No.300
Too dogmatic, can't keep lying to myself for that long
No.304
>Making fun of my Stoicism
Eh, not the worst thing that can happen.
No.305
>>300What's there to lie about? Isn't Stoicism about being able to face the reality of different situations without bringing your own emotion into the mix to affect it?
As far as dogma goes, isn't it just a matter of living a virtuous life in your own context? Like sure if you were Aurelius stoicism is kind of rooted in the dogma of the Roman religion but the lessons to be gleaned seem pretty neutral and broadly applicable.
Not trying to start a fight at all I could be far off the mark
No.306
>>305man did you even read
>>299 No.307
>>306Yeah it's a pretty low brow depiction based on what I've read about the stoics so I ignored it.
No stoic would advocate allowing yourself to be harmed or whatever for the sake of having a stone cold demeanor. It's about controlling rogue emotions about things that don't matter that still manage to affect your state of mind.
No.330
I dont very much like stoicism as a philsophy, but nonetheless I think I have a somewhat stoic demeanor. I dont tend to stress or worry about things that others might (other than certain social things but m social anxiety is a different matter).
No.332
I practice a blend of the Cynic, Stoic, and Epicurean schools of thought. You can't trust anyone, and there's nothing you can do about it, so let's just get drunk.
No.369
>>298Why would i get rid of my feelings in service to some abstract rationality?
Negative emotions might not be desirable but there real, more real then any human constructed rationality.
No.372
As far as I know the main ethos of stoicism is that "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature.", but I can't think of any part of myself as an outsider to nature that can act somehow against it. However, I think it's very important to pay attention at what's the north one's will's compass is following. One can be following a deceitful north and that can bring inquietude (maybe that's what they call non-natural? man-made?). But I haven't read any of the big stoics' books so I'm behind their ideas.
The Stoics propounded that knowledge can be attained through the use of reason. But I think reason is better suited to demonstrations and logical derivations, but other ways of getting knowledge are good too. Like, some drug that lets you see something that you rationalize later, or an educated guess that comes from any source of inspiration (hypothesis, in some areas) that you try to demonstrate or proof false after you state it.
Anyhow, I don't think it's easy to really be in line with all of stoicism because they also had "primitive" (not to offend stoic friends) views on the nature of reality, that they called categories. They also held some literarily beautiful ideas, like the universe being a sentient entity called Nature or God, and thus fate being its reasoning process. Cosmopolitanism is a very beautiful idea too, but it's by no means exclusive to stoicism. And there's much more to it that I don't know, I don't even know about what I wrote about, I merely read the big letters.
