Hi user, is Stoicism or Epicureanism the better philosophy? Maybe I'll go on a date with you if you get it right (;

As something observable we can consider it common habits of people, practical rather than ideal phenomena.

If you say so user

They are not opposed.

Why don't you answer the question?

I'll try to figure that out on my own user, thank you for making me realise my question was flawed. Pick me up at 7 (;

Keep posting qts

If you answer it here, people can help you from that point. No reason asking for help has to be all or nothing.

I want to live in her underwear

Epicureanism. I wouldn't want to go on a date with a stoic anyway.

Alright user, I'll cave. I lack direction in life and a lot of things I see sadden me. I'm ambitious, I want to do something great (just like anyone else I suppose). Also have a mentally ill mother who I have a hard time dealing with selflessly. I just need something that'll help me deal with life more and help me with my goals.

This is the first image since OP that's awakened my dick at all; not as good, but something.

By those criteria, Stoicism is the clear winner if you have to choose one - but I recommend that you expand your options, and abandon the idea that you have to choose only one philosophy or that philosophical schools are all-or-nothing affairs. That said, even stoicism alone will serve you well in those goals and your journey towards them. Peace. You also owe me a heady date that you will never EVER be able to deliver, you dumb bitch.

I haven't had sex in fucking ages God why must you torment me with these Sperm Wyrms?

me either but japanese chicks look fucking retarded, my cock remains unmoved

You've never wanted to have sex with a retard? Be honest it's Veeky Forums.

I think they look kind of like ayy lmaos.

i fucked a fob and it cured my yellow fever

What's a fob

Am I a fob user?

Maybe a mixture of these two being switched by conscious thinking.

What's a fob user

u wack it to waifus like a fag and don't know what a fob is...i bet the only time u met an asian girl was when you ordered take-out, kys my man

An Asian who is "Fresh of the Boat"

This is a blue board ya fuckin dip
>inb4 not nudity
Still stupid. Doesn't belong here

Why did you fuck a fob? Holy shit man what an awful decision, they will use you and then leave once your utility has dwindled

i said i fucked a fob, i didn't say i bought it anything, you beta faggot

Do you fuck in my school in the woods or do you want to reason about why procreation would be good for the nation while sitting in our apartment. Also, do you like friends or find people to be mostly a potential threat to you, potentially leading you astray from your civic duties.

I personally respect that Stoics are out their slaving away for me, but I'm just gonna chill in the forest with a book, some company, a nice cheese, some clean water, and let them fuckers stress each other out while pretending not to be stressed themselves.

>hurr beta meme
Fuck off, fucking a gook that barely speaks English isn't an achievement

I never met an Asian girl, we don't have those here ;(

U mad whitboi?

True. I went out with a jap international student during my undergrad years. I was legit fetishizing Asian chicks like no other. She was cute, no doubt, but took awhile for her to open up to me. Always flaking on me, texting me hours after I would text her. Genuinely fucking with me, I'm almost sure. Fast forward a few months, she's inviting me to her dorm room watching American films and she loved when I analyzed them for her, or would explain the Pop culture inherent. We get to fucking and, well. It was sex... boring sex. Tight? Yup. But boring and... like sex. She would try her hand at passion but it fizzled and desu was not much different than all the slags before her. There would be the occasional wildcat but nothing mindblowing, yknow? Anyway, like Sam Jackson once said, and I live by this now: Pussy's pussy.

WHY? WHY MUST YOU TORMENT ME WITH THESE JEZEBELS???

Pyo Eunji

>Stoicism
> tries to oppose human nature
Why is it the fate of stoicism for its thought to be so misunderstood that it makes online discussions of Nietzsche look like Ivy League post grad debates?

Yes they are, one is based on virtue as the good and the other is pleasure. You cannot reconcile them.

So you would rather date someone who doesn't engage in sex? Epicureanism eschews sex and love relationships in favor of Platonic friendships.

Be a slave to your own convictions if you want the easy way out.

Isn't stoicism just epicureanism for masochists?

To encourage you to stop wasting what precious little time you have in your youth on a shitposting forum that has, honestly, never given you any insightful posts whatsoever, but at most a single good belly laugh once or twice a week, and to make you realize that browsing imageboards keeps you at the exact level of complacency that keeps you suffering, bored and unfulfilled but without the drive to actually change. It's like opiates but less fun, it's like social interaction but not fulfilling, it's sort-of-interesting every once in a while but never unfruitful. So every once in a while, you see one of these libidinal posts, and you experience a brief moment of critical reflection: what am I doing with my life? How is this use of my time furthering what I want? But instead of taking action, you'll most likely masturbate, then browse again. You'll do this for years on end, the only change being the meme of the month, the size of your gut, and the height of your hairline.

I'm out niggas. The sun is shining and the girls are pretty.

...

>Yes they are, one is based on virtue as the good and the other is pleasure. You cannot reconcile them.
what the what now

I admit I haven't really read shit but my understanding is that stoicism is summed up as "don't be controlled by your suffering" and epicureanism "don't cause yourself suffering". is that not so?

>going outside magically changes your life
woah...you should write a book or somethin'

>that tummy tuck scar

really makes u think

>stoicism is summed up as "don't be controlled by your suffering"
Stoicism does stress that all events are only good or bad based on your judgments and opinions of the events, but there is more to it than that. It also focuses on the overall greatest good, an impartial "God" (Nature), mind or soul over body, and virtue. It is easy to see its influences on Christianity, and philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz.

there's a reason why I ended up here and it wasn't because being captain of the football team was too easy.

Wrong. Humans only have a slice of the pie. We still have to fill in the corners with ideals. Human nature is a spook.

>this projection
Not everyone is in your personal hell, user.

that's a computer generated image you fucking idiot, the "scar" is supposed to be the impression her panties left in her soft belly skin, get a clue horrid shutin

>that's a computer generated image you fucking idiot
no it isn't nofuli.com/zh/2016/girls/wanghongzipai/1120
>is supposed to be the impression her panties left in her soft belly skin
not supposed to be, is.

Made me lol at the end there. Good advice and a sense of humour are a rare combination here or anywhere.

All these people making threads about stoicism I guarantee have never read any great stoic philosopher's work. Or any stoic for that matter.

I've read Meditations user, nothing on Epicureanism though

>is that not so?
No.

>epicureanism "don't cause yourself suffering"
Epicureanism is the idea that pleasure is the only good. Avoiding pain is a big part of it but it is an instrumental end, not an intrinsic one and is not a good way of trying to sum up the philosophy.

>don't be controlled by your suffering
This is way off. The purpose of stoicism is the achievement of eudaimonia, a concept that makes no sense outside of virtue ethics. Because most people only read Aurelius, Senica, and Epictetus they develop an incredibly bad understanding of stoicism. It is far more than merely therapeutic.

If I was going to try to sum up both philosophies in a single pithy sentence without reference to their actual ends I would say something like
>Epicureanism
>Live a life dominated by static and mental pleasures, using practical reasoning to guide all your actions to achieve this
>Stoicism
>Live a life of constant mental training to make oneself the best human one can, both in their internal mental states but also in how they interact with other people

>baby's first stoic book

It's literally written in bullets. It's good, but you won't understand shit about stoicism until you read discourses, handbook, and fragments by Epictetus.

You also not only have to read it, but understand it as well. Take your time. Absorb the ideology. Then you can possibly not be like the unsurprising plethora of retards spouting off about Stoicism for some reason.

Btw, anyone care to explain this meme? When did Veeky Forums start being interested in stoicism? Because all the pol cross board shitposters are almost immediately called out.

As I said here that isn't the problem. To only read those three philosophers is a terrible idea if you want to understand stoicism. It can improve your life and I'm not saying not to read them if you aren't going to do any further reading but just for these people to keep in mind that they know almost nothing more about stoicism than they did before they read the books.
The only way for someone to have any chance of understanding stoicism is to have a working knowledge of virtue ethics as a form of normative ethics, a knowledge of Greek so one can undertake coming to grips with what the actual terms used by the philosophers actually mean rather than being lazy and trusting English words that translate a concept that doesn't exist in English, and reading modern scholarship on the subject because stoicism is too complicated to understand more than a part of from those three.

tl/dr
Reading Aurelius, Senica, and Epictetus is absolutely fine and I hope you find useful tools to help you live your life, but if that is your only exposure to stoicism remember you know pretty much nothing about stoicism so don't trash talk it on the internet.

Epicurist has been happy lately. He was not, was, is not, and does not care. He believes the highest good is pleasure. He worships the Greek gods but does not believe they concern themselves with man. He is untroubled by death.

An atomic, ethical creature fond of thinking and the absence of suffering.

You seem like someone who's read Stoic works.

My question to you is how does Epictetus not relay, in great detail, exactly what the essence of stoic ideals are?

Why would you criticize those 3 as inadequate to understand Stoicism, and then fail to provide any others?

hurr durr if u dont offer an alternative i better keep beign retarded
>smashes head in
WHATS THE ALTERNATIVE I CANT HEAR YOU LMAO

W H O

>eudaimonia
does anyone still living have a fucking clue how that is defined?

>trusting English words that translate a concept that doesn't exist in English
It is precisely because English words are individually inadequate to convey the Greek that it is useful in describing such concepts.

When you can't rely on single terms to encompass complex meanings, you have to explain it exhaustively and in detail from lesser and more incontrovertible meanings. A certain level of explicitness is useful in philosophical matters; transporting the contents to another medium (language) forces this explicitness, and can highlight the emergence and unique importance of new terms.

I'm not saying that at all, I'm solid in my understanding of Stoicism and am not limited to those three, but that doesn't excuse the deficiency of your platform.

Zeno, Diogenes, Panaetius - name literally any other than the three you took issue with to indicate you have an idea of what you're talking about. It's just being disagreeable for its own sake.

>it's an asian girl gets posted and Veeky Forums shits itself thread

disgusting harlot be

GONE
O
N
E

You are part of that useless reaction, you know? Either discuss Stoicism vs Epicureanism or accept that acknowledging interesting things is fine.

>hey, I know a lot about this stuff
>let me tell you, limiting yourself to those three is a disservice
>make an effort to explore [insert Stoic writings here] as well
What is wrong with the idea of including the last statement? It is a mere footnote of effort and a major difference in the utility of your contribution.

Hedonism
>When life gives you lemons, make lemonade
Stoicism
>When life gives you lemons, pretend like lemons are sweet

Post more qt Asian girls you faggots.

Stoicism is only good as a lifestyle choice, most of the higher tier philosophy behind it is horribly outdated.

Read Epictetus.

>the higher tier philosophy behind Stoicism is outdated
>read a Stoic philosopher

Nothing disgusting about her. The disgusting one is you.

>Stoicism as a lifestyle choice
>point to stoic who tells you how to life a stoic lifestyle

>rejection of existence is good
They're starting blocks, small Korean woman, but not ends—unless you want to end up like Seneca

The stoics actually made contributions to philosophy, but they got a lot of things wrong too. Epicureanism is a meme though. Even its main premise is wrong.
Also, wear some decent clouthes, dumb whore.

What are you talking about? Her clothes are exceptional.

I never decried the act, only observed it

The only true philosophy is just beeing yourself

You may begin sucking my dick now, asian sloot

Eh the body is okay, but the face is so plain. I don't see why I am supposed to find that attractive, even compared to other caucasians.

The observation was not that useful outside of the implied criticism.

Wrong.

It's more along the lines of: Life has given you lemons, now go out, man, and stop complaining! Alongside these lemons nature has also given you the ability, the choice to let these lemons affect you or to limit the distress lemons cause you in general.

The thing is, just being yourself means a lot of different and even contradictory things on different levels, even to a single person at a single moment in time.

You have influence on who you are, and wanting to be the best person you can be - by whatever measure - just makes sense. There is more to any philosophy of living than "just be yourself".

Could you elaborate on "Humans only have a slice of the pie"? What I'm taking away from this is you're saying that no one human demonstrates all the traits of human nature therefore it's an ideal?

>When did Veeky Forums start being interested in stoicism
Veeky Forums's been talking about stoicism for a long time newfag.

Oh ok, so you need 3 different threads to do it of course, right? And you need reposts of them too? Because you've been talking about it so long, right?

>it's a terrible travesty when people make threads without checking the catalog, Veeky Forums is VERY serious business

why are readers always the creepy pedos or homosexuals?

Ostracization from society, they seek commune with texts that can't reject them.

>I'm out niggas. The sun is shining and the girls are pretty.
whoa... eh's so cool.. damn....

Why are you saying this? Can you give a single example? Multiple? Enough to justify this sweeping generalization?

>creepy pedo
>homo

Damn just make up your mind already if you're gonna bait with a lie at least settle and decide on one.

They seek to c-o-m-m-u-n-e err.. Make dosh with t-e-x-t-s err... A job that literally can't reject them

this is the only board where there's regularly shirtless dudes or sexualized kids.

gay, retarded and pedos.

kys

>My question to you is how does Epictetus not relay, in great detail, exactly what the essence of stoic ideals are?
You are reading someone who understands the world completely differently from you writer for other people who understand the world completely different from you. A translation necessarily heavily distorts the text by taking a concept that Epictetus had and giving you a as close of an approximate as possible which will be way off and very misleading unless one has read modern scholarship.
He is also only writing of the therapeutic aspects of stoicism. Stoicism is a fully fleshed philosophy that has a metaphysics, that made major advances to the field of logic and has a strong emphasis on ethics. You only get half of the ethical viewpoint from the big three because they are only writing from the therapeutic side of ethics.
You also need an understanding of virtue ethics, without which you will misunderstand pretty much everything. No ancient Greek philosopher is going to explain that to you because they assumed knowledge of it.

Well no, but that doesn't meant anything because people have always disagreed on how to define it. That's not just a modern phenomenon. It's like saying does anybody now how good is defined nowadays.

All you are doing is saying that reading modern scholarship about the stoics is important, so you are only affirming the point I was trying to make.

That person you are responding to isn't me. You also didn't read the thread that person was responding to very well. The original person asked for other stoics to read and you say Diogenes, a stoic who has no surviving writings? How are you meant to get a better understanding of stoicism through him. Why mention Zeno? We only have small fragments from him. How are you meant to understand anything from that? I will give you Panaetius because he actually has a body of work to study but you are going to have the exact same problem reading him as reading Epictetus etc. and that all of the points I have made about them are true for him.

Because I have done it in many, many other threads on stoicism on this board. There is only so much retardation you can put up with before you realise that maybe only a single person has ever taken your advice on the subject.