Fuck Stoicism and their moralfaggotry. Why should the rich enjoy every pleasure at the expense of my suffering. Worse, my "duty" to have children so that they too can be slaves of the children of the rich. Enough of Stoic submissiveness. Give me the complete set of literature needed to become a disciple of Epicureanism?
Before anyone argues about the misattribution of the quote in the pic, it is only suggested that Lactantius might have misattributed the quote. There is no confirmatiom that it wasn't said by Epicurus, only that it wasn't found in his works, but most of Epicurius works are destroyed. He might have said it, we will never know.
gay font
>>23353086I don't get the impression you know a whole lot about Stoicism.
>>23353224Yeah, no. That's not going to work on me. I've heard that numerous amount of times on different things.
>>23353086>Worse, my "duty" to have childrenOnly the later Roman Stoics really say this from what i remember.>Why should the rich enjoy every pleasure at the expense of my sufferingWhat are you talking about?>Enough of Stoic submissivenessThey weren't though, a few Stoic philosophers were executed for defying the emperor, not doing so would not be Virtuous, if you actually read any amount of Stoic theory you would know this>Give me the complete set of literature needed to become a disciple of EpicureanismLives of the eminent philosophers book X, De Rerum Natura, Horace, The Epicurus Reader, translated by Brad Inwood and L. P. Gerson
>>23353259Thank you.
>>23353086What is left to us are fragments and some of his letters and Principle Doctrines, as well as Laertius's documentation in Lives of Preeminent Philisophers and Lucretius's surviving rendition. I have no doubt there are multiple compilations of these available in single book form, it should be noted that the works of the heirs of his legacy have not survived either, so there is no way to know for sure what is needed to be a 'disciple' of Epicurus, there are various mentions of him in other sources that suggest he may have produced natural philosophers of exceedingly high quality for the time period, of course if you open your search to these sorts of accounts then you will also find plenty of sources vilifying him and his followers.
>>23353255>I've heard that numerous amount of times on different things.That doesn't surprise me.
>>23353291>I have no doubt there are multiple compilations of these available in single book formWhich one? How do I pick the accurate translation?
>>23353086>submissivenessBut its not.
>>23353304Well, it's the go-to defense of any believer of any doctrine.
>>23353259You're welcome.
>>23353275You're welcome(replied to my own post by accident haha)
>>23353086Is this a scheme where you try to provoke irational reaction from people who follow stoic philosophy so you could then claim that its trash philosophy because they got provoked?
>>23353357It's also a go-to response when someone makes clueless claims about a doctrine, whether you agree with it or not. You don't need to be a Stoic to know that someone who accuses Stoics of "submissiveness" hasn't spent even five minutes reading up on their ideas or history.
>>23353376No. I just want recs of Epicureanism?
>>23353400So why didnt you just ask for recs of Epicureanism? Why the stoics part? What need did you need to fulfill by saying those things?
>>23353392Fine, thhe submissiveness was inappropriate. None the less, the idea of stoic duty and morality doesn't work in today's environment, where the gap between a peasant, a noble, and a king is so large that engaging in politics is meaningless.
>>23353414Stoic duty is about contributing to the well-being of the whole. Politics is one possible way of doing so, the appropriate way depends on your conditions and circumstances.
>>23353412Because I am a former Stoic.( I did at the minimum read them, if anyone find my claim to being one as inappropriate).
>>23353414submissiveness comment*
>>23353346I see The Art of Happiness recommended here fairly often, Cambridge also released a compilation titled The Epicurus Reader as well. All of Epicurus's surviving offerings as well as Laertius and Lucretius are public domain and readily available but I have not actually noticed much difference in the translations.
Post books of Epicureanism?
>>23353461Thanks.
How would Epicurus react to NTR? On one hand it gives you biological pleasure due to instinct as shown by science, but it completely destroys you mentally and physically. Like a drug, particularly meth. How would Epicurus respond to being cụcked?
>>23353259>if you actually read any amount of Stoic theory you would know thisNot OP but could I get some recommendations?
>>23353495Don't marry and don't masturbate, simple as.
>>23353503Wait, really. Weren't they supposed to be hedonists?
>>23353507hedonists was a slur applied on them down the line just like being called a platonist was code for being a pedo (see Oscar Wilde). epicureans chased after intellectual pleasures, given that reasoning is the most noble faculty we have, not the carnal ones. nevertheless, you can see how such a movement was coopted by monkeys.
>>23353507Common misconception, they value pleasure as the ultimate goal but forbid most of them, focusing only on the fewest necessary to live happily.
>>23353518Thanks. What were Epicureans' thoughts on idea of love and relationships?
>>23353537Love is bad, friendship is based.
>>23353537perhaps the most important thing in life. think of Neitzsche's metaphor of the ubermensch in its original rock climbing context, that is souls working in cooperation to ascend to a higher level.
https://www.epicurism.info/etexts.html
>>23353086What is the best aim and purpose of man, in your eyes ?
>>23353496>Epictetus, Robin Waterfield translation>Epictetus, a Stoic and Socratic Guide to life>Lives of the eminent philosophers, book 7>Seneca, letters from a Stoic, dover thrift(read after epictetus)>look up Stoic logic on google, the wikipedia article is ok for a basic understanding, i have a stoic book by Benson Mates but it's a bit too academic for my taste>Arius Didymus, epitome of stoic ethics>The practicing Stoic: Ward Farnsworth
>>23353086>Why should the rich enjoy every pleasure at the expense of my suffering.What does this statement have to do with stoicism?
>>23353560Lies. Epicureans opposed romantic love.
>>23353560Epicurus thought sexual pleasure and committed romantic relationships are natural, but unnecessary desires. He was strongly opposed to them.
>>23353856they blaspheme the name of man and woman. and while we live, man and woman compose the world.
>>23353913What?
>>23353578Nta but to live by own his own morals while realising the pointlessness in doing so.
>>23353086Just refuting the "quote" here:God wanted man to make choices about Good and Evil to know their fruit, because God made creatures that actually exist with souls in a world that appears to be the real world (it is, but also a part of a grander world). By making choices that are evil, man does in fact condemn his own conscience by tasting the fruit his evil seeds bear, and his conscience is as eternal as the universe. Man will see the babe he has bashed into the rock, his own innocence and the swollen heart of his mother pouring out of her eyes, seeing how beautiful he is looking up at her. He will see how she loved because he will see inside of her heart. He will see that the baby he bashed is himself. He cursed himself and his mother's love and brought the most wretched woe and the person who loved him most.
>>23353086Why is every single atheist "contradiction in theism" answered by "free will"? Is it so hard to get? If someone is forced to be good, then he is not good. If someone is forced to be evil, then he is not evil. The only way for life to exist, is to give said life free will of choice between good and evil. If God made us perfectly good, then we wouldnt be good, and we wouldn't even be alive, we would be robots.
>>23353913>man and woman compose the worldWhat does this even mean? wouldn't you agree that all of earths creatures also reproduce?
>>23354979>>23354972It's because Theists also say that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent.
>>23354979>tornados exist because of free will
>>23353086>
>>23355093You’ve made me grapple with a problem this morning but I think I have an idea of an answer. Is it possible that God, being omnipotent, could create a reality in which he hides his total foreknowledge of events in order to allow for free will? This argument seems to invoke the old “stone so heavy he can’t lift it” problem.
>>23355305Are tornados "evil"?
>>23355093>God is omnibenevolentIn christianism we believe that God is good, and that evil comes from getting away from God. Of course, humans aren't programmed to act as God 100% of the time, because we wouldnt had free will if that was the case. If an omnibenevolent God forced you to act a certain way all your life, then he wouldn't be omnibenevolent, he would be a slave owner. The most benevolent way to act that I can imagine when creating life is to create it with free will.>God is omniscientI see 2 possible different answers for this, but I don't know for sure since I'm not God. 1: God limited himself, like he limited himself in many other parts of the Bible (He limited himself when he turned human, for example)2: Space and time were created along. Thus, God created time. Thus, god is atemporal. Time as we know it doesn't affects God. How God sees or knows things goes out of our human comprehension.
>>23355580What has this got to do with Marx?
>>23356013In the sense that it's used in the problem of evil yes.
>>23356065>God is good>God created timeNormativity (good/bad, correct/wrong, intentions) is a heuristic shorthand.Heuristics are used when optimality is sacrificed for the sake of processing speed. 'Good enough', cheap, quick and dirty. (One cannot track the full causality chain of your brain neurons, when there's some predator lurks in the bushes)Hence, if God is good/normative, it is constrained by time. Worse than that, if God is sentient at all (has intentions), it necessarily has to be subjected to time.>God limited himselfThe moment God stops being limited by time, it stops being sentient. Wait... OH SHI~
>>23356272You are using natural laws to define the supernatural. How do you know those things apply to God who created the whole universe?>>23356250>it's used in the problem of evilWhat do you mean by this? How is a non-alive phenomenon "evil"? I think you are confusing evil with suffering, which is a whole different discussion.
>>23356457Do you think God can solve paradoxes?
>>23356457>How do you know those things apply to God who created the whole universe?We can definitely claim, that God is not sentient the way you are. Because *your* sentience is an evolutionary exaptation of perception errors. An imperfection, a delusion, a lack.In other words, whatever you know and call "sentience", you cannot attribute it to an allegedly "perfect" God.Whatever God is, sentient it is not.Hence, God is relegated to the speculative "God-of-the-Gaps" scenario. (Some magic thingamabob *like* sentience, yet that is not sentience; etc.)Which opens its own can of worms. Because one could spawn infinities of what-if scenarios. And the more overabundant those scenarios are, the less value they possess.Positive transcendental arguments suck.
>>23356608>Because *your* sentience is an evolutionary exaptation of perception errorsEvolution isn't real though
>>23356589 This approach basically understands logic as a fundamental point for meaning, something inherent rather than its own thing with dominion over God in any way.The reason why a three-sided square or a married bachelor can’t exist is because a square is definitionally four sides and a bachelor is definitionally unmarried. It’s not so much that God is subject to the “”laws”” of logic so much as the very things being asked are ontologically, definitionally contradictory. Even just trying to talk about a thing that’s simultaneously “three-sided” and “square” results in anything you say about it being cognitively meaningless (i.e, abt a state of affairs in the world). Think the difference between “A car is over there.” and “AHHH!”.For this approach, a logically contradictory thing is not a thing in the first place - so when you ask for a married bachelor, or an eternal being to destroy itself, you’re asking for a non-thing. A non-thing, by definition, isn’t a thing. so God can’t create those things, but that’s not a limit to God’s power whatsoever because they’re not things - God can still do everything! Rather than being something God made for this world, logic is understood as necessarily the case in every possible universe (metaphysically necessary) and ontologically, for any and all reality, the case - hence, there’s no problems for omnipotence.
Epicureans are also apoltical as they recognize it as a pit of vipers that will strike at any shepherd. You sound like an internet proletariat revolutionary who gets drunk off gas station wine and $10 weed carts.
>>23357107There's nothing saying OP is not apolitical. Stop being a salty cunt.
>>23357107>N-No you can't just dislike rich people. That's immoral.
Is there like a list of all the works related to Epicureanism somewhere?
