Epictetus on poverty and desire

"It is not poverty which produces sorrow, but desire; nor does wealth release from fear, but reason (the power of reasoning). If then you acquire this power of reasoning, you will neither desire wealth nor complain of poverty. "

"When we have been invited to a banquet, we take what is set before us: but if a guest should ask the host to set before him fish or sweet cakes, he would be considered to be an unreasonable fellow. But in the world we ask the Gods for what they do not give; and we do this though the the things are many which they have given."

Is he right, Veeky Forums?

Who is he?

He's one of the most famous Stoic philosophers.

my nigga Aurelius

But the problem is when you're in poverty, there aren't many things at all that the gods have given

That's precisely what poverty is, lack of necessary things

I agree with him up to a certain point, but once you dip below a certain level of not having things, then there is a real problem and your issue is not just wanton or superfluous desire

I mean you actually need things constantly to not die a slow painful death

>But the problem is when you're in poverty, there aren't many things at all that the gods have given
if you look for the things you have instead of the things you don't, you'll find a lot.

>gods give children bone cancer
>th..thanks

That's a cringeworthy mischaracterization of Epictetus's philosophy. Pertaining to children getting cancer, you'd need to read about Epictetus's on understanding the nature of things (including humans). Men can be fragile, weak creatures. If you're child get cancer you'd need to accept he was human, that humans have a chance to get cancer and that's the truth of the situation.


"With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies." - Epictetus.

>if you about to get fired from your job you worked for 20 years and get thrown out from your house, remember that it's just a job and a house, and thus you will not be disturbed
>if you about to get robbed and mutilated, remember that it's just some money and your body, and thus you will not be disturbed
>if your head is about to get cut off by a jihadi, remember that it's just a head, and thus you will not be disturbed
>if your city is about to get nuked, remember that it's just a city, and thus you will not be disturbed

nice memeosophy

>dude, just stop caring about kids with bone cancer, then you won't feel bad!

>necessary things
((((((((((((((((necessary things)))))))))))))))))))

yeah all of those things you crave because you are scared to die and envy others who have them, wow.

I'd rather not starve. It's hard to not be disturbed if you're cold, hungry and have very limited entertainment.

communists have faith in materialism to appease conflicts. Communists crave an abundance of goods to please hedonists and they think once hedonists are fed, they will be nice to each other.

Everything you posted is true despite your attempt to be sarcastic. How do you propose the superior way is to reacting to your city getting nuked or body getting mutilated? Being a perpetual victim and whining about your lot in life to the heavens while noone cares? Better to look at such horrific events stoically than with panic or futile idealism.

>Everybody in poverty is cold and hungry with limited entertainment
You believe a strawman is true.

>being a permacuck with an okayface who just accepts all the shit and humiliation and pretends that nothing is going on no matter what

ftfy

You might call it what you want, but it's little else than cattle-tier obedience. Yes, sometimes you have to be outraged and butthurt to change things. because guess what - deep inside you you ARE butthurt and frustrated, you are just suppressing these feelings inside you. If you never release this pressure it will destroy you from the inside, sooner or later.

You're already dead. Everything will just be something that can't be helped, so why even bother?

>eep inside you you ARE butthurt and frustrated, you are just suppressing these feelings inside you.
Nice projecting. I hate to say it but not everyone is as egotistical as you are. People who put the effort in to change their views on the world really do change. It's not all "muh repression" which is nothing more than a slippery slope (everyone is a repressed rapist with mommy issues!) and a strawman (What? You authentically don't care about the material earth as much as your average normie? You're just repressed!)

The real cause of poverty is low IQ humans with nonexistent impulse control, they spend any money and all the money they get before the day ends then wonder in the morning how they are starving. Humans that are constantly poor due to their bad impulse regulation are essentially are wild animals mentally compared to people who can save money.

The next poverty is poverty caused by shortage of funds these people can save money but remain constantly poor because the upper class are really douchy when it comes to living wages.

Blacks are impulse poverty
Poor white people are shortage of funds poverty

Stoicism ≠ nihilism. Stoicism is about living life with the most reason in order to have the most peace.

It's no use explaining stoicism to someone who greentexts their arguments. They're just going to strawman and mischaracterize until they finally collapse under the weight of their own fedora. They're the inversion of naive people who claim that the universe has a special plan and purpose to every tragedy or evil, but just as ignorant.

White people are prone to acting on impulses too. It's very easy to rationalize as well.
t. white with impulsive family

You can't change your city getting nuked, your body getting mutilated by a jihadist or your child getting cancer. Stoicism is about accepting that which can't be changed for it what it is while giving it your all when you attempt to change something that's in your power.

"Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed." - Epictetus

That's not poverty user. Poverty is due to despondency. When a individual believes that he himself is worthless and of little value. Which slowly and gradually causes the individual to have a broad application across many platforms and fronts of pessimism. The thought of getting up off the ground, to get to work, eventually becomes painful, it's painful to even just 'think about' getting up to work...as in their mind, all is hopeless and they aren't good enough. Life becomes torture.

So poverty is just a total psychological regression. It's a listening to that little voice in your head that attempts to tell you that you aren't good enough. It reinforces itself with reasoning and any available proof within the memory, that you basically aren't good enough. It's an accusation against who and what the individual is in life, it builds a case against the individuals entire existence. It's what can lead to suicide in many people.

I'm pretty sure this is why the Hebrews called Satan "The accuser of the brethren" through. It basically describes the pathological deterioration of any form of progression an individual can achieve. Poverty is just a psychological cancer.

>projecting

lol, i wasn't implying that YOU are butthurt and frustrated, calm your tits, mr. stoic.

>You can't change your city getting nuked, your body getting mutilated by a jihadist

Yes you can, you can at least TRY. Yes you can try to kill enemy president and maybe, just maybe that will stop the war and the nukes. You can go berserk and overpower the jihadist. Even if you die, at least you'll die standing instead of cuck's death, getting humiliated and let your life be used for enemy propaganda purposes.
But this is impossible if you indeed have this "nothing can be changed anyway so why bother" mentality.
>Stoicism is about accepting that which can't be changed for it what it is while giving it your all when you attempt to change something that's in your power

It wouldn't work, if you will continue to perceive more and more thing as being "beyond your control". Sooner or later everything be "beyond your control" because your mind will be conditioned to this behavior.

>Things not in our control are body, property

wtf am i reading
Just because medicine was so shit in 2nd century AD doesn't mean it's still the same now or swill be in the future.

>body
Can you control if you get cancer? If you have a bum leg? If you're ugly? You can't. You can control exercise, diet and cleanliness.
>Sooner or later everything be "beyond your control" because your mind will be conditioned to this behavior.
Nice strawman.

>Yes you can, you can at least TRY.
t. idealistic fag who knows nothing of the real world. Good luck stopping a nuclear bomb going off in your city if the time ever comes. You'll be just like Jack bower from 24! i'll be rooting for you.

>Can you control if you get cancer?
Some cancers can be treated and might become a curable disease in the future. There was no cure against plague in antiquity, so they thought about it as something you can't control.
We CAN control it.

>If you have a bum leg?
even amputees from Iraq war are getting state-of-the-art prosthetic legs, which allow them to run marathons.

>If you're ugly? You can't.
>what is plastic surgery

>t. idealistic fag who knows nothing of the real world

Defeatist cuck, who's trying to hide his cowardice behind 2000 old memes

>Good luck stopping a nuclear bomb going off in your city if the time ever comes

Even if i fail, at least i've tried. You just outright surrendered without a fight.

Stoicism isn't about defeatism. it's about detachment.
>Idealism

>You just outright surrendered without a fight.
betas and their little fight and '''dignity'', hahahahahahhahaaha

. you will never amount to anything if you continue to think like this.

>you will only amount to anything only if you won't amount to anything and will sit on your ass all day because you have no control over anything and cannot amount to anything not defeatism at all desu

>cucks and their defeatism hidden by 2000 year old memes

Sure bud, continue to LARP as Marcus Aurelius on a Siamese basket weaving forum. Just don't think you can fool anyone but yourself.

>"nothing can be changed anyway so why bother"

Are you purposely trying not to understand stoicism? Because that summary is literally the opposite of stoicism.

If you can´t afford a car that you want, that is a desire you can destroy by reasoning, but the desire to eat and to drink and to be protected from the cold is something you can´t deny or destroy, because you need it to exist, but you don´t need expensive food to survive, you can survive well by eating insects and half eaten apples and such.

>you can survive well by eating insects and half eaten apples and such.

no

Back to Epicurus; his argument is logically sound, except that you misrepresent the corollary. Philosophers that think death is bad think so not because there may be suffering in the afterlife (I don't know of any philosopher that argues this), but rather because life is precious. As a matter of fact, you could not believe in any sort of afterlife and still believe that death is bad. Losing something precious, is, after all, never a good thing. Whether bad things should be feared or not is another discussion.

FYI, Kagan disagrees. He thinks that death may be good (he provides several very clever arguments) and that even suicide is morally justifiable - a pretty controversial position.

A simple critique of the Epicurean position is the following:

Epicurus: When we die, we no longer exist;
Skeptic: What do you mean by no longer exist?
Epicurus: Our body ceases to function, blood stops flowing, our neurons stop firing, etc.
Skeptic: What about the soul?
Epicurus: It's destroyed.
Skeptic: How/why/what mechanism destroys the soul?
Epicurus: Well the soul is corporeal. It dies with the body.
And now our Skeptic unveils himself
Descartes: The soul you describe is nothing but an extension of the body. The kind of soul I'm talking about exists even after bodily death and is non-corporeal therefore cannot die in the first place.

So now we're at the mind-body problem. If you accept Epicurus' premise (and read what he has to say about the soul) you can circumvent this whole debacle. It's of note to say that most philosophers nowadays are not dualists and that Cartesian thought is a dying breed. Most, I think, would agree (at least in part) with Epicurus. Kagan certainly does.

Like Obama said: "Yes, we can." Or prove your laconic "no". You simply can´t because i was too abstract in saying "and such", so i can add whatever i want, like saying: eat half eaten steak and so on.

If you lived in ancient greece and you were comfortable enough to read philosophical treaties on how to be less of a greedy hedonist, you wouldn't have to worry about subsistence unless you were squandering your money on frivolities.
Epictetus himself had been one of those white collar slaves and later dealt with being banished and starting over in a new city (a huge deal in those days) and of course lived a modest life, I think he understood the difference between relative poverty when you own little and have no disposable income and absolute poverty when you're starving in the streets. He was arguing for the former and didn't bother considering the latter because it would be preaching to the choir.

>treaties
*treatises, jesus

>I think he understood the difference between relative poverty when you own little and have no disposable income and absolute poverty when you're starving in the streets.
I think everyone needs to understand the differences. Like is a perfect example. Middle and upper class Westerners have the assumption that all people in so called poverty are cold, starving and bored but this isn't the case. Out of 7 billion humans, most are in poverty (as we would define it) but most aren't starving, cold and bored.

>Back to Epicurus
Why? This thread is about Epictetus. Not that I care, i'm happy to talk about Epicurus but i'm just wondering how you got back to him when you're the first to bring him up.
> Philosophers that think death is bad think so not because there may be suffering in the afterlife (I don't know of any philosopher that argues this), but rather because life is precious.
I feel as though non-abstract arguments in favor of this are the golden rule. I don't care so much that people far off from me die but hate the fact they suffer. I'd much rather they die a quick death without pain than suffer too much. This being said, I wouldn't want to die a quick death or my family and friends to die a quick death but feel ambivalent towards it when it happens to strangers. Death is a fact of life. I don't wish unfair death upon people but I don't value all life the same in the sense that I care to protect those who are dear to me moreso than strangers.

What a worthless platitude

Please kys

>kys
It's "My gratitudes for your platitudes.", you worthless faggot!

Yes, he's entirely correct. Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism are all built on the philosophy that desires should be eliminated. There's a reason millionaires still manage to be miserable and bankrupt themselves despite all the wealth.

We are originally happy and satisfied with our life situation, that is our unconditioned state. Desires, on the other hand, this original state and separate you from happiness. It's as if you have a clear window and began to sling dirt on it, the original window is still there, but you cannot see it for all the covering. When you start desiring something you no longer are satisfied with what is, but instead enter a state of poverty focused on what is not.

The slight satisfaction you receive from fulfilling a desire isn't the object you wanted brought you happiness, it's because the desire is no longer there to obscure that original happiness and satisfaction. Although the felt satisfaction from fulfilling desires is only a slight glimpse of the original blissful state and fulfilling desires only paves the road for further desires to crop up. So on can easily conclude that desires must be eliminated through not fulfilling them.

>this original state and
*obscure this original state

whoops

In stoicism, trying your best is important. The most important thing, however, is that you understand that sometimes things out of your control can inhibit or outright prevent you from achieving your pursuits. So, instead of getting caught up in failure and becoming upset or angry, a Stoic is pleased that they have tried their best, because they know that is all they could do.

bump

I'm surprised Stoicism is not more popular.

We live in an era of hedonism. You eat for pleasure, have sex for pleasure (considering reproduction a nasty side effect on the same way as STDs are, in sexual education), you work so that you can get richer so that you can afford to have more pleasure.

Hedonism has led to unhappier people, broken families, overdose epidemic and many other problems.

Yet, people never wonder if equating pleasure and good is a good idea. In the media, hedonism is even celebrated.

Because hedonism prevents them from knowing stoicism. Because all they so was work, eat, sex, sleep, and the reason their minds doing this is because they are having pleasure.

People are choosing to live in hedonism, because it's in their nature. It's natural to strive towards pleasure, towards having more resources and less worries. The entire point of technological progress was about making lives easier and more enjoyable. As for
>Hedonism has led to unhappier people, broken families, overdose epidemic and many other problems

these people just could enjoy certain things in moderation. That's why all the ODs and unhappiness. If you're thinking that self-imposed scarcity would have made them better you're wrong.
Those who want to live like St. Anthony are absolutely free to do so. If some people will find happiness in ascetic lifestyle, good for them, no one is preventing you from living a monastic life at this very moment, if you strive towards it. Just don't presume that it should be compulsory for all and don't try to impose your ideals upon the others. Otherwise you look like these North Korean shills, who are bashing capitalism, whilst using internet and computers.

>Otherwise you look like these North Korean shills, who are bashing capitalism, whilst using internet and computers.
One needs not be a Luddite to be a social traditionalist. I personally am not anti-technology but feel we need to control it as opposed to having it control us. Considering the rampant phone and computer addiction it's a reasonable perspective.

It's not because you are inclined to do something that you should do it.

The thing about hedonisn is the mindset. The belief that pleasure is a good. I'm not arguing that pleasure is bad. I'm arguing that believing pleasure is a good is bad.

And I'm not talking about forcing people to live like North Korean peasants. But rather, let them know that mindless hedonism is not the best way to live.

Also, on spreading ideas on others, people already do this on the hedonist side. What is the message sent by Cosmopolitan? Vogue? Movies like American Pie? TV series like Sex and the City? In Sexual Education in school?

Why should mindless hedonism be the only kind of idea that should be allowed to be spread? Why should Stoics not be allowed to discuss how to best live life, while mindless hedonists do so?

>I'm not arguing that pleasure is bad. I'm arguing that believing pleasure is a good is bad.

That's the same thing, at least in the way you are presenting it. You are against people who don't follow your ideas and you judge them.

>What is the message sent by Cosmopolitan? Vogue? Movies like American Pie? TV series like Sex and the City? In Sexual Education in school?

Is government forcing them to read those magazines are watching these movies? No? It's their free will and not your business what they should read and what they should watch.

>Why should mindless hedonism be the only kind of idea that should be allowed to be spread?

It's not the only kind of idea that's allowed to spread. No one will be throwing you in jail if you will preach asceticism.

>Why should Stoics not be allowed to discuss how to best live life, while mindless hedonists do so?

Why should you be allowed to spread your ideas and tell others what to do and how to live their lives? Do you consider your ideas and yourself superior and most competent, is that it?

>Being contacted by painful feeling, he seeks delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the uninstructed worldling does not know of any escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure.

>If some people will find happiness in ascetic lifestyle, good for them, no one is preventing you from living a monastic life at this very moment, if you strive towards it. Just don't presume that it should be compulsory for all and don't try to impose your ideals upon the others.
Do you mean just like hedonists should not impose their taxes to pay for the development of their society where they seek more pleasures, more sensual enjoyments and always less constraints, less pains, less predicaments?

If you want people to know that hedonism isn't the only, or, indeed, best day to live, you should live your way and be content. People will take notice and ask you if it interests them. If it doesn't, then do be it.

>omg, a young woman was having sex! Hedonistic witch! Let's burn her at the stake immediately, amirite my stoic brethren?

There is nothing Stoic in such judgment. Judging others does neither them or us any good. To do so is pointless.

>Do you mean just like hedonists should not impose their taxes to pay for the development of their society where they seek more pleasures, more sensual enjoyments and always less constraints, less pains, less predicaments?

What is your complaint exactly?

Buddy, stoicism is not Protestantism. It's about detachment, not moralism.

>Judging others does neither them or us any good. To do so is pointless.

If judging others is pointless why are you being judgemental by calling people who do not share your values "mindless hedonists" all the time?
It sure doesn't make you appear very mindful.

I am a different poster, friend. I apologise if that was unclear.

"how the fuck are emotions real like nigga just close your eyes ahahha nigga just stop feeling things"
damn.............

>sharing wisdom and offering alternative world views to those who would otherwise not be exposed to them = condemnation

>calling people who don't share your values as "mindless" =/= sharing wisdom and offering alternative world views

Also it will not make your opinion more attractive to these people.

>being sad virgin
>wisdom

It's not that emotions are not real, it is that we can choose whether to give them ascent. I feel a flash of anger when I stub my toe for example, but I don't yell and curse at the table leg, because I know it would do me no good. I take a moment to collect my thought, and then I continue on as though it hadn't happened. I think that's a preferable course of action.

Again, i don't know if you're the same poster as
but if stoicism is about detachment, then it's pretty strange for a detached stoic to be so very triggered by the fact that some people read Cosmopolitan and watch American Pie.

I'm not he same poster. Just agreed with

Are all me, to be clear.

A Stoic is not disturbed by the actions of others; he seeks to set a good example through his own, and that is all. Neither does he preach Stoicism, but to those who would ask him about his way of life.
Of course, a Stoic believes there is merit in his way of living, but he also knows that not all have been afforded the opportunity of Stoic learning, so he holds nobody to account.

Happy people don't concern themselves with philosophy

>That's the same thing, at least in the way you are presenting it. You are against people who don't follow your ideas and you judge them.

Of course it is not, "pleasure is not bad" and "judging that pleasure is a good is bad" are not in contradiction.

> government forcing them to read those magazines are watching these movies? No? It's their free will and not your business what they should read and what they should watch.

Where did you get that I argued that the government should do something? Are you retarded?

>It's not the only kind of idea that's allowed to spread. No one will be throwing you in jail if you will preach asceticism.

But you are the one arguing that I should not spread Stoicism. Aren't you saying that I should be silent on how others live life?

Look what you wrote here:
>Why should you be allowed to spread your ideas and tell others what to do and how to live their lives?
Isn't free speech a liberal value?

>Do you consider your ideas and yourself superior and most competent, is that it?

Aren't you the one positioning yourself as superior for denying me the right of even discussing my views?

We also have brains. Why shouldn't we discuss rationaly how to best live life? Isn't that a large part of philosophy?

Discussing with those who are interested is something I certainly agree with. I wouldn't deny somebody information, if that is what they wanted.
In a different context, where somebody showed no interest, I would not tell them about how my thoughts differed.
Those who are interested will ask when they see the example a Stoic sets. Those who are not interested will not, and should be left to their own devices.

"Mindless hedonism" is following hedonism without thinking. This is not an insult but a description on how people live.
First, triggered doesn't mean what you think you do.
Second, I'm not triggered by the existence of the Cosmopolitan or American Pie. I'm arguing that if they have the right to spread their values (a right I agree they should have), so should the Stoics. You are arguing that only the Cosmopolitan should be able to spread their values, while Stoics should be silent, live by themselves and not say anything.

What is the reason for this difference? Why should Stoics not advise people how to live life but Vogue writers should?

Well, this is the humanities board and most specifically a Stoicism thread.
And I'm not arguing that we should force people to be Stoics, but that Stoics should participate in the marketplace of ideas.

Second, even if I did argue that ethics should be taught in school, Education does work like this. Not every kid is interested in mathematics, literature or sexual education. Yet, schools teach all of those.

>/pol/niggers at it again
fuck it, it was a good board
as long as there is people feeding these trolls, they are not going to go away

There are 3 tiers of control in stoicism, things in my control (do I go to work to provide for my family).
Things not interially in my control (If I work hard I perhaps can gain a raise).
And things absolutley not in my control (boss decides to give it to someone else, even though I worked harder).

I've really tried to leave my stoic thinking behind, but it really works when it comes down to it. Theres a lot of wisdom in this think.
>i hear about the nuke, i can choose to leave
>I can do my best to get my family to a safe spot
>the roads were congested and we all perished, ie. not in my control.

Someone using virgin as an insult to others is not qualified to judge wisdom.

We are in agreement on your first point. I would love for there to be more Stoic voices, as I think it has a very helpful message.
I went to a Catholic college where ethics was mandatory, and, from my experience, most people were not interested in the subject. I personality enjoyed it though, even with the heavy Catholic slant. I would be in favour of a broad, unbiased ethics class in schools where students were encouraged to come to their own conclusions.

>'m arguing that if they have the right to spread their values (a right I agree they should have), so should the Stoics.

Again, explain to me how are you being persecuted or oppressed for spreading your values? You are doing this in this very thread. Do my replies oppress you? Because I see that hedonists aren't mad at stoics, but you personally certainly have some issues with hedonism.

>You are arguing that only the Cosmopolitan should be able to spread their values

No, i don't. Stop lying.

>"Mindless hedonism" is following hedonism without thinking

Define that is "following hedonism with thinking" then. Because reading certain fashion magazines or watching certain movies cannot serve as defining issues. I get it these names trigger you and you hate these names, but it's not the reason to call people who read/watch them "mindless".

He smart.
U stupid poopie degeneret, mindles.

k, gg

>Again, explain to me how are you being persecuted or oppressed for spreading your values? You are doing this in this very thread. Do my replies oppress you? Because I see that hedonists aren't mad at stoics, but you personally certainly have some issues with hedonism.

I'm not saying society forbids me. You are the one arguing that I should be forbid of spreading Stoicism.

>No, i don't. Stop lying.

You yourself said: "Why should you be allowed to spread your ideas and tell others what to do and how to live their lives?" and how I should keep quiet about how others live their lives.

>Define that is "following hedonism with thinking" then. Because reading certain fashion magazines or watching certain movies cannot serve as defining issues. I get it these names trigger you and you hate these names, but it's not the reason to call people who read/watch them "mindless".

"Mindless hedonism" is living for pleasure without thinking why. Contrast that to Epicurus, who is a hedonist but not an unthinking one.

You can be an unthinking hedonist without reading those magazines or watching those films. The argument is not concerned mostly about them. I don't know why you got so angry over the mention of them.

I just mentioned that they do spread a hedonistic message.

When does one become a thinking hedonist? Whats the difference between thinking and mindless hedonist?

Thinking hedonist: asks himself "is pleasure a good, does it make for a good life?" and after thinking concludes that pleasure is really a good.

Unthinking hedonism: does not think on how to best live life. Does whatever feels good.

>You yourself said: "Why should you be allowed to spread your ideas and tell others what to do and how to live their lives?"

Only because YOU said this first:
>Why should mindless hedonism be the only kind of idea that should be allowed to be spread?
if you want to forbid others to pursue and spread the values they consider best for them. In the sense - if you don't allow them to do it, then you shouldn't be allowed to do it as well.

>"Mindless hedonism" is living for pleasure without thinking why

That is without questioning "why do I live"? Again, why do you assume that people who read those magazines or watched some movies you consider "degenerate" never asked themselves that or never watched/read anything else?

>I don't know why you got so angry over the mention of them.

Nice projection. I just wanted to know why are you so triggered by these names in particular and why do you think only "mindless hedonism" is allowed to spread in the first place.
You aren't going in jail for posting itt, are you?

>I just mentioned that they do spread a hedonistic message.

And you have a problem with that? Why is that exactly? You, as a detached stoic, have a problem with people reading/watching things you don't like? You want all people to be like you, is that it?

So there's no such thing as mindless hedonist, because pretty much everyone concluded that pleasure is good. Crack addicts and alcoholics are in minority and thinking about good life won't make you completely immune to all vices.
This whole discussion is pointless, not everyone will pretend to be enlightened by the Ancient Masters of Platitudes.

>Only because YOU said this first:
>Why should mindless hedonism be the only kind of idea that should be allowed to be spread?
>if you want to forbid others to pursue and spread the values they consider best for them. In the sense - if you don't allow them to do it, then you shouldn't be allowed to do it as well.

Where did I say that they should be forbidden to spread their values? I said that I should be able to spread mine, since they do so as well.

>That is without questioning "why do I live"? Again, why do you assume that people who read those magazines or watched some movies you consider "degenerate" never asked themselves that or never watched/read anything else?

Because hardly anyone does that. I didn't live in a hut on the middle of a forrest.

>Nice projection. I just wanted to know why are you so triggered by these names in particular and why do you think only "mindless hedonism" is allowed to spread in the first place.

Where did you get that I was triggered about them? Do you even know what triggered means, or are you going "durrhurr triggered"? I just mentioned them as example of people who spread their values.
You were the one telling me not to spread my values.

>And you have a problem with that? Why is that exactly? You, as a detached stoic, have a problem with people reading/watching things you don't like? >You want all people to be like you, is that it?

No. You are the one that is against me spreading my values and "telling others how to live".

>So there's no such thing as mindless hedonist, because pretty much everyone concluded that pleasure is good

Oh, you're wrong m8. Of course there is such thing. This thing exists in minds of certain individuals who like to think that they are above than the rest. Proud philosophers and not degenerates.

It's like when they jerk off to porn they first rationalize that it's "a good", using some mental gymnastics. So that makes them "thinking hedonists", and not just an average "unthinking" wanker.

Pretty much no one thinks about how to live life and if pleasure is a good or not. They take this for granted.

Can you get a tripcode so that I can ignore you? The other one at least has arguments, you only have this crap.

>I said that I should be able to spread mine, since they do so as well

And you are allowed to do it. So what the problem again? Why did you assumed that
>mindless hedonism be the only kind of idea that should be allowed to be spread?
in the first place?

>Because hardly anyone does that

That's quite an assumption. I'd like you to prove it. And unless you read minds of all the people on Earth, i don't think you can.

>You were the one telling me not to spread my values.

No i did not. You were the one who assumed that you can't spread your ideas for some reason and only "mindless hedonism" is allowed to spread.

>You are the one that is against me spreading my values and "telling others how to live"

You're making things up now. Because I'm not the one, who tells people that magazines they read and movies they watch are """"wrong"""". It's only you in this whole thread.

>Because I'm not the one, who tells people that magazines they read and movies they watch are """"wrong"""".
in democracy, people have the right to express their ideas, no matter how you are upset about it

you mad, luv? :3

>in democracy, people have the right to express their ideas, no matter how you are upset about it

Well yes, something like that. Forcing people what to read and what to do with their lives just doesn't really work anyway. Maybe in some strict religious communities or in totalitarian regimes. But even there these aspects of human nature are only suppressed and not really changed.

So if you can't change human nature fundamentally then, as a good stoic, you should distance yourself from this pursuit. Am I wrong, or this also fall into certain tier of control, as in this post about tiers on control

Let's go from the beginning.

I said >"Also, on spreading ideas on others, people already do this on the hedonist side. What is the message sent by Cosmopolitan? Vogue? Movies like American Pie? TV series like Sex and the City? In Sexual Education in school?
>Why should mindless hedonism be the only kind of idea that should be allowed to be spread? Why should Stoics not be allowed to discuss how to best live life, while mindless hedonists do so?"

What does this mean? I meant that Stoics should be able to spread their ideas. Those that I call "mindless hedonists" already do so and they shouldn't have a monopoly on that.

To which you answered: >Why should you be allowed to spread your ideas and tell others what to do and how to live their lives? Do you consider your ideas and yourself superior and most competent, is that it?

And another one answered. >"If you want people to know that hedonism isn't the only, or, indeed, best day to live, you should live your way and be content. People will take notice and ask you if it interests them. If it doesn't, then do be it.

In other words: "Shut up and don't try to spread your ideas".

Let's see if you can agree with me:

Do you agree that both Stoics and hedonists should be able to spread their values?

I'm not >Well yes, something like that. Forcing people what to read and what to do with their lives just doesn't really work anyway. Maybe in some strict religious communities or in totalitarian regimes. But even there these aspects of human nature are only suppressed and not really changed.

It does, in a way. They already do that. People don't have much of a choice on what they are taught in school.
And they are forced to do a few things.

And I'm not arguing that Stoicism should be some kind of state religion. But that Stoics should spread their message. Stoicism will make people happier. The best, most scientifically accepted, psychological treatment is a weak watered down version of Stoicism.

>So if you can't change human nature fundamentally then, as a good stoic, you should distance yourself from this pursuit. Am I wrong, or this also fall into certain tier of control, as in this post about tiers on control

That is unorthodox "Modern Stoicism". Stoicism divides things in "what you control" and "what you don't control". "Choosing to help society" is under your control. And it is considered a good thing.