Why is stoicism not viewed as existentialism? If you were to skim through Aurelius or Seneca, everything is laced with it. The majority of people attribute existentialism to Sartre or Camus, but there was more honest discussion one's struggle with their crisis than any of the "existential" philosophers I've read.
>TLDR- the stoics were the true existentialists
He is, though.
>proposes alternatives to Christianity and discusses their merits and flaws
>says Christianity is ultimately a completely personal choice that is 100% up to you
>says organized religion is irrelevant and it doesn't matter if there are 3 billlion Christians or just you
>describes a world in which you have options and advocates for Christianity but says individuals' decisions are up to them and decisions and personal conviction are all that matter
Name me some philosophers that actually "answer" existentialism? The stoics were the only ones that produce a system of coping.
You could even say Camus (myth of sisyphus) took stoic philosophy and put a sensational spin on it.
Existential thought happens after the severing of God from philosophy in the west. They see the problem of grounding utilitarianism and deontology but see the response in a sort of self orientated value creating, whether that be the trans-valuation of all values, radical freedom, the leap of faith, plunging into the Absurd etc. By comparison the stoics are virtue ethicists whose conception of the self and the universe means that the grounding problem of the two other branches of normative ethics are really non-problems. Virtue ethics and existentialism rise out of two very different conceptions of the world.
What separates the stoics from them is that the stoics have an ontology that prevents existentialism. Their teleological conception of human beings and the cosmos disallows existential freedom. There is an external good to align oneself with and a strict set of practices to engage in.
Buddha had that shit figured out a long time ago
Existential despair only happens if you expect your life to have a meaning, it happens because people have sakya ditthi, personality view and they are attached to impermanent things, once you realize this, there is no craving for meaning, self becoming or anything at all and you can dwell at peace with the way things are
>the solution is to lobotomize yourself when this life may be the only one we have
Nibbana is not a lobotomy, this is a plainly false comparison
>Buddhism only makes sense if you accept reincarnation.
Buddhism makes sense with or without rebirth, the dharma has positive outcomes in this life, including the bliss of jhana, peace of mind - ataraxia/equanimity and becoming unattached to conceptual proliferation (becoming unspooked as lit would put it.
A stoic literally cannot talk about the absurd, if he did he wouldn't be a stoic. The Absurd and the stoic conception of nature are mutually exclusive, you cannot believe in both.
Nirvana is not a mental state and people who achieve enlightenment carry on living active lives. Buddha grew his school and taught for years after achieving enlightenment. It's hardly a lobotomy.
>skimmed a philosophy book and thinks he's an expert
OP, you are retarded. Existentialism and stoicism are completely unrelated. N
>A stoic literally cannot talk about the absurd, if he did he wouldn't be a stoic. The Absurd and the stoic conception of nature are mutually exclusive, you cannot believe in both.
the stoicism is to repel the absurd- this "absurd" word that you keep throwing around was coined by Camus (who later hated the word being associated with himself and existentialism).
A stoic sees that everything is in accordance with nature- but this does not follow your rule, that a stoic can not talk about the inexplicable weight and disorder that plagues us all. In fact, if you actually read stoic writing, they all acknowledge and believe your "absurdism" which leads them to stoicism.
If they had never thought about it, they wouldn't be stoics- existentialism and stoicism goes hand in hand. The stoicism is to combat the anxiety of the "absurd"
>hey all acknowledge and believe your "absurdism" which leads them to stoicism
You are assuming Absurdism and then claiming that their attempt to reconcile themselves to Nature is to repel the Absurd. The problem being is that you could say this about every conceivable way of living ever. There would only be philosophies that repel the Absurd and those that recognise them. You have created something so all encompassing that it becomes meaningless.
The stoics? They were existentialists. The epicureans? Yea them too. The aristotelians? Can't forget about them. What about those utilitarianism? Existentialist doesn't mean anything if you stretch so that it becomes synonymous with ethics.
A stoic would completely reject your assertions. They don't believe the world is Absurd so how could they be reacting against it? If you assert the world is Absurd so they must be reacting to it then we simple go back to what I said before.
Since you decided to be condescending enough to insinuate that I don't know who Camus is and that I haven't actually read any stoics can I go out and a limb and ask what works of recent academia on the subject you have been reading? When you read the classical stoics do you read heavy translators notes to understand how and why the translators have chosen certain English words for ἀkρασία and ἀρετή? Do you read modern works outlining their cosmology and logic (considering their ethics only makes sense in light of these things)?
In a 1945 interview, Camus rejected any ideological associations: "No, I am not an existentialist. Sartre and I are always surprised to see our names linked...".
You don't know what existentialism means in the narrow sense
proof that being in a relationship is compatible with ataraxia.