Can we all agree that the school of life has its moments?
In any case, who expects to really learn about the topics they cover through five minute videos.
If you watch their videos for leisure, without assuming that they can possibly act as a replacement for real studying, they're pretty good.
I don't fucking get the channel's obsession with sex. They've released like seven videos about it. Nothing they say about the topic is useful or original. They should just stick to philosophy/literature.
School of Life is really interesting.
They're essentially a self-help program but all of their videos are a pretty sensible mixture of Freudian, Augustinian, and Schopenhauerian pessimistic stock. They treat sex as some unmastered dumbness, constantly refer to how terrible the whole of existence is, praise mental breakdowns and moments of weakness
It's wonderful really. It's self-help that isn't condescending from some imagined happiness. They're speaking to people who need help with real voices, no bullshit.
It just surprises me that this smooth voice can go through this stuff without looking edgy. They sound like they really want to help people.
God I love Em. I don't care if she doesn't fully grasp the philosophical works- or grasp them at all like in most videos. I would love to watch that pretty face work her tongue around my cock and hear her soft voice give me bad information on Nietzsche after I've just cum inside of her.
historyofphilosophy.net is vastly superior for accessible stuff that gives an actual understanding.
sure, it takes more than five minutes, but at least he doesn't specialise in oversimplification until only memes are left.
GET YOUR PHILOSOPHER SWEATERS HERE
A REAL 100% AUTHENTIC PHILOSOPHER SWEATER JUST LIKE SARTRE AND THE LIKE
ONLY 180 DOLLARS EXCLUSIVELY AT THE SCHOOL OF LIFE
OP, here HoP is the bomb.
The content is very solid, although my god is his voice charming too.
HoP lacks relevance to the real world though, and with good reason.
Yes, they aren't as pedantic and stale as reading the texts or more historical secondary texts themselves, but the podcasts still lack those wild personalized claims that you can't really make without sacrificing on what might have actually been being said.
Tell me that's photoshopped.
Are people, really, really this vain?
I'm from a third world country so most folk don't have that great an education (even the middle-class and upper-middle-class ones) to have access to things that can make them feel intellectually superior.
To think someone might actually consider buying this.
Only a minority of folk with degrees from non-elite universities overvalue themselves so much to be this showey right?
>I found this to be a perfect description of myself, yet I do not read books to the extent as one should. I recently watched your TED talk, Alain De Botton and I must say that you are a fantastic person, your perspective is warming to hear.
that's a meme critique, in the sense of that "not original" is a standard critique or literature, say, but it doesn't apply here and you just use it here out of lazy ritual
I'm afraid it's completely true. But of course you need your philosopher's shoes for 260 bucks:
And your philosopher's keychain for a mere fifteen!
But the 'real world' application is up to you, mate. Surely you can learn about the Stoics and take care of the application of their wisdom yourself? You don't need some bald headed trust fund cunt to tell you to be patient in traffic.
You're probably young and still how the physical form in high regard.
Too most older academics the guy on the left is trying less enough to be considered stylish, or at least, not negatively looked at.
even forgetting the interracial memery I hate this video
>le we are le all just insane
>when you le read a book or le go for a bike ride you are le really being a madman!
Such bullshit. What they described is not madness and madness is awful and shouldn't be romanticised.
>the school of life
>hey look at all these cool and interesting philosophers who rejected material wealth and worldly pleasures for something higher
>btw be sure to check out our online store where you can buy a bunch of overpriced shit to show the world how smart and cultured you are
Hey reddit! that little symbol next to the numbers in the shop is the GBP! That accent that sounds like they're trying to hide fucked up teeth is called a British accent! And that city London is the capital of England; sure it's alot like New York but unlike New York the British couldn't defend their cities against the Nazis and it got bombed pretty badly until Uncle Sam came and saved Europe.
Philosophy student here, I was very much into the Meditations earlier in life and also saw a thread on /lit/ about it just before.
Is OP's video not grossly misintepreting stoicism? Not as much as they give out wrong info, they leave out essential parts of it.
The short summery of stoicism would be a sense of 'rationality'. When you stand before an event, either you can do something about it, or you can't. If you can't, then that's it, leave it be. If you can do something about it, think rationally about if you should, and if you should, then do it. In the end, you are left with one problem, not doing something about the bad things you can do something about.
The tranquility (ataraxia) found in rationality (~logos) is what I thought was the key point in stoicism, especially Aurelius'. The entire point is that nature is good, while The School of Life made it out to seem like some angsty teen belief. The point is the world is good, even when you get cancer, things are still good. You are part of this magnificient world connected by logos, and if you cannot do something about cancer, then that's it, if you can, then do it.
If anything, I see stoicism as an antidote to the general wearines and apathy ruling the West. It has serious problems, and falls short for other reasons, but not for reasons given by OP's video.
If one's mother dies, what is the stoic response? Should one grief, or ignore it because there's "nothing you can do about it"?
My interpretation is that you should ignore the death from a stoic point of view, but this is obviously not the healthy thing to do. Repressing your feelings isn't very good.
This contradiction puts me off stoicism, but then again my interpretation could be wrong and I'd appreciate if anyone could point out my error.
>puts me off stoicism
Not the other guy but yes, well, these Hellenistic schools aren't a buffet, they aren't passing around plates of philosophy amuse-bouches (or should I say, douches) for you to pick your favorite from.
Philosophy hasn't progressed in a linear fashion and there's a good reason for that.
I don't see why you would expect the Stoics to be perfect.
>I don't see why you would expect the Stoics to be perfect.
Well, I guess it's because I'm still a bit ignorant when it comes to philosophy.
>Philosophy hasn't progressed in a linear fashion and there's a good reason for that.
In what way hasn't it progressed linearly? By not being logically found? And what's the reason for it not having linear progression?
I've always seen stoicism as pragmatic. Part of that is accepting human duality, however you'd like to put it.
If your mother dies and you feel you need to grieve, and to stop yourself is less productive, then grieve, but only for as long as your feelings demand. See to your needs above your wants. Arbitrate the chaos between your mind and body.
You do know people aren't buying that to emulate philosophers, right? You do know its just a way to personally contribute monetary support to a well liked organisation while getting something abstractly sentimental from said organisation, right?
I'd basically say this >>7631193
Stoicism would hold that there are good things in life, and more importantly, that these good things cannot be harmed by random actions.
Your mother might have died, and while you might feel defeated, in an important sense, you could never be defeated.
Grieving would be very rational, as it would be unhealthy not to grieve. But grieving and stopping living as a consequence is not rational. And if you do so, then do it, but don't mourn that life stopped you in living, you did that.
I'd agree with the other guy that stoicism can be seen as inherently pragmatic, while there are deeper metaphysics involved. The metaphysics are flawed for different reasons.
The biggest reason I find to reject stoicism is the idea of 'rationality', since it is simply just inacurate in describing human life. It's "fedora tier" to use 4chans terminology.
Many reasons to reject stoicism, are in fact stoic, like saying "it is irrational to repress my feelings about my mother, so I will mourn her now, as is due, because I can see it is good through my rationality (through logos which binds all together)"
I haven't studied it more than on my undergraduate, so don't take my word for it. But I think there are a lot of deeper nuances in things like Stoicism and Epicurianism, historical context and things.