy with few surviving texts, I don't see how you can came to the conclusion that it's a cult/propaganda thing.

One misconception is that people confuse the general term 'stoic' with the philosophy, when there are slight differences.

>The biggest lie told through out human history is that good people don't do bad things.
Bullshit,obviously good and bad are abstractions and informed by our conditioning, but in general virtuous people do virtuous things.

Also, pleasure in stoicism isn't looked down upon, it's a 'preferred indifferent', it's nice if you have it but don't cry if you don't.

>anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand the ideas
xD

Stoicism was founded by a former Cynic, Zeno of Citium. It's basically cynicism without the requirement of being homeless and thus shunning society. It encourages working with your fellow man.

Asceticism, isn't a philosophy and is more of a term for a wide set of practises based around denial of worldly things or pleasure.

What an insightful post, if you're just here to shitpost, why even bother replying?

>The only thing we control is our will i.e. our reactions and judgements. Everything external to this is outside our control and therefore you shouldn't worry about it.

The interesting thing is that this is exactly what neuropsychology has discovered. We don't choose what we think, and don't choose the impulses that strike us, our only free will is in over-ruling our impulses.

Yeah, it's pretty mindblowing how stuff like that was figured out more than a 1000 years ago when psychology was barely getting started. Ancient man had his shit together.

It's also interesting that the Buddha had the same insight, from a completely different perspective. It can't be a coincidence that the two movements are so notably pacifistic and omnitolerant, attitudes that were seen as weak in the past but which we have since determined are morally optimal.

I'm just not understanding the wording.
Help me out if I'm wrong.

>Bullshit,obviously good and bad are abstractions and informed by our conditioning, but in general virtuous people do virtuous things.

Add people with mental illnesses to this statement.
A mentally ill individual could rationalize killing 100 people because he thought they were demons.
His virtues tell him to kill all demons. Demons are bad after all.
He's staying true to his virtues if that's what he believes, correct?
What's a virtue again?
>a quality considered morally GOOD or desirable in a person.
Wait the definition of virtue has the word GOOD in it.
His philosophy states nothing is good or bad. Who's to say what's a good virtue then?
But the corner stone of his philosophy relies on peoples virtues.
But having virtues isn't the important part because virtues are entirely subjective to the person. But also good and bad don't matter.
You could go round and round for hours. It's meaningless
I don't understand what this philosophy is trying to accomplish or teach.
If he was trying to create the perfect philosophy for people who like winning moral high grounds and straddling fences. He accomplished it.
Am I misunderstanding the wording of your post?

>Also, pleasure in stoicism isn't looked down upon, it's a 'preferred indifferent', it's nice if you have it but don't cry if you don't.
Preferred indifferent, really? Why can't he just say he's happy when he has something others don't and say he's jealous when people have something he doesn't.
You know it's okay to be jealous of other peoples stuff right?
Isn't that what politicians and companies do?
Create made up words to make it sound better/nicer? Was that really necessary?
That's why I think it's propaganda.
Again it sounds like he created a philosophy so he could never lose an argument.
Seriously add it all together it just doesn't make sense to me.

Right back at ya, friend.

DUDE JUST CONTROL YOUR THOUGHTS LMAO

>hedonism

I like it. I don't think it's the absolute truth, and don't subscribe to it entirely, but I find its teachings helpful at times.

I also delight in how it brings out the butthurt in some people.

I dont know much about stoicism, but a google search says that its

>The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

>live in harmony with the divine Reason that governs nature
>indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

So its like a Western Taoism?

No. Stoics believed you were supposed to take an active role in bettering the world around you and cultivating your own personal virtue. The two ideals share similarities, but they're not particularly interchangeable.

>are so notably pacifistic and omnitolerant, attitudes that were seen as weak in the past but which we have since determined are morally optimal.

Oh gods I'm laffin.

>So its like a Western Taoism?

Less mystical (it was grounded in Greek philosophy) and less self absorbed (stoics were meant to ease the suffering of others as well as themselves). More like a western buddhism.

It is a slave morality for weak cucks.

>HURR

Thanks for posting!

Seems like I got a reaction out of you, how un-stoic of you.

Not everyone who likes Stoicism is a Stoic.

>HURR

Thanks for posting!

There's no such a thing as absolute truth.

Yes but usually when you like an ethical system you try to embrace it.

I seem to have already exceeded your mental capabilities.

You're unbelievably cringy.

>Yes but usually when you like an ethical system you try to embrace it.

I'd consider myself a Stirnerian Egoist, I just think the Stoic virtues were commendable found they had some wise and surprisingly modern notions of human psychology and good advice. But I would never buy into it wholesale.

>HURR

Thanks for posting!

>Dont know what stoicism is but imma insult it anywayz for the keks

>I consider myself a special snowflake.

Yeah, and you're a paragon of maturity.

Stoic ideas may seem wise if you only look at them at a superficial level, but when you actually get to the core of them they're incredibly anti-human.

Kill yourself nigger. Seriously.

You can kill yourself too.

Jesus what a bunch of fucking babies (most of you) are. Should've prefaced my post with a trigger warning I guess.

...

Yeah. Every snowflake is unique, but look like part of a faceless mass when viewed at any sort of distance. They're actually a pretty perfect analogy for the unique nature of people.

>HURR

Thanks for posting!

>Stoic ideas may seem wise if you only look at them at a superficial level, but when you actually get to the core of them they're incredibly anti-human.

Not as much as you might think, and mostly because they didn't have the benefit of psychology in building them. There's a lot of good points to their ideals.

If everybody thinks he/she is unique, then, are they really unique? They seem more of the same if you ask me.

>Should've prefaced my post with a trigger warning I guess.
So fucking triggered.

>The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word "stoic" has come to mean "unemotional" or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from "passion" by following "reason". The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions; rather, they sought to transform them by a resolute "askēsis" that enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm.[19] Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline.

tl;dr don't be controlled by your suffering

seems reasonable enough

ah fuck I missed the important part

>One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of "passion" was "anguish" or "suffering"

Its objectively better than christianity.

What is considered happiness in stoicism?

Can't its core be summed up as "Prepare for the worst to keep you from suffering needlessly in the event of bad happenings, take comfort in that any crisis will eventually pass"?

Sounds pretty based. Even the unstigmatized view of suicide is appreciated, considering you should be free to do with your life what you want, including ending it.

I don't know why people are so butthurt ITT.

Read >I don't know why people are so butthurt ITT.
Same, is just people misrepresenting stoicism, and wannabe sage stoics getting mad at them.

>that the sage is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Our phrase ‘stoic calm’ perhaps encapsulates the general drift of these claims. It does not, however, hint at the even more radical ethical views which the Stoics defended, e.g. that only the sage is free while all others are slaves, or that all those who are morally vicious are equally so.

Its an interesting philosophy.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

Being unique doesn't necessitate being unique in every aspect. Snowlakes are similar or even identical in most ways, yet each is still unique.

They are unique in a certain way, but you're never gonna find a snowflake that is not made with water, all people have different combination of characteristics, but the characteristics are all the same, just combined differently.

What im trying to say with That maybe i failed at, is that we share common thoughts and worldviews on which the personality its built on, so if you build on a common ground, you're gonna get a common result.

>It is a slave morality for weak cucks.
You don't know what is stoicism.

> please educate yourselves
Perhaps you should instead consider implications of your own position?! It isn't like I am wrong here.
You literally said, that basic version of stoicism is that you shouldn't worry about everything external to your reactions and judgements. My critic, that it is escapism is valid one here. Obviously, that you can control more than your will even if this control isn't direct and more abstracted. By straight logic, you should worry about world external to your will, because you can control it. Perhaps not perfectly, but your control over your own will also wasn't the perfect one. In a sense, drawing a limits of control over life inside your own head is irresponsible. We all know from our experience, that people have the possibilities and opportunities to influence external world at scales beyond their internal, personal will.

Stoicism is pretty good but I feel like Cynicism is a more complete and coherent philosophy and Stoicism is basically the version that tries to have its cake and eat it too and not realizing that sure, external things are ultimately irrelevant, but that doesn't mean you're not going to be controlled by certain things you're willing to accept.

Not him, but your position is largely an uneducated one, because the Stoics never advocated escapism or simply not caring. They believed in doing the best you could in all things but to accept that the outcome is outside of your control and not be concerned with it. Escapism would be not trying and caring at all because you are concerned with the outcome so you try to distract yourself from reality.

I AM AUTISTIC!!

There is no effective difference from stoicistic "not be concerned with outcomes" and escapistic "not trying and caring at all". It is just escapism where you distract yourself by focusing on your own will. Don't forget that real counter point is still here. By that I mean, that there still no real reason to equal thing that under your control and your will. People control the outcomes beyond their will and people fail to control reactions and decisions all the time. The other counter point is, why you *shouldn't be* concerned with outcomes, even if you can't really control them?! People learn about a world around them exactly by being concerned about all things that they can't really even impact. You can pretty easily argue that just saying that *it doesn't really matter* for most of the reality isn't really honest in an intellectual sense. Remember that people can't control most of it, but is it really a reason to not be concerned with anything out of range of influence?

>People control the outcomes beyond their will and people fail to control reactions and decisions all the time.
People don't truly control outcomes, just influence them, it is largely outside of your control, and while people do fail to control reactions or make good decisions, the point remains they still have the power to control them; things might go well even though you can't control it and your reactions might go badly even though you can control it.
>The other counter point is, why you *shouldn't be* concerned with outcomes, even if you can't really control them
Concerned might not be the right word. More appropriately you shouldn't be bothered, angered, or saddened by things because it is self-destructive and irrational. You can still want the world to be a certain way or things happening in a certain way, you just don't let yourself be negatively affected when things don't happen as you want.

> People don't truly control outcomes.
People don't really truly control themselves either. To me, it seems pretty arbitrary to say for internal cases that they "have power to control", but when you talk about external world change rhetorics for "just influence" world. You are juggling with words at this point. In reality people control both internal and external world for some degree. Base division here doesn't seems to be consistent one. It works for a psychological practices, I am sure about this, but as a broad philosophy it isn't accurate enough.
> You shouldn't be bothered, angered, or saddened by things.
Maybe, but affectionate problem solving is a thing. People who are bothered, angered or saddened at problems tend to solve them better, than the other who are more concerned about essentially how to feel good than how to fix the issues. In that cases, it could be a constructive and rational approach to problem. It looks, like declaring negative emotions to be inherently self-destructive is unnecessary. It is dangerously close to the reductionist escapism of just evading a bad feelings. I prefer to think that avoiding the self-destructive and irrational behavior or thought is enough, without hasty generalization of it being frustration, anger or sadness. Emotions have their important role, especially negative ones.

>People don't really truly control themselves either. To me, it seems pretty arbitrary to say for internal cases that they "have power to control", but when you talk about external world change rhetorics for "just influence" world.
That's a debate about freewill. Practically speaking, people are capable of controlling their behaviors and their thoughts without an outside factor having to be involved. You can make a genetic/environment determinist argument but any philosophy or system of ethics falls apart if you say you can't actually control your behavior. But regardless, you can't control the world because it is entirely outside of your power; you could be the best archer in the world, but if a random gust of wind blows your arrow slightly, you're not going to hit the bullseye. While practicing archery helps you be accurate and miss less often, some things can just happen that you have no power over.
>People who are bothered, angered or saddened at problems tend to solve them better, than the other who are more concerned about essentially how to feel good than how to fix the issues.
It's not about just feeling good, it's about not feeling bad. You can still desire to fix problems because it's the virtuous or convenient thing to do, not necessarily because you're upset about them.
>It looks, like declaring negative emotions to be inherently self-destructive is unnecessary.
Negative emotions can be useful, but the aim of Stoicism is transforming them into emotions with the same usefulness without the negative drawbacks.
> It is dangerously close to the reductionist escapism of just evading a bad feelings.
A Stoic who evades his feelings would be a poor Stoic. It's about rationally dealing with them and not letting them make you unhappy.
>Emotions have their important role, especially negative ones.
That's true, but they also have destructive drawbacks; that's why it's important to take the good and leave the bad.

> You can't control the world because it is entirely outside of your power.
Your mind and body is the part of the world. They are pretty unreliable. For example, even the most famous mathematicians sometimes failed in their line of logic. The mental tasks aren't that different from practices of archery. Some applications of a will could be even more impossible than a certain attempts to change external world. People have a will and such, but they do mistakes all the times, even in their own head. Random thought or ideas, random loss of attention could screw you like the random gusts of wind can stop your perfect arrow and you can't really anything to prevent this event.

however you are trying to stop the jealous feelings. Jealously isn't a positive feeling to hold, Stoicism is trying to clear your head of negative feelings by realising that the sources of these feelings are usually bullshit.

It's good to have something good but it's not the end of the world if you don't, be happy with what you got.

> You can't control the world
Most of the time, just being able to influence world somewhat is already great thing to do. There exist nuanced scale of control from being in a charge to being a victim of situation. Logically, the emotions should be proportional in strength to an amount of your control. Stoicism has a black and white view on that situation, if I understood position correctly.