Is Stoicism for cucks?

Why in the world would you care what Veeky Forums thinks about this? If it is some more unknown or obscure fiction I can understand, you don't know if it will be worth the effort, and hearing the opinions of people having read it can be useful.
But this is an old as fuck philosophy, widely known, still talked about. You are not really losing anything by reading it, whether you agree with it or not. You will basically learn more about philosphy, and maybe it even will give you some more insight into life in general, who knows

Read it and find out. For what it's worth, I like Epictetus.

If I could go back in time and hang out with a few bros, Epictetus would be one of them. This book has a lot of merit aside from being a philosophical text. The guy was way ahead of his time in thought. Many of the things he says are still very relevant today, and had a profound impact on my life. Definitely read it.

Learning from the Stoics is worthwhile. They grounded their philosophy in what to must moderns must seem like a outdated metaphysics, but that is no good reasing for hating it, for the two can be seperated, or if you will, the latter can be updated and it'll all be fine.

The glorfication of being passive and indifferent to oppressive and external forces is why it is such a good fit for cucks.

Never caving all to often means never rebelling

>have what Epictetus thinks right in front of you
>decide to ask what Veeky Forums thinks instead
sheer cuckoldry

Stoicism is fine but obvious

HI I'M DOCTOR JORDAN PETERSON AND YOU'D BE STARK RAVING MAD TO TOLERATE YOUR PAIN RATHER THAN CONFRONT IT

Sometimes people need to be slapped by the obvious things. That's what 'Tetus does.

>posting this transphobic bigot

I'M SICK OF YOU FUCKING POLTARDS ON MY FUCKING BOARD

GET OUT YOU FUCKING NAZI

FUCK OFF AND NEVER COME BACK

samefag

Wow so you are actually retarded huh?

>not caving in to something often is equivalent to cuck

It's the exact opposite.

No it wasn't. I didn't find that response funny either to be quite honest with you

whoops

stoicism is retarded but not completely cuck

i'm not joking, get your poltrash off my board

I'm going to pretend this isn't terrible bait and say that if /pol/ actually listened to him they'd realize he blows them the fuck out of the water

I didnt say that that stocisim is for cucks only that it can be very attractive for cucks as they can dress their weakness as virtue.

>It's the exact opposite.
Did you not read the last sentence of my post which dealt with how this principle becomes corrupted?

"Never caving all to often means never rebelling"

Im still thinking you're fundamentally wrong, because if I'm not mistaken, the word cuck is thrown around here as if its someone with a weak will. Who with a weak will would even seek virtue at all? What person that seeks submission would also seek forbearance?

Its not attractive to cucks imo. They're too weak to apply it. It may be attractive to label themselves as though, being stoic is typically associated with being smart. I don't claim to know what cucks are thinking.

>Who with a weak will would even seek virtue at all?

Notice how I said they "can dress their weakness as virtue" virtue and nature are not as monolithic and universal as the stoics of ancient times would believe - indeed its one of the reason why the vast bulk of people who talk about the stoics focuses soley on their ethics and leave their metaphysics alone.

Its also why everyone from christians to athiests condisered themselves stoics

Like these groups cucks also can take the ethics and combine it with their views of virtue and nature.

>What person that seeks submission would also seek forbearance?

Because it provide release from the consquences of their actions and person. It no longer becomes a matter of them being too weak to respond or strike back it instead turns their inaction as proof of their virtuous tolerance or unattached to trivial things like the body or pride.

>They're too weak to apply it

Its opposite they are too weak to do anything but.

The only way to get around the cuck problem would be to take a hardline on the definition of nature and virtue - which is where the stoics are at their weakest

Stoicism becoming popular on this board was a mistake.

Stoicism is great until you realize that Epicureanism exists

The critiques of Nietzsche towards Stoicism still stand today as some of the most compelling there are.
Stoics sort of misinterpret what Nature is and it's virtues in order to accommodate to their world view and morals, they make Nature seem passive and 'go with the flow' but it's sometimes quite the opposite. Also, they have a life-denying philosophy which is a big no-no for Nietzsche.

In my opinion, while it might be useful to be a Stoic get through hard times, only a man of weak mind sees it as a philosophy they can follow until death. Passion and action is what moves people, being passive always, only makes you weaker in the long run. It also has this notion that can be easily misinterpreted by some people, the idea that it's only your perception what causes you sadness or pain, and that can make people understand that there are things beyond their reach, but many people can think of it as a way to just stand there and let life roll you over.

A smart man understands the weakness and strong parts of Stoic and Taoistic philosophy, but the general "cuck" will follow it blindly thinking that happiness will arrive somehow.
It's worth your time if you feel that you are immature, but any man worth their salt has a general notion of Stoicism, because (and I don't want to say it as an offense) it's quite obvious what they are trying to say.

>Nietzsche
>showing an understanding of any other philosopher
>having a coherent critique of any other philosopher
Didn't read past the first sentence.

>I've read the entire Nietzsche wikipedia article

>A smart man understands the weakness and strong parts of Stoic and Taoistic philosophy, but the general "cuck" will follow it blindly thinking that happiness will arrive somehow.
Please elaborate on this.

you're a bore

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also Stoicism is basically being an adult. Getting angry will not solve your problems, you solving your problems will solve your problems.

Stoicism is cattle philosophy for people who defer to authority on every matter and have no confidence in their own capacity for greatness.

No, it's far far worse than that. It's the epitome of ideologicall trash.
See: Christianity is completely antithetical to Stoicshit. Stoicism is philosophy for the weak and prideful.
'adulthood' is an ideological meme. Problems don't exist.

le smartie agnostic left-libertarian humanitarian meme men (and women, trans, queer, etc!) consider EVERY perspective except FUCKING CHRISTIAN SHIT

>>No it's not you fucking dumbass. It literally tells you to never cave in the face of adversity if you've got the guts.
this
it is the perfect rationale for the numales who lift and dream of being rambo.

>Only philosophy worth caring about.

Mega pleb detected. The Romans can't give you much of anything by way of philosophy. The Roman impulse can't even hold a candle to the Greek impulse. Behind all their greatest art and thought the shadow of the Greek was always lurking.

In fact one of the reasons why the West is currently so horrible is that we've allowed the Roman system that secretly rules over us (even to this day) to do away with the Greek impulse entirely for the Roman -- their sterile rule of Law. So they've been screwing us for a while now. We'd be far greater if we changed the scales back, and the West would still remain the West without losing its spirit. No risk of cultural decay from without, only a great strengthening from within. That is the sad part.

The Romans knew Law, the Greeks knew Spirit.

just read it for yourself, fuck what people think.

Stoicism is greek.

Brainfart. I guess it would help if I actually read a thread before rambling in it...

Ok maybe I just don't know shit about cucks because to me the word means someone who enjoys being submissive which stoicism is the antithesis to. No one who goes around wanting to be dominated would seek to dress any of their weird fetishism in virtue.

Why would they want release from consequences? Don't they literally get off on "consequences?" I am aware of the metaphysics of stoicism and it isn't separate from the ethics. Stoics view nature as a fiery divinity imbued into all matter. That ideology is pretty much grounded in everything they do.

Sounds like you just don't know shit about the philosophy, or are mistaking the definition of a cuck, which I wish I never had to discuss again.

Are you a cuck? Can you shed some light on the situation? I'm pretty sure their whole shtick is not resisting.

I am absolutely positive none of you have read any stoic literature.

Came here to post this.

Yes, Epictetus is in fact, the best. Sort yourself out OP.

>Christianity is completely antithetical to Stoicshit
t. someone who has never read the Stoics or studied Christianity in detail.

>cattle philosophy
Wrong. You have no power over me.

>Ok maybe I just don't know shit about cucks because to me the word means someone who enjoys being submissive which stoicism is the antithesis to.

Its new definition is closer to someone who lacks courage and or acts against their own interests rather than some with a literal cuckolding fetish.

>Why would they want release from consequences?

Because for some people it can be emotionally painful to feel responsible for ones suffering or inability to achieve. Its for simmilar reasons why some people employee victimhood as coping mechanism.

>aware of the metaphysics of stoicism and it isn't separate from the ethics

Not from a practical standpoint; kind of like with Westerners with Taoism - people take what they like from it whilst discarding the practices they dont with Stoicism they take the approach of it whilst combining it with their own ideas regarding virtue and God with Taosim they take the ideas of naturalness and effortless action and discard the cosmology and ideas about how the body works and is to be cultivated.

>let me redefine a word to fit my arguments real quick

>Christianity is completely antithetical to Stoicshit.
then why do so many Christians call themselves Stoic while disregarding Stoic metaphysics?

An Epicurean would probably agree with a Stoic that getting angry doesn't solve problems. But the goals are different. Pursuing pleasure in order to get to happiness is not the same thing as pursuing some vague understanding of virtue that conveniently fits into the values of the current regime.

In terms of metaphysics they are completely at odds and a lot of people forget that because they are atheist (more common in Epicureanism) or Christian (more common in Stoicism) or agnostic in that they don't believe in the ancient gods (even though Epicurus did).

Also Epicurus started his school 9 years before Zen. Stoicism was a response to the anti Platonism of Epicurus. That also would explain why Epicurus was slandered by Stoics for centuries.

Epicurus was also a proponent of living modestly and moderation in pleasures. He was actually respected by later Stoics, if for his doctrine of simple living.

Nice job not knowing a thing about Stoicism of Epicureanism.

>Nature is divinely and intelligently ordered towards an end
What part of that would Christians have a problem with?

Always find it interesting that atheists latch on to Epicurus when early Christian thinkers frequently defer to Epicurean ideas.

How do you explain the fact that the word Epicurean today has a negative connotation that's almost the opposite of Epicurus' philosophy of living within one's means?

Who changed the message if not the Stoics? Maybe it was the Christians but the Christians drew from the Stoics (like the serenity prayer).

The same thing happened with the pig. It's a symbol of Epicureanism not by the choice of the followers but the reappropriation of a negative symbol used by critics like Stoics.

The fact that some Stoics said nice things about Epicurus (like Marcus and Seneca) doesn't change the fact that Stoicism and Epicureanism are rival schools and always will be, even if they have some similarities.

Yeah I'm active in some Epicurean groups online and the other members are very touchy about the existence of god(s). The consensus is that believing in a deity is an option, not a requirement.

I happen to not believe that because Epicurus specifically states that the gods are real and I don't buy the theory that he just said that to avoid being censored. After all, his view of the gods is not consistent with other Greeks so he would have been censored regardless.

Just finished reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

Stoicism is about controlling your emotions, making the most out of your short lifespan and to focus your life in being just, doing good and behave according to your nature rather than chasing banal fame or obsessing over worthless rumors, slander and fads.

It's not about being submissive, but about accepting that there's things out of your control and shitty people in the world, and that said things shouldn't deter you from being a just man, practicing your virtues and doing the work that you must do.

>reducing well crafted systems of thought to individual ideas ready for mindless consumption
Your buffet philosophy disgusts me, de Botton. Capitalist ethics were a mistake.

Well said, that is a good, although introductory, text. You pretty much nailed a good portion of the ideology though.

Don't confuse Aurelius with being some Stoic bible, it's an Emperor's private study journal filled with self help tidbits cribbed from his teachers, who were overwhelmingly Stoics.

Hm, firstly i would need to make a remark, OP. In a sense, Stoicism is great for cucks, but therefore it doesn't make that Stoics are necesseraly cucks. Only that those who are cucks would benefit from stoicism.

And then, answering if Stoicism is only for cucks. My answer needs to be no. Stoics have a sage-like assertive view of live, albeit passive of the necessities we need to have. I would find odd for a stoic to be a cuck - if only he doesn't care so much that its not important if his/her wife or husband is cheating on it.

Wrong, brainlet.

IF U DISAGREE WIT ME UR DUMBIE NEVER READER DUMBIE STUPID
I've studied both, Christianity is antithetical to Stoicshit. Arrogant frogposter.
They aren't Christians, they're filthy Philhellenes.

Read aa long's book on epictetus it's seminal

All of that is submission you absolute tool.
>virtues
Not defined.
In short, the trashheap is just 'IM NOT LIKE THE OTHER GIRLS HEHE'.

Have you actually read a Stoic philosopher? Because your reply is retarded.

>let me redefine a word to fit my arguments real quick

>Lets pretend we arent posting on the place which lead to the new definition of this word.

I

>Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well.

>Don't allow your laughter be much, nor on many occasions, nor profuse.

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

>. Remember that you must behave in life as at a dinner party. Is anything brought around to you? Put out your hand and take your share with moderation. Does it pass by you? Don't stop it. Is it not yet come? Don't stretch your desire towards it, but wait till it reaches you. Do this with regard to children, to a wife, to public posts, to riches, and you will eventually be a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods. And if you don't even take the things which are set before you, but are able even to reject them, then you will not only be a partner at the feasts of the gods, but also of their empire. For, by doing this, Diogenes, Heraclitus and others like them, deservedly became, and were called, divine.

You misunderstand the power of stoicsm if you think it is for cucks.

Be active. When you hit hard times activate stoic forcefields.

Very nice retort, now we all know where you're drawing your vast well of subject matter knowledge from.

>let's pretend the origin of your new definition makes a difference in the context of the original definition which is what was being discussed

>Jamal fucking your wore only hurts if you let it hurt you
>Live in accordance with nature. It's only natural that she's more attracted to Tyrone than your micropenis

Imho, stoicism is well worth reading. Personally, I enjoy Seneca's texts the most.

Stoicism seems like hefty idealism that requires a lot of tism to actually carry with conviction.

A large reason stoicism is mocked is due to the fact that meatheads pretend to understand it and pretend to adhere to it's principles. To them, it's viewed as some sort of tough guy philosophy, rather than a philosophy based on virtue and controlling one's emotions, much like Buddhism. This shouldn't deter one from studying Stoicism though. After all, we don't study to appear "cool", or to be viewed as "uncucked". Read some stoic texts; they might change your outlook on life.

Agreed.

Stoicism is not submissive at all. All we have to do is remember Cato the younger rebelling against Caesar. Cato fought Caesar till the end, and rather than accept a pardon, Cato disemboweled himself to avoid legitimizing Caesars rule.

What's so bad about acceptance? It can certainly go too far if it's used as an excuse for being passive. Let's say you're ugly, maybe you could improve you appearance quite a bit, but you still need to accept who you are. An ugly son of a bitch.