Is Stoicism the most red-pilled philosophy, possibly even religion? Why are you not practicing stoicism?
>Only focusing on the things that matter
>Constant self-improvement
>Always present
>Grounded in reality
>Ancient Roman heritage
traditionalstoicism.com
Other urls found in this thread:
laraj.ca
twitter.com
>Constant self-improvement
I'm already perfect, god's image n all that shit.
>>Only focusing on the things that matter
>posts on Sup Forums
You were made IN gods image, you are not THE image of god therefore you are inherently imperfect.
Holy shit you fucking retarded atheist fags literally cannot INTO theology.
>Acknowledge that all emotions come from within
>Find someone you respect, and use them to stay honest
>Recognize there is life after failure
>Read purposefully, and apply your knowledge
>Challenge yourself to be brutally honest
>Reflect on what you spend the most time on
>Remind yourself: you weren’t meant to procrastinate.
>Time is our most precious resource
and yes stoicism is making a comeback in the modern world.
Sup Forums lives matter
>>Time is our most precious resource
>wasting it on Sup Forums
>not Epicureanism
Pleb
Stoicism was the Roman version of SJWs. Feminist, cosmopolitan, wanted to free the slaves, etc. It only appeals to you because you are just as degenerate.
Worked much better than antidepressants to treat my depression. And its roots are actually Greek, but the most complete texts we have are Roman
karl's really got a pug face. Perpetually looks uncomfortable and awkward while bordering the line between retard ugly and charming.
>recognizing a dude you've never even met
this is some serious faggotry.
You are correct. It's what pulled me out of my funk years ago as well.
Yeah he's pretty charming. I wish I could go to England and just have a nice sit with him.
Jesus is The Way
The Truth
And the Life
This makes no sense. I doubt you've ever met Trump but you recognize him anyway
>when you hope someone responds with this example and they do
met Trump years before he was president, by accident, because I was going to DC meet another politician at the time. and yes, Trump was gearing up for politics years before he ever announced.
You can recognize that there are grim aspects of reality but still accept them as they are and move on with your life, as Louis Armstrong did. There's no little doubt he faced hardships in his life, but he still sings about the beauty because he accepts that life is grim
>You can recognize that there are grim aspects of reality but still accept them as they are and move on with your life
Yeah no shit bud
I disagree. Epicurianism has the same weakness as Buddhism in that does not encourage advancement but rather complacency with mediocrity or to be simple rather than strive for something greater. These do not coincide with the beliefs that brought the west to power.
Checked Bulmp
who got it?
Some aspects of Stoicism are good, but being "just" your whole life will only get you so far.
Apotheosis is surprisingly reachable, if you try. Mankind is but a grand, unified vessel; each of our lives are as links in an infinite, unbreakable chain. To preserve is to transcend. Deus Vult.
i guess my point is talking about people you recognize only as 2D pixels you've never met in real life is just sad. it's like a 12-year-old girl talking about a pop star she heard about on the radio. it's mind-virus zombie-tier.
I think I adhere to Stoicism more than any other school of philosophy, but I also believe all schools of philosophy have their place and should be applied situationally. It is the mark of a stubborn and prideful fool to believe any particular school of philosophy is absolute and correct.
Stoicism is compatible with Christianity, but stoicism itself is a more anti-fragile than Christianity.
Again, you recognize plenty of people you've only seen videos of. This is pretty much the essence of being a public figure, I don't know what makes it mind virus zombie tier
>Roman version of SJWs
>SJWs
>Stoicism is compatible with Christianity
Because both are cuckoldry.
Will to power any day over this cuck philosophy!
There's a strong difference between conviction and blind pride.
My father taught me sitting on the fence of a complex topic doesn't make you right, it just means you are too weak to pick a side.
>What are the crusades?
So much edge here.
Greco-Buddhism, pretty neat.
>Being told what to do by a fake mediary for the Lord
annnnnnnnnnd i made it 8min into her pornhub contemplation after utilizing minimally autistic detective skillz.
>degenerate giving thanks
There are no sides, just what you believe is right.
I'm just now starting to read more into it but the more I do the more it feels like it makes perfect sense especially given today's climate and general attitude toward troubles and hardships. I have to do more research but this might be a school of thought that would do really well if it were brought back into vogue.
If you think stoicism is a religion then you need a refresher course.
Stoicism is similar to Christianity, but imperfect, because it is the product of reason alone and lacks the authority of God's word. Stoicism recognizes the necessity for virtue, but Christianity defines what constitutes virtue. Stoicism recognized the world as City of a "Zeus"/God (used as a general place-holder) while Christianity names God. Stoicism is monotheistic too, it serves one Logos, but in Christianity this Logos becomes flesh (Christ).
It's truly naive to assume there are no sides. Sometimes the cards you're dealt don't give you the option of what you believe is right.
>common core education
sigh
Stoicism is great for starters and it's mindset is good for prevention of the blackpill but at the same time it's missing a major thing. Christianity, true Christianity is not what it is now. Read the bible, it will take a while but you will get it. You don't have to ignore other philosophers.
>Stoicism offers such a direct experience of the sacred through the recognition that God, as pneuma, is immanent in all of Nature and humankind.
Christianity is the spark notes of Stoicism with a bunch of superstitious nonsense thrown in because lesser men would never adopt its tenets on their own - they had to be threatened with eternal damnation or bribed with heavenly paradise. Its a religion for people who are too dense to comprehend that the tenets and its promises are a metaphor for living the best possible life in the here and now and that heaven and hell are of your own design.
> lacks the authority of God's word
Says who? A bunch of Jews? The Pope?
We all respect Stoicism because it was endowed with a glamorous prestige by the great men whose creed it was.
We are Aryans, and by a racial imperative inherent in our blood, far stronger than ratiocination, we admire heroism and fortitude.
Stoicism was in practice the creed of Cato of Utica and many another Roman aristocrat who lived bravely and died proudly, meeting his fate with unflinching resolution.
We instinctively pay homage to such men, and we venerate even more women of exemplary courage, like Arria, the devoted wife of A. Caecina Paetus ("Paete, non dolet.") Panaetius did make of an originally Semitic doctrine a creed that includes much that was consonant with the spirit and mentality of our race.
Sounds like a wise man, and I don't disagree but I think in this case the complexity of the subject matter requires a more open mind than absolute conviction. Don't get me wrong I hold conviction in my own personal beliefs, I just don't let them blind me to the value of another point of view.
But much as we admire great Romans, we must remember that, as Gilbert Murray remarked, Stoicism retained from its origins a latent fanaticism and religiosity, professing to offer a kind of Salvation to unhappy mankind.
Despite its ostentatious appeal to reason, it was a kind of evangelism "whose professions dazzled the reason."
And it was fundamentally irrational when, for example, it claimed to deduce from Nature an asceticism that was inhuman, limiting sexual intercourse to the begetting of offspring.
And it could too readily be turned into poisonous slop about "One World" and "brotherhood."
Although it was the creed of heroes, we cannot but feel that there was in it something sickly and deformed. It was, for our race, an intellectual disaster.
You are correct, and there are many parallels between the two ideologies. However, Christianity can be corrupted. Its words twisted. There is no denying math and logic. These are true incorruptible inscriptions of god. To be a true stoic is to be a true disciple of god regardless of his starting doctrine.
this
but also this
so you think your life is better with all this technology? Id rather hunt to live then be forced to do a shitty fucking job. fuck u btw
Meditations of Marcus Aurelius should be mandatory reading.
As opposed to anywhere else on the internet? I've definitely come across more redpills here than anywhere else.
or it just means you dont have enough info to make a good decision you fucking retard
because '1' of the major thought figures was middle eastern, possibly (((Jewish))) we should dismiss some of the greatest works of thought ever to come out of the Roman Empire? Works that guided it during its height? Works that guided even the Prussian Empire at its height with Fredrick the great? Works that guided the founding fathers of the US? Please
>Epicurianism has the same weakness as Buddhism
Yes, of the three major philosophic systems, Stoicism was the only one that enjoined patriotism and political action on men who had responsible positions in society. The Epicureans were interested only in the content and happiness of individuals, and they specifically counseled abstention from politics: their most famous maxim was 'live obscurely,' or 'avoid attracting public attention,' or 'stay out of the limelight'.
Your decision to work a shitty job is not a fault of technology. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of moving to Wyoming, Maine or remote parts of Canada, and living off the land if that is the life you desire.
It is often necessary to make a decision with imperfect information. Your weakness is showing.
>we should dismiss some of the greatest works of thought
No, but it's worthwhile to insist, as most writers on Stoicism (and shills of it) do not, on the plebeian, lower-class, and mostly alien origins of the philosophy.
As it attained some popularity, there were many Stoics, but almost all of them probably had little or no Greek blood, some coming from such remote places as Seleucia and Babylon. The philosophy was a product of Hellenistic Asia, and of the scores who attained some distinction as Stoic philosophers, we cannot find one whom we can recognize as probably of respectable Greek ancestry until we come to Panaetius of Rhodes.
Unlike Epicureanism and the New Academy, which were philosophic products of the Greek mind and expounded by Greeks, Stoicism was an imported and essentially Asiatic doctrine, and, before Panaetius, appealed chiefly to non- Aryan aliens and hybrids. Panaetius (c. 185-109 B.C.) made Stoicism respectable and partly naturalized it. It was literally a shit religion before he made it respectable.
Your argument is akin to saying (((guns))) are inferior weaponry because gun powder was discovered by the Chinese, only shills would say guns are better than a true Macedonian Phalanx.
The problems with stoicism are that too much detachment leads to desensitizing, its too ascetic and spartan, and its views on Nature are wrong. It does not derive its philosophy rationally from nature, it reifies an imaginary Nature to gain values from.
Its not an awful philosophy, but its not the ideal. I'd take Aristotle or Nietzche over the Stoa.
>Why are you not practicing stoicism?
Well let's ask a famous Stoic, Cato the younger about stoicism. Oh, we can't. He died in front of his whole family, children, grandchildren and friends included, slowly, in massive pain and choking on blood after he botched the slicing of his own throat.
Sounds neat.
>In Utica, Cato did not participate in the battle and, unwilling to live in a world led by Caesar and refusing even implicitly to grant Caesar the power to pardon him, he committed suicide in April 46 BC. According to Plutarch, Cato attempted to kill himself by stabbing himself with his own sword, but failed to do so due to an injured hand. Plutarch wrote:
>Cato did not immediately die of the wound; but struggling, fell off the bed, and throwing down a little mathematical table that stood by, made such a noise that the servants, hearing it, cried out. And immediately his son and all his friends came into the chamber, where, seeing him lie weltering in his own blood, great part of his bowels out of his body, but himself still alive and able to look at them, they all stood in horror. The physician went to him, and would have put in his bowels, which were not pierced, and sewed up the wound; but Cato, recovering himself, and understanding the intention, thrust away the physician, plucked out his own bowels, and tearing open the wound, immediately expired.[7]
>On hearing of his death in Utica, Plutarch wrote that Caesar commented, "Cato, I grudge you your death, as you would have grudged me the preservation of your life."[8]
>Starting with Pliny the Elder, later writers sometimes refer to Cato the Younger as "Cato Uticensis" ("the Utican"). In doing so they apply to him a type of cognomen that was normally awarded to generals who earned a triumph in a foreign war and brought a large territory under Roman influence (e.g. Scipio Africanus). Such names were honorific titles that the Senate only granted for the most spectacular victories. Reference to Cato as "Uticensis" is presumably meant to glorify him by portraying his suicide at Utica as a great victory over Caesar's tyranny. [3][4]
Nigga I don't think you appreciate just how metal that is.
Nigga, are you equating being Metal with Stoicism? Really?
>Why are you not practicing stoicism?
Because I'm practicing Theravada Buddhism, which is what Stoicism would be if it had a couple thousand years of monastic culture supporting it.
The Stoics claimed to consider only the observed realities of the physical world and to reject all superstitions about the supernatural, but they began by assuming that the universe (which, remember, was for them the earth with its appurtenances, the sun, moon, and stars that circled about it), was single living organism of which the animus mundi was the brain. It followed, therefore, that we are all parts of that organism and so members of the same family and essentially equal, with an obligation to help one another, especially the unfortunate.
>muh animus mundi
Since all things happen "according to Nature' (which is controlled by the Universal Mind), there can be no evil or injustice in the world. Whatever seems unjust or wrong to us is only part of a whole which we do not see and conforms to a purpose we cannot comprehend. The lungs or liver, considered by themselves, are ugly, but they may form necessary parts of a beautiful woman or wise man.
Good and evil, pain and pleasure, are therefore only in the mind, and what makes the difference is your attitude toward events: it would be wrong as well as futile to resist the Divine Plan, no matter what it ordains for you. The only important thing is to maintain your moral integrity, and so long as you do that, events have no power over you. Thus a wise man, conscious of his moral integrity, would be perfectly happy, even if he were being boiled in oil. I am sure that many intelligent men must have thought of popping a declaiming Stoic into a pot to ascertain whether the boiling oil would alter his opinion, but the experiment seems never to have been performed.
The New Academy was concerned with elaborating what is now known as the scientific method and establishing a valid epistemology. Its cold rationality and keen criticism thoroughly demolished the whole system of Stoicism, reducing it to the status of a religion.
stoicism is pretty metal tbqh
no, not at all, it is literally the opposite of metal.
No you just have a simpleton, imageboard-informed understanding of the genealogy of thought. There are reasons why stoicism was influenced by the East. In fact, much of what you would probably claim as pure western tradition is in fact a product of intermingling on the cross roads of Alexandria. For instance, Plotinus- who likely had more or comparable influence on Aquinas and Augustine's theology as Aristotle- was taught by Ammonius Saccus (sp?) who was deeply influenced by Indian philosophy as shared from travelers in the trade cities. He may have himself been from India.
The point is, your 'western' purism is not too informed as far as historical facts and is a caricature derived from jpgs.
Study more.
More of a cynic, really. Don't really see the point of all that chest thumping self denial.
...
>Stoicism is compatible with Christianity
No it isn't.
Looking for a dishonest dog. Couldn't find one.
The observed realities are the only truths we can know. In a way we are all connected from the same origin, but we (everything) are neither equal nor connected in thought.
Evil and Injustice are natural, and inevitable, due to our branched disconnection. To fight for good and justice, although different for each individual is the closest one can come to being divine. Releasing their inner daimon.
The divine plan is what you make it. Although are fates are all inevitably locked we maintain a small freewill like eddies in a stream. A man condemned to be boiled in oil, if he truly cannot get out would be most badass if he could suppress his baser instincts and didn't scream, but no one would blame him if he did.
Do you have reading material from The New Academy I could look at?
I'm not sure if you meant that for me. I'm not a western purist. I'm completely comfortable adopting foreign ideas and making them my own.
You have no idea what you are talking about. That is what Christianity was about at initial contact until it became more traditional when it was more common. The Stoics honored the traditions of the Romans sacrificing to the Gods, upholding the patriarchy of the pater familias, etc..
Modern day word for it is Fascism.
laraj.ca
for starters wiki search: Carneades, Clitomachus (philosopher) and Academic skepticism
Early Christianity was stoic idk why we lost it
Jews and the Papacy.
Again with the Stoics
Marcus Aurelius massacred Christians
can stoicism make me cool like brad
Oh and Stoicism is a PLEBBIT meme and Stoics are CVCKS
OK thread, NAUGHTY REPLIES!!
>Marcus Aurelius massacred Christians
Who at the time were all kikes. Based.
Christians being cucked and sold into slavery for a few hundred years before they finally decided to launch a series of half assed military campaigns that ended up backfiring and losing Christian ground.
That makes me like him even more.
If we're good do we get a Christmas tree and presents?
do you have even a slightest idea what really stands behind stoicism?? the "calm mind" mentality is just one of the products of it.
Stoicism has a strong pessimistic aspect to it..it has little to do with self-improvement in fact..also stoics see themselves as a part of the universal mankind..they see all people in the world as a "one nation" so they were essentially globalists.
read more user...
I picked up none of that from my readings. Maybe I've only been reading the good shit. There's alot of literature out there with different views on what is stoicism.
Short version: Stoicism was admirable, but not something you'd want to live through yourself.
They were idealists, but they did give rise to Empiricism, which is the underlying principle of
'your religion sounds like its full of shit. What have you got that you can show to be true that can't be accounted for by other worldviews?'
I think you're right, but only because of the connection between stoicism and Empiricism.
Saltyfags version of Empiricism: "Gods might not be watching out for you. Buy some land. Bitches love land."
b-b-but I think thats bullshit desu.
Theres nothing at all about minimalist selfreliance and responsibility that has ANYTHING to do with authoritarian rule under strong leadership.
Stoicism is anti-christian mostly only under the 'responsibility' angle, since sacrificial forgiveness kind of negates the personal responsibility.
>Stoic rome: Empire
>Christian rome: Empire dead
Figure it out yourself. One of them advocated living according to your nature, one advocated doing what you were told, against your nature, on the off chance you behaved well and were rewarded when you died.
Prof. Revilo Oliver didn’t liked Stoicism, the original stoic philopshy of Zeno (who was a Semitic Phoenician) was almost like Communism, late Stoics reworked the philosophy and selled to the Romans.
well there are different approaches and more importantly new branches of stoicism (i. e. neostoicism), but according to old philosophy stoicism do have some really non-admirable traits.. Lets see about the "founder" of Stoicism Zeno of Citum
he was shamelessly cynical man full of fatalicism.. his death in philosophical texts is described like this:
>He was leaving the school where he was a teacher
>he stumbled and fell, breaking his toe
>he looked up to the sky and shouted "alright, alright I am coming"
>he came home, sit on his doorstep and killed himself with holding his breath
During his life, he would just sit in front of his house for hours and hours and he would "let things happen"
it is just an example..there is more to it "underhand". Today its a "cool shit" to talk about stoicism, but, in its essence" it was something quite odd (at least for me).
>Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.
Over a thousand years ago, people were doing Tony Robbins mantras.