What does stoicism offer?

What does stoicism offer?

Peace and quiet

self-tyranny

elaborate please

freedom

go to be Friedrich

Reddit

Reminder Marcus Aurelius was an infamous cuckold, the laugh of all of Rome as his wife got railed while he wrote his nu-male philosophy

>bunch of Veeky Forums virgins talking shit about stoicism

pic related, 1000 times more man than you ever will be

I don't know who he is but I guarantee if you looked into it he was a cuckold

truly compelling stuff

tell me more about how posting on Veeky Forums for 12 hours a day has turned you into a drooling shitposter who can only utter the words "cuck" and "reddit"

lol don't get mad dude, I thought you're a stoic
If you don't like this website I know the perfect place for you

Don't expect much from Aurelius.

>Everything is fate so don't ever be sad
>Everyone dies soon but that's fate so it's okay

The ancient equivalent of /r9k/'s blackpill mostly desu.

You mean when he wrote extraordinary philosophical treatises while fighting barbarians at the border and managing a whole fucking empire?

And for all that he was a joke because his wife was fucking Chadanus the whole time

How would that harm him? He played his part as he should. It is his wife and her lover that lose their virtue, so it's them to are damaged.

t. Epictetus

Nah thats the cynics and from there the later philosophic pessimists.
Stoics are too naive to be blackpilled, they're just cucks who accept their cuckoldry both in wageslaving and their love life

>How would that harm him? He played his part as he should. It is his wife and her lover that lose their virtue, so it's them to are damaged.

Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy

The Cynics founded Stoicism though.

Totally wrong, they're radically incompatible. Stoicism at best can be claimed to be a degeneratively influenced by Cynicism.
The difference between the two fields is that Cynicism proposes that in short of an actual rational basis for the justification of action the pleasure principal is the only legitimate motive. The Stoics follow their spooky frankenstein of "virtue" ethics erroniously believing they are transcending the pleasure principal itself.
They couldn't be further opposed.

>I am a man
>I perform my role as a man properly
>she is a wife
>she fails to perform her role as a wife properly
>I am damaged

Literally how? I just find a new woman. My old wife and her lover live on knowing that they committed sacrilege. They sinned against the family, the neighbor, the city, the nation, and god. I, on the other hand, remain in peace.

>literally just hands his wife to chad and waddles off trying to hold back his tears
>I-I didn't want her anyway

That is not what I said at all, though.

did his wife get deep dicked by a black african Negus ?

lol you are a dumbo.

Cynicism greatly influenced Stoicism up until the late Hellenistic period. Seneca and Epictetus cite Diogenes as a great example of a wise person, right there next to Socrates. And of course Stoics would praise simplicity of their lifestyle. Epictetus even implies such asceticism is in a way ideal for one pursing Stoicism.
Read Epictetus' discourse III:22.

Yeah like I said, they look up to Cynics but they're too spooked to shit to even be considered in the legacy of its school

The Cynics are just Super Stoics.

>They're just stoics if you take away literally everything that defines stoicism

Explain.

What? They both emphasise:
>living with virtue
>living in accord with nature
>clarity of thought
>rejecting conventional desires like money, sex, reputation
>simple life
>divine providence

Cynics push it to extremes and literally live with nothing but a piece of clothing, basically.

>Likes Cynicism
>Hates Stoicism
>Doesn't understand the two are extremely similar.
>Doesn't understand either doctrine.

>more of man
spooked as fuck

Would you please stop?

It offers nothing by itself. It can open your eyes to what is already within your soul.

What more do you need?

>What? They both emphasise:
>>living with virtue
>>living in accord with nature
>>rejecting conventional desires like money, sex, reputation
>>simple life
Absolutely wrong, Diogenese lived in a bathtub not a cave, if he lived like an animal it was through organic coincidence not because he strived towards living according to nature, thats a significant difference.
Again you're failing to recognize how tremendously opposed the schools are, a Cynic would find any of these things laughable as a desirable "virtue". If they ever allign with them it is through abritrary circumstancial chance not through intent. I would go as far to say a Cynic is the direct antithesis of a Stoic.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

stoas

you really dont know what stoicism is my friend

I don't think you understand what Stoics and Cynics mean by living in accord with nature. Please stop posting.

>Durr no yer wrong but I don't have any arguments why

Your group think might be convincing on reddit but you got nothing here

Hello Stirnerfag who has nothing to contribute.

You think Stoic/Cynic striving to live in accord with nature means living like an animal. You think Stoics/Cynics saw no virtue in living in accord with nature. You think Cynics never influenced Stoics to a greater degree. You are refusing to accept the similarities between the two schools, and your arguments for it is nonsensical because it shows you lack understanding of both schools you are trying to criticise. That's why it's pointless for anyone to continue talking to you.

what stoic books have you read?

Objectively wrong again. What I said is that Diogenes quite literally did live like an animal but that he did so merely because it felt good (or least painful) to do so not because he saw any virtue in living according with nature, which is simply an illfounded sentimentality which the Stoics were built upon while the Cynics were radically opposed to.
Again this is the radical difference between the two.

All of them

Then why haven't you got at least the basic understanding of them?

I do, I just know them better than you do

BTFO

Apparently not, since you post this:
>Diogenes quite literally did live like an animal but that he did so merely because it felt good (or least painful) to do so not because he saw any virtue in living according with nature
Let's say this is true. It still doesn't change the Cynic doctrine that was built on Diogenes' teachings and lifestyle... the doctrine which claims living in accord with nature is something to strive for.

You know, such life is something that is literally a job/calling appointed to you by Zeus, who's made you the watcher of all people and their souls, and their guide. And living as Zeus/Providence/Logos commands is the ultimate virtue, because that is what it means living in accord with nature.

>not because he strived towards living according to nature


>Foremost for understanding the Cynic conception of ethics is that virtue is a life lived in accord with nature. Nature offers the clearest indication of how to live the good life, which is characterized by reason, self-sufficiency, and freedom.

>The primacy of ethics, the sufficiency of virtue for happiness, the cultivation of indifference to external affairs, the definition of virtue as living in accord with nature, and the importance placed on askēsis, all mark the shared terrain between the Cynics and the Stoics.

>They are not similar, though

>he unironically believes Zeus exists

...

>Is your child dead? It is returned. Is your wife dead? She is returned.

Returned to what?

Nature

>With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies. - Epictetus

>Thinks living in accord with nature means living in the bushes.
To The Stoics living in accord to nature means embracing your nature. That is to say that as a man our nature is to be a rational creature. Plebs...

Like many things in philosophy, self-reflection and sections of lifestyle that can be applied to oneself. Most people can gain something by reading stoics, to be a better individual, to be happier and stronger. They are relatively accessible and the average modern human (especially western) will be immediately appreciative of them. Almost none will actually adhere to any work or doctrine of it or call themselves a stoic. Which is a good thing. They derive benefit from it, for themselves, without becoming its subordinate.

Nah. He didn't live like an "animal", but with lucidity. He thought that human beings living according to nature was as rational creatures, their minds illuminated and not bogged down by worthless notions. i.e. he was the only one who could truly see.

The stoics lived according to nature also, but they extended the rational human being argument to include civic duties and structure, like Aristotle, which was why it was so popular among the Romans. The aristocrats could rationalise their positions over the peasants; their rank in society was as the Logos dictated, after all.

>but they extended the rational human being argument to include civic duties and structure

In other words the very worthless notions the Cynics operated against. This is where there is no compatibility

>If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond.

But that's idiotic.

it's buddhism for people who don't want to put in work

hedonism for cuckolds

Enigma entails manipulation of the cum.

Stoics use the word Zeus interchangeably with Logos.

How obtuse can you be?

If this is the best you can do fuck off retard.

VIRGINITY

Beautiful

>thought you're a stoic
lmfao

Yeah that specific point is incompatible, but it's only their interpretations of "living in accordance with nature" that are opposites. Their reasoning leading up to that point is very similar, right up until their understanding of a human being's nature.

>They both entrusted their lives to the Logos.
>They both saw "things", like clothes and food for what they were.
>They both stopped themselves from becoming too invested into "Earthly" matters and people.
They just interpreted the last point differently. Both Cynics and Stoics thought they should help their fellow man; this mission just manifested itself in different ways.
>Cynics: Tried to illuminate the minds of others into lucidity.
>Roman Stoics: Participated in civil society.

The guy here doesn't realise that the Cynic calling was thought to be greatest civic duty in the Universal City, and he doesn't realise that the Cynic does not need to perform civic duties simply because he already performs a much bigger duty for all of mankind.

That was the idea, at least.

A gateway into Christianity

you have to be a slave before you can be free, user

I like it how early Christians tried to prove that Seneca was a Christians and that he hanged out with Peter or something like that.

Nothing, it's philosophy for the lame.
>IM A REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL MAN
I am more than Man.
Virtue doesn't exist. His part was to be a massive tool pretending to be something more.
>MUH ROLES
Absolutely slavish
'nature' does not exist.

>I am more than Man.
>slavish
>virtues don't exist

epin

Common sense.

Common sense is a bad meme, take it back to /r/eddit

Tip that fedora elsewhere. I suggest /r/atheism. You will like it there.

Freedom from irrational fears and self destruction. It allows you to concentrate on things that you can actually fix.

I'm not an atheist
Stop deluding yourself, child.

>Stop deluding yourself, child.
I am 25 years old, software engineer with a hot girlfriend, two cars and a house. I used to be an agoraphobic NEET three years ago. I fixed myself with stoicism. Stop talking about things you don't understand.

>25
So, you're a child
>software engineer
Autistic STEMsperg
>hot girlfriend
Mate women aren't attractive past 15
>two cars
Oh wow so does my broke-ass mother
>house
I have two

You were better as a NEET, at least then you weren't deluding yourself that you were free of delusion. Absolute fucking tool.

>at least then you weren't deluding yourself that you were free of delusion.
Strawman

No, this actually describes every single stoic. A stoic is a tool who thinks he is free of delusion, when he is actually caught in more.

AHAHAHA

literally a coping philosophy for involuntary cuckolds

>She was believed to have had innumerable lovers from all levels of society. The historian Sextus Aurelius Victor wrote that she shamelessly cruised for sexual partners among the sailors who worked naked on the beaches of Campania in Italy! Senators as well as gladiators and pantomime actors were said to have been seduced by the Empress. It was believed by many that Commodus, who fought publicly as a gladiator when emperor, was fathered by a gladiator rather than by the dignified Marcus Aurelius. Faustina was rumored to have had an affair with her son-in-law, Lucius Verus, and to have been guilty of his murder.

B-BB-B-BUT YOU CANT CHANGE THAT SO JUST ACCEPT IT BECAUSE THEN YOURE VIRTUOUS AND FREE OF DELUSIONS AND FREE TO DO MORE IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE WRITE A DIARY

Explain

Well, for example: Also, you listed a whole lot of excessive junk, as if that is to impress me:Yet, you people think you are 'enlightened'.

You are making no sense. Excessive junk by what scale of measurement? 'Enlightened' is another strawman. And looking at your emotions and fears rationally has nothing to do with being deluded or not deluded.

You seem very uneducated.

>Rationality is good becuz i sed so
>UR DUMB BECUZ U DISAGREE WITH ME UR STUPID UNEDUCATED RETARD
>not delusions
This is what Letzte Mensch tell themselves.

There's a sewer under your porch, smelly teleiophile.

How porchfaggots respond to ANY real criticism of their dogma:
>UR FUCKIN STUPID UNEDUCATED DONT EVEN FUCKIN READ FUCKIN FUCKIN FUCK MY WIFE
They then proceed to pretend that they're enlightened.

Samefag.

What is it about mentioning morals, god, and rules, even when objectively discussing something, that triggers fedoras so bad?

Why are you getting so angry? There is no reason to pull out the hurr durr greentexts and double posts.

I called you uneducated because your arguments are incoherent, not because you disagree with me. And I am not even sure you disagree with me in the first place, because your posts made no sense.

I'm Christian.
porchfaggots are the type to delude themselves into believing morality exists. No stoic today actually believes in any sort of deity but still falls for the ridiculous 'virtue' meme. Same with artistotle suckoffs.
>objective discussion
Doesn't exist, actual fedora.
>arguments are good because i sed so
>if i cant understand then UR DUMB
I didn't realize porchfaggots were also ANAL y autisTIC. Yes child, I'm the uneducated one. Not you, the lover of children's philosophy and the one incapable of reading past the surface.

Aren't you going to brag about all your material garbage that you claim to denounce and that whore haggard girlfriend that is taking wood on the side? Oh wait you can't change that HAHAHA

>calls someone a slave for believing in morals, god, and rules
>yet claims he is a Christian

>bashes Stoicism
>yet Christians love Stoicism (See Dante, Thadeus, early Christians...)

>claims to be Christian
>thinks morality doesn't exist

>claims to be Christian
>gets triggered this hard, is filled with anger, treats his fellow man with scorn

>assumes no one believes in a god just because they are a Stoic, even though being a Stoic implies believing in the divine

>calls someone a child
>behaves like a total sperg, screeches, posts all in caps, greentexts incoherently like a five year old

Tell me, are you actually retarded or just pretending?
Probably just really, really assblasted and frustrated. Don't worry, you'll find philosophy too that will help you.