I read Massimo Piggliucci's short introduction to Stoicism, and some other online guides, and now I'm very intrigued...

why are you always writing in caps man...

penguin truly is the best publisher in this timeline

it catches the attention of the eye, so long as it isn't a wall of text
basically free (You)'s

I see it as a means of self mastery, otherwise what would you suggest as a school of philosophy to check out?

Stop yelling

1. HOW ARE FATALISTIC DILIGENCE, AND RESIGNATION, CONDUCIVE TOWARD “SELFMASTERY”, ACCORDING TO YOU?

2. DEFINE “SELFMASTERY”.

>ETHOS OF RESIGNATION, AND OF FATALISTIC DILIGENCE
Can you justify this characterization of stoicism?

Well mate, since there's little surviving works on the Stoics, going straight into the sources is the thing to do.

Here's some of the works, and philosophers who made it possible:

Stoicism

Early Stoa
>Zeno of Citium
>Chrysippus of Soli

Late Stoa
>Seneca the Younger
>Epictetus
>Marcus Aurelius

Notable Works:

On the Shortness of Life
-Seneca
youtu.be/ABRN0E_mI0U

The Meditations
-Marcus Aurelius
youtu.be/rqqjU7zCI10

The Echiridion of Epictetus
-Epictetus
youtu.be/aaFe3nGhdGI

The Physical Thesis
-Chrysippus

Hope this helps, I believe it carries the best ethics to live by.

What are the good opposing view or arguments against them?

The Stoics take for granted an assumption about the relationship between mind and body that fundamentally undermines their work. They assume that the mind has a character that can be wholly untouched by the body, and realizing this is just a matter of discipline and training, but the mind and body are a singular, inseparable thing, the project starts to crumble.

Keep in mind that even with this potential criticism, it doesn't undermine the merit of stoic ethics, or even the merit of stoic indifference, but it does mean that project itself is something incapable of being fully realized.

STOICISM DEFINES DUTY AS THAT WHICH IS NECESSARY, NOT AS THAT WHICH IS IMPERATIVE, THEREFORE, IT CONFLATES IT WITH RESPONSIBILITY/OBLIGATION, AND IN PRACTICING DUTY AS CONFLATED WITH RESPONSIBILITY/OBLIGATION, THE STOIC PERSON NEGLECTS WHAT IS IMPORTANT, AS IT ENDEAVORS TO LABOUR WITH ROTENESS WITH NO VISION BEYOND IMMEDIATE TASK, OR BEYOND SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES, AND WITH TAUTOLOGICAL REASON (“IT IS MY ‘DUTY’ BECAUSE I WAS BORN TO DO THIS, AND I WAS BORN TO DO MY ‘DUTY’”)

THE STOIC PERSON EQUALS THE MYTHICAL SYSYPHUS.

Ok I'm a philosophy rookie so I probably don't have the scope of knowledge to justly and (maybe even) correctly defend stoicism as a whole due to my limited exposure but I'll give a shot, maybe I'll learn something

>1. HOW ARE FATALISTIC DILIGENCE, AND RESIGNATION, CONDUCIVE TOWARD “SELFMASTERY”, ACCORDING TO YOU?

I'm really no different then anyone else on this earth. I have a limited amount of time in which I can do the things I want to do before due to natural (or unnatural) causes will eventually lead me to die. To call this idea fatalistic I think is being a bit hyperbolic, it's nothing more then a statement of observable consistent end result over the years. In knowing I have a limited amount of time what good is it then to spend this precious resource on things I do not have any control over? How would it enrich my life if everyday I worried about dying? I wouldn't call it resignation but rather understanding an inevitable limit of my physic form. Because I can being to filter out what is and isn't worth my time and effort I can use what remains in order to enrich my life in a way I see fit with my own personality, desires and goals. Being able to exercise that type of personal agency time and time again towards that direction takes not only self-awareness but also discipline

>2. DEFINE “SELFMASTERY”.
To understand one's own strengths, weaknesses, unique abilities and limitations and use that information to survive and remain genuine to yourself as you go through life. I don't know I may be overreaching here.

Stoics were anything but the liberal subectivists you try to paint them as, /pol/.

What philosophy would you rather he study? Christianity? Care to explain exactly what that does better than the Stoics?

Thats a pretty good justification

thanks are there any interesting debates between stoics and non stoics?

Do stoics require a God for thier ethics to be justifiable?

>thanks are there any interesting debates between stoics and non stoics?

Can't help you there, I don't know of any.

>Do stoics require a God for thier ethics to be justifiable?

No more so than any other philosophical ethical system. They never tackle the is-ought problem, and they don't stand up to criticism from figures like Nietzsche (what with both coming thousands of years later with the benefit of a much expanded philosophical tradition, and a fuckload of hindsight), but if you don't consider this to be a deal breaker, their ethics are perfectly serviceable without a god.

user here!

To answer your question, and I'll keep it short, Hedonism is THE philosophy contrary to Stoicism.

In fact, historically speaking, both schools frequently criticized each other and often commented on their works.

Short answer: Hedonism.

It was founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, a student ofSocrates.

In short, it regarded the utility of "Pleasure" in high regard, affirming that it is the ultimate master of mankind.

Notable works and philosophers:

>School of the Cyrenaics
Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene

>Democritus
The earliest founder; he called the supreme goal of life "contentment" or "cheerfulness", claiming that "joy and sorrow are the distinguishing mark of things beneficial and harmful"

That said, the Stoics do assume a god of sorts in the form of the logos, a divine universal order that permeates all things which we share in as the fundamental thing of our rational thought, but it's not exactly the same as a God as you might understand (though it is indeed often translated as God). Their ethics do rest on this extensively, but if you can just assume they mean "universal causal order" they hold up fine.

>They never tackle the is-ought problem,

Are they not saying that nature cannot be defeated, thus it is outside your control and that you should then therefore make the best of it?

>On the Shortness of Life
>-Seneca

I'd recommend Cicero's On Aging, as it's life advice for how to grow old and handle death.

youtube.com/watch?v=IB4UTEWWCCQ

The entire philosophy rests upon the notion that the universe is rational, and good. We'll call rational+good Zeus, because this is the terminology the Stoics themselves used. The physical manifestations of the universe is determined entirely by fate, the rational and good chain of events that was set about at the origin of creation, the will of Zeus (the mythological argument can be had later, this is only the terminology of the Stoics themselves). Therefore, everything that happens to us is the will of Zeus. Our opinions on the value of events are different from what occurs in the physical world, so there must be a distinction between our consciousness and the will of Zeus. If everything that happens to us is rational and good, the will of Zeus, then our unhappiness must be irrational and bad.

With all of that in mind, Stoicism seeks to discover what in human thinking makes us think that what is the will of Zeus is bad. That is the foundation of the whole philosophy.

...

Actual Stoicism is based.

Stoicism as practiced by numales who read Meditations once and think Aurelius is a model Stoic is not. Every time I see someone start talking about being a "Stoic" and citing Marcus I'm reminded that even something so seemingly esoteric as Stoicism attracts more dilettantes and pretenders than actual practitioners.

Regardless, anyone who is serious about practicing Stoicism will eventually encounter Theravada Buddhism and realize that it's very similar but superior in every way.

"Stoicism" is very popular among Chads who want to pretend to be philosophers and numales who want to pretend to be emotionless hardasses. The numale stereotype, the atheist who thinks he's really smart and always wants to impress people with how educated and worldly he is, will almost always cite Stoicism as his personal philosophy. He imagines that this provides him with a moral structure without the need to rely on religion (showing how little Stoic writing he's actually read) and he knows that the average person will know absolutely nothing about it, so that even his minimal knowledge will seem impressive.

I see this a lot and it's almost always the same kind of guys doing it. You can basically tell whether someone has a brain or is just a retarded dilettante based on which Stoics they mention by name. If someone cites Epictetus, they're probably ok. If someone cites Aurelius, there's an extremely high likelihood that they're a numale poser.

That's just the facts, boys.

...

I like both of them.

>mfw even philosophers aren't immune to creating lengthy attacks on strawmen
It's in the very recognition of nature as profligate, indifferent, and without purpose that the Stoic resolves to live according to nature as it truly is, rather that one might imagine or wish it were.

>how could you live according to this indifference?
By cultivating that same indifference in regards to everything which lies outside your control. By using nature's indifference as a model for your own.

>mfw even philosophers aren't immune to creating lengthy attacks on strawmen
It's in the very recognition of nature as profligate, indifferent, and without purpose that the Stoic resolves to live according to nature as it truly is, rather that one might imagine or wish it were.

>how could you live according to this indifference?
By cultivating that same indifference in regards to everything which lies outside your control. By using nature's indifference as a model for your own.

That's not true. They didn't think the mind is unaffected by the body.

Nietzsche's criticism of Stoicism is not very good. It is basically a strawman.

And Hume's is-ought stuff is due to a poor understanding of Classical ethics in his era. Alisdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue" explains this pretty well.

Huh, reads like a shit post.

We really are a microcosm of humanity.

If they're living according to indifferent nature then what place does virtue or justice have in this?

People who say stoicism is fatalistic bullshit never offer a different philosophy to consider.

Epicureanism.

>They think the untrained mind allows the body to affect itself, and that a trained mind can overcome this. This idea completely collapses in on itself if the two are in no way distinct. In Stoic ethics, the mind/soul composed of active elements of fire and air is distinct from the body composed of passive elements of earth and water, and they believe the the impulses of the body can be completely ignored by a trained mind, ignoring the fact that body and mind are actually one and the same.

That is completely wrong.
They don't think the impulses of the body can be controlled by a trained mind. If you make noise behind the Stoic Sage, he will also jump. Stoicism deals with passions, not impulses.

Your pet idea that the separation of mind and body is in any way important to Stoic ethics is silly. Stoic ethics doesn't have that requirement.

I was hoping to bail on this before someone responded.

>They don't think the impulses of the body can be controlled by a trained mind.

I never claimed they did. Reread the statement that's quoted in your post. They believed that the mind, distinct from the body, was untouchable by the body if properly trained, not that it could control ever aspect of the body. The sage could be completely indifferent to the impulses of his body, like pain or pleasure, which is a crock.

>Stoicism deals with passions, not impulses.

It deals with both, actually. Pain and pleasure are both impulses, and a sage is expected to be indifferent to both in the pursuit of virtue.

>Your pet idea that the separation of mind and body is in any way important to Stoic ethics is silly. Stoic ethics doesn't have that requirement.

You'll note that I said in the beginning that their ethics still have merit, right? Just that their philosophic project, the sage, becomes untenable, and the philosophy comes apart at the seams. It ceases to be something that you can take as a cohesive truth, and becomes merely something to take ideas from. But, I'll point out that this is what you did last time when you were confronted with the fact that stoics do believe in a mind/body division and that a chunk of their philosophy revolves around it: claimed that's irrelevant to the point when you could no longer defend your original position, which is arguing in bad faith.

He seems to be essentially pointing out that they don't clearly seem to describe what specifically they mean by nature, do they mean the harsh, indifferent mistress that is nature? If so, then why virtue, justice or ethics? Do they mean nature as according to the existence of man? Then they've created a vacuous definition of nature that says nothing and grants their philosophy no special grounding. What they've done instead is created an ethical system and tried to make reality conform to it (as anyone who creates such a system does) and so use nature essentially as a rhetorical point.

As an added bonus, if they mean nature according to the divine order of the logos, they've effectively created a philosophy that's leaning on theism for legitimacy.

>I never claimed they did. Reread the statement that's quoted in your post. They believed that the mind, distinct from the body, was untouchable by the body if properly trained, not that it could control ever aspect of the body. The sage could be completely indifferent to the impulses of his body, like pain or pleasure, which is a crock.

You did.
The sage isn't supposed to be a statue. Pain will still be painful. The issue is that it is not because it is painful that it is bad. And that you should not be a pleasure seeker.

>It deals with both, actually. Pain and pleasure are both impulses, and a sage is expected to be indifferent to both in the pursuit of virtue.

I think you don't understand what the Stoics meant by indifferent to.

>You'll note that I said in the beginning that their ethics still have merit, right? Just that their philosophic project, the sage, becomes untenable, and the philosophy comes apart at the seams. It ceases to be something that you can take as a cohesive truth, and becomes merely something to take ideas from. But, I'll point out that this is what you did last time when you were confronted with the fact that stoics do believe in a mind/body division and that a chunk of their philosophy revolves around it: claimed that's irrelevant to the point when you could no longer defend your original position, which is arguing in bad faith.

You are a person that loves to speak about the mind-body duality. And in your case, when you have a hammer everything is a nail.

Mind-body duality is completely irrelevant to Stoic ethics.

>The sage isn't supposed to be a statue. Pain will still be painful. The issue is that it is not because it is painful that it is bad. And that you should not be a pleasure seeker.

Again, not something I claimed. The Stoics did not believe a sage would not feel pain, just that he would not heed pain in pursuit of virtue.

>I think you don't understand what the Stoics meant by indifferent to.

I can only assume that they mean indifferent.

>You are a person that loves to speak about the mind-body duality. And in your case, when you have a hammer everything is a nail.

Because it's relevant here. The stoics believe the mind to be capable of perfect rationality untouched by the impulses of the body, and if this is not the case, their philosophical project becomes untenable.

>Mind-body duality is completely irrelevant to Stoic ethics.

Listen buddy, I'm actually trying to be somewhat polite here. So I'll explain it again, in nice big letters so you can read it more easily. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THEIR ETHICS, I STATED PLAINLY THAT THEIR ETHICS HAVE MERIT, ONLY THAT THEIR OVERARCHING PHILOSOPHICAL PROJECT "THE SAGE" IS UNTENABLE BECAUSE IT RESTS ON AN ASSUMPTION OF MIND/BODY DUALISM THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST.

Give an example of something you think the Stoics believe to be possible but that you think it is not possible due to mind-body issues.

Ignoring pain or pleasure's effects on the mind and the role they play in the process of decision making. A stoic sage is expected to be able to do this, preferring virtue above all else, and taking satisfaction in virtue itself.

You believe this to be impossible? Give a material example, please.

The reward mechanisms of the brain play an active part in our decision making process. Making decisions is directly related to our concepts of pleasure and pain. You can't over come them through rationality, because they are a component of rational thought.

Give a material example.

Read Seneca's letters, then Epictetus, then Diogenes Laertius account on the Early Stoics and finally the Meditations. I hate that people think that the latter is enough, it's a fucking diary and it explains shit

>give a material example
>discuss the material reward mechanisms of a brain that are the fundamental components of all thought, rational or otherwise

That is a material example, jackass.

Show me a kind of behavior you believe to be impossible but that the Stoics believed to be possible.

I just fucking did. You dishonest cunt.

You didn't.

"It is impossible to not desire to eat something delicious instead of bland foods"

would be an example.

"It is impossible to feel pain and be happy"

Would be another.

"It's impossible to not allow pleasure or pain to affect your decision making process in lieu of virtue because pleasure and pain form a fundamental component of your decision making process." is pretty fucking material, decision making is a behavior. Keep those fucking goal posts where they started.

Show me a case where it is impossible to keep pleasure and pain away from the decision process. What you are arguing here is not that mind and body are the same. You are arguing that everyone is and will always be a hedonist.

Cont. (And where the Stoics believed you can ignore pleasure and pain)

Heck, Epicurus who was a hedonist himself was in some ways proof that it is possible to defeat this kind of hedonism.

>Show me a case where it is impossible to keep pleasure and pain away from the decision process.

Right around the spot where the reward mechanisms of our brain are a fundamental component of our decision making process.

>What you are arguing here is not that mind and body are the same.

Do not put words in my mouth. I am arguing that the brain and the mind are one and the same, so the neurological mechanisms of the brain are directly linked to the thought processes of the mind.

>You are arguing that everyone is and will always be a hedonist.

Absolutely not. I am not arguing that everyone will treat pleasure as a moral good. I am arguing that pleasure and pain are components of our decision making process, and we can't be indifferent to them while still making decisions.

It's a core component of stoic epistemology that pleasure (aside from the pleasure of virtue) and pain are just impressions, and the sage is not affected by impressions in the decision making process. If you want a citation, you can fuck off, this is an informal discussion on Veeky Forums, not an academic paper.

Hardly. He handled his illness with grace, but there's no reason to think it didn't affect his decisions.

Still no examples. Great.

What you are defending is some kind of economics style utilitarianism, not that mind and body are the same.
Mind and body can be the same and people can at the same time not be affected by pleasure and pain in their decision making.

>Mind and body can be the same and people can at the same time not be affected by pleasure and pain in their decision making.

No, they fucking can't, because pleasure and pain (take as abstracts of pleasure and displeasure, more aptly) are what make you chose one option over another. Choosing an option out of virtue is still affected by this, which even the stoics desperately tried to cover up for by trying to make virtue synonymous with true pleasure.

We are talking about physical pain and physical pleasure here. Much more so given that we are speaking about mind and body being the same.

only a few rationalists claim that ideas and consciousness are not possibly seen like the 5 other senses

Your argument was that Stoicism was disproved due to their belief on the mind-body dualism, since pleasures and pains of the body are the source of all decision making.

If the claim opens up that "pleasures of the mind" can be the source of decision making instead, then the argument would be that the Stoics follow a form of hedonism and that they are basically the same as the Epicureans. But at the same time, in this case the belief in the mind-body dualism doesn't make any difference.

I don't think the Stoics are unclear at all when they say live within nature.

Cicero:

>In short, enjoy the blessing of strength while you have it and do not bewail it when it is gone, unless, forsooth, you believe that youth must lament the loss of infancy, or early manhood the passing of youth. Life's race-course is fixed; Nature has only a single path and that path is run but once, and to each stage of existence has been allotted its own appropriate quality; so that the weakness of childhood, the impetuosity of youth, the seriousness of middle life, the maturity of old age—each bears some of Nature's fruit, which must be garnered in its own season.

Later:
>When the young die I am reminded of a strong flame extinguished by a torrent; but when old men die it is as if a fire had gone out without the use of force and of its own accord, after the fuel had been consumed; and, just as apples when they are green are with difficulty plucked from the tree, but when ripe and mellow fall of themselves, so, with the young, death comes as a result of force, while with the old it is the result of ripeness. To me, indeed, the thought of this "ripeness" for death is so pleasant, that the nearer I approach death the more I feel like one who is in sight of land at last and is about to anchor in his home port after a long voyage.

Another one:

>For to those who have not the means within themselves of a virtuous and happy life every age is burdensome; and, on the other hand, to those who seek all good from themselves nothing can seem evil that the laws of nature inevitably impose. To this class old age especially belongs, which all men wish to attain and yet reproach when attained; such is the inconsistency and perversity of Folly! They say that it stole upon them faster than they had expected. In the first place, who has forced them to form a mistaken judgement? For how much more rapidly does old age steal upon youth than youth upon childhood? And again, how much less burdensome would old age be to them if they were in their eight hundredth rather than in their eightieth year? In fact, no lapse of time, however long, once it had slipped away, could solace or soothe a foolish old age.

Key phrase: "that the laws of nature inevitably impose". At least in Cicero's usage of Stoicism, it's about accepting and doing the best with what Nature imposes.

Are Marcus Aurelius and Cicero the only example of Stoic Philosopher Kings?

Cicero was not a king.

Louis IX would qualify as a Philosopher King.

>Cicero was not a king.

Console of Rome. The highest office in the land.

So in other words, exactly what Nietzsche said in the second part, life according to nature according to life, but as he said, how can you do otherwise? Their statements on living according to nature are vacuous, and serve as a rhetorical point, nothing more.

Also Cicero is not "the stoics" he is a stoic.

>Your argument was that Stoicism was disproved due to their belief on the mind-body dualism, since pleasures and pains of the body are the source of all decision making.

The brain is part of the body, all decisions occur in the brain, pleasure and pain play a role in all decisions made, therefore all decisions are affected by bodily pleasure and pain. Your counter argument has been to completely fail to understand what a mind-body actually is.

>pleasures of the mind

There is no such distinction, all that occurs to you occurs to you bodily.

>Your argument was that Stoicism was disproved

Also, no, you strawman building weasel.

>The brain is part of the body, all decisions occur in the brain,
doesn't necessarily mean that
>pleasure and pain play a role in all decisions made, therefore all decisions are affected by bodily pleasure and pain.

Also

>There is no such distinction, all that occurs to you occurs to you bodily.
In our discussion, there is.

>The brain is part of the body, all decisions occur in the brain,
doesn't necessarily mean that
>pleasure and pain play a role in all decisions made, therefore all decisions are affected by bodily pleasure and pain.

In other words: your conclusion doesn't come from your premises.

>how can you do otherwise?

You can ignore it or not deal with it. Death is a prime example. Many people just bury death and don't pay any attention to it. Stoics would say it is a completely natural, and unavoidable part of life, and it must be confronted. Then, make the best out of the situation by changing what you CAN control. The entirety of Cicero's "On Aging" is built around this.

I think you're under-estimating how simple yet profound this is.

>being too much of a pussy to go full cynic
yeah nah stoicism is for intellectual cowards and bureaucrats like Aurelius lmao

I've seen stoicism being memed here for a while and although I'm not a man who changes his lifestyle on a whim I have a certain fondness for a couple of schools of thought. Can someone explain to me what it's about?

...

Being a beta that thinks he's an alpha.

Stoicism is often misconstrued but even if we choose to ignore those who do this there are still issues with it. However the baby and bathwater maxim springs to mind. Stoicism is not about embracing suffering, or becoming some unemotional fedora lord (nice try kid) but about preparing your mind for the unexpected. I always use a gambling analogy when explaining this, if a stoic goes to play roulette, he places his bet and expects all possible outcomes (in this case winning or losing). By expecting both with equal anticipation he will not be surprised or vexed if he loses nor will they become giddy with joy of they win. By priming oneself in this way they are in control of their reactions and won't be slave to their impulses. Furthermore the stoic accepts their own fate and their own lot in life, they will not rue the roulette board, or curse the gods or the croupier, all things happen as they ought to and the wheel spins exactly how it was meant to.

B-but I already live my life according to this principle.

>So in other words, exactly what Nietzsche said in the second part, life according to nature according to life, but as he said, how can you do otherwise? Their statements on living according to nature are vacuous, and serve as a rhetorical point, nothing more.

1. Acknowledge reality
2. What lessons can be learned from acknowledging reality.

Lots of ideologies and philosophies either ignore elements of reality, or deny them. People can choose to just not deal with them, or, rather, worry about them endlessly. Stoicism tries to handle them headon.

Like other Ancient Philosophies (and unlike modern ethics), Stoic Ethics is a guide to life

Basically, on Stoicism virtue is necessary and sufficient to happiness (which is also the case for Platonism, Cynicism and amusingly Epicureanism).
You can have money, pleasures, a high status, people that love you... and still be miserable. You can be poor, low status, mocked by everyone... and be happy. And not needing those things leads to a better life than needing them.

One thing that Epictetus' style Stoicism often speaks about is judgement. It is not the circumstances that create your emotions (not visceral emotions such as being scared the moment a spider drops on your head, that can't be helped), but how you judge them. An example: both Dominick Cruz and Ronda Rousey were UFC champions. Both lost their belt. Cruz had a much better reaction than Rousey. Why? He had better judgement.

Like other Ancient Philosophies (and unlike modern ethics), Stoic Ethics is a guide to life

Basically, on Stoicism virtue is necessary and sufficient to happiness (which is also the case for Platonism, Cynicism and amusingly Epicureanism).
You can have money, pleasures, a high status, people that love you... and still be miserable. You can be poor, low status, mocked by everyone... and be happy. And not needing those things leads to a better life than needing them.

One thing that Epictetus' style Stoicism often speaks about is judgement. It is not the circumstances that create your emotions (not visceral emotions such as being scared the moment a spider drops on your head, that can't be helped), but how you judge them. An example: both Dominick Cruz and Ronda Rousey were UFC champions. Both lost their belt. Cruz had a much better reaction than Rousey. Why? He had better judgement. Having better judgement is virtue.

There is also a practical component, which involves asceticism. By indulging in pleasures, you end up increasing your desire for them and getting used to have that pleasure. And that leads to frustration.

Once you do that (can't go wrong with Epictetus) you should read Seneca to check your comprehension of Stoicism, couldn't recommend him more.