Actual Stoicism is based

>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.
Only superficially the same really, and if you try to make sense of it while denying its supernatural elements then you just get stoicism again.

Buddhism, Theravada or not (and the reason you specifically choose Theravada is that you are being memed by thailandese nationalism and one of the biggest western institutions) is really bases on escaping Samsara, the cosmogeny,etc..

>numale
>liberal atheist

Literal make-believe philosophy, nothing more than Stoic mytholog invented centuries later. So called "cynics" either didn't exist (Diogenes of Sinopes) or were Socratics who got repurposed by Stoics just like other famous figures like Herakles.

Stoics were the original We Wuzzers, and their whole philosophy is basically just a heretical version of Plato and Aristotle.

Jesus Christ, could you have any more buzzwords on this cute blog of yours?
>numale
>liberal atheist
>chad

>Literal make-believe philosophy, nothing more than Stoic mytholog invented centuries later. So called "cynics" either didn't exist (Diogenes of Sinopes) or were Socratics who got repurposed by Stoics just like other famous figures like Herakles.

{{Citation needed}}

Read it again, my citation is that no citation exists for centuries. Whereupon, many generations later, new groups like "the cynic philosophers" pop up, Herakles is totally recast as a stoic, and basically these peasant-tier philosophers recast themselves as having ancient heritage rather than being an odd, heretical spin off from the works of Plato and Aristotle.

I don't even hate the Stoics. They're not sub-human, gibbering mystics, otherwise known as neo-platonists.

>heretical

It's philosophy. There is no "heresy".

>ascetic

Pretty much to be honest as pretentious as that sounds

This person is trying to start a "my school > your school" war for some time.

Ah, I see. If that's the case, you will have an easier time learning Stoicism.

I see plenty of unsuccessful semi-intelectual orbiting stoicisim. It's like they know they didn't achieve Chad status and dedicate their life philosophy to "I didn't want it anyway!"

I think this is not true. Stoicism is very niche and the kind of people who follow it are mostly people who like the Romans and military men. The leader of America's military is a fan of Stoicism, for example.
And historically, Stoicism was a philosophy for the elite of the Roman Republic/Empire. Cato was the great grandson of a legendary figure and one of the biggest enemies of Julius Caesar, Seneca was Prime Minister of Rome, Epictetus was born a slave but was very influential and people asked him to intervene with the Emperor.

My thoughts as well.

cont. In fact, usually what I have seen people saying is mostly the opposite: that "it is easy to be a Stoic when you are successful" and that Stoics underrate the difficulties of the least fortunate.

The fact you care so much about things outside your control is not very Stoic of you.

t. chad numale soiboi

>chads
>pretend
Chads don't pretend

Uh?
You think promiscuous men are honest who don't pretend to be what they are not?

Where do I start with Stoicism? What's the Canon

Epictetus' Discourses is the best book and the one you should read first. After that, maybe Musonius Rufus. If you understand Musonius Rufus recommendations, that means you have understood Epictetus.
Seneca's "Of a Happy Life" is interesting, but be aware that by the end of it you have Seneca defending his greed. Seneca was not a very good practitioner (and you should take that in consideration, since sometimes he is soft on vice), but he has written interesting books.

Cicero has written about Stoicism. He was not a Stoic and tried to integrate it with other schools, so he may not be always accurate, but there are interesting texts (if you take that in consideration).

>You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism!

>With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? . . . But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.

Nietzsche didn't understand Stoicism very well. Also, given how miserable he was, he is not exactly a good guide on how to live.

Nietzsche’s criticism of stoicism was considered one of the most damning of all philosophy. You don’t understand Nietzsche never well if you think that. And some people are too busy observing the world to live in it

>Nietzsche’s criticism of stoicism was considered one of the most damning of all philosophy.

A misrepresentation of Stoicism is considered one oft he most damning criticism in philosophy? The state of modern philosophy is pretty bad if this is the case.

spbp

>Stoicism
y tho

Nietzche heard "live by nature", then went off on a big rant about it. He didn't have a deeper understanding of stoic thought.

Also ironic that he ended up espousing stoic ideas in some places. Like, Epictetus talks about seeing the problems of troubles of life as a wrestler who grapples with us to make us stronger people. Then Nietzche says " "From life's school of war: what does not kill me makes me stronger", which seems to be getting at the same idea.

In practice, I suspect there's less difference between Nietzche's and stoic thought than would seem. But I've never studied Nietzche in depth.

Epictetus, Aurelius, and Seneca are the big three.

Is it still Stoicism if instead of active self denial and willpower you just never had the desires to begin with?

Being an apathetic failure is against stoicism.

As long as you have an understanding of why externals are not good, it is good.

The really technical and original parts of Stoicism are lost. We have only fragments of the writings of Zeno and Chrysippus. I do not really understand why you consider Epictetus, a later expounder of Stoic ideas, as in some way superior to Marcus Aurelius.

I'm not the one you are answering to.

People who are interested in Stoicism usually don't really care about the technical parts (physics and logic) and are mostly interested in ethics. The Discourses of Epictetus show the pinnacle of development of Stoic ethics.

Marcus Aurelius' Meditations are inferior as a means to learn Stoicism than Epictetus' Discourses. As the other user said, "Aurelius' writings are, again his own personal diary intended primarily to aid him in keeping certain things in mind which he had already learned. It offers very little in the way of explanation because, again, he was writing it for his own personal use".

If Marcus Aurelius decided to create a textbook on Stoicism (including physics and logic) he was probably capable of doing that (the same being true for Epictetus). But that was not why he wrote the Meditations. The Meditations were exercises for himself. They were not meant to be read by others learning Stoicism.
The Discourses are a series of the lectures that Epictetus gave while teaching his students Stoic ethics.

post stoic reading list

Epictetus actually explains his ideas. Meditations is more of a series of short thoughts. Both are VERY useful, and I'd recommend people to read both.

The Meditations may be the personal diary of Marcus Aurelius, but the Discourses are merely the public utterances of Epictetus "such as one person would naturally deliver from his own thoughts, ex tempore, to another; not such as he would prepare to be read by others afterwards," as Arrian, who transcribed them, says in the introduction. In neither case is the philosophy more coherent and systematic and wrought-out than in the other; it is wrong therefore to denigrate the Meditations by comparison with the Discourses. There is even an analogy between the two inasmuch as the Discourses were never intended to be seen by the public, any more than the Meditations: Arrian says, "I did not produce them to public view"; "Such as they are," he continues, "I cannot tell how, without either my consent or knowledge, they have fallen into the hands of the public." And then in regard to merely detatched ethical sentiments for our moral improvement, they are both fruitful.

The Meditations were based on the Discourses. And like said, Epictetus explains his ideas, unlike Aurelius.

Arrian may not have written the Discourses for the public view, but they were the written records (from the best of Arrian's ability) of lectures that Epictetus gave to his students, when he was teaching them ethics.

Lord Shaftesbury calls Marcus Aurelius "One of the wisest and most serious of ancient authors." Many Discourses of Epictetus amount only to a few hundred words. 1.21, for example, "Against those who wish to be admired," is just above a hundred. Many of Marcus Aurelius's maxims amount to two hundred words or more. There is not that great a difference between them in terms of mere length.

There are a few other works that I would add to these as "essentials":

>Epictetus - The Discourses, - The Handbook

>Seneca - Moral Letters

Some of the other essays by Seneca are at least as if not more important than the letters)

>Marcus Aurelius - Meditations

Cicero - On Aging, On Duties and Stoic Paradoxes by plus the Stoicism sections of On Ends, On Fate, and On the Nature of the Gods, plus maybe Tusculan Disputations.

>The lectures of Musonius Rufus

Less essential, but still important:

>Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy.

Boethius was not a Stoic, but most (but not all) of the ideas here are the same as in Stoic philosophy.

>Xenophon's Memorabilia and Apology of Socrates

This is reportedly what inspired Zeno to study philosophy in the first place.

>Plato's dialogues

Some present ideas that the Platonists shared with Stoics, and others strongly conflict.

There are some anthologies already that you might be interested in, but all have problems.

>The Essential Works of Stoicism edited by Moses Hadas

Includes the Meditations, the Enchiridion, Seneca's On Tranquility, and the chapter on Zeno from Diogenes Laertius's Lives and Opinions of Eminent philosophers. This is a small paper back, nicely done, but out of print.

>The Stoic's Bible

Contains abridgements of dozens of different works of interest to Stoics (but many not Stoic). The selections are interesting, but I find his abridgement problematic, and (more trivially) the layout and font choice is ugly and sometimes hard to read.

Marcus Aurelius may be slightly more obscure than Epictetus as to the technical side of things, but both of them are merely exponents of a Stoic philosophy which requires outside information fully to understand (like fragments from Zeno, Chrysippus etc.,), and the chief value of both lies in their detached ethical sentiments, which (to my mind) are equally comprehensible in both authors. What explanation do I need to appreciate this idea for example: "Receive wealth or prosperity without arrogance; and be ready to let it go."

The average chapter on Epictetus' Discourses is much larger than the average maxim of Aurelius.

If you asked Aurelius himself if someone should read the Discourses or his exercises in order to learn Stoic ethics, he would say "The Discourses, obviously".

This should become a copypasta.

You can learn Stoic Ethics by reading Epictetus carefully, without outside information. You can't learn Stoic Ethics by reading the Meditations.

You know, we have actual fragments of Antisthenes' work.

Nietzsche's point is that their concept of living by nature is poorly explained and vacuous; that they're ultimately living by a description of nature that they created which has no basis in reality. They're not living by nature, they're creating morals like every other philosopher.

It's also no surprise Nietzsche would be influenced by them. He criticized plenty of philosophers that he was influenced by; you don't have to hold a philosopher to be beyond reproach to think some of their ideas have merit.

I don't agree with the belligerent tone, but Stoicism certainly did deceitfully re-purpose what came before it. Cicero goes into it in De finibus bonorum et malorum.

>Nietzsche's point is that their concept of living by nature is poorly explained and vacuous;

Okay, then he doesn't understand stoicism. Stoics believe literally that the universe is ruled by a rational force called The Logos. They have a whole slew of metaphysical beliefs and conclusions that make their ideas rational. Nietzche just doesn't seem to get this, and doesn't seem to have studied stoicism at length. You can critique them by saying that these metaphysical beliefs are not true, that would be more accurate. He instead just seems to attack the literal meaning of "Live by nature".

Most Stoic beliefs work without a strict aherance to their metaphysics. This "soft stoicism", uses their metaphysics as metaphors or approximations of real world concepts rather than perfect literal truth. Livign by nature for example, can mean simply accepting the natural limits of the world and people. Stoics also talk like this anyways, like with accepting the finality of death.

On that note, Nietzsche is also pointing out that the Stoics had a wrong-headed view of nature. To them nature is divinely ordered by a rational principle. But there's no reason to think this. Look carefully at Nietzsche's line here, specifically:

>like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain

That sure doesn't sound like the Stoic idea of what nature is like, and it certainly doesn't describe how they expect a Stoic to live. Ethics and virtue have no place in nature; they are creations of men.

Nietzsche was a philosophical prodigy. He goddamn well knew what the fucking logos was you presumptuous mouth-breather. He's saying that it's wrong and their description of living by nature is A) poorly explained and vacuous, and B) rests on a description of nature that has no basis in reality.

Are you able to explain this in greater detail? How does a Stoic rationally justify "Living according to nature"? What are the real metaphysical beliefs to substantiate this?

A Stoic who uses the metaphysics as metaphors would at any rate appear to be completely a-rational. That would be an admission that there is no rational basis for the system of philosophy; that it is completely arbitrary.

If you think Nietzsche was right, and the person you are addressing wrong, then either show where Nietzsche proved, or prove yourself both that Stoicism is "poorly-explained and vacuous," and that it "rests on a description of nature that has no basis in reality." Otherwise, this is an appeal to authority.

Correct my assumptions. I incorporate stoicism into my current life philosophy. I used the philosophy to not really care too much about some things especially from flakey people or organizations. I focus on myself and try to influence things around me to go my way.

Scientific naturalism has adequately described nature to such a degree that it clearly matches Nietzsche's description of nature more closely than the Stoics.

As for the poorly explained and vacuous part, you're basically asking me to go through every text of Stoicism and take them apart to prove this, and absurd demand, since the Stoics themselves never provide a rational basis for "living by nature."

How long until people finally begin to recognize this pasta?

>Are you able to explain this in greater detail? How does a Stoic rationally justify "Living according to nature"? What are the real metaphysical beliefs to substantiate this?

Their metaphysics are very Christian, minus a personal god that you can pray to. Nature is divinely ordered and created. They took the "design argument" to be proof of the divine order of the world. Every creature had its place in the world. Ants, humans, deer, etc. Humans purpose was to be social creatures. Thus it's natural to be kind and accepting to each other, and unnatural to do harm to others.

>That would be an admission that there is no rational basis for the system of philosophy; that it is completely arbitrary.

Stoic ethics have the goal of giving freedom and happiness. Freedom not as political freedom, but freedom from fears, and hangups. A kind of moral freedom. It doesn't matter so much the history of how they arrived to those conclusions. They have value because they're useful. If you follow the Stoic dichotomy of control, you're probably going to be a happier person than someone who does not. Stoicism is a great way to get over hangups, and irrational fears. Most of what Epictetus says doesn't really rely upon any kind of metaphysical background, it's mostly just life advice. Example, him talking about suicide:

>“And what does it matter to you by what way you descend to Hades? All roads are equal. But, if you want to hear the truth, the one that a tyrant sends you along is shorter. No tyrant ever took six months to cut someone’s throat, but a fatal fever often lasts a year.”

And even with the metaphysical background, stoics did not believe in any afterlife. As such, their approach to death is absolutely fascinating, and useful to most people for that reason.

Their idea of living according to nature is vacuous on the basis that it references a description that isn't. They're not living according to nature, they're living according to Stoicism.

Do you mean that they never so much as attempt to construct a rational basis, or that you disagree with the rational bases which they have attempted to construct?

The former, since they assume the logos by default without sound reason.

Cicero didn't believe most of the stoic metaphysics, but he believed that stoic ethics are what the Roman elite should adopt. His approach to stoicism is pretty similar to my own.

They justify it with the design argument actually. They look at nature and see it as both divinely created and divinely ordered. It's a perfectly reasonable position to take in the ancient world.

Zeno enjoined us to follow "the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with Zeus, lord and ruler of all that is." (Diogenes Laertius.) I intepret that and other similar statements made by them as implicitly meaning, that we ought to follow the uncorrupted conscience within us, implanted in us by God. If you believe in God then that notion makes perfect sense; if not then following it is arbitrarily done. Stoicism is really a species of Deism.

The metaphysics and theology is wholly from Plato and Aristotle. The part about living in accord with nature is an obvious take on there being a rational principle and direction to the universe and change. They are have a certain daoist aspect, of course developed independently from daoism.
>Their metaphysics are very Christian, minus a personal god that you can pray to

Fucking lmao

>The metaphysics and theology is wholly from Plato and Aristotle.

Thought it was Heraclietus actually?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

>Death is necessary and cannot be avoided. I mean, where am I going to go to get away from it? - Epictetus, Discourses I, 27.7-8

This is really all they mean by "live by nature". Death is neccesary for the universe, and it's unavoidable. Thus, you live "by it", ie you accept it. It goes back to their dichotomy of control. You can't control the forces of nature, or the universe itself. And you certainly cant' avoid death.

I think it ought to be pointed out that Plato and Aristotle themselves derived many of their ideas from their predecessors; that the theology on which Stoicism rests is even more ancient than them. Xenophanes of Colophon, for example, is the first man on record to proclaim that there was "one god, the greatest among gods and men, neither in form like unto mortals nor in thought";"He sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over; without toil he swayeth all things by the thought of his mind"; "He abideth ever in the selfsame place, moving not at all." Anaxagoras devised the notion of Nous, Mind, as the ordering principle of the universe.

I think it ought to be pointed out that Plato and Aristotle themselves derived many of their ideas from their too-often-overlooked predecessors; that the theology on which Stoicism rests is even more ancient than they are. Xenophanes of Colophon, for example, is the first man on record to proclaim that there was "one god, the greatest among gods and men, neither in form like unto mortals nor in thought";"He sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over; without toil he swayeth all things by the thought of his mind"; "He abideth ever in the selfsame place, moving not at all." Anaxagoras devised the notion of Nous, Mind, as the ordering principle of the universe.

Plato and Aristotle aren't original, so we can also add people like Parmenides to the list. But I focus on those two because it they are the immediate and most complete source that Stoics look to for metaphysics.

I base this on the general organisation of being into form and matter, and subsequently the particulars. I also base it on the way in which those building blocks are ordered and knowable thanks to a rational principle and an inhuman entity which causes movement. Same goes for morality being derived from those two sources, albeit with a daoist twist. The importance of logic is also noteworthy.

I am not certain, but I think some later Stoics might have fallen prey to the mistakes made by "neoplatonists", as did Christians (although Christians already suffered from a host of unrelated problems). Which is that neoplatonists began breaking rank with Parmenides and insinuating that there were things "beyond being" and all the semantic games and logical fallacies that flow from that disastrous idea.

Looks like we were typing the same idea/admission at the same time. The Socratics definitely learnt a lot from their predecessors.

It doesn't matter because it starts discussion
You will learn

Ya lost me, im more of an archaeologist than theologist.

What the Stoics meant by nature is not what you (or Nietzsche) think they meant.

>What the Stoics meant by nature is not what you (or Nietzsche) think they meant.

LOL

Great argument.
Here:
modernstoicism.com/what-does-in-accordance-with-nature-mean-by-greg-sadler/

spoiler alert: youre still a brainlet. You will eventually discover that the search for the best and truest ideology or philosophy or religion ect. as this garden of eden based on the fact that all the practitioners of it are these renaissance men is hopeless. Literally every mode of belief, no mater what, is plagued by at least 80% retards, 19% psuedo-intellectuals, and 1% actual smart people. If you just go around judging the merit of an ideology based on the majority of its believers or followers, then you will soon find yourself lost, jumping from ideology to ideology. The best thing to do is to just figure shit out on your own (given you are actually somewhat intelligent) and then just find out which ideology that already exist is similar (which will happen because nothing is new anymore) and then explore that.

listen up you pseuds. I've not seen any reason to hae stoicism coming from this suicide attempt of a thread

TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS WRONG WITH STOICISM. thanks

Ataraxia for the ethical and ambitious. There's also Buddhism if you're not ambitious and Epicureanism if you're not ethical.

Imagine getting your stoicism life advice from this jew bugman.

...

Arguments about "nature" used in this thread are absolute shit. So are arguments about "Stoic metaphysics" or "mind body dualism", which are pretty much masturbation without any kind of effect on Stoic ethics.

One criticism you can make of Stoics is that sometimes they can be anti-intellectual. By overly focusing on "living like a philosopher" and downplaying "writing books" and "spreading the philosophy" they ended up not saving their philosophy for future generations, but killing it instead.

You can also argue that they are closer to the Epicureans than they like to admit and that they even have the same end goal.

>You can also argue that they are closer to the Epicureans than they like to admit and that they even have the same end goal.

I noticed this. They have different metaphysics, but in the end they advocate similar lives.

>One criticism you can make of Stoics is that sometimes they can be anti-intellectual. By overly focusing on "living like a philosopher" and downplaying "writing books" and "spreading the philosophy" they ended up not saving their philosophy for future generations, but killing it instead.

Zeno and others wrote a lot. Just that most of the books were not preserved. So, the works that survive are kind of a haphazard sleection of Stoic thought. Letters from a stoic, quotations and summaries of stoic writers, a stoic's diary, and a student's lecture notes. Out of the big three stoic writers we celebrate: Seneca, Epictetus, and Aurelius, most are not standard philosophical texts.

Underrated post.

Stoicism in a nutshell.
Recognize you want something
Figure out why you want that something. And realize that it is some other thing.
Don't get so rylled up in your pursuit of that first something anymore because in doing so you might deprive yourself of that other thing.
Your reasonable approach will increase chances of success.
If you ultimately fail anyway.
Accept it and stop pursueing vainly what is impossible.
Go back to step one.
Or kill yourself like that bitch Cato.

Doesn't take much to understand OP

Epictetus was the father I wish I had.

Very witty my man. I think this guy is looking to start a purity spiral. So what if meditations is widely read?It introduces people to stoic ideas and views in a simple manner from which they can delve deeper into the rabbit hole if so inclined.

TL/DR: >reeee, you don't understand stoicism like I do, fucking noobz amirite? Who here REAL stoic?

This usually comes from insecurity felt when other people identify as the thing that constitutes a part of your identity. You are literally the thing you are railing against my man.

If meditations is really so below you how come you haven't learnt not to base your philosophy on the flaws and failings of others?

The fact that you think stoicism is still a live option shows how little philosophy you've read.

Does "live with nature" mean accepting the limitations of the world?