Why is stoicism self-contradictory?
>Cardinal virtues are... LE GOOD!!
>But also reality is relative, and has no objective state of being good or bad
>Foolishness, injustice, cowardice, and intemperance are EVIL and BAD!!
>But remember you get to personally decide how to react to events that happen around you
Why is stoicism self-contradictory? >Cardinal virtues are... LE GOOD!!
Why is stoicism self-contradictory?
Hello. I will shit on your grave. Regards, Jesus
Marky Aury is self-refuting. He was an opium addict.
Opium was based in his time. Its cringe now. He gets a bonus point for that
No, he’s cringe because his worldview is contaminated by drugs. He’s not trustworthy as a thinker.
Sometimes drugs are cool in miniscule amounts. Loosen up a little you fucking dork lol
Sure but he was an addict. It’s a historical fact. He didn’t face the pain, he just used drugs. That’s not stoicism.
>when you base your opinions on a random unsubstantiated LULZ post which itself based its opinions on unsubstantiated rumours
Yeah, it's true that the medicine given to MA contained opium, but it was in such small doses as to not be significant or cause addiction. We have proof of that due to the recipe left behind by MA's doctor. See: https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC27069
This article does not substantiate its claims, and actually just assume what it's trying to prove. It does some shoddy "literary analysis" and recalls accounts of MA's life.
The article that I linked directly refutes your article's claims, mentions how galen was not present with MA during the last 12 years of his life, and openly measures the amount of opium present in the theriac (it's not enough)
>He took drugs every day and he was dependent BUT not addicted. Prease understand.
>frogposters in charge of understanding dosages and drug dependacies
get used to it, sweaty
> Dio Cassius (72.6.3-4) confirmed that the emperor seemed dependent on his theriac which he took like food, every day, and which allowed him to tolerate the increasing chronic pain and exhaustion caused by his life-long mystery illness.
Addicted in the modern medical sense or not, this invalidates his worldview. You don’t need a stoic mindset, you just need drugs to cope with the pain.
>this invalidates his worldview
at best this invalidates the idea of his adherence to his worldview, but not the worldview itself
It objectively invalidates the worldview from an outsider's perspective. He wrote about being strong and stoic but from the perspective of a man who took painkilling drugs.
>He wrote about being strong and stoic
I don't think you know what he wrote about.
>Not to display anger or other emotions. To be free of passion and yet full of love.
>Self-control and resistance to distractions. Optimism in adversity—especially illness.
Yea, he wasn't a stoic, right?
>>Not to display anger or other emotions
But Stoicism doesn't prohibit emotions, that you should assess if they are worthwhile.
>Optimism in adversity
Pretty sure to that's frowned upon as pessimism, for both emotions hand over control of your life to fate.
>from an outsider's perspective
I'm not exactly sure what that means. my point is his lack of adherence to Stoicism does not invalidate Stoicism itself. I'm not arguing in favor of Stoicism here either, just trying to get the conclusions straight. it's core tenents could still hypothetically be true/valid in spite of someone who promotes those tenens in writing not adhering to them to the fullest extent
I’m not talking about stoicism as a whole being invalid. I’m talking about specifically what he wrote. It should not be taken seriously.
>I’m talking about specifically what he wrote. It should not be taken seriously
I don't think it invalidates that either. from what I remember he never said that he is a perfect Stoic, but in his meditations he tells himself he should act in such and such a way because of nature, etc
Wouldn't being high as a fucking kite make practising Stoicism difficult? Hard to react to the world when you can't remember where you left your shoes.
However, I'd take his works over a lot of modern day supposed self help gurus. And remember he wrote it not intending to publish. He also supposedly wrote it in the early mornings, so his hang over probably helped him get maudlin.
Definitely one to consider the message, rather than the messenger.
>The average adult needs 50-100 mg opium to elicit a psychotropic effect (Goodman & Gilman 1965:250; Scarborough 1995:12-13). If one accepts that an Egyptian ‘bean’ approximates the size of a modern broad bean (Grmek 1991:212) – approximately 165 mg, as measured by the authors(Retief & Cilliers 2007:63) –, the percentage opium present may be converted into weight. Our determinators show that Marcus Aurelius imbibed in the vicinity of 1,52 mg opium in his daily dose of theriac. Africa (1961:102 n. 102), who originally suggested that Marcus Aurelius might have been an opium addict, also made calculations of theriac content and found a comparable opium dose of 3,3 mg
adding to my own post that
1. Some men are truly so great and shine so highly above others that their achievements become incomprehensible, with excuses being made left and right as to why their thought is worthless and their achievements undeserved
2. Stoicism is a self-cucking practice (which is why it was absorbed easily into christniggotry and why now secular moralizers enjoy it) and one should only employ it if you intend on mentally castrating yourself
I thought that quote said
>Waste no more time arguing online about what a good man should be. Be one
For a second
Reality can't be good or bad, but simply your reaction or lack of can.
>Foolishness, injustice, cowardice, and intemperance are EVIL and BAD!!
It is not really a stretch to impose a moral imperative and accept all those things being bad in an individual. This philosophy is so fulfilling and intuitive, you really have to be a massive retard to misinterpret it.
Massive cope. Stoicism gets everything right, then shits the bed by implying there's a universally "right" personal moral framework to approach life with, and even has the gall to imply the only way to be fulfilled as a person is to adopt cardinal christian personal values like courage and justice.
And thats is pretty much true lol. Like I said, intuitive and easy to understand. Thats why normies like it and thats not bad.
>adopt cardinal christian personal values
Ah yes, I remember reading about Zeno teaching his students to be more like Jesus who wouldn't arrive for another 300 years.
Why are Christians like this?
Is there something like stoicism but with the homosexualry removed? So basically the part about examining the world through the lens of things that are in your power to control vs. things that aren't in your power to control, but with the moralhomosexualry removed?
It’s called being a psychopath
there's no "catch all" philosophy for you to just freely consume. that itself is a christnagger holdover. to answer your question, it's extremely valuable to develop your own critical eye, and to seek truths. most good philosophers address these issues. compare their various approaches. observe the limits of your abilities, where your truths arise from, raise some values above others. keep at it. see what happens. good luck
It’s even better that he dunked on the stoics as well.
>washed up philosopher who tries to contextualize Christianity
I don't want Stoicism's sloppy seconds.
>washed up philosopher
Literally the opposite of it. Successful lecturer, famous in his lifetime, had a wife and kids (but still fucked hoes on the side), his philosophy was so significant it caused worship for years and then rampant seethes for centuries. Also any talk of stoics sloppy seconds is immediately banished when you realize stoicism is literally from a primitive pre-critical era of thought where the problem of subject-object identity had not even been investigated yet. Hegel mogs many.
Okay, I will investigate your favorite philosopher if you can explain how he isn't a moralfag.
Hey anon, did you know you can just read shit and make up your own mind? No need to be a label-fag
But I want to be able to adopt a universal philosophy that I can easily package and recommend to my friends.
May problem with stoicism is that it does the following:
>Use these techniques to improve your emotional resilience to suffering, and use that resilience as a tool to align with virtues A, B, C and avoid vices X, Y, Z.
It correctly decides that everything relevant happens in the mind, it's like a compass and a set of tools for navigating a storm. But it shits the bed because it defines what A, B, C and X, Y, Z are, which completely destroys the universality of the philosophy. I feel like the ultimate philosophy would be identical to Stoicism, but it would be morally relativistic, and imply that you can decide for yourself what A, B, C and X, Y, Z are, so it's a compass that can be calibrated to whatever you want. The pre-calibrated moral compass is a dated gimmick that nobody actually reads stoicism for, and it's mixed in with the useful parts.
>reality is relative
Epictetus rejects the Skeptics, saying that they would deny even being burned when clearly their body is on fire. and I believe he makes fun of Epicurus/Epicureans by saying they would deny being drenched in water if you were to pour it over their head, or something like that.
their point, afair, is that peopel can and do differ in their perceptions of reality, but there are objective truths, objective/natural morality and modes of conduct. I don't see how that's contradictory
There is no objective morality
not the point I was making
I don’t care.
virtues are... LE GOOD!!
>>But also reality is relative, and has no objective state of being good or bad
These are not mutually exclusive. You just have a very innocent sense of good and evil.
It's a philosophy that puts off a lot of autists on lit because it forgives you for mistakes, does not expect you to be perfect, indeed expects you to practice.
Since it focusses on how to live your life, you are free to approach others to understand the world around you. Maybe they'd be more your speed as they don't require you to do anything except argue about.
>can only think in extremes
Stoicism is weird in how it seems to have been an eclectic mix of nominalist materialism, religion, and a self help fad. How much of each depends on the stoic. It's the original Spiritual but Not Religious.
>eclectic mix of nominalist materialism, religion, and a self help fad
It's completely anti-nominalist. They believe in the universal Reason that orders everything, and that this Reason is immanent in nature and gives everything its form and purpose. They do have a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of mind as substance, a little like Cartesian dualism but rejecting Descartes atomistic approach. But it's definitely not nominalist at all.
It seems many have trouble understanding the basic premise of stoicism. Bad and good things will happen. Bad and good emotions will happen. Don’t let them overpower you
That's not stoicism, it's diet self help faggery. Stoicism is a framework of moral and virtue. That thing you just said is just basic philosophical vomit, but stoic philosophers only wrote about it in relation to acting virtuously (which they believed was the key to fulfillment).
>aurelius is the epitome of stoicism
Would you plebs please fucking stop with this shit. I understand that you know nothing about the topic but Aurelius was literally just a guy writing in his diary which he never intended to be published. We have numerous examples of actual Stoic philosophers who actually wrote and taught philosophy for a living while following Stoic ideals.
I'm at the point where seeing anyone mention Aurelius makes me instantly write them off as uneducated. I don't know if I've ever seen someone mention Epictetus on this board and I sure as fuck have never seen anyone mention Seneca but god damn if there isn't some high school genius popping up every week to talk about Marcus fucking Aurelius.
>Stoicism was originally known as Zenonism. However, this name was soon dropped, likely because the Stoics did not consider their founders to be perfectly wise and to avoid the risk of the philosophy becoming a cult of personality.
Stoicism is not a religion and none of its adherents are claiming to be perfect. You can recognize an ideal, discuss it, aspire to it, and fall short without being a hypocrite or contradictory.
I literally googled "stoicism" and attached the first image I saw on google images, calm your autism.
If you're OP then, judging by your post, you have even less capacity for this discussion than the people who have read nothing but Aurelius. This is very much directed at you as well. Don't try to debate a philosophy you don't understand.
I don't have to, I was somewhat paying attention to this thread until I went down a google rabbit hole for "stoic dogmatic moral absolutism" and found out that Nietzsche feels the same way I do about stoicism. Now I'm a nihilist instead of a stoic. (Yes, I only just discovered both schools of thought today.)
>I literally googled "stoicism" and attached the first image I saw on google images
You are literally not in control of your life. Of course you don't get Stoicism.
Reality is relative because it depends on the perspective of the observer. Yes, reality is a construction of the observer but the phenomenal states of the observer are determined by the forces of good and evil which are in themselves real. Go back to philosophy 101 if you don't get it. You are thinking in physicalist terms.
>are determined by the forces of good and evil which are in themselves real
Washington Post article from last week
None of you read.