Which way is better?

>>9670662
Neither Stoicism is a cuckcore reddit philosophy. Cynicism destroyed it

Mix stoicism with absurdism

>>9670685
>calls Stoicism a cuck philosophy
>doesn't understand Stoicism
>feels superior because of his ignorance

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.

>>9670697
What does your shitty NeeChee quote have to do with the OP's question? Are you trying to prove that you have read BGAE?

>>9670693
The two are not compatible.

>>9670703
I don't try to prove anything, just posting a criticism of Stoicism

>>9670662
Epicureanism is good for people interested in happiness and communal idyllic pastoral lifestyles, Stoicism for profoundly spooked good goys supporting the system out of duty, cuckservantists like soldiers and the like.

File: marcus.jpg (53KB, 736x460px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 736x460px

>>9670662
Stoicism.

>>9670695
>Y-you just don't understand it!

Go be a cuck someplace else, I suggest reddit

>>9670711
How did you possibly come to this conclusion? What do the Jews have to do with Stoicism? I'm not seeing the correlation. I think you took too much redpill, anon.

>>9670727
>Dude just like don't worry about stuff lol

>>9670731
Good goy as in loyal servants to the elites and the status quo, not so much literal Jews.

Poetic license and so on.

>>9670685
Do you guys want to end up like this anon?
This is why we start with the Greeks and follow through with the Romans folks.

>>9670743
Lets not go too far, there are some literal Jews too

>>9670737
This guy was a literal junky. He had the greatest opium stash in the Western world.

He was high out of his mind saying to his starving servants 'just relax brah just b urself like me i'm relaxed why can'ts you' *eats opium* *drinks wine*

He was also a literal cuckold.

File: timon.jpg (55KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 320x240px

>>9670751
There's always a few.

>>9670749
Follow through to Christ yes

>>9670697

This is a very poor criticism.

Firstly, Nietzsche is wrong in assuming that pointing out how Stoics have an artificial constructed conception of nature that is not in line with reality somehow constitutes a critique of the philosophy as a whole. The point is that external circumstances will always at some time or another be out of your control. It makes no difference whether these circumstances are the result of providence, fate, nature, or mere chance. It is out of your control - what is in your control is your thoughts, opinions and actions. Stoicism is about developing the skills to control these things. His critique of the stoic conception of nature is, while interesting, totally underdeveloped, and in no way invalidates the philosophy as a whole.

>imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power

Stoicism does not advocate indifference - it just posits that since your thoughts, opinions choices and actions are fully under your own control, it is better to spend your time and effort on them than on external things.

> 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?

Special snowflake nonsense.

>And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY?

First he says that life is endeavouring to live otherwise than nature, and now he asks how one could possibly not live in accordance with Nature. A ridiculous contradiction.

>>9670711

Epicureanism is good for degenerate weaklings interested in petty pleasure and creature comforts.

>>9670925
>i-if someone doesn't want to carry the master's burden like me he must surely be weak

Stoicism is the ideology of the mule.

>>9670984
>mule
>m ule
>nu-male

>>9670693

stabsurdism

sounds dangerous

>>9670984
>>9670737
>>9670727

It is better to be the master of your pleasures, than your pleasures to be your masters.

>>9671042
The fuck it is, its way better for your pleasures to be your masters.

>>9671042
Literally the definition of being spooked.
The pleasure principal is literally the foundation of who we are

>>9671070

Wrong. Our habits are the foundation of what we are. What we do daily is what we are.

File: 725533e21821a9b7c20410775f528676354dacab6baa90484089279d4b776e72.jpg (25KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x512px

>>9671079
>Our habits are the foundation of what we are.

>>9671084
I think saying anything is the foundation of who we are is too spooky. You can't even say you "are" without getting pretty spooky.

>>9671117
Stay in the kiddie corner friend. Desire is the necessary pre-requisite for the act of intentionality, it is trascendentally the foundation of consciousness. This is not subject to debate or memes

>>9671117
It is, but then phenomenology solved it

>>9671127
So desire is what we are?

>>9671168
Its what we are as individual minds. What we are beneight and beyond that is a different ballgame to talk about.

>>9671182
You mean is spooks?

>>9671204
*are
My bad

I started with Enchiridion, ordered a copy of Meditations (both of the books are George Long's translations).

File: Epictetus-Feature.jpg (153KB, 400x453px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 400x453px

>"It is unlikely that the good of a snail should be placed in the shell: and is it likely that the good of a man should? You yourself, Epicurus, have something superior to this. What is that in you which deliberates, which examines, which forms the judgment concerning body itself, that it is the principal part? And why do you light your lamp, and labour for us, and write so many books ? That we may not be ignorant of the truth ? What are we? What are we to you?"

>>9671042
It is better to be the master of your virtues, than your virtues to be your masters.

>>9671608

Virtues are a quality of the mind, which is under your control and not subject to anyone else's control. You have as much patience as you are willing to give yourself, and no one can stop you from exercising it but yourself.

Pleasures are subject to externals, which can be controlled or taken away by others. He who controls what you take pleasure in has power over you.

>>9671876
Virtues are subject to externals and spawned by externals.

Virtue is being a good boy by the standards of your surrounding culture, nothing more.

>>9670685
>t.Machiavelli

>>9671070
Even stirner knew its better not o be a slave to your urges.

Read De Natura Deorum OP. Cicero from a skeptic standpoint attacks Epicureanism and to an extent stoicism (while defending them rightfully enough, and inevitably sort of siding with stoicism). The last pages are beautiful.

>>9670697
His prose makes very good cringe pasta.

>>9670898
>> 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?
>Special snowflake nonsense.
>>And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY?
>First he says that life is endeavouring to live otherwise than nature, and now he asks how one could possibly not live in accordance with Nature. A ridiculous contradiction.
You've misunderstood this. He's saying that if the stoics mean to live according to "mother nature" they'd just let themselvs die and if they mean "live according to existence" their imperative is meaningless.

>>9670711

>calling all soldiers cucks

wew lad

>>9670753

>literal literal literally

please kill yourself

>>9672941
Its deserved pointing out. Sometimes people get called junkies for moderate use and cucks for being a bit of a beta.

Aurelius was a dope addict whose wife got fucked by other men.

Then he proceeded to break custom and give the Empire to his shitty son who continued to shit things up.

>>9672864
Yes, OP presents Epicureanism and Stoicism, but both of those were slapped down by Cicero's New Academy Skepticism in De Natura Deorum and his Academica. Skepticism is the ultimate philosophical position - whether you're talking about Greek skeptics, Roman academics, Tibetan Prasangikas, whatever.

>>9673013
Yeah he was more of a skeptic, but he had a little stoic in him (in the end he only fully despised Epicureanism and Cynicism), regardless, I do love the very end (from Cicero's viewpoint):

>and we parted, Velleius (Epicurean) thinking Cotta's (skeptic's) discourse to be the truer, while I felt that that of Balbus (Stoic) approximated more nearly to a semblance of the truth.

And Balbus's arguments for God were beautiful to read. Highly recommend again everybody.