Anything against Stoicism?

>make it my life philosophy
Don't be a faggot.

>mfw life is suffering

Everybody wants to kill "Dominican" though.

holy shit i was wondering when I'd find this image

Theres very good arguments against it if you read postmodern philosophy and take it seriously instead of falling for memes about how it's le degeneracy.

Basically stoicism rejects the legitemacy of the physical world and the body and is based on the activity of the mind being seperable from what happens in material reality. When stoicism claims to be able to withdraw and use reason unaffected by wordly desires it's inadvertantly being disingenuous and will still make decisions based implicitly on hedonistic impulses. If you want to control your impulses and have a good basis for ethical living it does not help to pretend as if you are capable of transcending the physical basis of existence, or if you do genuinely believe in the soul even then the soul is bound to the material while youre here.

For example, read Plato's Symposium if you havent already. Alcibiades, a based Greek figure you should also read about, breaks in drunkenly to the middle of Socrates' lecturing students and accuses Socrates of lying about the nature of power as rationally decided and applied. Alcibiades says truth is decided by the powerful who can enforce it and calls out Socrates for sitting next to the two cutest boipussies in the room. Socrates of course denies the accusation and gives a long and logically consistent explanation for why Alcibiades is wrong, but reading it it's hard to be convinced -- and isnt this kind of rhetorical deflection the definition of sophistry? Cases like that do seem to justify reading Plato as more of a playwright of opposing and contradictory philosophic views than as a neutral scribe of Socrates' lessons.

(1/2)

>They weren't abolitionists in antiquity
That's your fucking argument?

(2/2)

And also here is an excerpt from Foucault concerning the history of reason:

"Examining the history of reason, he learns
that it was born in an altogether "reasonable" fashion-from
chance; 11 devotion to truth and the precision of scientific meth-
ods arose from the passion of scholars, their reciprocal hatred,
their fanatical and unending discussions, and their spirit of com-
petition-the personal conflicts that slowly forged the weapons
of reason."

From Nietzche, Geneology, History, a very good essay that might raise further questions for you.

Also, you dont need a "life philosophy". If you mean that in terms of trying to find concrete practices to help you in life that makes sense but as far as philosophy goes you'll learn much more by reading widely and not limiting yourself to certain schools. Stay critical and compare very different texts.

>gives a long and logically consistent explanation for why Alcibiades is wrong, but reading it it's hard to be convinced -- and isnt this kind of rhetorical deflection the definition of sophistry?
how is a good deflection an example of sophistry?

Makes a virtue of necessity. Doesn't go far enough in the dismantling of the self. The stoic is like the rock that can withstand the battering of the sea, but the Buddhist (for example) is like air that can't even be cut by a sword.

Because it deflects the argument instead of engaging with it.

"By all means; but who makes the third partner in our revels? said Alcibiades, turning round and starting up as he caught sight of Socrates. By Heracles, he said, what is this? here is Socrates always lying in wait for me, and always, as his way is, coming out at all sorts of unsuspected places: and now, what have you to say for yourself, and why are you lying here, where I perceive that you have contrived to find a place, not by a joker or lover of jokes, like Aristophanes, but by the fairest of the company?

Socrates turned to Agathon and said: I must ask you to protect me, Agathon; for the passion of this man has grown quite a serious matter to me. Since I became his admirer I have never been allowed to speak to any other fair one, or so much as to look at them. If I do, he goes wild with envy and jealousy, and not only abuses me but can hardly keep his hands off me, and at this moment he may do me some harm. Please to see to this, and either reconcile me to him, or, if he attempts violence, protect me, as I am in bodily fear of his mad and passionate attempts."

tldr "socrates you obviously just sat next to the cutest boys here" "oh he is so violent and crude someone protect me"

Read it yourself and give me an alternate interpretation, various translations of the Symposium are online

...

Was he a stoic?

good posts

t. OP

>Basically stoicism rejects the legitemacy of the physical world and the body and is based on the activity of the mind being seperable from what happens in material reality.

That was my thought on it, reading on it. It seems to take mind/body dualism for granted, and falls apart if you assume a singular mind-body.

You can't make a mind-body distinction since your mind isnt' something floating in another universe, and beaming instructions to your body. Your mind is situated in your body, and interacts with it constantly.

If you sit around doing nothing all day, and eat poorly you will feel bad. Under a mind-body dichotomy, you'd address this as a mental problem, rather than a physical one.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but the Stoics seem to take the distinction for granted. You can retreat into your mind, separate yourself from the experience of your body which can't touch your mind. My point is that if there is no such distinction, then the philosophy crumbles.

Happy to help.

>I'm not sure what you're getting at,

Mind-Body dualism leads people to separate mental problems from phsyical ones. So if you're upset, or sad, it's a spiritual/psychological problem. Instead, the brain is physical, and your body has a huge influence on your mental wellbeing.

this faggot again

>ethos of resignation
I'm amazed someone who isn't illiterate could get stoicism so wrong.

>"Every difficulty in life presents us with an opportunity to turn inward and to invoke our own submerged inner resources. The trials we endure can and should introduce us to our strengths.”
Epictetus

Stoicism is about resilience, litteraly the oposite of resignation.

tl;dr: stop talking out of your ass and actually read about a topic if you want to comment on it.

Not OP, but I really appreciate your genuine and clearly thought-out posts, seriously. We need more posters like you.

STOICISM, AS THE WORD ITSELF INDICATES —FROM "STOA", FROM "ROOT "STA" ("TO STAND"/"TO STAY", AS IN STOPPING, OR REMAINING STILL, AMIDST MOTION, AS IF IN A STUPOR)— CONSISTS IN ENDURING, WHICH ITSELF ENTAILS RESIGNATION TO CIRCUMSTANCE; RESILIENCE IS MERELY CONTINGENT TO THAT RESIGNATION, AS A MEASURE TO NOT PERISH WHILST ENDURING THE CIRCUMSTANCE TO WHICH THE STOIC HAS RESIGNED ITSELF.

YOU ARE IGNORANT AND CONFUSED.

Buddhist have this too, not sure if your chart is based on that or not.

>“If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying? If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying?” - Shantideva, a 7th century Buddhist monk

They deviate too much from aretaic theories of morality towards deontology.
MacIntyre writes about this in after virtue.

>It encourages an uncritical attitude towards the established social order, regarding it too often as simply "natural." Look at how the stoics talk about slavery - they're not pro-slavery, but they simply accept it as an established fact of life.

I think that's a bad argument. Part of being virtuous is that you aim to improve society.
And at their time, pretty much everyone was OK with slavery.

>nothing intrinsecally wrong, but it´s going to be difficult if you are a "worldly" person

Making you a less "worldly" person is part of the objective of pretty much any decent life philosophy.

Many examples on Stoicism were not of people with a full belly and a roof. Diogenes was someone they admired, for example. And if you read Seneca you will see many people on extreme situations.

>Basically stoicism rejects the legitemacy of the physical world and the body and is based on the activity of the mind being seperable from what happens in material reality. When stoicism claims to be able to withdraw and use reason unaffected by wordly desires it's inadvertantly being disingenuous and will still make decisions based implicitly on hedonistic impulses. If you want to control your impulses and have a good basis for ethical living it does not help to pretend as if you are capable of transcending the physical basis of existence

That's not the case, at least for the later Roman ones (we have no surviving texts on the Greek ones).
If you look at Epictetus and Rufus, there is a lot of focus on practice. They didn't consider that knowing theory would be sufficient to be able to "improve yourself". There was a physical component, as well. You become more virtuous, more independent on worldly desires by practice. That's why they lived austere lives.

comes fron "stoa,"
>literally "pertaining to a portico," from stoa "porch," specifically Stoa Poikile "the Painted Porch," the great hall in Athens (decorated with frescoes depicting the Battle of Marathon) where Zeno taught (see stoa).

resignation is abandon of action and purpose
relience is tmporary abandon of action to preserve purpose

I may be confused, but you're the ignorant. Start by actually knowing textbook definitions if you want to pretend your argument is based in epistemology

He certainly incorporated it into his life philosophy

>calls another ignorant
>doesn't even know there word origin of Stoicism
Holy shit senpai neck yourself and don't leave your suicide note in all caps

Why don't you explain further what you mean instead of stating it as truth and leaving it at that?

Unless you're going to be a ruthless killing machine for a greater cause, it's just spiritual suicide/passivity

It is the philosophy of Gen Mattis, but it certainly is a lot more than what you described. Can you elaborate?

> spiritual suicide/passivity
I mean I can see the argument for the passivity. It's one of the biggest faults I find in Stoicism myself. But suicide? In what way?

Stoicism doesn't promote "passivity".
It says you should act virtuously.

Oh yeah, totally. I don't disagree in the slightest. The stoics treat pain, want, etc. as a strictly mental problem that can be overcome by mental means.

They don't. Why is a strawman of Stoicism so common?
Is it karma for spreading that the Epicureans are perverts?

>They don't.

But they do. They tell you to retreat into your mind, which they believe the body can't touch.

Lefties hate it, so stoicism pros overshadow any cons it might have.

They don't say you can just wish pain away. Or desires away.

They say you can have pain but still be able to endure it well. Stoicism is not analgesics. The management of desires is not solely mental, but take a lot of habit building.

>lefties hate it

Sartre was influenced by Stoicism, and Foucault would develop an interest in it later in his life.

You don't require to be able to wish pain away to believe in a mind/division, you require only to believe that the mind is distinct from the body, which the stoics do.

Do you think early psychologists who approached psychology in a Cartesian fashion thought you could just wish mental problems away?

You post is not an answer to mine.

I mean ones who look like pic related, not respectable people like Sartre and Focault(even tough I don't agree with them always).

I doubt any of those men have much to say about Stoicism.

If Foucault took Stoicism seriously he would not have died of AIDS.

ok nvm

What if you don't know (yet) if your problem can be solved? For example, let's say you've developed cancer and you're not sure if it can be cured.
You could still have many years to live, in which case you might want to plan carefully about what to do with your future. What to study, where to live, what to accomplish.
On the other hand, you might be dead in a few weeks, in which case you'll regret doing all that planning instead of talking to your family before you drop dead.

Uncertainty is a legit cause for worrying if you ask me.

In a way it does. It advocates calmly accepting what happens to you or living virtuously within your station. It also kinda of says "well if it was going to happen, it's natural, so tough shit, nothing you can do"

I just disagree with that sort of. You can influence what happens to you to a degree as well as be virtious but not be content to stay within your station.

Maybe I'm just a brainlet cause I've just started to read into it, but that's the impression I get.

Ok then. But the stoic soul and mind were something distinct from the body, composed of the active elements of fire and air distinct from the body's passive elements of earth and water. They were closer to a mind-body than Plato (their soul controlled bodily processes and was influenced directly by the body), and nowhere near as sharp in division as Descartes, but they still believed it distinct, and if you believe the mind-body to be one, inseparable thing, their philosophy begins to fall apart.

He only took up an interest later in his life. Likely when he was suffering from his illness.

The worry itself is however a pointless act, as it does nothing to improve your situation and just makes you miserable.

Stoicism basically says you should act virtuously regardless of rewards. Let's say I'm a dentist. I should try to be the best dentist I can be, regardless of living in a communist society where it won't affect my material conditions or in a capitalist one where it will make me rich. Being greedy and motivated by wealth is bad for you.

Also, you should try to improve society. Stoics have a tradition of participating in politics. Cato, Seneca and Aurelius being famous ones. Even Epictetus was a professor of Hadrian and his most prized pupil became one of Hadrian's most important followers.

Your point is completely orthogonal to Stoic ethics.

>I'm just going to respond with cryptic bullshit

OK, whatever, fuck off.

Orthogonal means "irrelevant". Stoic ethics doesn't depend on this in any way.

Note that "improving society" in Greece and Rome didn't include things like abolishing slavery. In the case of Aurelius for instance, it involved doing basically the same shit that the other four of the good five had done.

Their track record speaks for itself.

>more irrelevant bullshit

If the political project of stoicism is untenable, then there's no point in pursuing it.

>political project

Philosophic project*

Considering he was following the likes of Hadrian and Antoninus, yes, that's about as good as you can expect one to be.

It is not untenable. There were some sages in antiquity.

And even if you don't become a sage, you are improving your life by being an incomplete Stoic (like Seneca).

Yeah, Rome was a great society for all within it by the end of its reign. Except the countless people left unemployed by slavery, oh and all the slaves that had to labor for their Roman master. That Stoic emperor led it to being such a just and fair society.

>There were some sages in antiquity.

Not even the stoics agreed on whether this was possible, you tosser.

>Seneca

Mostly used stoicism as a system of apologetics for his life of luxury.

why does this guy keep talking about slavery?
that's three times now.

>tripcode is at odds with stoicism

Improving society means that an ancient ruler should make it completely compatible with the morals of 19th-21st century society?

It means that society should noticeably change for the better. The Stoics mostly just continued shit the way it was, without an actual betterment for it. They claimed virtue while apologizing for a society built on bloodshed and slavery. If that's your idea of improvement, you need higher standards.

They considered a few men to be sages. Socrates and Stilpo, for example.

And now you are being unfair to Seneca.

Roman society did thrive under Hadrian, Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius (less in the case of Aurelius, since he had to deal with some difficult issues).

Yeah, because tripfriends usually tend to be excellent personalities above the mediocrity of the average, which stoicism so exalts.

I thrived (became more prosperous, got some new temples and such) but did it become more virtuous?

Pain is also pointless after you've treated a wound, you'll still keep feeling it though, whether you like it or not.

google.com/amp/s/patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/marcus-aurelius-intellectual-fascist-why-rome-fell/amp/
INTELLECTUAL

FASCISM
A
S
C
I
S
M

>>Uncertainty is a legit cause for worrying if you ask me.
the spook of certainty is just a spook

>The thesis that Christianism nearly destroyed civilization is obviously true, and was supported in detail by Gibbon in the Decline and Fall of Rome (eighteenth century).

Stopped reading. Only fools taken Gibbon seriously.