I
TL: DR
TL: DR
too long didnt watch
no, it's not.
Stoicism is a cope, and not a good cope.
Stoicism is a cope, and not a good cope.
I have read Seneca and Epictetus. Those guys lived in harsh times, there was slavery, extreme poverty, tyrants everywhere, but people still had a connection. People are the most important thing in your life. We don't even have that anymore.
We live in an unnatural and bizarre time, there's nothing in the world literature that will help you cope with it. There's no universal answer. Each person will have to find his own solution to this issue and apply it to his life.
We live in an unnatural and bizarre time, there's nothing in the world literature that will help you cope with it. There's no universal answer. Each person will have to find his own solution to this issue and apply it to his life.
It's a very useful cope for dealing depression, it works for me.
seems good but will not watch
Stoicism is good in theory, but practitioners of it tend to be total pussies.
Those guys were tough because they lived in tough times where the weak died off, not because they had some great philosophy.
D
Based. Philosophical.
I
I know it is a cope, that is why I posted the thread.
Explain why it is a bad cope though?
yea we need a marcus 2.0 in these incel times.
stoic face would be better
I'd say letting go is
I
Why? That sounds like dogma and doesn't logically explain why stoicism is a bad cope. Explain why vidya, food are good copes and stoicism is bad? Thanks
Good copes are copes which are centered around the LDAR lifestyle, they don't affect the copers mentality, simply ways to make existance easy
Bad copes are copes which fool the coper into believing some lie, and/or that they are in control of things they are in control of, or that irrelevant things (such as haircuts, personality, or stoicism) will change things for the better.
I
Why? Why are those considered good copes and copes that affect mentality of copers are bad copes? Who determined this distinction? Explain in detail please.
Stoicism doesn't teach you are in control of things. Stoicism doesn't teach you to believe a lie. So how is that a bad cope? Explain in detail. Thanks.
This is basically how my attempt turned out:
I am beyond human emotion and strive to be a great man. For I am a stoic
I am beyond human emotion and strive to be a great man. For I am a stoic
I am beyond human emotion and strive to be a great man. For I am a stoic
I am beyond human emotion and strive to be a great man. For I am a stoic
I am beyond human emotion and strive to be a great man. For I am a stoic
I don't think coping long term is possible without a bit of stoicism.
It's ultimately pointless to be upset about things out of our control. It makes sense to only focus on things we can change and start small and build ourselves up. Giving up is death.
It's ultimately pointless to be upset about things out of our control. It makes sense to only focus on things we can change and start small and build ourselves up. Giving up is death.
You are strawmaning me, I never said copes which affect your mentality are bad, because that's the whole purpose of copes. Bad copes are copes which cause delusions
Stoicism leads to a belief you are in control, even if it wouldn't be explicit
I
Explain who stoicism is a delusion?
No. It does not lead you to a belief that you are in control. I'm yet to see how you explain why stoicism is a bad cope.
Jesus fuck you are dense. Stoicism leads you to the belief that through is you are in control, otherwise, why even practice it if it doesn't do anything. The same doesn't happen with good copes (like video games).
Nihilism isn't even a cope, nihilism (the belief that nothing matters in the end) is the default position, and anything but nihilism is a cope, including stoicism, which is not related to nihilism
Stoicism and Nihilism can be intertwined.
Nihilism is the simple belief that nothing in this universe really matters. Our lives, thoughts, actions, emotions, systems of ethics, society. All that shit is just our minds imposing an order where one does not truly exist. To most this idea is terrifying, and is vehemently rejected by most people. To embrace Nihilism and accept that the universe has no inherent meaning or value can be liberating, and that itself can be interpreted as a practice of Stoicism. To be able to look at the cold hard reality of your situation, things that you do not have control over, and accept it with grace.
I
Ad hominem and personal attack, which means you are wrong, because those people who are right don't use ad homs and prove their point instead.
No, it does not lead you to a belief that you are in control. It allows you to determine by logical thinking which things are in your control and which things are outside your control. There are objectively things that are in your control and you know it. Stoicism doesn't delude you into thinking everything is under your control and you can achieve anything. It allows you to accept your position. You should educate yourself on stoicism before criticising.
So nihilism, another "ideology", suddenly is good, because "muh edge", but stoicism is bad? LOL, nice double standard.
Nihilism has negativity bias and teenage edginess to it. Stoicism is just accepting reality for what it is, not better or worst than it is. Stoicism seems most neutral. But I agree with nihilism to point that there is no real "purpose" and no real "meaning".
It was not an ad hominem, as it was not an argument, just a statement. Not everything has to be an argument. Saying "jesus fuck you are dense" does not make me wrong. You probably think you are so clever with these remarks.
Nihilism is not an ideology, and I don't where you got that "because "muh edge"" thing from
Stoicism is not accepting reality for what it is.
I mean, I shouldn't except much from someone who calls nihilism and stoicism ideologies, neither of them are.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't stoicism just boil down to something along the lines of: "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps"?
If so, I guess my response to this philosophy is: "Why?"
If so, I guess my response to this philosophy is: "Why?"
I
Prove that nihilism is not an ideology.
Explain in detail how stoicism is not accepting reality for what it is?
Variation of ad hom attack, irrelevant.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
