Why aren't you a practicing stoic?

>>1564219
What's a stoic?

>>1564219
I am. I pray every morning to the Demon God Sto'os. I make sure to do one bad deed every day in order to please him.

I am to an extent. You just have to accept what life throws at you. I disagree with them saying to never be annoyed or angry or sad or pissed, but i agree to not let it consume you.

>>1564219
>not expressing your emotions
>the things which make us humans
>not just controlling said emotions
Stoics are cancer.

Start of this song is relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EMV5vxhAWs

>>1564270
>not expressing your emotions

Confirmed for knowing nothing about stoicism.

There isn't a problem with emotions, it's not letting them rule you, especially negative ones.

What you suggest, in regards to controlling your emotions, is a sentiment the stoics would agree with. No stoic advocates turning yourself into an emotionless automaton.

Stoics are basically cucks

>>1564278
>>>/pol/

File: fedorareddit.png (73KB, 243x200px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 243x200px

>>1564270
>I don't know anything about stoicism: The post.

>>1564276
>No stoic advocates turning yourself into an emotionless automaton.
You haven't actually read any stoics, have you? I suggest you start with Seneca.

>not rule you
>not expressing
>not the same thing
>problems with translations thousands of years old
hehehehe

Expressing your emotions is letting them rule you, you twat.

>>1564270
Controlling emotions is literally what stoicism is all about.

>>1564297
>Expressing your emotions is letting them rule you

No. It's neither necessary nor sufficient for it.

>>1564297

>You haven't actually read any stoics, have you?

I have, and I've read Seneca.

>Expressing your emotions is letting them rule you, you twat.

Are you retarded? Since when? How the fuck do you validate that statement? Please explain to me how expression of emotion is the same as letting them rule you, and please explain to me how Seneca forbids the expression of emotion when he regularly expresses emotions in his on writings.

>>1564298
You can express controlled emotions.

Controlling your emotions meant to not show them. What, you think everyone couldn't control their anger? Their love? They could. Stoicism is about not feeling, or at least not expressing said feelings.

It's cancer.

>>1564288
not him but I'm pretty sure
>>1564225 is "I don't know anything anout stoicism: the post"

>>1564219

Because I don't believe in the eternal recurrence. Time has a direction, the universe does not simply repeat itself over and over forever.

>>1564304
>and please explain to me how Seneca forbids the expression of emotion when he regularly expresses emotions in his on writings.

hehehehehehe, so you've read Seneca. In Latin? In the form he wrote it, not in translation, so you are able to actually make that statement?

i.e. You've read Seneca's words and not a translation?
hehehehehehehehehehe

>I have, and I've read Seneca.
Why lie on the internet?

You can't into simple logic right? What do you think 'letting emotions rule you' meant in ancient Greece, if not expressing your emotions?

But nah, the Modern Translation of ancient works is how you judge your philosophy.

AND IM WRONG. HA.

>>1564314

since when was that a prerequisite to controlling your emotions and being equanimous?

>>1564305

>Controlling your emotions meant to not show them.

That's false.

Take for example that someone makes you angry. There's a significant difference between screaming at them and socking them in the face (an uncontrolled emotional response of anger) and telling them that you're angry and need to calm down. (A controlled emotional response).

Stoics acknowledge that it's REALLY fucking difficult to flat out do away with negative emotion, they merely advocate control. And they advocate only worrying about things WITHIN your control. Why chimp out over things you have no influence over?

Additionally, stoicism emphasizes the avoidance of negative feelings and vices, not all feelings. They're all for experiencing joy as long as you're not making yourself a slave to vice and pursuing pleasure at the expense of virtue.

>>1564318
>hehehehehehe, so you've read Seneca. In Latin? In the form he wrote it, not in translation, so you are able to actually make that statement?

Nice goalpost shifting.

Carry on being a retard. I've read Seneca in English, if that's not good enough for you and you really want to win an argument well done, you win. Have you read Seneca in Latin? Please, tell me all about it. In latin, if you don't mind, and no copy-pasting bullshit either, eh?

>>1564329

Those are minor features of Stoicism. It's core belief was in the eternal recurrence, and the need to remain apathetic (stoical) in the face of this horrific reality.

>>1564336
>Have you read Seneca in Latin? Please, tell me all about it. In latin, if you don't mind, and no copy-pasting bullshit either, eh?
Nope I haven't. But I can understand what he meant with his words and I don't take translations at face value :^)

Simply put you cannot see how in ~10BC, or at least attempt to see that expressing your emotions was the same as letting them rule you, the reason why stoicism was so popular because they hid their emotions. Everyone showed their emotions, if you were angry you would be angry, I mean you would control it so you didn't just kill as soon as you became angry, but you would show that anger.

Obviously they were not advocating becoming autonomous robots, they had no concept of a fucking robot. But that is the goal of stoicism, you completely misunderstand it's ideals if you see it any other way.

Again, stoics are cancer and cannot even understand their own philosophy.

>>1564353
>HURR U NO RED HIM IN LADIN SO U DUN NO NUFFIN
>I HAVNT RED HIM IN LADEN EIVER BUT I NO WAHT HE MENT BEKOZ I R CLEVVA :^)

>>1564361
Nice stoicism there, bud.

>>1564219
Bcuz Muh feelings.
There, are you satisfied?

>>1564353

>But I can understand what he meant with his words

So you read him in English?

>But that is the goal of stoicism

Prove it. Find me a quotation - you can do it in English because I'm not a pedantic dipshit, but if you want to do it in Latin be my guest - where a relevant stoic explicitly advocates for the elimination of all emotion, rather than control of negative emotion and discipline in regards to vice. You won't, because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

>>1564373

I'm not the retard you were arguing with, I was just floored by your hypocrisy and mendaciousness. No wonder this board is shit, it's full of literal faggits like you.

File: stoics.png (19KB, 618x260px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 618x260px

>>1564378
>So you read him in English?
I like how you cherry picked. AND I DON'T TAKE TRANSLATIONS AT FACE VALUE - that's the important part, funny how you left that out.

>Prove it. Find me a quotation - you can do it in English because I'm not a pedantic dipshit, but if you want to do it in Latin be my guest - where a relevant stoic explicitly advocates for the elimination of all emotion, rather than control of negative emotion and discipline in regards to vice. You won't, because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Hehehehehehe, I like how you latched onto a small part of my post. I have proven this with all my posts, with the fact that stoics do not show emotion. That's the fucking point. If you actually think about how it is written you will come to the same conclusion, i.e. you are fucking taking translations at face value.

Again since you glossed over, you know, another very important point.

I shall post it again.

>Simply put you cannot see how in ~10BC, or at least attempt to see that expressing your emotions was the same as letting them rule you, the reason why stoicism was so popular because they hid their emotions. Everyone showed their emotions, if you were angry you would be angry, I mean you would control it so you didn't just kill as soon as you became angry, but you would show that anger.

Care to explain your utter retardation? And why you dodged this point?

Simply put, you are applying modern times (where stoicism is in effect, everywhere) to ancient times where stoicism didn't exist and the onset of it.

You're an idiot. I will make it fucking easy for you and even give you a google definition.

>>1564389
Again, nice stoicism. I like how you missed the point.

>he actually replied.
Triggered much?

>>1564353

Also, in regards to Seneca, you are aware he wrote an entire work called "On the happy life"? Or, since you love latin, De Vita Beata.

Stoicism is all about happiness, it just emphasizes doing away with the needless shit.

>>1564400
>HURR

I've never claimed to be a stoic. You, however, are certainly retarded.

>>1564397

I'll take that as you failing to find a quotation.

>with the fact that stoics do not show emotion.

Prove it.

>the reason why stoicism was so popular because they hid their emotions.

Prove it.

Why did Seneca literally write a treatise on happiness if he did not think happiness was worth attaining?

Showing joy was not a flaw to stoics, it was merely about control. Prove me wrong. You're shit-talking, but you're not proving arguments.

Also the modern definition for the word 'stoicism' which you helpfully googled is a pretty big indicator that you have no idea what you're talking about, because anybody who's actually read the stoics is aware of the fact the modern word "stoic" isn't representative of the philosophy.

>>1564402
>Stoicism is all about happiness, it just emphasizes doing away with the needless shit.
How can you be so wrong? It's about being content.

>On the happy life
What the fuck, how is this an argument? He mentions emotions therefore you are wrong? Okay.

The title literally implies it's something lost to seneca as it's separate from him. He also wrote something entitled "on Anger" what does that have to do with anything?

You cunts don't think about words, do you?

>>1564410
>he is still going
Jesus man, you can stop at any time. Stoics are not meant to get angry, such as you are.

>>1564427

You genuinely are stupid. I'm not just saying that. Also, you are a terrible Taoist. Do you even know The Way?

>>1564422
I did prove you wrong, with you know. THe most broadest definition of Stoicism.

You are done, blood.

You are becoming a blubbering retard. YOu know you could make more points, other than names of works.

>he did not think happiness was worth attaining?
How can you misunderstand literally everything I am saying? Stoics feel, they do not show they feel. That's the cancer you mong.

Holy fucking shit.

>Also the modern definition for the word 'stoicism' which you helpfully googled is a pretty big indicator that you have no idea what you're talking about, because anybody who's actually read the stoics is aware of the fact the modern word "stoic" isn't representative of the philosophy.
>that justification
Just stop. Even if I had Seneca right here you would still fucking denounce it.

YOu're delusional. Just be wrong, for once.

>the google definition is wrong
>as I am right and it proves me wrong
hehehe.

>>1564435
I do know The Way, but I refuse to follow it. My way diverges when it comes to personal pleasure and suffering, I Will not follow the way I will follow my way.

>>1564441

So let me get the straight.

You believe that the stoics advocate that you should not express emotion - no good emotion, no bad emotion. That's your argument, am I correct? You acknowledge they don't advocate the elimination of all emotion, so we agree there. You posit they advocate that you show no emotion. You display no happiness, you display no sadness. Is that right? Am I correct?

Prove.
It.

And none of this "hehehehehehe" shit. Find me a fucking quote by Seneca or anybody that says "veil your happiness."

>>1564422
Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?

>>1564444

Like I said, you're a terrible Taoist. Also, retarded.

>>1564397
>Simply put you cannot see how in ~10BC, or at least attempt to see that expressing your emotions was the same as letting them rule you
Is this true?

>>1564450
>Prove.
>It.
heheheheh I fucking did you delusional fuck. Look how angry you are. If you expect me to repost things I have already posted over and over again? I will not.

Feel free to link this quote, take it to mean I have no evidence (even though I have provided you with ample amounts of evidence - translations, meanings and the like)

Let's just agree to disagree shall we? If you refuse to see anything I think I can safely move on and let your blissful ignorance be.

>>1564452
I am a terrible Taoist, yes. As you are a terrible stoic.

>>1564461
>heheheheh I fucking did you delusional fuck.

How, exactly? You haven't substantiated a single claim you've made regarding your position on stoic philosophy besides saying "translations are inaccurate even though I haven't read the original latin anyway". You haven't shown me a single stoic - in English or Latin - who at any point advocated what you claim they advocate. This is pretty basic shit. If you argue "x argues for x" you show where they argued it.

>even though I have provided you with ample amounts of evidence - translations, meanings and the like

You literally said "have you read it in latin? me neither but its probably wrong lol" You didn't indicate that you've read a single stoic text with any argument based in what a stoic philosopher has said.

>meanings and the like
A google defintion for the word "stoic"? Is that the depths of your knowledge on stoicism or are you going to find me a single quote from a stoic text that indicates they argue for what you posit they argue for?

>Let's just agree to disagree shall we?

Let's. You can feel nice and smug about it if you like, carry on being a retard. Maybe actually read something by a stoic so you have actual evidence to back up your claims next time.

File: 1451204115763.jpg (54KB, 535x462px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 535x462px

Holy shit this is a bad thread.

>>1564479
>You literally said "have you read it in latin? me neither but its probably wrong lol" You didn't indicate that you've read a single stoic text with any argument based in what a stoic philosopher has said.

Well I asked that as you said you've read seneca's words. Which you haven't. You read who ever translated it, heheheheh.

>How, exactly? You haven't substantiated a single claim you've made regarding your position on stoic philosophy besides saying "translations are inaccurate even though I haven't read the original latin anyway". You haven't shown me a single stoic - in English or Latin - who at any point advocated what you claim they advocate. This is pretty basic shit. If you argue "x argues for x" you show where they argued it.

>google definition is not proof as it directly proves me wrong
>I shall just ignore that
>It's wrong because reasons

>A google defintion for the word "stoic"? Is that the depths of your knowledge on stoicism or are you going to find me a single quote from a stoic text that indicates they argue for what you posit they argue for?

What are you even doing? You understand Seneca's defintion of what t meant to be a Stoic is different than Zeno? The most broadest definition (which is googles) is you do not express your emotion. YOu can take that to mean not feeling all you want.

This anon hit the nail on the head, funny how you haven't replied. >>1564451

>Let's. You can feel nice and smug about it if you like, carry on being a retard. Maybe actually read something by a stoic so you have actual evidence to back up your claims next time.

You are so angry it's not even funny.

Cya later, barry.

But I am

>>1564491

>Well I asked that as you said you've read seneca's words.

If you're going to be pedantic, nobody's read seneca's words because even the latin is a replication. Stop being such a fucking moron, have you read Seneca in either language? Can you please provide me any evidence that the translation is inaccurate enough that it makes the underlying philosophy of the English translation flawed?

>google definition is not proof as it directly proves me wrong

The word 'stoic' has taken on a different meaning to stoic philosophy. Taking a dictionary definition doesn't magically mean you've got a complete understanding of an entire philosophy, which might surprise you because you're obviously a wikipedia expert.

>You are so angry it's not even funny.

I'm fine, it's kind of funny that you haven't found a quote yet.

>Cya later, barry.

Later man, I'm glad you feel dumb enough that you're ditching before you look like a bigger retard. u mad etc

>>1564504
>If you're going to be pedantic, nobody's read seneca's words because even the latin is a replication. Stop being such a fucking moron, have you read Seneca in either language? Can you please provide me any evidence that the translation is inaccurate enough that it makes the underlying philosophy of the English translation flawed?

I never claimed to have read Seneca's words though, like you did. Why are you so angry about this point? If you don't want to get called out for being a retard, don't be a retard.

>Taking a dictionary definition doesn't magically mean you've got a complete understanding of an entire philosophy, which might surprise you because you're obviously a wikipedia expert.
It directly proves you wrong though.

>Later man, I'm glad you feel dumb enough that you're ditching before you look like a bigger retard. u mad etc
so mad, phew, calm down, lad.

>>1564509

>I never claimed to have read Seneca's words though

Oh good so you're actually just plain talking straight out your ass.

>It directly proves you wrong though.

Have you ever heard of a "spartan bedroom"? Do you think that the word "spartan" accurately reflects everything about being a Spartan?

>so mad, phew, calm down, lad.

Didn't you say you were leaving?

>>1564514
Badmon, just calm your tits. It's over. Why so angry for?

>Oh good so you're actually just plain talking straight out your ass.
hehehe, this is the point. Yeah. xD

>Have you ever heard of a "spartan bedroom"? Do you think that the word "spartan" accurately reflects everything about being a Spartan?

That's what, you know, the definition is for. xD

>>1564518

Please stop posting

>>1564504
Are you actually expecting him to find a quote out of hundreds of chapters of writings which express this ideal which straight up says "don't express emotion"

are you an idiot?

Wait, don't answer that, you are.

File: 1452411430004.jpg (45KB, 625x783px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 625x783px

>>1564518

I think we're done here, you've made an ass of yourself.

If it'll shut you up I can say you won the argument and I'm super pissed about it, does that help?

>>1564526

I think if he can't find a single quote out of hundreds of chapters of writings that in any way proves his argument he's got a pretty fucking flawed argument. There's your answer.

>>1564219
idk

>>1564526

Nice try samefag. He made a claim, he can't back it up because he was wrong, rather than admit being wrong he made a complete tool of himself instead.

>>1564521
You first, bud. Glad you are finaly done.

>>1564451
(for the third time)

xD

YOur whgole point is literally "stoics dont let their emotions rule them" somehow not meaning "don't express your emotions"

Actually hilarious how you won't even touch that point. Can't imagine your feelings when you see it. I can tell you are having trouble hiding those feelings though, as you are still posting.

Shi stoic/10.

>>1564534

You still haven't even proven that stoics advocate for not expressing emotions, anon, besides the fact that the word "stoic" indicates it.

You could actually quote a stoic philosopher but that requires you to have read them, so that's tricky, isn't it?

>>1564531
What do you think the writings are for though?

>>1564533
>Nice try samefag
?

>>1564540
>What do you think the writings are for though?

What do you mean?

>>1564538

You might as well just quote some things from the Stoics that make it clear they're advocating not being ruled by emotions, as opposed to completely doing away with them (or not expressing them).

>>1564538
>You still haven't even proven that stoics advocate for not expressing emotions, anon, besides the fact that the word "stoic" indicates it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>You haven't proven me wrong except for the explicit thing WHICH proves me wrong.
How can you be so utterly delusional, seriously? I want you to explain this logic.

Again, for the 4th fucking time

>>1564451

I will even put it in this post.

Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?Really, what point have you made other than "stoics don't let their emotions rule them"

And how does that not mean

"expressing your emotions"

Why are you twisting it to mean not feeling emotion?

I would like you to provide evidence from the stoics which you have read (and I for some reason haven't) which proves you correct, should be pretty easy, no? WHy haven't you done it earlier?

Remember, I am saying Stoics simply do not show their emotion. They feel all the same, they simply do not show them.

That's literally what it means to be a stoic and if you ask anyone from the old world what it means to be stoic (I mean I have been to a fucking psychologist (that's where I became aware of the idea of stoics)), but no, anon on the internet is correct.

Because reasons.

hehehehehehe, you're done.

>>1564554
You too, are missing the point.
>as opposed to completely doing away with them
This is not what I am saying, and shows you too do not understand stoics.
>or not expressing them
THIS is what I am saying.

ANd now I would like you to explain how "Not being ruled by your emotions" and "not expressing them" are any different in 10 BC Greece.

>>1564564

No point missed, the "or" is there for a reason.

>ANd now I would like you to explain how "Not being ruled by your emotions" and "not expressing them" are any different in 10 BC Greece.

I'd rather have you support your repeated claims that our understanding of being ruled by one's emotions is different from 10 BC Greece's understanding of it.

>>1564571
>No point missed, the "or" is there for a reason.
Or in that sense explicitly means they are one in the same.

>I'd rather have you support your repeated claims that our understanding of being ruled by one's emotions is different from 10 BC Greece's understanding of it.
Well I did, you just can't see it. Stoics literally infest every facet of modern life. You can understand it wasn't always like this, right? And is why Stoics are a thing? Because they were, at one stage, separate from everyone else? They did something different? i.e. they hid their emotions?

Why is a google definition of the most broadest term not enough for you?

Go ask your grandmother if she is still alive or grand father what it means to be a stoic. I cannot cure your ignorance if you are adamant in remaining delusional.

>>1564560

Stop being such a fucking child for a second, would you? The spamming is unnecessary, especially since I've already asked you to prove to me - with a quote from a stoic rather than a modern dictionary definition - where a stoic advocates for not showing any emotion.

If you don't realize why a word definition isn't the same as a big, broad philosophy with literally thousands of pages of explanation with actual nuance that you've ALREADY ADMITTED you haven't read. Also I'm just going to draw attention to this awkward thing you did:
>>1564297
>You haven't actually read any stoics, have you? I suggest you start with Seneca.

I answered I did and you did a silly shuffle about translations because you were embarrassed, then later on you admitted YOU hadn't read Seneca despite advising I do. Are you perhaps concerned that you're talking out your ass and running yourself in circles with pedantic arguments and trying to dodge answering any question I ask you to prove your statement?

In regards to your dictionary definition that apparently shuts down any dissent, I don't know what to tell you, but I can run you through some words that don't mean the same thing as they meant a hundred years ago, much less a word taken from a misunderstood philosophy that's over two fucking thousand years old. Let's start with gay. If I call you gay, what does that mean? What did it mean a hundred years ago? Are you starting to conceive of how certain words can mean certain things yet somehow not be representative of an entire concept?
Your dictionary definition is not definitive proof of your argument, just letting you know. But let's not get distracted. Let's not worry about "not feeling emotion" because as I expressed here we apparently agreed on certain things.
>>1564450

This addresses the thing you spammed the shit out of. I asked you to prove that the stoics tell you not to show emotion, with a quote from a stoic. I'm still waiting.

>>1564580

>Why is a google definition of the most broadest term not enough for you?

Because some things are a tiny bit more nuanced than a dictionary definition, anonymous. You might find some day that googling a word and reading the defintion doesn't make you an expert.

Then again, the way you're behaving, you might not. I kind of envy you, you must think you're really clever with your superficial understanding of things.

>>1564588
>I asked you to prove that the stoics tell you not to show emotion, with a quote from a stoic. I'm still waiting.
Wow, you actually went again. You're delusional, just stop. There is no helping you. You are literally asking me to post over and ovr the same thing so you can ignore and claim I have made no claims simply because the very definition proves you wrong.

Again, you are fucking done bro. I will make it easy for you. Call your grandma, right now. Say you love her, it will make her day. Then start a conversation, and ask her what it means to be a stoic.

You are done. I am done. SImply stop I have moved on, I am arguing with someone else now.

>>1564597
>Because some things are a tiny bit more nuanced than a dictionary definition, anonymous. You might find some day that googling a word and reading the definition doesn't make you an expert.

But it directly proves you wrong though? If you can understand the definition of what it means to be a stoic so easily, why is your definition not googles? Are you implying they are willingly spreading misinformation? Or are you trying to imply you have some understanding that the people over at google do not have?

>Then again, the way you're behaving, you might not. I kind of envy you, you must think you're really clever with your superficial understanding of things.

Ad hom doesn't add to your claims, I thought you were better than that.

>>1564598

>simply because the very definition proves you wrong.

I repeat: The definition of the word "stoic" is not representative of the stoic philosophy, how can you not wrap your brain around this? How can you be so adamant about not even giving an actual text by a stoic even a cursory glance to try and prove me wrong? How devoted are you to remaining ignorant about a philosophy while still professing to be an expert based on a DICTIONARY DEFINITION?

>SImply stop I have moved on, I am arguing with someone else now.

You said you were leaving ages ago, anon, I'm still waiting for you to actually validate your claim or fuck off, either is cool with me.

>>1564605
>he went again
xD
>he literally post the exact same thing again
>which I said was the reason I was done

File: 1458025739303.png (318KB, 449x425px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 449x425px

I honestly can't tell if you went down the "I'm just pretending to be retarded" route after you realized you were talking out your ass or if you're actually this stupid. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

>>1564611
Stoicism and Buddhism threads always bring out the retards

"God hath made all things in the world, nay, the world itself, free from hindrance and perfect, and its parts for the use of the whole. Not other creature is capable of comprehending His administration thereof; but the reasonable being Man possesses faculties for the consideration of all these things-- not only that he is himself a part, but what part he is, and how it is meet that the parts should give place to the whole. Nor is this all. Being naturally constituted noble, magnanimous, and free, he sees that the things which surround him are of two kinds. Some are free from hindrance and in the power of the will. Other are subject to hindrance, and depend on the will of other men. If then he place his own good, his own best interest, only in that which is free from hindrance and in his power, he will be free, tranquil, happy, unharmed, noble-hearted, and pious; giving thanks to all things unto God, finding fault with nothing that comes to pass, laying no charge against anything. Whereas if he place his good in outward things, depending not on the will, he must perforce be subject to hindrance and restraint, the slave of those that have power over the things he desires and fears; he must perforce be impious, as deeming himself injured at the hands of God; he must be unjust, as ever prone to claim more than his due; he must perforce be of a mean and abject spirit."

File: fuar.png (302KB, 1595x904px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1595x904px

>>1564605
>>1564611
Just answer the question.

>But it directly proves you wrong though? If you can understand the definition of what it means to be a stoic so easily, why is your definition not googles? Are you implying they are willingly spreading misinformation? Or are you trying to imply you have some understanding that the people over at google do not have?

Go ask your grandparents what it means to be a Stoic.

For the fiftieth fucking time. I am correct. Like it cannot be argued like you are tying to, I have a literal definition in support of my claims which delusional retards refuse to see(it's actually the Oxford Dictionaries definition, not googles). All this can be cured with a simple phone call, but you won't do that, probably too socially awkward to even start a conversation with your grandparents


>shit flinging ad hom
You guys happy?

>>1564352

you've got it the wrong way round. that cosmological shit is the minor feature, the absolute core is the personal practice aspect.

>>1564638

Could you stop looking up dictionary definitions for a second and actually read a stoic text to support your claim?

Next you're going to say the word "platonic" is an accurate summary of all of Plato, and all you need to read. Fuck actually reading Plato, the dictionary's got you covered.

Tell you what, let's agree on this. The dictionary definition of stoic says that you shouldn't express emotions. If that's the depth you want to take your knowledge of "stoic", congratulations. That argument is won. You've got that on lockdown. You're good. I lose. You win. We're done. That argument's over: The dictionary agrees with you.

Now that's out of our system can we discuss stoic philosophy? You know, the actual writings of stoics. You're inching towards it with Zeno quotes.

>>1564638

The important distinction to be made here is that we're not discussing "stoic", we're discussing "Stoic". It's unfortunate that the word has entered the language where the lowercase version does not accurately represent the Stoic philosophy, but that's just how it is. See >>1564630 if you want a fine example of how the definition of stoic is not compatible with Stoicism. There are, of course, numerous other quotes that could be gathered from many Stoic philosophers that say similar things.

>>1564658
>>1564653

Hahaha, nice.

>defintions do not mean what they mean as they prove me wrong
>stoics
are not
>Stoics

>>1564671

They're not, you're finally getting it. Again, it's like saying "Platonic" encapsulates actual platonic philosophy. It doesn't. It's a word.

Did you know the word "dumb" means both 'stupid' and 'deaf'?

>>1564653
>Now that's out of our system can we discuss stoic philosophy? You know, the actual writings of stoics. You're inching towards it with Zeno quotes.
I did. With literally my first fucking post. which we can now agree on, which for some reason triggered you. Which literally proved y first post

>stoics are cancer

Thanks.

If anything Stoics are not meant to show their negative emotions, they are to be controlled. Why are you, in a thread about Stoics, going on like a raging retard? Did YOU read those philosophies? obviously not?

Why are you basing your whole argument on the projected fact that I haven't read any stoics?

Again, stoics are cancer. As you have proven.

>>1564686

I'm arguing with you.
Are you angry? If you answer yes, cool off and come back when you've settled down a little and you've regained your capacity for reason.
If you answered no, congratulations, you've proven people can argue without being pissed.

>Why are you basing your whole argument on the projected fact that I haven't read any stoics?

Because of the fact you literally admitted it and also the fact you adamantly refuse to actually utilize stoic philosophy to prove an argument you made about why you don't like stoic philosophy.

>>1564686

>If anything Stoics are not meant to show their negative emotions, they are to be controlled.

>Again, stoics are cancer.

You've got the correct understanding of the difference between Stoic and stoic now, thank you.

>>1564681
Hehehehe, you understand one of those definitions literally includes the school of stoicism?

Why can't you just admit you are fucking delusional and the broad term proves you directly wrong.

How you think you understand it doesn't matter. You are simply wrong, I like how none of you have touched on the fact that I am telling you to ask someone else.

Obviously if you won't believe me there is nothing I can do past tell you to go and ask someone else, but you won't. Asking older people are better for understanding this idea. That's why I mentioned grandmother.

Stop bringing up the definition if you don't want to accept it, fine. It does not refute what I am saying though - it simply proves your ignorance.


How about this. Instead of asking me to prove what I am saying, let's have you prove what you are saying.

Prove to me that Stoics are not about not showing their emotions. Again, before you even try feeling =/= showing.

>>1564693
>Because of the fact you literally admitted it and also the fact you adamantly refuse to actually utilize stoic philosophy to prove an argument you made about why you don't like stoic philosophy.
Care to point me to this post.

I'm Loving these cherry picked arguments. Like that's literally the most irrelevant point in that post. I like how you ignored the rest.

>>1564696
Let me link you to my first post in this thread.
:^)
>>1564270

>>1564708

>to go and ask someone else

You mean a random guy off the street who, like you, has never read a single stoic in his life and goes based entirely on a dictionary definition.

Gee, I never considered that.


>Again, before you even try feeling =/= showing.

Ok, lets start with Seneca expressing his emotions of joy in one of his letters. He is speaking to Lucilius about a book he recently wrote

"I was not merely pleased; I rejoiced. So full of wit and spirit it was!"

There you go, a literal expression of an emotion by Seneca, the guy you told me to read.

Letter XLVI if you want to open up the Latin copy you have at your bedside and translate it personally just to be sure.

>>1564734
>You mean a random guy off the street who, like you, has never read a single stoic in his life and goes based entirely on a dictionary definition.
>Gee, I never considered that.
Kek, literally said to ask your grandparents.

>"I was not merely pleased; I rejoiced. So full of wit and spirit it was!"

This means literally nothing. Stoics are not against feeling emotion? I never said that. Seneca is for the expression of positive emotions, it neither refutes nor proves what you are saying - as I have said, there are many school of stoics. It mainly revolves around negative emotion, but it does also include positive feelings.

>>1564762
>This means literally nothing.

You asked, and I quote:
>Prove to me that Stoics are not about not showing their emotions.

I gave a direct quote from Seneca where he explicitly, in writing, expressed joy. Joy, you'll understand, is an emotion. Emotion, you posit, even with your handy dictionary definition you've been latching to, the stoics were against. Now you're shifting the goalposts to negative emotion which is closer to the actual philosophy, so I guess we've got a start. Rejection of negative emotion is indeed an ideal of stoic philosophy.

File: Words.jpg (36KB, 259x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 259x400px

>>1564734
>I rejoiced
Not him, I suggest you read pic related. Can you actually tell him or me what """"""Seneca""""""" meant by that? Keep in mind Rejoiced is a word of French origin and has no Latin roots.

It doesn't refute what you are saying, but it also doesn't prove what you are saying.

>>1564782
>Prove to me that Stoics are not about not showing their emotions.
Well you picked one emotion.

Onto the rest now.

>>1564785

lol what

>>1564790

Are you fucking serious my man?

You first refused to defend your argument with a SINGLE QUOTE from any stoic whatsoever and now you want me to list every emotion expressed by a stoic to prove they expressed emotion?

Sorry, friend, I already showed you Seneca expressed emotion in writing. Your argument was not "the stoics were against expressing every emotion in a convenient list from start to finish" your argument was "the stoics were against expressing emotion" which I demonstrated, unless we're going to start nitpicking translations in which case god help us all.

File: ''the'' bible.jpg (534KB, 1334x2263px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1334x2263px

>>1564814
Think. You are reading a translation which uses an old french word to attempt to express a latin idea.

You understand therein lies the whole fault in our language and translation? Meaning is lost through translation, that is no hidden fact, it's readily accepted by an scholar out there.

So how can you use a translation as literal meaning? It's neither here nor there.

Why do you think pic related exists?
Because of the inherent problems with translation and subjective meaning.

>>1564820
>You first refused to defend your argument with a SINGLE QUOTE from any stoic whatsoever and now you want me to list every emotion expressed by a stoic to prove they expressed emotion?
Well you want me to find a quote which says what I says, so yes, I expect the same from you.

You picked on singular positive emotion, which yes, I said some stoics (seneca among them) are not immune to.

Onto the rest now.

>>1564847
>You picked on singular positive emotion, which yes, I said some stoics (seneca among them) are not immune to.
Before you get all flustered.
>>1564762
>as I have said, there are many school of stoics

>>1564847

>Well you want me to find a quote which says what I says, so yes, I expect the same from you.

Which you still haven't done, so you got the quote from me gratis.

>You picked on singular positive emotion

Yes, and? You didn't tell me I had to find an expression of literally every emotion. You told me to find an expression of an emotion which you - with your repeated citation of your infallible dictionary definition - claimed the stoics chose not to express. Now you've changed it, evidently, to negative emotion.

So tell me, is your new position that the stoics were against the expression of negative emotion? If so, you are closer than when we started to the meat of it. The stoics DID idealize the rejection of negative emotion. NEGATIVE emotion. Your dictionary definition also suggests this by providing the example of pain and hardship in advance of "not showing emotion." A stoic might argue 'If your wife died and it was out of your control, why should you grieve? What good does it do you?" Basically 'No use crying over spilled milk." I would not see a stoic argue "If you got married, why should you feel pleased? Pleasure is bad."

>>1564895

> 'If your wife died and it was out of your control, why should you grieve? What good does it do you?"

"The will of nature may be learned from things upon which we are all agreed. As when our neighbor’s boy has broken a cup, or the like, we are ready at once to say, “These are casualties that will happen”; be assured, then, that when your own cup is likewise broken, you ought to be affected just as when another’s cup was broken. Now apply this to greater things. Is the child or wife of another dead? There is no one who would not say, “This is an accident of mortality.” But if anyone’s own child happens to die, it is immediately, “Alas! how wretched am I!” It should be always remembered how we are affected on hearing the same thing concerning others."

Because it tells me to deal with and accept pain, rather than defeat and surpass pain.

>>1564855

>as I have said, there are many school of stoics

Certainly. I'm pretty sure you've not read a single one, but if you have please feel free to indicate to me an inconsistency between schools on the matter of expressing emotion.

>>1564895
>Now you've changed it, evidently, to negative emotion.
hehehehehehe press f5.
>>1564855

>Your
Why do you keep saying this? They are not my definitions. They are THE definitions. There is literally nothing you can say to refute that. It's actually hilarious. Here I said something earlier, which for some reason you didn't touch .

>But it directly proves you wrong though? If you can understand the definition of what it means to be a stoic so easily, why is your definition not googles? Are you implying they are willingly spreading misinformation? Or are you trying to imply you have some understanding that the people over at google do not have?

>The stoics DID idealize the rejection of negative emotion. NEGATIVE emotion.
Thank you for finally accepting I am correct and you simply could not accept what is meant by emotion.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me. Thank you.

>>1564917

>Thank you for finally agreeing with me. Thank you.

You're... welcome?

if you'd specified that by "emotions" you meant "negative emotions" we could've spared ourselves this fucking argument. I guess you win?
Good job?

>>1564917
>>But it directly proves you wrong though? If you can understand the definition of what it means to be a stoic so easily, why is your definition not googles? Are you implying they are willingly spreading misinformation? Or are you trying to imply you have some understanding that the people over at google do not have?

Because the WORD stoic is not the same as the PHILOSOPHY of stoicism.

How many times does this need to be reiterated to get it through your skull, anon?

>>1564922
>if you'd specified that by "emotions" you meant "negative emotions" we could've spared ourselves this fucking argument
Maybe if you were not autistic you could have, you know, referenced that in your first post and not included all emotions :^)

Thanks for conceding.

>he actually dodged the definition part again.

Phew, lad.

>>1564939
>Because the WORD stoic is not the same as the PHILOSOPHY of stoicism.
stoic is in fact a noun, you know what nouns are right?

I think he's pretending to be retarded.

File: Noun.png (6KB, 619x141px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 619x141px

>>1564939
this>>1564946
Are you done?

>>1564940

>Thanks for conceding.

You're welcome, friend. You sure did show me.

>he actually dodged the definition part again.

>>1564939
>>1564504
>>1564597
>>1564605
>>1564653
>>1564658

I think there's more but this is honestly getting to be a bit of a headache. You're not going to admit you're a fucking moron who has no idea what he's talking about so let's just say you win and you can carry on living with this bizarre idea you actually know what you're talking about.

What I wonder is, between you and me:
I spent the last few hours arguing with a retard who didn't know what he's talking about. I admit, this was pretty stupid of me.
YOU spent the last few hours arguing about a thing you have no idea about. I don't even know, anon, I think that's even dumber.

>>1564965
>YOU spent the last few hours arguing about a thing you have no idea about. I don't even know, anon, I think that's even dumber.
What can I say, ignorance is bliss?

You actually do not know what a definition is. Or a noun.

>>1564965
Your head is so far up your arse it's not even funny. You are the exact opposite of a stoic which you are arguing you know everything about, absolutely hilarious.

At least the other anon remained grounded.

>>1564982

Is this a joke post?

>>1564990
Dam son, do you get triggered by any and every (you)?

Seriously, stoic is the noun which encompasses Stoics. Literally just BTFO your whole argument.

Good luck staying in control of your fury.

>>1565001

lol

File: 1458995920998.gif (1017KB, 229x188px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 229x188px

>>1565001

Ok there bud.

File: 41eyySnrHvL._SX271_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (22KB, 273x498px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 273x498px

>>1565005
Finally. Therein lies the whole value of your argument.

Nothing. Should pick up this book, will help you to grasp the English language a little better.

File: 2014-05-18 2411.jpg (215KB, 973x1467px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 973x1467px

>stoic thread
>everyone mad
>mfw

>>1564972
>You actually do not know what a definition is. Or a noun.

I'm saying the definition "stoic" defines a thing that is not representative of the philosophy of stoicism. I'm also saying that getting your understanding of complex concepts from dictionary definitions is kinda fucking dumb.

Either way I've arrived at the conclusion - a few hours too late - that I'm arguing with either a troll or a very, very impressively braindead moron and either way I'm completely wasting my time.

>>1565005
>>1565015
Are you guys actually now denying how the English language works or purposes of your argument?

>>1565019

More than two people populate this board.

>>1565029

>how the English language works

Words change meanings very, very frequently. Usually based on what a word is commonly used to depict. The word stoic has been used to describe a stereotypical understanding of what a stoic is based on a flawed understanding of the philosophy.

Remember when I mentioned the word "platonic" which you ignored? That's derived from plato, and no, it does not encapsulate platonic thought.

>>1565028
>I'm saying the definition "stoic" defines a thing that is not representative of the philosophy of stoicism.
Holy shit. So you are arguing something which is entirely subjective and your own view on stoicism. Thanks, I am done.

>>1565025
I know, I am proving the cancerous ideology that is stoicism. Literally fourth post ITT and is being proven with every post onwards. You may look at me as being retarded, I don't care - I am not claiming to be a stoic.

>>1565037
So yes, you are denying the English language you are using a singular example and blanketing over the entirety of the english language.

Now I know just how idiotic you truly are.

>>1565038
>Thanks, I am done.

You've said this a few times but you haven't fucked off yet.

>So you are arguing something which is entirely subjective and your own view on stoicism.

And also supported by Stoic texts rather than the Oxford English Dictionary. How are you having such a hard time conceiving of the fact that language is fluid and definitions change meaning all the time?

>>1565043
>And also supported by Stoic texts
subjective interpretation of said texts
ftfy

>>1565042

No one's denying the language, only that there is a difference between "stoic", meaning what has been shown in an image several times, and "Stoic", meaning someone who adheres to the philosophy of Stoicism. The two are different from each other, which is the problem. If you read the Stoic texts you will see that they (the major Stoics, anyway) do not have a problem expressing emotions and that they want to control them so that they are not ruled by their emotions.

>>1565042

I already explicitly agreed with you on the dictionary definition of stoicism.


>>1564653
>Tell you what, let's agree on this. The dictionary definition of stoic says that you shouldn't express emotions. If that's the depth you want to take your knowledge of "stoic", congratulations. That argument is won. You've got that on lockdown. You're good. I lose. You win. We're done. That argument's over: The dictionary agrees with you.

I asked you to actually support your claim with stoic texts and you repeatedly refused. Then you asked me to disprove your argument with stoic texts which I did. Then you changed your mind about what you meant (your redefinition of your meaning was also contrary to one of your dictionary definitions but hey) and asked me to find new evidence to argue in favor of a claim I already agreed with, then claimed you won the argument. Now you've gone BACK to the old argument after claiming to have won the argument with a claim you NOW disagree with again.

>Now I know just how idiotic you truly are.

Good, you said you were leaving a few times.

>>1565049

Read some of those Stoic texts, they're awfully straight forward.

>>1565053
>only that there is a difference between "stoic", meaning what has been shown in an image several times, and "Stoic", meaning someone who adheres to the philosophy of Stoicism.

You are denying the language though, stoic is a noun - for a Stoic. That's literally how the fucking language works. Stoicism is a fucking idea, it's a thing, it's a name - it has a capital. Like Athens, like Plato.

>The two are different from each other, which is the problem
They literally are not. And is the reason why we have classes of words. I really did not think this would become a basic English lesson.

Again, stoic is a noun for someone who adheres to Stoicism, how do you not understand that?

File: 7.jpg (78KB, 725x446px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 725x446px

>>1565059
>philosophy is straight forward

>>1565069
>They literally are not.

Can you reread your post, specifically the part where you, just a sentence earlier, created a distinction between a noun and the idea?

If we're arguing about the dictionary definition of the word stoic everybody has already agreed on what it means. The disagreement is that the meaning of the word stoic does not align with the philosophy for reasons that have already been stated and restated.

>>1565073

Re-read what I said.

>>1565057
>Good, you said you were leaving a few times.
Why do you keep saying that?

I like how stoic you remained throughout this argument.

>>1565069
>Again, stoic is a noun for someone who adheres to Stoicism

Just like platonic love is the love of a man who adheres to platonic philosophy.

>>1565084

He hasn't claimed to be a Stoic, or stoic, so why do you keep saying this?

>>1565079
>The disagreement is that the meaning of the word stoic does not align with the philosophy for reasons that have already been stated and restated.
Which are literally wrong.

>stoic does not encompass Stoicism even though stoic is a noun for Stoicism
Am I following you here?

>>1565084

>I like how stoic you remained throughout this argument.

Me too. I know you're just trying to push my buttons, I've got the bad habit of taking the bait because I like to argue.
Are you angry or just having a bit of fun, anon? Because I hope you realize that other people debate for reasons other than frothing rage, and if you can't understand that I assume you must be really angry right now.

>>1565087
>Just like platonic love is the love of a man who adheres to platonic philosophy.
Literally what? You understand English language is retarded for these reasons, it doesn't logically follow? How is that an argument?

Vegetarians eat vegetables, by your logic a humanitarian eats humans. Obviously not though.

I was just trying to insult you when I was calling you an idiot earlier, I didn't actually want you to expose yourself as truly idiotic.

Lets not even get started on -
>Platonic love is a type of love that is non-sexual. The term is named after Plato, who described a kind of love centered on male-male relations and included sex which underwent a transformation during Renaissance (15th-16th centuries) to get its contemporary sense of asexual heterosexual love.

It does actually encompass some for of Plato philosophy. Keep in mind it's only capital in this case as is required by English language and is the start of a sentence.

>>1565092
>Which are literally wrong.

Which you base on your reading of stoic texts, correct?
Because you still haven't provided a single example from any stoic writer that in supports this.

>Am I following you here?

Yes. Just like, as I've said several times and you keep ignoring, "Platonic" is not a summary of all of plato's philosophy and the dictionary definition of such should not be used as a substitute for actually reading the philosophy.

Stoic to mean "confront something without emotion" is partially true in regards to the ideal stoic confronting a negative event without negative emotion. We've been over this repeatedly - that's where it ends. Definitions that say stoicism is an absense of emotion alltogether do not accurately define stoic philosophy, and you'd know that if you stopped shitposting for a second and actually read any book by a reputable stoic philosopher.

>>1565094
>I know you're just trying to push my buttons
You can look at it like that all you want, all I have literally done is given you widely accepted definitions (multiple) which you refuse to see as you simply do not understand how the English language works.

I mean it's so evident now.

But yeah, I am just pushing your buttons for the fun of it.
Kek.

>>1565112

>It does actually encompass some for of Plato philosophy.

Yes, and yet if you tried to discuss Plato with the Oxford dictionary you'd be fucking laughed at like the moron you are, are you starting to get it? It's a smidge from the Symposium used as a word to express a certain thing, it doesn't reflect Platonic philosophy.

>>1565121
>You can look at it like that all you want, all I have literally done is given you widely accepted definitions (multiple) which you refuse to see as you simply do not understand how the English language works.

I've had to repeat this I think three times now.

>>Tell you what, let's agree on this. The dictionary definition of stoic says that you shouldn't express emotions. If that's the depth you want to take your knowledge of "stoic", congratulations. That argument is won. You've got that on lockdown. You're good. I lose. You win. We're done. That argument's over: The dictionary agrees with you.

I'm not arguing with the Oxford English Dictionary over what Bill means when he calls someone "stoic", I'm telling you that what the actual who wrote actual stoic philosophy does not conform to the dictionary and Bill's accepted meaning in the 21st century.

>>1565124
>it doesn't reflect Platonic philosophy.
It literally does, it's your own subjective view which takes it out. You are not arguing objectivity, you are arguing your own view. But that is besides the point.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. ENGLISH DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. IT'S A CHAOTIC MESS. Humanitarians do not eat humans so why should platonic incorporate anything Plato (even though it does). You need to drop this point, it doesn't support your argument at all and remaining ignorant is not a point in your favor.

>dodging all the points about how you fundamentally misunderstand English grammar which is causing this whole argument.

STUDY. I mean we agree on the emotion part, why are you still going?

>>1565143

>IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. ENGLISH DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. IT'S A CHAOTIC MESS. Humanitarians do not eat humans so why should platonic incorporate anything Plato (even though it does)

Then why the fuck does the modern word "stoic" HAVE TO be a 100% accurate summary of an entire philosophy despite the actual texts of that philosophy directly contradicting that definition?

Why are you taking such a hard-line literalistic comparison of the word stoic to the stoic philosophy when you acknowledge that the Enlgish language is fluid and that words mean different things all the damn time?

>>1565143
>ENGLISH DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. IT'S A CHAOTIC MESS. Humanitarians do not eat humans so why should platonic incorporate anything Plato (even though it does).

But stoic must = Stoic?

>>1565143

This is a Stoa from which Stoic got its name, by the way.

Can we agree we're not talking about the fucking stoa or are you going to say Marcus Aurelius is a building?

File: download.jpg (7KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x194px

>>1565155

Captcha fucked me.

>>1565135
>I'm not arguing with the Oxford English Dictionary over what Bill means when he calls someone "stoic", I'm telling you that what the actual who wrote actual stoic philosophy does not conform to the dictionary and Bill's accepted meaning in the 21st century.
And I am telling you that is your own subjective view.

Nowhere did I say a single sentence could encompass the whole of stoicism, it's all about hiding those emotions though, which was my original point which we now agree on but simply disagree on positive and negative emotions which is where stoicism diverges. Which I really couldn't care less about as you would tell from my fourth post, stoicism is cancer and denies that which makes us human.

>I'm telling you that what the actual who wrote actual stoic philosophy does not conform to the dictionary and Bill's accepted meaning in the 21st century.
Can you actually point me to where I said otherwise?
I mean really think about my posts (you didn't). Point me to the exact place where I said the definition of stoicism is anything but something which includes the hiding of emotion? (which you now actually agree on)

I mean you accused me of shifting the goal posts, but here is the evolution of your argument
>stoics don't hide emotion
>stoics only hide negative emotion
>Stoics are not stoics
and finally
>what it means to be a stoic in the 21st century isn't what it was in 10BC.

All I literally said was stoics hide their emotions.

WHY ARE YOU STILL ARGUING WITH HIM, HE HAS BLATANTLY SHIFTED THE GOALPOSTS AND REVEALED HE IS A TROLL! JESUS WEPT!

>>1565161
>it's all about hiding those emotions though

Yes and that's false as I showed you with a Seneca quotation and which you'd very quickly learn if you opened any book on stoicism that isn't a dictionary, my friend. You'll recall after I posted that quotation when you prompty changed goalposts to "negative emotion" despite that not conforming to the dictionary, and then saying you won the argument.

>I mean you accused me of shifting the goal posts, but here is the evolution of your argument
>stoics don't hide emotion
>stoics only hide negative emotion
>Stoics are not stoics

Actually, this was the evolution of the argument.

You posited stoics hide their emotions. I told you this is false because stoics express positive emotions, which are, in fact, emotions. Then I proved it. Then YOU changed YOUR position to stoics hiding negative emotions which I agreed with.

>Stoics are not stoics

Stoics are not Oxford English Dictionary Stoics.

>All I literally said was stoics hide their emotions.

You changed that to "negative emotions" and you were slightly less of a moron for a minute, but then you changed it back.

>>1565169

You're right anon, this is becoming an abusive relationship, I just can't quit him.

But for real you're right, I'm gonna quit here. He can claim victory and shit. If anyone else starts off on him it isn't me.

>>1565149
>entire philosophy despite the actual texts of that philosophy directly contradicting that definition?
Your subjective definition does not refute anything.

>Why are you taking such a hard-line literalistic comparison of the word stoic to the stoic philosophy when you acknowledge that the Enlgish language is fluid and that words mean different things all the damn time?

Why do you refuse to accept that stoic is literally a noun for Stoic? Why does platonic have to reference Plato? Why can't you see that English is a fucking mess and the examples you are using are weak and are just exposing your ignorance of the language? One example cannot be blanketed over everything and English is a prime exampleof that.

http://aclassen.faculty.arizona.edu/english_language_crazy_inconsistencies

1) The bandage was wound around his leg to cover his wound.
2) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
3) The dump was full, and had to refuse further refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) "No time like the present," he said. "It's time to present her the present."
8) A large-mouthed bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) Startled, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance on the invalid was invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about who could row the best.

If you went to an non-English speaker and asked them what platonic meant and they had ideas of Plato they would think it was directly related to Plato, the English language is retarded, I hope you can understand this?

>>1565152
When stoic is a noun for Stoic, yes it does. platonic is not a noun for Plato, just because it's derived from Plato doesn't mean they are directly related (even though in this case of platonic they are).

>>1565177
Hey bro, my argument has stayed the same. It was you who actually agreed WITH ME, when we got a bit deeper into the subject.

The fact that stoics do not show their emotions remains true. Sure you can delve deep into saying they do not show 'negative' emotion but the point remains that they hide their emotion, we are now heavily arguing yours (I dunno) ignorance of the English language.

Feel free to stop any time. We have actually been in agreement this whole time, you just got triggered by semantics, as do most retards in this place.

>>1565186

There's nothing crazy or inconsistent about any of those examples, those are all different words that simply share a spelling.

>>1565219
Okay fine, platonic is not a noun for Plato, or anyone of his school of thought, so why should it encompass his philosophy (even though it does). I have given you many examples which show you the English language does not operate on that logic.

>>1565208
>you just got triggered by semantics, as do most retards in this place.
I am going to add I fucking love this place for this reason alone.

Nothing gets my dick harder than arguing semantics. Read >>1564785 and you all will feel the same.

>>1564717
>>1564298
>>1564288
>>1564276

to be fair that's what stoicism is to us Americans.

For me stoicism is always a must if there is something you have to absolutely get done. But if things are uncertain you cannot be too rigid.

>>1564219
Because Nietzsche was right.

because God is evil

>>1564219
I try but I'm too hot headed to be a succesful stoic