What does Holla Forums think of Stoicism?

bump

Hegel on Stoicism

...

bump

Why do you like class collaboration so much?

Why do you hate objectivity so much?

Well, it helps that you are the only ones that participate in elections.

Stoicism is pretty based if you drop the determinism and "the universe is perfect" aspect. Knowing how to control your emotions is key.

Paraphrasing here: "If a man has a bigger, more expensive house than I, it means he has a better house than me, it does not mean he is better than me." They knew identities weren't fit to be attached to physical objects.

So its Cynicism but with a few extra shitty steps?

Cynicism made less radical and more attractive to the aristocrats. Still pretty good though, especially since it's really the only way to figure out what the Cynics believed besides studying the few accounts of the lives of major Cynics.

Don't speak about stuff you don't know about, you fucking rose.

They're not contradictory.

Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. A way to live your fucking life isn't "lifestylist" and it's by no imaginable means irrelevant.

It's an offshoot of Cynicism, founded by Zeno of Citium, a student of Crates, the student of Diogenes. It's hard to really distinguish between the two since Cynicism is pretty obscure, but the main difference seems to be that Stoicism deems externals like wealth and social position as merely indifferent (neither virtuous or vicious) so could be held or aimed for as long as it did not get in the way of virtue, while Cynicism considers them purely negatively and an obstacle to a virtuous, natural life, while Cynics were particularly keen on asceticism . This difference shows a lot with the participant's lifestyle, with Stoics being anything from peasants to aristocrats, being the major school of philosophy among the aristocrats, with Cynics universally being vagabonds, beggars, etc. The major aspects are shared by both though, mainly virtue is sufficient and necessary for eudaimonia (a sort of permanent happiness) and that externals do not need to affect you and you should train so they do not.

what about buddhists?? aren't they similar?

I have no choice but to accept it, I guess.

I have no choice but to accept it, I guess.

bullshit that encourages suffering

Buddhism has similar practice but different theory. They're similar in that they say the way to end goal (Eudaimonia/Nirvana) is through working on yourself through virtue and self-improvement while ignoring things external.

That's literally contradictory to its purpose. If you're saying how it's been used to trivialize the suffering of the lower classes, then that's true, but it's a miscomprehension of its teachings.

Early Stoicism > Late Stoicism.

bump

All of the works of the Greeks and of the Romans are primitive. That they are still held in high regard today is peculiar and hilarious. The same men who believed that a person was formed from clay supposedly created the pinnacles of philosophy, the eternal masterpieces of thought?

Lotta hot opinions with no actual arguments. Scientific knowledge has no correlation to philosophical.

I said that the one was inferior to the other.

They were able to deduce the atomic nature of the universe and the dichotomy between matter and void. Pretty slick for such primitive work.

Stoicism is nice as an internal, personal philosophy if you're dealt a shit hand in life, but I don't see how you can square it with emancipatory or revolutionary beliefs that demand action to change or improve the state of things.

End thyself