Don't care if your family dies

Many people did so I don't know what you're asking.

>understand that everything is temporary and you can't get what you want all the time or even most of the time, and resign yourself to the unavoidable fact that the things you love will eventually perish, because by doing this you will save yourself from the misery that afflicts those who do not accept these truths.

Yeah what an insane idea amirite?

>11. Never say of anything, "I have lost it"; but, "I have returned it." Is your child dead? It is returned. Is your wife dead? She is returned. Is your estate taken away? Well, and is not that likewise returned? "But he who took it away is a bad man." What difference is it to you who the giver assigns to take it back? While he gives it to you to possess, take care of it; but don't view it as your own, just as travelers view a hotel.

>26. The will of nature may be learned from those things in which we don't distinguish from each other. For example, when our neighbor's boy breaks a cup, or the like, we are presently ready to say, "These things will happen." Be assured, then, that when your own cup likewise is broken, you ought to be affected just as when another's cup was broken. Apply this in like manner to greater things. Is the child or wife of another dead? There is no one who would not say, "This is a human accident." but if anyone's own child happens to die, it is presently, "Alas I how wretched am I!" But it should be remembered how we are affected in hearing the same thing concerning others.

autistic sociopathy: the philosophy.

Again, you don't know what sociopathy is. Stoicism is about finding a way to deal with the vicissitudes of life and the cosmic horror of the Eternal Recurrence with dignity, this is not something any sociopath or autist has ever thought of or would care about.

>Eternal Recurrence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

Holy fucking shit this article. Greece gets all of TWO LINES, werein it is outright stated they took the concept from the Egyptians (protip wikipedia: The Ehyptians didn't beleive in the eternal recurrence). Then Indians get a bit over a paragraph plus a quote from the Baghvad Gita (fair enough, they DO believe in something like it), and then the JEWS get two full paragraphs, despite emphatically NOT having a doctrine of the circularity of time ("In the beginning,...", remember?)

So the only people to expand on this notion get nearly no mention at all, while people who overtly and explicitly reject the notion get multiple long paragraphs. Fuck wikipedia and FUCK white people.

>bitching about a volunteer project made by well meaning but often non-expert people

If you don't like it, go and fix it. Sources are abundant.

>hurr just delete the section about the Jews and expand the part about the evildumb whites, I'm sure no-one will report you for vandalism and get you banned!

I would, but I'm already banned from wiki for making this exact mistake of trying to correct a page.

>implying you weren't an idiot edit waring fool

If "edit war" means making ONE edit to a page and then being banned for "racism" then sure.

Where are you even getting these from anyways?

>t. brainlet

>tfw found out i've been a stoic for the majority of my life on accident

whelp

They're quotes from "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius. He wasn't a philosopher, of course, and his book was a personal journal he never intended for publication, but he's probably the best-known Stoic.

well put.

>They're quotes from "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius

It's from Cicero retard.

>taking Kikero seriously

shitposters or fools
Those are from Epictetus.

Thanks. Any exact book?

Fix it at your local library. Use another IP.

classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

Look at the people watching it. Zionists and antiwhites, for the most part.

Why would they? Zeno was a Phoenician Semite anyway. It's not like Stoicism is some sort of Nazi rallying cry.

Idk why, just look for yourself. It explains why the Jews, of all people, get the hog's share of the article despite actively rejecting the idea of the eternal recurrence, tho idk why the Greeks are so neglected, or where the idea that they got the idea from Egypt comes from, since Egypt, like other Semite groups, rejected the notion completely and has a linear model of time. The only clue is that someone thinks the scarab beetle and the promise of life after death is somehow the same as the eternal recurrence, which is so laughably wrong and idiotic that I can't even.

Egyptians aren't Semites, and as another user stated feel free to fix the article at using another IP. You are complaining about nothing.

Yeah, no, I'm not wasting any more time editing wiki articles only for them to be reverted and my ip banned. Fuck wikipedia, once bitten twice shy.

>This was not helped when Chrysippus, Zeno's most illustrious successor as the head of the Stoic school, wrote his own treatise On the Republic (probably a commentary on Zeno's work), in which (among many other things) he defended both incest and cannibalism.[9]

autism: the philosophy.

>incest
not as bad as people make seem.
>cannibalism
justified in some cases. like if you are stranded on a mountain, some guy has already died and you can eat his corpse or die yourself.

Do not base your purpose/happiness on things outside your control. That is what being a stoic is all about. If you rely on your job for happiness you could get fired. etc..Its simply realizing and accepting that some things are outside your control. And if OP had actually read something like Senecas letters they would see stoics cared deeply for their friends and family.

Much thanks user.

I expected this thread to be at least a decent discussion of stoicism albeit with a rocky start but this thread has degenerated into a shitpost

What are you supposed to rely on for happiness then? And how can I learn to gain happiness from myself and not through others?

Unfortunately for us I am sure as shit no stoic so no concrete answers from me. Pursuits of the mind or some crap. The message I take away from stoicism is learn to be self sufficient for your own happiness because the world sure as shit is not gonna help you.

Its the latest conformist meme.

>just be a passive faggot with no emotions about anything

Its about being unbeatable, mostly by embracing 'goal post' changes.

The Stoics recommended you take happiness in the small things in life, and claimed that cultivating virtue in itself lead to happiness.

>don't care if your family dies

The Stoics understood three things:
1- Death is not an evil
2- Eventually everyone dies
3- No matter how much you grieve, your loved ones will not resurrect or benefit of your grieving

This does not mean that the Stoics will not cherish their loved ones. But he understands that his loved ones are mortals and that sooner or later they will die.

Take a look at what Marcus Aurelius wrote to himself:

>Are Pantheia or Pergamos still keeping watch at the tomb of Verus? Chabrias or Diotimus at the tomb of Hadrian? Of course they aren’t. Would the emperors know it if they were? And even if they knew, would it please them? And even if it did, would the mourners live forever? Were they, too, not fated to grow old and then die? And when that happened, what would the emperors do?

Or that the Stoic won't work to help them live long and happy lives. He will because that's what a virtuous man does to his loved ones.

>never get attached to anything

Attaching yourself to external things can harm and will not benefit you in any way. Christianity teaches the same thing. That doesn't mean that you won't care for your possessions. You will. You will conserve what you have in a good state, since that's what a virtuous man does. But you won't get attached to them.

>completely disregard the viewpoints of others

The Stoic cares about the truth and virtue. If a viewpoint is wise, he will listen to it. If it is shit, he won't care about it.

>What are you supposed to rely on for happiness then? And how can I learn to gain happiness from myself and not through others?

Virtue. Others can't really give you happiness.
Read this:
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life

>mostly by embracing 'goal post' changes.

I think that's mostly what the guys who say they follow modern "Stoicism" think. They are materialistic and hedonistic and not really Stoic, in my point of view. Stoicism in itself mostly keep its goal of "be as virtuous as you can".

...

Watch, because this is the epitome of a brainlet, someone so utterly foreign to understanding concepts he don't support that he cannot understand why someone would want to learn and understand something purely for the sake of learning and understanding.

A typically mantra of Stoicism is to take action on what you can to the best of your ability, and do not put to much energy into things you cannot change. This works especially well when it comes to self worth and consciousness.

That's not to say that you shouldn't care about things you can't change. Be mindful of them, as they can still affect you in very real terms, but do not waste energy trying to affect them.

Be mindful of your emotions and how they can directly affect your decision making. Respect them, understand them, but know that ultimately emotions are not good for making decisions that directly affect your life.

Train your logic so that you can approach any given situation with the mental strength and balance to be effective. Some Stoics also advise to prepare your body in the same, for the same reasons. However, Stoicism is a mostly a philosophy on mental well-being.

Stoicism kinda inherently invokes Determinism, as it teaches people to focus on the present only, as we can only directly affect the present and the future is determined regardless of the choices we make in the present. Careful not to use that as an excuse for apathy though, as apathy is quick to start negatively affecting the present.

Stoicism can be used to make a good case against the existential Nihilism so prevalent in young people today. It teaches us to train the self, and that we are the key to our success and happiness. If you are not happy in yourself, you can never attempt to be content with life in general.

"Virtue is sufficient for happiness".

I don't think anyone can deny the classic Stoic statement above. However, today's problem is that many people do not believe virtues are inherently good or helpful. Stoicism can save humanity from the breakdown of moral, but it takes a lot of effort; the kind of effort people just aren't willing to put in, especially robots.

I don't know why the stoicism meme is so popular on shitpostchan given it's founder was so [TRIGGERED] by getting soup on him in the public square he ran screaming and crying.

who, moot?

>HURR a human being is fallible, therefore nothing he says is of any worth!

Ask me how I know you're a kissless virgin.

>intelligent nonsociopaths independently conclude that they should act like a sociopath without the impulsivity
so this is the true nature of the world in which we live, the only way to achieve happiness is to leap wholeheartedly into the abyss

>A typically mantra of Stoicism is to take action on what you can to the best of your ability, and do not put to much energy into things you cannot change. This works especially well when it comes to self worth and consciousness.

This Stoic idea is well-encapuslated in the Christian prayer, "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change/ Courage to change the things I can/ And wisdom to know the difference."

Much of the rest of Stoic thought is VERY like modern psychological ideas on "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy", which likewise urges patients not to dwell on "triggering" subjects, but to keep their thoughts on positive ideas, on the basis that your brain really can't tell the difference between /thinking/ happy / unhappy thoughts and /feeling/ happy or unhappy.

Couple this with Virtue Ethics, which is essentially the idea that only our actions carry moral weight, and the man who acts in good conscience IS a good man, regardless of outcomes, and you have the basis of Stoic thought.

The Eternal Recurrence isn't an idea modern people share, although the "multiverse" idea is actually very similar, and apparently some physicists do think the Universe "oscillates" between big bangs and heat deaths, which is a modern take on the Eternal Recurrence. But modern people are so self-absorbed that they don't need the cosmic horror of Eternal Recurrence to what to escape from their conditioning and seek contentment in this life.

Are you sure the population at large aren't just emotional passive faggots?

...

What is a philosophy that is like Stoicism but Pro-hedonism?

How in the fuck a philosophy can be like Stoicism but pro-hedonism? Also, why would you want that? One of the strengths of classical ethics is that it is not hedonistic.

>classical ethics
>not hedonistic
Who are the Cyrenaics? Who were the Epicureans?

>Who are the Cyrenaics?
A school with very few adherents no one respected or gave a shit about.

>Who were the Epicureans?
Epicurus was an ascetic NEET who was celibate and who had a simple diet (only eating the necessary to sustain himself) and who spoke about how the pleasure he searched for was that of the mind rather than that of the body, and that you will find "pleasure" on virtue.

This is a good post. I'd also substantiate your first point with the fact that book 1 of the Meditations is mostly dedicated to Marcus' loved ones, his family and friends, and what he is specifically grateful for.

>and that you will find "pleasure" on virtue.
No he didn't. For Epicurus pleasure is the only good. He is not a virtue ethicist, he was a negative hedonist (heavy emphasis on the word hedonist). He was a hedonist. This is the indisputable basic element of his whole moral philosophy.
It was also one of the major branches of normative ethics for centuries. It's factually incorrect to say that "classical ethics" wasn't hedonistic when a hell of a lot of them were, unless you mean something tendentious by "classical ethics" to mean something like none hedonistic classical ethics which makes for nothing more than a tautology.

Let's see what Epicurus himself said:

>When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of merrymaking, not sexual love, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest disturbances take possession of the soul. Of all this the d is prudence. For this reason prudence is a more precious thing even than the other virtues, for ad a life of pleasure which is not also a life of prudence, honor, and justice; nor lead a life of prudence, honor, and justice, which is not also a life of pleasure. For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them.

>It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.

>Luxurious food and drinks, in no way protect you from harm. Wealth beyond what is natural, is no more use than an overflowing container. Real value is not generated by theaters, and baths, perfumes or ointments, but by philosophy.

That does not look like a frat bro lifestyle.

>That does not look like a frat bro lifestyle
You don't know what hedonism is. As I said he was a negative hedonist. Not all kinds of hedonism are the frat bro sort.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/
philosophybasics.com/branch_hedonism.html
iep.utm.edu/epicur/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

All of those links affirm he is a hedonist. The first link, the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have all of their entries written by PhD's in philosophy.

When was asking for pro-hedonism, he was probably asking in the modern sense of hedonism. The frat bros, the party girls, the sex positive feminists. In this sense, Epicurus was not a hedonist.

I doubt when he was asking for hedonism he was looking for a vegetarian guy who had a very simple life, who didn't have sex or drink alcohol

I don't know why you linked to this guy when I was responding to this guy.
This person said that classical ethics wasn't hedonistic. Why on earth would you use the modern word of hedonism in this context. It's pointlessly confusing.

> Why on earth would you use the modern word of hedonism in this context.

Because when started the discussion he probably asked about hedonism in the modern sense. So, it makes sense to answer him using the words in the same sense he did.

newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/19/how-to-be-a-stoic

Do you even know what sociopathy is, you brainlet?

>Irresponsibility is a core characteristic of this disorder
>Those with antisocial personality disorder are often impulsive and reckless
>They are often aggressive and hostile and display a disregulated temper and can lash out violently with provocation or frustration

Does this sound like stoicism to you?

>sociopathy = anti-social personality disorder

Depression and lsd made me the exact same.

Might just be serotonin sickness and I just feel nothing which habitates stoicism fine.

>Where are you even getting these from anyways?

The Enchiridion by Epictetus. It's a short summary of Epictetus' teachings made by his student Arrian.

stupid amerimutt

maximize positive emotions and minimize negative emotions is pretty much not Stoicism.

Ya, you teach yourself to avoid negative emotions that aren't helpful at all but the end goal isn't to only feel good.

Actually read mediations, it's fun.

>This Stoic idea is well-encapuslated in the Christian prayer, "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change/ Courage to change the things I can/ And wisdom to know the difference."

Much of the rest of Stoic thought is VERY like modern psychological ideas on "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy", which likewise urges patients not to dwell on "triggering" subjects, but to keep their thoughts on positive ideas, on the basis that your brain really can't tell the difference between /thinking/ happy / unhappy thoughts and /feeling/ happy or unhappy

I actually learned prayer from Meditations. The people feeding me cucked Christianity always just said "lol talk to Jesus".

Modern Catholic writers use Stoicism as basis for prayer as well. See Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation.

not stoicism