What are some (good) books that criticize stoicism?

my diary desu, to a certain extent

>thou shalt
nah

>>9326788
the bible

a biography of commodus

>>9326788
Stoner, because Stoner is such a pathetic useless idiot.

>>9326799
But the Bible ripped off the stoa!

>>9326788
Ecclesiastes
Letters from a Stoic
The Golden Sayings of Epictetus
The Old Man and The Sea
The Road(fight me)

>>9326939
True, if by that you mean that parts of the New Testament occasionally used Stoic terminology.

The Noble Quran

>>9326788
The Gay Science actually has some good points against stoicism.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phbb.htm#m198

>>9326799
How does the Bible contradict stoicism?

File: image.jpg (657KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 1536x2048px

>>9326957
he said criticize

>>9327039
this is your best answer

also epicurus
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3wE4P-ZO1-BM0ZkNEt2bkFwQ2s/edit

>>9327043
hegel is disgusting friend

>>9327132
Not an argument.

File: George7a.jpg (113KB, 750x726px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 750x726px

>>9327043
I'm a dummy but humor my interpretation:

Stoicism is the pursuit of pure thought and an abstract freedom. The abstract freedom is confined to exist only in negation. Without bondage thought has no direction.

Man's bondage is his physical or biological needs and limitations. He exists as a dialectical combination of abstract thought and physical bondage. Man is truly free when he embraces both physical limits and abstract freedom.

>You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? . . . But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.

>>9327114
>also epicurus
>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3wE4P-ZO1-BM0ZkNEt2bkFwQ2s/edit
which part of this is about stoicism?

File: slide_2.jpg (81KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x720px

>>9328932
OP asked for books that criticized Stoicism, and the Epicureans (who Nietzsche also admired) and the Stoics were rival schools of thought.

In many ways they are quite similar. Personally I side with the Stoics. In any case it's useful to be able to look at the extant fragments of Epicurus' thought as a reference.

https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/Stoic-Epic-comp.html

https://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2016/05/02/epictetus-stoicism-versus-epicureanism/

>>9329328

tbqh apart from the bit about the soul the two sides of that slide don't seem contradictory.

>>9329349
Partly it's my mistake, the word 'rival' is misleading and implies some kind of feud that I don't think was really there. The different schools were just that, different schools. They weren't locked in a kind of an all-or-nothing death-struggle for The Truth in the ways that are perhaps more familiar to us today. People were just wondering how to live.

That's how it seems to me, anyways.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-epicureanism-and-stoicism

File: stoic and epicurean.jpg (104KB, 885x491px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 885x491px

idk, whatever this is from.