Why do philosophers even try when stoicism is clearly flawless?

what explanation do you expect me to see in that noble truths page?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#Christianity

Did you even read this shit?

>They share the same ideas and words!
No shit, they are from the same culture and time period. A lot of ideas overlap throughout the century user... stoics have a lot more in common with cynics than Christians

>neostoicism
Is an attempt by stoics to be part of the cool kids.

Of course, I never said Christianity were different, but to claim stoicism is embedded in Christianity implies a bigger relation than merely being neighbors.

>Stoicism was later regarded by the Fathers of the Church as a "pagan philosophy"
Church branded them heretics, case closed.

that a moral system which has human happiness at its core (phrased here in terms of the cessation of suffering) cannot be arbitrary seeing it is a concern that every human being has.

the quesiton wasn't "is stoicism christianity" or "did early christians fully agree with every tennent of stoicism". the question was "is stoicism embedded in christianity". the answer is yes.

>nonetheless, some of the central philosophical concepts of Stoicism were employed by the early Christian writers. Examples include the terms "logos", "virtue", "Spirit", and "conscience".[39] But the parallels go well beyond the sharing and borrowing of terminology. Both Stoicism and Christianity assert an inner freedom in the face of the external world, a belief in human kinship with Nature or God, a sense of the innate depravity—or "persistent evil"—of humankind,[39] and the futility and temporarity of worldly possessions and attachments. Both encourage Ascesis with respect to the passions and inferior emotions such as lust, and envy, so that the higher possibilities of one's humanity can be awakened and developed.

>Stoic writings such as Meditations by Marcus Aurelius have been highly regarded by many Christians throughout the centuries. The Stoic ideal of dispassion is accepted to this day as the perfect moral state by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Saint Ambrose of Milan was known for applying Stoic philosophy to his theology.

you are actually retarded

it is a concern therefore morality ought to be based off happiness

classic case of the is ought fallacy

also you just raised more questions than you answered. why should what concerns humans be what morality is based around? why did you pick the concern of happiness rather than any other concern humans all have? do you consider happiness to be the only universal concern and if so why?

>2017
>anything but cynicism

>early christianity
>christianity

pick one user... A lot of shit was used in 'Early Christianity',
Christians didn't get their shit together until the Council of Nicea.
After which a lot of works that claimed to be christian were burned/ branded as heresy

Which stoicism was ergo it's not embedded in Christianity, it's Heresy

>why should what concerns humans be what morality is based around?

should we base morality around the concern of the rocks and the wind then? or a free floating system of geometric axioms which deigns not to sully itself with our existence?

>why did you pick the concern of happiness rather than any other concern humans all have?

like what?

>do you consider happiness to be the only universal concern and if so why?

i'm not sure desu. all i know is that every human strives for their own happiness (or eudaimonia, or whatever you want to call it) and that we don't want to suffer. isn't the golden rule based on this, and therefore also deontology which is really just an extension of it?

>christianity isn't christianity

you lost, stop replying

>I don't know about Christian history and the Council of Nicea
>you lost
>implying this can even count as a debate

jesus christ get help

Childhood is following the Stoics
Adulthood is realizing Spinoza makes more sense

>i don't agree with it theologically so it didn't happen historically

wew

true but he did owe a lot to stoicism

>should we base morality around the concern of the rocks and the wind then? or a free floating system of geometric axioms which deigns not to sully itself with our existence?
You didn't answer my question. I realize that you asked me those questions to point out how absurd it would be to base morality around rocks as such but you seem to be forgetting that I feel that same way when it is based around happiness.
>like what?
You didn't answer my question again. Also, the point of that question was not to declare that you picked the wrong concern. It was to find out why you believe human concerns are what determine morality.
>i'm not sure desu. all i know is that every human strives for their own happiness (or eudaimonia, or whatever you want to call it) and that we don't want to suffer. isn't the golden rule based on this, and therefore also deontology which is really just an extension of it?
Well I asked this question to show that if we have more than one universal concern then your decision to focus on our concern for happiness seems arbitrary to me. this is because you would need to explain why morality should be based on this concern and not another.

rocks and such*

>why you believe human concerns are what determine morality.

well morality is about discerning what is normatively right from wrong, and then applying that to our behaviour. therefore, morality is fundamentally and inherantly concerned with human concerns. what else could possibly determine morality if not our own existences?

what do you think an un-arbitrary basis for morality would be?

Why do philosophers even try when daoism is clearly flawless?

>2704155
>well morality is about discerning what is normatively right from wrong, and then applying that to our behaviour
I agree but I don't see how the rest of what you said follows from this
>therefore, morality is fundamentally and inherantly concerned with human concerns
Seriously, how is this connected to what you said just before it? Are you saying that it is a universal human concern to want to behave in a moral way therefore morality is tied to human concerns and shod satisfy them?
>what else could possibly determine morality if not our own existences?
I'm not sure what you mean by our own existences determining morality. I think you're asking what basis for morality is there that isn't only connected to and determined by humans. If thats what you mean well plenty of other morality systems say that it's based around what a diety says and other stuff like that. I'm not saying I believe that but just showing that alternatives to being based around humans ready exist.
>what do you think an un-arbitrary basis for morality would be?
I don't know what, but it doesn't seem like happiness to me

sorry I'm phone posting now and messed up the quote

>being a fedora faggot
>Early Christianity isn't Christianity because I say so
kys. You're the plague on this board.

Why do anons even try when OP is clearly a faggot?

you can't derive an ought from an is.

it's literally that simple.

Stoicism is fucking retarded.

I like stoicism, but I'd prefer to be daoist.

cynicism and Epicureanism shit all over stoicism

Socialist, if you're not a socialist than you're not even trying you pea-brained fuck