The Best Philosophy to Live Your Life By?

Stoicism is neckbeardery.
>alternatives
Sudoko, for one.

Stoicism acknowledges that we live in a universe with Providence (albeit in a pagan framework originally), therefore it can't be neckbeardery. Neckbeardery would be naturalism, like Hume and the nu atheists

No it doesn't, it's 'le fedora' Platonist bullshit.

That's because it was basically his personal journal to return to and reprimand himself. Aurelius never considered himself a philosopher, Epictetus is more analytical if that's what you're looking for

>following the guy who bankrupted himself to pay off the legion

also
>cuck

...

Epicureanism, bitches!

>fedora fedora m'ladyism, m'ladies!

Daoism final answer

>not Transcendentalism

> I know one thing, that I know nothing

When Plato sat down and wrote of the wise teacher Socrates in his work "The Apology" this statement, in which Socrates was purported to have said is one of the gems that have withstood time and place.

To know we know nothing is to remain humble and heart centered, not ego driven. Since it appears that most issues in society are centered on having power, retaining power, empowering oneself or others, or dis empowering another for perceived one-up-manship, this wonderfully inspired sentiment gets lots on a narcissistic society.

Knowledge is something we hope to acquire over a lifetime, and by both knowledge and experience we come to the real goal: to attain wisdom. But wisdom and knowledge are fluid. No one, even someone as brilliant as Socrates stops learning, growing and assimilating information. When we come to think ourselves better than another, smarter, or ingrained in a solid belief system, we limit the lives we live. For what is better than knowing each person and new experience, even those that are seemingly perceived as negative can help us to grow? Each term I start a new class I make sure to tell my students they are there to teach me too, and I am open to learn and grow from each of them. The relationship is based on equality, more than an insufferable sense of superiority. I may have studied longer than they, and have loved longer than them, but what makes me wiser? The only thing that makes me wise is knowing I know nothing, and can continue to learn from each new day.

Socrates was considered a dissident in Greece in his time. He was condemned as a heretic for that which he taught his students and sentenced to die by ingesting hemlock. It was the answer that the Oracle at Delphi gave when asked who was the wisest man in Athens at the time. The Oracle replied it was Socrates, although he believed this to be a paradox. Those in Athens who believed themselves to be wise were actually not wise, but Socrates who knew he was not wise was the wisest of all for his admission of his ignorance.

Not wanting to change who he was, Socrates remained true to his beliefs and willingly drank the hemlock that killed him at the end. His death makes him a martyr for his beliefs and opens the door for his student, Plato to write of his thoughts and philosophical discussions that were compilations of possible discussions in his lifetime. When he was on trial for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, he used his insights to demonstrate to the jurors that their moral values are not aligned. He reminds them that the material concerns of life should be balanced with concern for ones soul.And it is this soul that is sorely missing from the way people interact in society today as well.

There is nothing wrong with ego if it is in balance with all other areas of ones life. It is when the ego overtakes our lives completely that we can become arrogant, judgmental and self centered. As in all things we must seek to balance our lives with beauty, humbleness and generosity, compassion and love for our fellow man, and remember that there is much to learn, and even if we lived another 200 years, there is no way we could learn it all.

That my friends, is what true wisdom is.

I never understood this. moderation and self-control aren't entertained for some reason

Did Plato take Socrates the wrong way or something, because he comes across very elitist to me not humble at all

This, Epicureanism is the best way to live your life comfy.

Stoicism has wisdom to it, and I actually highly admire its virtues, but it's kind of a cowardly approach to life in that it seeks to reduce the suffering we experience by likewise reducing the pleasure we experience, by making us inured to both. The basic idea behind it is to make us something inhuman and robotic. We should be embracing and pursuing pleasure with the full knowledge that with it will by necessity come pain, rather than ignoring both entirely.

Socrates was an idiot. He accepted an injustice on his person from a city that saw fit to dispose of him the second he was inconvenient. What he did was not only stupid, but cowardly; for escaping through death is both final and effortless.

>not Cynicism always

It's undeniably the most useful.

You have to be able to let things affect you, whether good or bad, without letting it get to you.

It's a fine line to walk. I'd recommend supplementing it with some empathy and ambition to even it out eg. Vipassana and Evola

H E D O N I S M

Don't deny yourself the pleasures of life

Why not heroin?

>Evola
>ever

A garbage philosopher for garbage people.

>Its too life-denying.

How, exactly?
Unless you think excess is the only way to live. Stoics don't avoid pleasure/happiness, you know. It's just enjoyed with control and moderation, because the stoics concluded that excess isn't going to make you happier in the long term.

Moderation is the antithesis to pleasure.

Deal with it faggot stoic.

>Unless you think excess is the only way to live
Go big or go home.

Testing your limits in what way? And why do you think stoicism prevents testing oneself?

They're pretty clear on this. Pleasure is not to be sought out as a good, nor pain avoided as an evil. You're supposed to be indifferent to both, as they're both just fleeting distractions from virtue and duty.

It's the difference between knocking back 15 shots of liquor and feeling like fucking garbage or having 3 or 4 and enjoying a nice buzz. Or the difference between drinking on the weekends versus a week long bender. Or enjoying a burger once a week instead of stuffing your fat fucking face breakfast lunch and dinner.
You'll find you feel better AND you appreciate it more, if you're mindful of it.
You have to be a fucking moron to think excess is synonymous with good, or even that excess is synonymous with pleasure.

Again, a fine line to walk. I genuinely believe it is a duty to have the kantian mündigkeit to look at every potential source of knowledge and be able to recognize the wisdom and perennial truth within them all, while leaving the bs aside.

First you take a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes you. Or else what's the point?

They don't say "avoid pleasure", they say "be ready for times when pleasure isn't available / is taken away from you, and be able to handle that".

It's like the idea that nothing stops you from having a favorite cup, but if you break your favorite cup you need to be able to realize it's still just a cup, and being pissed that you broke it won't fix your broken cup.
Or, as another example cited by the stoics, nobody is saying "You're not supposed to love your wife because then you'll just be sad when she dies!", you can love your wife, you just need to accept that when she dies she dies and your misery won't change that. It's acceptance of externals and acknowledging that at the end of the day much of what causes you misery is self inflicted based on how you react to these externals.

There really shouldn't be anything that you can't live without.

Again, I didn't say avoid, I said not seek out. Which Marcus Aurelius makes pretty clear repeatedly.

Not seeking out pleasure as though it were something good, and not indulging in the natural displeasures of life is a denial of our human condition, it is exactly life denial.

The ideal Stoic life is one in which you don't venture any great attempts at pleasure (and thus risk no great miseries), because they're not virtue, the ideal Stoic is a bland milquetoast who can't even be described as miserable in his monotony.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my post or trying to provide a counter argument. But yes, that's what I mean.
Deriving pleasure from a thing doesn't mean you can't live without it. I don't recall reading any stoic philosophy that says "Don't enjoy life", they say "Enjoy what you have, and if fate takes it away, that's life. At least you enjoyed it when you had it, and being sad that you lost it isn't doing you any good."

If your whole philosophy revolves around controlling pleasure isn't it the pleasure that really controls you?

Okay, I think I misunderstood you at first but I think I get it now.

So if I understand you right you're arguing that contentedness in place of ambition means you can't test yourself / 'know your inner self better'? What if you considered that a stoic's test to themself is living a content life, and rejecting the constant desire for more? I'm sure you can understand that moderating your behavior can be very challenging.
Ambition is very often more destructive than beneficial, especially when you find yourself stuck on the hedonistic treadmill where enough is never enough.

I'm sure that made sense in your head but no, it means you control the pleasure.
The difference between the man who can stop and still be happy, and the man who can't be happy unless he doesn't stop, even at the expense of his own health/livelihood, should tell you who rules their wants/desires and who is ruled by it.

>he can't knock back 15 shots

nu male spotted

It's like alcoholics in AA meetings, if your life still revolves around alcohol you haven't really beat it.

...

Of course ambition can be destructive, any great venture by necessity carries with it great risk. But my point here is that a stoic isn't exercising some great inner strength by seeking this contentedness, they're actually taking the easy way out of life.

I should note that I'm not arguing against moderation; there's a weakness of character in excess as well. It takes no strength to become an alcoholic, for instance. Just that pleasure, pain, and the hedonic treadmill, are all important things that keep us moving as humans and the ideal stoic life is somewhat inhuman, and to a minor extent, cowardly.

To use a very basic example, anyone who has ever ventured romantically knows that it would be much easier to simply not make your feelings known to the object of your affection, thus never indulging the possibility of pleasure that would come with this action and also avoiding the sting of rejection, than it is to take this leap. Stoicism is effectively just making a life where one never takes the leap unless their path to virtue necessitates it.

I'm having a very hard time figuring out what the fuck your argument is at this point.

It's idolatry you fucking illiterates, how many god damned times do I have to spell it out for you

What's "it"?

it
it/
pronoun
1.
used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
"a room with two beds in it"
2.
used to identify a person.
"it's me"

So are you being a vague cunt on purpose?

That's just what it is.

The stoics of his day considered diogenes to be a sage, a wise man.

Epicureanism.

Whatever benefits you. And you do this anyway. Marcus Aurelius was a sensitive, non-agressive man forced into the brutality of war campiagns. Stoicism was how he dealt with it. Stefan Molymeme was a hardcore anarcho-capitalist during the libertarian period of the internet from around 2009-2012, now he's slowly lost it and is an alt-right advocate LARPing as an anarchist.

People tend to take the philosophy that helps them with the situation they find themselves in, and you'll likely do this automatically whether you like it or not.

Most people nowadays would find understanding the context of Stoicism very difficult, as it was something someone had to be trained in. It's a way of evaluating life and the world, and works out as a constant mindset that would ideally work out similarly to OCD after receiving several years of instruction. Not simply just reading Epictetus or Aurelius

a middle ground between Cynicism and Hedonism

>Not living your life by this book

What's a reputable book on the subject?

the only philosophy is rejection of philosophy

Most of it sounds reasonable.
I saw my Honor, when most guys have none to see, so I will always be grateful for this. It was worth the quests and the pain.
I'm not sure about "stoicism."
If my thumbs were about to be cut off by a machine, I'd panic but then relax and wait until my fingers were being cut off and the pain started: And then I'd scream as loud as I could.
Is this stoic?

Not being a hedonist doesn't make it life denying. If anything it's life fulfilling. If I wasn't a Christian i'd be a Stoic.

Stoicism sure has helped me deal with my chronic joint pain. It is how it is. Change what you can, endure what you can't.
It still fucking hurts, but I cry myself to sleep less often.

I wish you healing and relief bro

Aztec philosophy

While you're right, you can still benefit from trying to apply the principles as you go even if you're not "raised into" it.
A lot of stoic advice would be common sense, but people seem to default to stressing out over shit and making themselves miserable.

X is much better to be totally honest with you

Objectively it's the philosophy of biology(and the other life sciences)
And pragmatically applying your knowledge to make ethical decisions

Biblical Christianity.

Anyone got a translation of a Greek stoic?

Seconded, I'd like to know the reading materials for Stoicism

OP here, not sure if there were any great Greek stoics, though I could be wrong. Stoicism was a predominantly Roman Philosophy, so most of the stoics I am aware of are Romans.
iep.utm.edu/stoicism/
This is a good place to start to learn more about stoicism, and in the sources you can find good readings as well.
I am by no means an expert, just a practitioner.
Hope that helps!

Is this the same Marcus Aurelius who died in his fifties because he stopped eating? The same Marcus Aurelius who against his better judgment, the example of his predecessors, and the advisement of peers named his son heir to the Roman empire, leading to much trouble? Sounds like a wise and happy guy!

>Is this the same Marcus Aurelius who died in his fifties because he stopped eating?
Got a source on that one buddy?
Everywhere I have seen it has him dying of natural causes or of illness.

Also,
>Judging a man on one act alone
ISHYGDDT

classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

Commodus was named heir because he was his biological son, and naming someone else would have inevitably cause a civil war. Had you bothered to read anything abo8it his predecessors youd know that none of them had biological heirs, and thus had to adopt

>In 180, while on campaign with Commodus in the north, Marcus became ill. He refused food or drink, and died a few days later, on March 17, in Vindobona, then a Celtic village, near present-day Vienna.

From the New World Encyclopedia

You keep saying Stoicism is cowardly, but you fail to give any sort of examples from stoic text or thought. Stoics at no time said that one should never strive for anything unless it lead to them being virtuous, nor did they avoid trying or doing things to evade pain or displeasure.

philosophy is for fucking faggots, dude
biggest circlejerk ever conceived by pretentious humans

>philosophy hurts my brain and I don't understand higher thought
FTFY

>higher thought

yeah, keep on dreaming
I'm sure it'll get you somewhere, someday

>implying it won't
I feel sad for you.

you shouldn't
I'm doing just fine not living by another's rules

Diogenes just seems extremely autistic to me

Hate to break it to you, but if you live in a nation with law and order, you are living by another's rules.
Adhering to a philosophy, letting it guide how you act, is not "living by another's rules".
Someone may have pioneered that way of thought, but the way i live is not dictated by a set of rules. Rather, it is lead by a set of guidelines.
A set of guidelines that leads to a happier life. A life of fortitude and resilience, as well as fulfillment.