Stoicism is making a comeback. What other ancient bleiefs should return?

Stoicism is making a comeback. What other ancient bleiefs should return?

Attached: Marcus Aurelius.jpg (479x600, 137K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Stoicism
books.google.com/books?id=7OUI67hz7SwC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=seneca stoic story tyrant shooting an arrow&source=bl&ots=Tq4uykuqm-&sig=R8PdxvFCwPRnXcoV1NNFSP8mpdg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqmuuzu4DaAhXhct8KHYduBXAQ6AEwDnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=seneca stoic story tyrant shooting an arrow&f=false
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Anger/Book_III#XIV.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism#Philosophical_roots
hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/f3scas.htm
reddit.com/r/Stoicism/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Stoicism never went away, it was just incorporated into Christian and Islamic systems.

Aztec rituals , the cartels

>bleief

>stoicism making a comeback

Really?

No.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Stoicism

Gnosticism, definitely. It might be the fastest growing spiritual identity when you take proportion into account.

Stoicism is weak, we associate emotions with femine weakness but raw masculine outburts of passion, rage, and rebellion are also contradicting stoicism, something we drastically need in Western countries these days if we want to preserve what we have created.

>but raw masculine outburts of passion, rage, and rebellion

Attached: Marcus-Aurelius2[1].jpg (900x600, 202K)

Seneca wrote an entire book explaining why you are wrong.

This is not Stoicism.

Attached: D23FE7F8-6886-4E13-981A-DF3186F781EA.jpg (640x1234, 116K)

Having my goverment allowing the flood of refugees into my country is something unfortunate as is the rape of our women, but you know, getting angry about it is not very masculine. We should instead make a calm rational decision into the next election that will orderly cause action to proceed against this current state. After all, it will be sorted out and if it doesn't it is the way the logos operates. Now excuse me while I calmly hold the hand of my wife when she has sexual intercourse with another man and think about the utilitarian benefit of the community being happy with her sexual services.

Attached: pepe punch.png (785x757, 121K)

You do not need anger to improve your community.
And Stoics were not hedonists who would think sexual services lead to a better community.

No need to show heroic behavior against authoritarian systems that wish to maintain the status quo and attempt to turn your country into an atomatized society full of brown mongrels, we can just peacefully vote while women are raped in the streets. No need to get upset my friend, and sure there is no hedonism, but letting my wife being railed is not for my pleasure but for the betterment of the community with more intense personal relations.

I wish people were as enlightened as I am.

Attached: cucks mile.jpg (960x540, 107K)

>raw masculine outburts of passion, rage, and rebellion
t. Barbarian

Greco-Roman polytheism
If you're gonna be religious, might as well make your lore interesting

You clearly don't know what you are talking about

>No need to show heroic behavior against authoritarian systems
Cato the Younger died fighting against what he perceived to be a tyrant. Stoic senators were a pain in the ass to the most tyrants of the Roman Emperors. That's why Stoic philosophers were banished from Rome.

> letting my wife being railed is not for my pleasure but for the betterment of the community
The Stoics certainly wouldn't believe so. They considered promiscuous people worse than trash.

>They considered promiscuous people worse than trash.

Epictetus argues that adultery was throwing away your word, and that an adulterer could not be trusted. Virtue is everything for them.

all these ancient philosophies are retarded, they don't need to return

>all these ancient philosophies are retarded, they don't need to return

Attached: Q1E8HKd[1].jpg (645x773, 47K)

>posts self portrait as an argument

2bh only brainlets need a thousand year old 'way of life' to guide them through this world, think for yourself retard

Too smart to learn something from someone else?

Says the man who spent a large portion of his reign butchering Germans outside of his empire's borders.

Marky Mark is such a fucking hypocrit.

Stoicism was humble-bragging for bored well-to-do Romans, who didn’t have anything better to do with their time than have dick measuring contests with each other over who was the truest Roman of them all. “I’m not one of those degenerates, why, this morning I only had a plain, unflavored bowl of porridge for breakfast!” Plebs has to make sesterce count, restraint was a luxury that they simply could not afford.

Stoics incorrectly assume that emotions can be subjugated to reason, but emotions don’t work that way, denying them is bottling them up and ignoring them until it reaches a breaking point and the person snaps. In the real world, you probably wouldnt stand there emotionlessly complimenting your tyrannical ruler for his impeccable aim when he demonstrated his skills by putting an arrow in your young son’s heart, and then rips open the chest cavity to show you, but in ancient times, this was considered the stoic ideal

Stoicism applies consistently is the philosophy of the Turpin family, subjugating their children and depriving them of creature comforts and entertainment, forcing restraint on them that left them psychologically crippled and unable to function properly in the real world.

Epicurus is far more prevalent because Epicureanism is not the philosophy of restraint and self-tyranny but the philosophy of moderation: learning to enjoy all the things life has to offer without going overboard and drowning in the excess. The stoic says that you shouldn’t go swimming in a pool because of the possibility of drowning outweighs the emotional satisfaction of going for a swim, while the epicurean simply learns how to swim.
>the point of life is living a good one
>hedonistic excess leads to suffering because it focuses exclusively on superficial pleasures and deprives people of meaningful relationships
>the rewarding life can be found living simply: good food, good company, and appreciating the small things life has to offer

Attached: 78409AA4-2063-4494-83C5-51F071B9A694.jpg (1280x720, 124K)

Oops, didn’t mean to quote, my bad

And he did it with no anger. The Romans won, and he did his service to the nation. From a Roman perspective, he's the ideal Emperor. From our standards, much of what the Romans did in war would likely be considered War Crimes. Taking POWs, selling them into slavery, or ransoming them off? Yikes. But that's why we judge him by Roman standards. You can update Stoicism to be more in line with modern political values.

>Stoics incorrectly assume that emotions can be subjugated to reason, but emotions don’t work that way, denying them is bottling them up and ignoring them until it reaches a breaking point and the person snaps.

Stoics don't deny emotions, just that emotions should be secondary to reason, and should be controlled. Not bottled up. That means if you're tempted to have an outburst, then don't. That's emotion talking, not reason. You can then try to deal with the problem calmly, and rationally.

>In the real world, you probably wouldnt stand there emotionlessly complimenting your tyrannical ruler for his impeccable aim when he demonstrated his skills by putting an arrow in your young son’s heart, and then rips open the chest cavity to show you, but in ancient times, this was considered the stoic ideal

Which isn't Stoicism at all. Epictetus has an entire lecture calling out people who brown-nose and praise those above them. He relays tales relating to this. One man sent away a slave and didn't like him, but then the slave becomes employed by the Emperor, and the man completely changes his stance on that slave. Another, he recounts a Senator who is unflinching in his views, and then gets sentenced to death for it. ANd he accepts his punishment without protest.

For Stoics, honesty, and remaining true to your values, is important above all else. That's what they mean by "Virtue is the only good", your integrity ("virtue"), is how you should base your self worth.

> but the philosophy of moderation: learning to enjoy all the things life has to offer without going overboard and drowning in the excess.

That's exactly how I'd characterize Stoicism though.

>secondary to reason
Putting your emotions secondary to reason is to subjugate them, it’s assuming that you can talk yourself out of an emotional state when in practice all you’re doing is self-tyranny. Emotions and reason should be complimentary forces, not hierarchically arranged
>Which isn't Stoicism at all.
Yes it was, the story told by Seneca was literally considered the noblest ideal that a stoic could strive for, so “in control” of their emotions that they could stand there passively even while a tyrant brutally murdered his children over a trifle
>that’s exactly how I’d categorize stoicism, though
Then you’re actually an epicurean.

>He did it with no anger

user it's very, very difficult to argue that punitive expeditions are conducted without rage. Let alone the fact he had coins minted of himself with the translated inscription "subjugated Germania."

What does Veeky Forums think of Pyrrhonism?

Attached: pyrrho.jpg (188x273, 12K)

Emotions lead us astray. You have to calm down, step back, and re-assess situations in as rational a manner as possible.

>Yes it was, the story told by Seneca was literally considered the noblest ideal that a stoic could strive for, so “in control” of their emotions that they could stand there passively even while a tyrant brutally murdered his children over a trifle

I haven't read Seneca, so I don't know what this story is. Where does it occur in Seneca's writings, and what is that person's name? But Stoics argue for some level of detachment, and to accept that we can't control. The execution of our children by a tyrant is something we can't. The other option would be to just rage uselessly, and to then refocus on what you can control (if anything).

Epictetus: ""sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy,"

>Then you’re actually an epicurean.

The Greek schools differ little in what they actually do. They mostly just argue about metaphysics, and a lot of little details. They talked to each other, and borrowed each others ideas, they became more like flavors of each other. They also were influenced by Stoic ethics.

>emotions lead us astray
A stoic and an epicurean go to the pool. The stoic says that desiring to swim is irrational, that there’s no practical reason to go swimming, so one should cleanse themselves of their desire to go swimming because people can only drown when they go in the water

The epicurean just learns how to swim properly and doesn’t do anything crazy to put his life at risk

>source
A book called “Roman Honor: Fire in the bones” by respected scholar of antiquities Carlin A. Barton
books.google.com/books?id=7OUI67hz7SwC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=seneca stoic story tyrant shooting an arrow&source=bl&ots=Tq4uykuqm-&sig=R8PdxvFCwPRnXcoV1NNFSP8mpdg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqmuuzu4DaAhXhct8KHYduBXAQ6AEwDnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=seneca stoic story tyrant shooting an arrow&f=false

>schools differ little
That I do agree on, stoics and epicureans were the adults in a room full of ignorant children who’s only philosophy was “get money, fuck bitches”. We’re talking about subtle differences, but that doesn’t make them unimportant

>Stoics incorrectly assume that emotions can be subjugated to reason, but emotions don’t work that way, denying them is bottling them up and ignoring them until it reaches a breaking point and the person snaps.

That is untrue in two ways.

The Stoic way of dealing with emotions was not that of bottling them, of saying "I'm not going to be angry" while being angry. It is to have correct judgements which would make you have the right emotions, instead of the wrong ones. In this case, you wouldn't even be angry to begin with.

Second, and this is not related to Stoicism, the hydraulic theory of emotions ("if you bottle your emotions, they will eventually snap") is not actually true. Emotions don't work this way. This theory is popular on Hollywood movies, but the evidence is not in favor of it.

>A book called “Roman Honor: Fire in the bones” by respected scholar of antiquities Carlin A. Barton

I'd recommend reading Seneca's "On Anger" directly, rather than summaries. It's from Book III, part XIV.

Seneca is critical of King Cambyses, and he's critical of Præxaspes for both challenging the King, and offering praise after killing his son. Seneca suggests he should have offered himself for the next shot. It seems more a cautionary tale of not messing with tyranical insane rulers. But he does praise Præxaspes' self-control afterwards.

Anger in that situation would not help anyone, would it? The deed has been done.

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Anger/Book_III#XIV.

No, see the link I posted here:
Seneca makes it very clear that stoics believed that emotions are a thing to be suppressed. Stoicism is complimenting your tyrant for being a good shot as he murders your children

>le ebil Hollywood
And, you know, the consensus of psychiatric and psychology professionals, but what do they know compared to some guys who lived thousands of years ago

Praexaspes is clearly presented As the hero of the story

>anger wouldn’t have helped
It may have kept the tyrant from coming to power in the first place, that’s what makes it the philosophy of subjugation and self-tyranny

You seem deeply confused about Stoic thinking, and seem to be basing everything on some short excerpts. The main later Stoic texts by Aurelius, Epictetus, and Seneca, are only like 300 pages each and you can easily read all of them in a month.

>>Stoicism is complimenting your tyrant for being a good shot as he murders your children

He explicitly calls out that as bad though.

>God confound such a man, a slave in mind, if not in station! He actually praised an act which he ought not to have endured to witness. He thought that the breast of his son being torn asunder, and his heart quivering with its wound, gave him an opportunity of making a complimentary speech. He ought to have raised a dispute with him about his success, and have called for another shot, that the king might be pleased to prove upon the person of the father that his hand was even steadier than when he shot the son. What a savage king! what a worthy mark for all his follower's arrows! Yet though we curse him for making his banquet end in cruelty and death, still it was worse to praise that arrow-shot than to shoot it.

>He may, I repeat, be thought to have behaved with greater wisdom on that occasion than when he tried to regulate the drink of one who was better employed in drinking wine than in drinking blood, and who granted men peace while his hands were busy with the winecup. He, therefore, added one more to the number of those who have shown to their bitter cost how little kings care for their friends' good advice.

He explicitly says "it was worse to praise that arrow-shot than to shoot it.", and he says he lacked wisdom, and that he caused his son's death. The whole thing reads as both a cautionary tale to not mess with tyranical leaders, which is reasonable, and how even in such an extreme situation he was able to suppress his obvious anger. Anger would have just made the situation worse. Both seem like reasonable advice.

I don't know much about Seneca, but I do know about Epictetus and Cicero has written about the Stoic view on emotions. And they point to my point, that of "correcting your judgements so that you won't have the wrong emotions".

Psychology research actually does not agree with the hydraulic theory of emotions.

>suck it up

Wow, such depth

Attached: 1499263728285.png (601x508, 127K)

>Stop being a whiny bitch, stop seeing yourself as a victim, and make the best out of your life as you can. See obstacles as something to strengthen you, and never give up.

Some of the advice is basic, but it's literally what people need. Too many people have victim-mindsets, and feel they can't improve. /r9k/ and other boards are about victim-mindsets. They're whiny little bitches who just mope and never do anything. They're terrified of everything around them.

Stoicism doesn't take it far enough desu

Attached: d49426303301e3c5035fcdfb947a2fdb.jpg (736x981, 150K)

Buddhism doesn't take a "more extreme" view of emotions than Stoicism. It's fundamentally different.

>be basing everything on some short excerpts.
They’re based off scholarly interpretation from individuals who spent a lot more time than a month studying the subject in a rigorous, professional way. Reading primary sources is important, but neither stoics nor epicureans had an answer for the violent unraveling of their society, and the rise of a religion which specifically galvanizes people to goodness.
>The whole thing reads as both a cautionary tale to not mess with tyranical leaders, which is reasonable,
It’s reasonable if you want your slaves to not question their shitty lot in life
>anger would have made the situation worse
Sperging out in that moment may have, but apathy is what allowed the tyrant to flourish in the first place

Nonsense, emotional intelligence is like social intelligence, you’ll never get better at it by reading a book, the only real teacher is experience, doing it over and over again and being allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. If you lack the heuristics to intuit what works from what doesn’t, then you’ll never know what the appropriate emotional response is

why are we drawing the line at emotions?

>>an answer for the violent unraveling of their society
No philosophy can do that, what led to the barbarians marching into the shattered remains of the WRE were things that nobody in the classical age really understood as well as modern nations do.

>>and the rise of a religion which specifically galvanizes people to goodness.
Christardation rose because it acquired official state sponsorship in the late empire and because it was willing to use either force or deception to destroy other religions.

>and the rise of a religion which specifically galvanizes people to goodness.

Is this what it's all about? You're a Christian, and thus are hostile to competing philosophies? Protip: Stoic and Christian ethics are nearly identical. Christian monks used Epictetus' The Handbook as a guide for life. And Neither Stoicism nor Christianity directly rejected the institution of slavery, rather they had a similar stance, where the slaves should be treated justly, but didn't reject the institution outright. Epictetus discusses in general, how one should treat those they're above justly since we're all fellow descendants of Zeus. Seneca discusses Slavery directly. Paul discusses it as well and has a similar stance. They probably have as progressive a stance on the issue as one could have in the ancient world.

A Stoic would have to change very little to convert to Christianity. Their day to day lives would be identical, and their values are almost the same. With Christianity, there's an explicit afterlife, so that would be rather enticing, while the stoics are often vague about the afterlife, or seem to discount it all together.

>things that nobody in the classical age really understood as well as modern nations do.
And now you know why I prefer to base my judgements off of scholarly interpretation rather than a casual reading of primary sources
>christardation
Nope, it was a bottom-up movement, primarily spearheaded by urban literati, for whom tired philosophies and cynically self-serving mystery cults held little appeal. By the time Constantine decriminalized Christianity, virtually the entire army, including the men in his enemy’s army, were Christian. It was one of those times a politician miraculously “evolves” just in time for it to be politically expedient.

By the time Theodosius made it the state religion, virtually every major urban center was majority Christian, and nothing that they did to the pagans was really that much worse than what the pagans did to them. The pagans had little qualms about brutally enforcing a state religion when it was theirs calling the shots

>emotional intelligence is like social intelligence, you’ll never get better at it by reading a book, the only real teacher is experience, doing it over and over again

Weren't you the one defending the hydraulic theory of emotions?

You were arguing before that the Stoics didn't defend the correction of judgements in the issue of emotions. But that's what they do.

And it works.

>hostile
Not hostile, I just recognize them as incomplete commentaries on the human condition, and that as time goes on, that becomes something we understand better, so when we revisit these ancient philosophies, we have to separate what resonates from the things that don’t

>and the rise of a religion which specifically galvanizes people to goodness.

When the Roman Empire became Christian they didn't ban slavery at all. It was mostly the same, but with a different religion. Serfdom existed in Europe until well into the modern and early modern era.

I didn't mean to imply that, sorry. It's fundamentally different on most aspects to Stoicism.

We don't have a better grasp of the human condition than they have.

Buddhism is a more comprehensive stoicism. Its the logical conclusion of stoicism with some platonic ideas.

No, I was pointing out that the stoic response to hardship is apathy because it was a philosophy created by aristocrats for slaves.

Repression doesn’t teach people emotional intelligence it just stunts them so they don’t know how to act, and when people aren’t allowed to express themselves, they find outlets which aren’t necessarily benign. Just like sitting in your room playing video games your whole life leads to people who spill their spaghetti when forced into a situation where they have to deal with people face to face, the stoics put the cart before the horse

But they laid down the theological groundwork that would eventually lead to the eradication of slavery and the rise of the medieval universities

>Not hostile,

You seem to have little understanding of stoicism, and are jumping on one story, which you then proceed to misunderstand, as a means of discrediting Stoicism. This approach seems overly hostile. I don't mind critiques of stoicism, but they should be based on actually understanding it, after having taken some serious study of it, rather than simply dismissing it based on one story that is wildly mis-represented.

>And now you know why I prefer to base my judgements off of scholarly interpretation rather than a casual reading of primary sources

Scholars are not Gods who can't be questioned. It's entirely possible for them to have quirks and biases. Plus most of what he writes doesn't really contradict my interpretation of the story.

>little understanding
Or the conclusions that I drew are different from yours because I’m not reading the stoics in a vacuum, but analyzing them as a one part of a transitionary continuum of ideas
>scholars are not gods
But neither are you, so I’ll sick with the people who study the topic in a rigorous, academic setting

>see Stoicism thread in the catalog
>Marcus Aurelius is the OP image

Literally every fucking time. I feel bad for Zeno

Attached: Zeno_of_Citium_pushkin.jpg (791x1518, 946K)

>No, I was pointing out that the stoic response to hardship is apathy because it was a philosophy created by aristocrats for slaves.

No, you said that you get "emotional intelligence" by practice. Also, the second part of your post is factually wrong. Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism was not an aristocrat and neither was the second head of the Stoic school, Cleanthes. Stoicism was mostly taught to the elite. You even said so here Where you said "Stoicism was humble-bragging for bored well-to-do Romans, who didn’t have anything better to do with their time"

>listening to a guy who couldn't even outrun a turtle

Attached: 1521600545240.png (657x527, 44K)

lol no.

>Repression doesn’t teach people emotional intelligence it just stunts them so they don’t know how to act, and when people aren’t allowed to express themselves, they find outlets which aren’t necessarily benign.

Let's say someone suddenly slapped your face and called you an idiot? How would you react?

Its more like the other way around. Why do you not want to desire? Well because nothing ever happens that is actually wrong and if you realize that then you can live harmoniously with nature instead of fighting against it.

>From the day Zeno became Crates’ pupil, he showed a strong bent for philosophy, though with too much native modesty to assimilate Cynic shamelessness. Hence Crates, desirous of curing this defect in him, gave him a potful of lentil-soup to carry through the Ceramicus; and when he saw that Zeno was ashamed and tried to keep it out of sight, Crates broke the pot with a blow of his staff. As Zeno began to run off in embarrassment with the lentil-soup flowing down his legs, Crates chided, "Why run away, my little Phoenician? Nothing terrible has befallen you."[9]

Attached: S0GpGXA.png (500x390, 130K)

>But they laid down the theological groundwork that would eventually lead to the eradication of slavery

So they laid the groundworks, but it took them over 1800 years to actually implement any change? Just a few examples:

>Americans banned slavery in 1865.
>Russia abolished serfdom in 1861.
>Poland abolished serfdom in 1864.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

Also, what of the stoics and cynics? They pre-date the Christians and could be said to be laying the groundwork that would lead to the eradication of slavery. So Christians can get the credit, but not them? Stoics advocated a kind of universalism through Cosmopolitanism. Everyone was the same, as they had the ability to reason, and we were all part of a single human community. The stoic writer Hierocles created a visualiation of this based on circles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism#Philosophical_roots

Attached: hierocles-concentric-circles[1].jpg (565x543, 27K)

>No, you said that you get "emotional intelligence" by practice.
Yes, and when people repress themselves and don’t practice handling their emotions, two things happen: they suck when it comes time to actually display them for a good reason, and 2: they can’t deny what their true feelings are so rather than deal with them properly, they find outlets as a coping mechanism.

>only wealthy people could afford an education
I Knew this already, but most Romans got their ideological marching orders from patronage to an aristocrat, who would pay them money as a kind of private welfare in return for voting the right way. Do you think these aristocrats would have been keen to spread ideas which challenged their hegemony over the thoroughly rigged economy?

American chattel slavery was a historical fluke, an aberration found nowhere else in the western world, justified by a loophole in the golden rule (I don’t have to treat them the way I would want to be treated if I don’t recognize them as the same kind of human)

White on white slavery had been throughly eradicated by the Middle Ages

Ostracism

But stoicism fails to recognize the concept of self as that which suffering is subordinate to. Stoicism says modify the self until its in agreement with nature, Buddhism says eliminate the self.

>well-to-do Romans
Like soldiers, slaves, and exiles?

Cynicism>Stoicism

>American chattel slavery was a historical fluke, an aberration found nowhere else in the western world,

Slavery was done in all the colonies in Central, South, and North America and the Carribeans. What in the hell are you going on about?

>White on white slavery had been throughly eradicated by the Middle Ages

Serfdom (which is slavery) wasn't abolished by the 19th century.

>Yes, and when people repress themselves and don’t practice handling their emotions, two things happen: they suck when it comes time to actually display them for a good reason, and 2: they can’t deny what their true feelings are so rather than deal with them properly, they find outlets as a coping mechanism.

Out of curiosity, in your view what is repressing an emotion and how do you practice handling your emotions?

>I Knew this already, but most Romans got their ideological marching orders from patronage to an aristocrat, who would pay them money as a kind of private welfare in return for voting the right way. Do you think these aristocrats would have been keen to spread ideas which challenged their hegemony over the thoroughly rigged economy?

If you knew this already, why did you say it was created for the slaves, since the ones that practiced it were the aristocrats themselves, most of the times?

You don't know either Stoicism or Roman history. The harshest enemy of Julius Caesar was Cato the Younger. The harshest critics of the more authoritarian Emperors were Stoic politicians. The Stoics were pretty damn hard political opponents, since they couldn't be boughy with money and even physical threats didn't work against them.

Attached: American bear sayings.png (1683x952, 863K)

Soldiers, slaves, and exiles could not have given a shit about stoicism. I meant people rich enough to afford the luxury of restraint

Those were periphery zones to westenr civilization, excuses for colonialism which were always founded under the guise of “christianizing and civilizing” the negro who lacked the ability to do those things themselves. That’s a very different mindset from ancient slavery, though ultimately it’s both status quos justifying their profit model

>serfdom
Is an entirely different means of arranging labor. Serfdom means that your landlord has a right to a fraction of your economic output. That’s a different thing from being bought and sold like cattle

>Out of curiosity, in your view what is repressing an emotion and how do you practice handling your emotions?
Pic related. It’s how a stoic rationalizes the shitty things that happen to them instead of letting their emotions fuel a response that would prevent such a thing from happening again.

>created for slaves
Because these philosophies would have cycled down to the masses by their wealthy patrons. These wealthy individuals would have only pushed philosophies on to the uneducated masses only if it was amenable to their interests. They would have reached a far larger number of ears than their tutors.

>Stoic resistance to imperial overreach
Was completely and utterly impotent. Cato the younger probably did more to assure Caesar’s rise than prevent it with his stubborn intransigence, and the intransigence of aristocrats like him

Forgot pic

Attached: 5C443F04-2C92-4271-BB1D-3AEB40A09817.jpg (768x768, 113K)

That image has nothing to do with stoicism, and you continue to make strawmen arguments against stoicism.

>Pic related. It’s how a stoic rationalizes the shitty things that happen to them instead of letting their emotions fuel a response that would prevent such a thing from happening again.

You are clearly ignorant about Stoicism.
First of all, they considered that thieves were shit and that by thieving they were not doing good for themselves.
Second, Stoicism says that you should treat the things you own with care.
Third, you will treat your things with care not because your actions are fueled by emotions, but because it is the rational thing to do.

>Because these philosophies would have cycled down to the masses by their wealthy patrons. These wealthy individuals would have only pushed philosophies on to the uneducated masses only if it was amenable to their interests. They would have reached a far larger number of ears than their tutors.

This is getting silly. You are just making things up.
They didn't push Stoicism on the "uneducated masses".

>Was completely and utterly impotent.

Tell that to the Flavians or Nero.

>Is an entirely different means of arranging labor. Serfdom means that your landlord has a right to a fraction of your economic output. That’s a different thing from being bought and sold like cattle

Serfdom is a form of slavery.

>Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 226 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force April 30, 1957.

>(b) Serfdom, that is to say, the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;

hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/f3scas.htm

>first second third
Of course aristocrats hate thieves, but none of those points refute the fact that earlier in the thread you were arguing that it’s not a good idea to have an emotional reaction to a tyrant killing your son.
>getting silly
You clearly have no idea how the common Roman lives and died. Patronage was one of the most important aspects of their society. Aristocrats would have contests to see who could have the most patrons. It was considered a huge fucking deal to have secret ballots instead of public ones because now your patron couldn’t tell if you voted the right way.

>Flavian or Nero
Didn’t change that much, just who the ruling family was. It’s not like they were able to reverse the imperialism and remake Rome back into a republic not ruled by an all-powerful strongman

>Of course aristocrats hate thieves,

Why are you equivocating between Stoicism and aristocracy? Was Epictetus an Aristocrat? He lived a rather simple life, and was a freeman and former slave.

>Why are you equivocating between Stoicism and aristocracy?
Because that’s who the philosophers’ audience would have been.

The average Roman urban literati got a shit education mostly centered around reading, writing, and counting

>Of course aristocrats hate thieves, but none of those points refute the fact that earlier in the thread you were arguing that it’s not a good idea to have an emotional reaction to a tyrant killing your son.

First of all, you were saying that Stoics has this mindset
Don't try to run away from this. Apologize. Apologize for your ignorance and for trying to mislead people in this thread.

Also, Epictetus was not an aristocrat. Neither was Cleanthes who actually beat down some guy who tried to steal from him.
I was not the one arguing with you over how to fight the tyrant, but it is indeed better to not have an emotional reaction to a tyrant.

>You clearly have no idea how the common Roman lives and died. Patronage was one of the most important aspects of their society. Aristocrats would have contests to see who could have the most patrons. It was considered a huge fucking deal to have secret ballots instead of public ones because now your patron couldn’t tell if you voted the right way.

That's nice and all, but this doesn't change the fact that the philosophers didn't push their ideology to the uneducated masses. They followed Stoicism because they believed it was good for themselves, they were not materialists who only cared about money.

Also, Epictetus kicked away people from his class because they were not educated enough to his tastes.

>Didn’t change that much, just who the ruling family was. It’s not like they were able to reverse the imperialism and remake Rome back into a republic not ruled by an all-powerful strongman

Of course it changed. They were perceived by some Emperors as their greatest threats.
Also, I would like to remind you that you were saying that Stoicism led to apathy and a lack of action. But now you moved the goalposts and is trying to claim that their action was not effective enough. Would you agree that you were wrong about Stoicism leading to a lack of action and apathy?

>Stoicism is making a comeback
No it isn't

reddit.com/r/Stoicism/

Yes, it is a huge meme on Reddit.

Jedi = Platonic Stoicism

Sith = Nietzschean Will to Power

PROVE ME WRONG

Attached: maxresdefault (26).jpg (1280x720, 86K)

>What other ancient beliefs should return?

That it's not gay if you're the top.

Is it safe to call Stoics Platonic Cynics?

Sacred prostitution.

>Think with your heart nigga like womyn do

Remaining emotionally stable =/= apathy

How does one master the art of cynic shamelessness?

Protip: I can't.