Stoicism is self tyranny

It is a philosophy that encourages passivity amongst the proletariat to submit meekly to the oppression engineered by the wealthy and powerful i.e. know your place peasant, and do not challenge the status quo.

In essence, under the guise of "self reliance" and "acceptance", stoicism encourages self tyranny and nihilism under the naturalistic fallacy
>whats the point of trying if everything is predetermined?
>even if i'm born poor might aswell accept that fate because i can't do anything and i would rather not starve to death than challenge the elite
>i'm not a chad with good looks so i will settle for less because my genetics have predetermined everything

The very fact that monarchy, serfdom, slavery has been abolished in most civilized countries disproves most of the nonsense promoted by stoics. A stoic would probably disapprove and do nothing during the time of the French Revolution, which changed Western Civilization for the better. It might even be argued that stoicism encourages fascism to grow in the background thanks to its apathy on human and civil rights. If humans did not have the capacity for making self sacrifices, martyrdom and philanthropy, the stoics would probably be ruling us by now like a major religion.

Attached: marcus-aurelius-bust.jpg (800x600, 47K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>unironically using the word proletariat
Admit it, you just dislike stoicism cause it makes it harder for you to brainwash people with your tankie tricks

>reads one sentence
>"OP is communist shill!!!"

I would expect nothing less from a brainlet desu

Stoics never said you should be passive about what happens in your life, nor that you shouldn't try to improve it.

hm i have been thinking about that myself, judging from hellenistic philosophy, every single part seems to me to destroy any fighting sentiment.
>Epicureans: dude just live life and seek pleasure
>Cynics: live very simple and dont care about anything
>Stoics: accepting everything and dont be emotional about it.

although what you wrote isnt really fair to Stoics.

>A stoic would probably disapprove and do nothing during the time of the French Revolution, which changed Western Civilization for the better.
This is crap, the french revolution is the most romancised event of the west. It's effects on the western world are negligible at best, harmful at worst.

What can you say the revolution actually gave us? The removal of monarchy, only to give rise to a warring emperor? The deaths of hundreds of thousands and dehumanization of the living? Please, if you still buy into what your history teacher said about this barbaric mess you should leave and go discuss history with third graders

Attached: 1520985439555.jpg (1776x1000, 784K)

you said it. desu hesu

The aim of Stoicism is to align one's actions with the highest faculty in man's possession: reason.Through this, you will live a life of virtue and can be at peace with yourself, untroubled by your conscious.

I'm not sure where you picked up those three lines of green text, they don't seem to correspond to any of the widely quoted lines from The Sayings of Epictetus, Moral letters to Lucillius or Meditations.
Here are some of the most often quoted lines of Epictetus:
> We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.
> It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.
> No man is free who is not master of himself.
> Know, first, who you are, and then adorn yourself accordingly.
> First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.
> Only the educated are free.
> Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them.
> If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.
> Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.
> There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power of our will.

So, he councils us to think before we speak & act. And notes that to be truly free we must master and educate ourselves.
Oh and that we have the power to endure any torment that the world throws at us.

Attached: OPisfaggoti.jpg (242x295, 29K)

my god i have heard about the savagery of the french revolution but this is fucked up.

You are coming from a different point of view from the Stoics.

From your point of view: money is inherently good. By fighting for money and power, you are fighting for your best.
From the Stoic point of view: money is not inherently good or bad. What is important is "how you use money" and "to not be a slave to money".

This does not mean Stoics will make poverty vows, but rather that they will not define the good as money.
And I think their position is smarter and closer to the truth than yours.

And this part of your post shows you are ignorant of Stoicism.

>If humans did not have the capacity for making self sacrifices, martyrdom and philanthropy
There are plenty of Stoics who fought tyrants and who focused themselves on helping others. Cato the Younger died fighting what he considered a tyrant.

Do you even bother to read the source texts of the philosophy you blindly follow?

Literally spelled out in the first few paragraphs of the Enchiridion.

Basically:
>"just be a good goy and you will be happy!"


>denies advances of medicine and science that liberal institutions promoted and encouraged during the enlightenment
>unironically believes slavery was good
>believes in a utopian fantasy that humans can achieve i.e. "we will no more have any wars if ONLY we kept our illiberal and anti democratic institutions around for a few more 100/1000 years longer"
>blatant historical revisionism

Found the fascist. Ever heard of /pol/? You'll fit right in there.

Attached: 43576435753.jpg (1105x157, 68K)

I think you are not as smart as you think you are and that you didn't comprehend the text.

As much as I dislike the revolution, most napoleonian wars were either defensive or responsive to provocations.
Napoleon did nothing wrong apart from attacking russia.

Washington was right to tell them to fuck off

Attached: George Washington.jpg (225x225, 5K)

>From your point of view: money is inherently good.

In human society, money IS the only route to financial freedom from debt and enslavement. Whether you are happy or not is irrelevant. Both rich and poor people kill themselves regardless.

Unless of course, you want to take a trip to Nepal and meditate under a bodhi tree to achieve enlightenment.

Attached: Absolutely tyrannical.gif (390x270, 3.94M)

Did you read it? He says there are things you cannot control. Do you disagree? There is no point bothering about what you cannot control.

You should focus instead on what you can. Taking your example of the french revolution: joining the revolution is in your control. So if your REASON indicates this was the path to follow, you should.

You are cherry picking events in order to fit your twisted fascist propaganda. Though I have no intention to argue with you any further because a fascist can never change his mind other than with a bullet to the head on the battlefield.

>>i'm not a chad with good looks

Why do you use incel terms if you want to be taken seriously?

What exactly is so fascist about what they said?

>There is no point bothering about what you cannot control.

Whatever you do, DO NOT think of the pink elephant!

You thought of the pink elephant! didn't you?

Did you see what I just did there?

Suppressing your thoughts and pretending not to care about your miserable situation just doesn't work. Psychologists have long debunked this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory

>What exactly is so fascist about what they said?

You are too underage to understand. Read more. A LOT more.

I have gone from conspiracy theories, to believing in ayy lmaos and the flat earth, to fascism, nationalism, nazism, monarchy, SJWism, marxism, liberalism, anarchism and libertarianism

Centrism with a pragmatic approach is the only thing that makes logical sense in the end. But this triggers 90% of humanity because they are primarily motivated by ad hoc heuristics and faulty reasoning along the lines of:
>someone I hate says A
>I hear B and get triggered

>fascist can never change his mind other than with a bullet to the head on the battlefield

COME ON MOTHERFUCKER

BRING IT ON

cant wait to skullfuck liberals when ww3 happens

Attached: image.jpg (1106x649, 112K)

>Whether you are happy or not is irrelevant.
And that's one of the sources of disagreement, as well.

>Unless of course, you want to take a trip to Nepal and meditate under a bodhi tree to achieve enlightenment.
Doing so would lead to more fulfillment than following your life philosophy.

>You are cherry picking events
Could you explain how I'm doing so?

You didn't answer the question. Also why should I listen to you when your beliefs blow with every wind?

People who are better off as peasants don't need stoicism to convince them to stay content where they are. People are aspire to greater things will do so and prove their place was somewhere better so its like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>beliefs are eternal and shouldn't be questioned

You are underage

>your miserable situation

They disagree with you over what is a miserable situation. Not everyone has the same materialistic point of view you have, where money defines how well you are doing as a person. You talk a lot about age in this thread, but

>i'm not a chad with good looks so i will settle for less because my genetics have predetermined everything

This sounds very immature.

I'm 22 and there's nothing wrong with challenging your beliefs every once in a while. But if you're just jumping back and forth between every ideology in existence, then you're just a larping faggot and have no business telling others how to live

It IS my business because brainlets NEED to be educated on such matters. Otherwise they just base their views on faulty ad hoc reasoning and questionable anecdotes.

If you are self aware of your beliefs, then you being a brainlet is of your own choice.

You don't have the knowledge to teach others. You are incompetent.

it was never meant for the proles, quite the contrary
in fact there were no proles at the time

then screen cap my post and come back to it after 5 - 10 years

Why should I screencap the post of someone who is clearly ignorant?

I could not control thinking about a pink elephant. Should i occupy myself with worrying about it, or understanding more about psychologic vulnerabilities?

Don't fall into the trap of letting your emotions control you, and this applies not only to bad emotions but to good ones.

just curious, do you believe in god?

ITT: busybodies who dont get it telling others they should start bothering themselves about pointless concerns more

The advances of the enlightenment, which nevertheless ocurred under the ancien regime.

I did not say slavery was good.

I did not say i believe in an utopian fantasy of eternal peace.

If you look at utopia and idealism as bad things, look no further than your revolutionaires.

Liberte, fraternite, egalite

Three utopias which they murdered for, in hopes there would come a time of eternal fraternity, equality and freedom. All of which will never come as long as man is man.

No point in even arguing with you. Just fuck off back to /pol/ and post your antidemocratic and illiberalism over there (which you ironically benefit from as you type). Thanks.

Your idea of stoicism is based in total misperception. Internal peace =/= external apathy

Stop speaking english, it is a monarchist language!

You still haven't said anything that the revplution achieved. The enlightenment was wholly independent from it, and preceded it

Could you please attempt to speak in something other than buzzwords?

english is the dominant form of language thanks to colonialism you dumb retard. and it is far more convenient to use it than to abandon it due to opportunity cost.

jesus fucking christ, why do i even come here. fucking pol is the result of my high blood pressure

>it is far more convenient to use it than to abandon it due to opportunity cost.
Same reason i use the internet, brainlet

Now can you get back to the main argument instead of grasping at straws and ignoring the main point?

i don't think the development of self-control and fortitude necessarily equals passivity. if anything that IS self-betterment

Attached: dylan klebold.jpg (200x269, 16K)

Have you ever actually read stoicism?
It has nothing to do with submitting to your lot in life.

See if you were more stoic you would not get this stressed over a simple internet discussion

Not op, but strip aside all politics and religion, and what you're left with is alphas vs betas at its core

Whether its liberalism, communism, monarchy or fascism, whatever political system enables a peaceful balance between alphas with betas will always be opted for.

Attached: alpha vs beta balance.jpg (2405x917, 917K)

Not sure if bait or...

define "alphas" and "betas" in this context

i think those terms (as they're used in the Veeky Forums buzzword sense) greatly oversimplify things when it comes to describing society and political philosophies, or even just individual people.

Go fuck yourself you disgusting commie

>A stoic would probably disapprove and do nothing during the time of the French Revolution, which changed Western Civilization for the better. It might even be argued that stoicism encourages fascism to grow in the background thanks to its apathy on human and civil rights.

I'm not a stioc and I believe very strongly that the French Revolution was one of the worst and most disastrous events in all of human history.

Attached: 1519079370673.png (596x596, 172K)

t. Wagecuck

*stoic

You're going to have a hard time "educating" people with that attitude. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, no one listens to a self-important prick.

>unironically simplifying all of human psychology and sociology into "alphas" and "betas"

The concept of alphas and betas doesn't exist in actual academia. Stop trying to apply shitty Veeky Forums pseudoscience memes to real life

Attached: 1521511587632.png (949x647, 26K)

thank you user

In many mammals there are groups of females with 1 male and groups of bachelors, in others there is a male which aggressively attacks the others if they approach females and has the most breeding success.

Call them alpha males or patriarchs or whatever you want, this phenomena is ubiquitous and present in our closest relatives. It is completely reasonable to ask how this behavior manifests in humans.

Sure. But to simplify all of human sociology and history to said phenomenon is brainlet tier

Holy shit you are such a brainlet that doctors and scientists should be examining you. You belong in a fucking zoo

Attached: 1521308219374.gif (640x266, 3.26M)