119
120

The Red Pill and Stoicism (self.Stoicism)

GoverningBoot が 投稿

It has come to my attention that some members of The Red Pill frequent /r/Stoicism, and they are attempting to use it to justify sexism. In this discussion I attempt to explain that modern stoicism recognizes the equality of women, and pretty much anything ancient philosophers had to say on the subject of women is completely outdated. For whatever reason, this was not well-received. Now, this is obviously something I have no control over, but I think we should at least be on the lookout for those who wish to twist the Stoic philosophy into something that it shouldn't be.

全 76 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]domperalt 37ポイント38ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's worth mentioning, I think, that several of the ancient Stoics were well ahead of their time when it comes to equality. Musonius Rufus, in particular, comes to mind.

And unlike many in the particular sub you mention, Rufus and other Stoic thinkers emphasized chastity and marriages of equal partners. (See Rufus' lectures on Marriage and Sexual Indulgence, in particular.)

The chief feature that delineates Stoicism from other philosophies isn't, in my mind, its methods, which are practical and amendable to experience, but rather its ends - namely, the pursuit of virtue as the sole good of life.

Someone who attempts to employ classical Stoic methods for unvirtuous ends is, I would argue, not a Stoic at all; on the other hand, someone who holds the Stoic virtues as a chief end in life but finds, say, some methods of Epicurus helpful in attaining those ends is a Stoic.

[–]nameiscubanpete 21ポイント22ポイント  (0子コメント)

For the love of Epictetus, we don't need to be "on the lookout" for people practicing the "wrong" Stoicism. If someone is saying something incorrect, then correct them. If you don't agree with their opinion, then share yours and leave it there.

“Nothing is more wretched than a man who traverses everything in a round, and pries into the things beneath the earth, as the poet says, and seeks by conjecture what is in the minds of his neighbours, without perceiving that it is sufficient to attend to the daemon within him, and to reverence it sincerely. “

[–]thedodonpachi 47ポイント48ポイント  (8子コメント)

I acknowledge similarities among the results yielded by Stoicism and The Red Pill Theory, but major differences of intent. It's probably a personal bias, but half of what I read on /r/TheRedPill disgusts me.

[–]Prokopton 28ポイント29ポイント  (6子コメント)

I just followed that link. What the fuck did I just read?

[–]dreiter 38ポイント39ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is a very unpleasant subreddit. A lot of anger flowing around out there.

[–]digableplanet 18ポイント19ポイント  (4子コメント)

Angry, butt hurt men who objectify women and try to get what they want by subscribing to the "be an asshole to her" theory. Their field reports are hilarious.

Check out /r/thebluepill - it's a parody of the other one.

[–]Bizkitgto -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Check out /r/RedPillWomen, I couldn't find any references to Stoicism though. Interesting point of view nonetheless.

[–]digableplanet 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

I just sorted that sub by the top posts and took a gander. It's definitely a more civil sub with a wide range of ideas on how to empower a woman in a relationship. Read some of the comments on TRP. They are just fucking vulgar and they reality have created an alternative reality when it comes to the idea of a relationship or lack thereof. It's like. /r/seduction on steroids, stereotypes, and a very "bro-ish" attitude.

I also find it really amusing that there are many posts in /r/redpillwomen that are messages to men who infiltrated the sub and probably giving hilarious advice.

I really don't see any connection between Stoicism and the TRP that's worth debating about nor bringing into this subreddit realm. TRP is toxic and lives within it's own ecosystem. Relationships, men, women, and people are so vastly different on the spectrum that simply subscribing to one philosophy on how to act towards women is totally setting you up for failure. Relationships are about adaptation, learning, and figuring out if this person is worth it or just a great piece of ass until something better comes along. Men and women do it to each other. I've been a victim of that and I've done the same thing to my ex-SOs as well. Such as life. It's a fucking minefield to navigate when it comes to dating in general for most people.

e: words

[–]Bizkitgto 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Relationships are about adaptation, learning, and figuring out if this person is worth it or just a great piece of ass until something better comes along. Men and women do it to each other. I've been a victim of that and I've done the same thing to my ex-SOs as well. Such as life. It's a fucking minefield to navigate when it comes to dating in general for most people.

This deserves gold. Well said my friend!

A lot of guys have a rough go, and end up on r/PUA, r/seddit or r/TRP. Some of it helps, take what you can to improve yourself and move on. Don't forget your virtues and to live according to nature.

[–]digableplanet 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha, thanks man. That just flowed out. As for your last statement, yea, I find myself in that "rough go" category for a while now. It's been two years since my last gf, I've just been in this awful funk. Just really depressed, self-loathing, procrastination, losing interest, and kind of isolating myself self emotionally, but still being social. Numbness while out with friends. Sounds like undiagnosed depression, eh?

In July, I took a really fucking hard look inside myself and realized I'm the fucking problem. No one else. It's not the girls that I think are not ignoring me. It's not the OKCupid chats that don't end up anywhere. It was the jealously I felt when I saw couples. It was I deserve happiness sentiment. It was me. Man, I don't deserve anything. The universe owes me nothing. It's up to me. I used to study Alan Watts quite a bit, and I knew it was time to revisit him once again considering my current state of affairs. (audio lectures and The Taboo of Knowing Who You Are. Pardon the epic music behind that audio file. It's a little bit lame. Just listen to the lectures without the Enya in the background. Alan drops logic bombs!

Anyway, I digress. So I started to make the conscious decision to fix me. Not by trying to become something I'm not, but meditating on the fact of what would make me better. That was taking more risks, going back to the gym (long time lifter/running, but I need to lose 20lb tbo), counting calories, beating anxiety & loneliness, constructive hobbies (writing, reading, cooking, computer stuff), and generally just being being happy. Working on my mind and body and stop worrying about the external reality. I let that wave of anxiety overcome me, embraced it, and let that wave recede. That has really helped me socially. The exercise 4 - 5 times a week has done wonders for my serotonin levels well. My main goal: Be a good person to myself and to everyone I meet Interpret that how you like. I just started to try again in life. Give life the ol' college try!

The universe and time works in mysteries ways, my friend. So take a seat and listen to an anti-climatic story that doesn't end with me being laid, but rather about a man putting in some effort into life. Since July, I feel better, look (slightly) better, and I've been going on a fair amount of dates recently. My career threw a whole new set of intellectual challenges at me as well (a good thing).

It's always when you reach that low point where you have that very real choice of looking deep within yourself and saying, "I'm done feeling like a piece of shit all the time." Some people are able to do that, and some cannot while falling deeper into that void. I'm slowly climbing out and beginning to feel better as it's happening. The air feels crisper and it's a little bit brighter outside and inside as I ride my bike to the subway station every morning.

That rough go can end. For me, I had to look inside my void before looking out again. That's what brings me to those subreddits you pointed out. Sure, a lot of subs work wonders in terms of learning about "how-to be social, " but being social is something that you actually have to do in real life. I can read about seduction tips (the jargon they use) all day everyday, but if I try them out in real life....

...I would be a fool

[Some might scream right now: "But, bro. bro. You didn't ESCALATE the situation with her, bro!"]

Why? Because it's not genuine. You are not being genuine to the girl and most importantly, you are not being genuine to yourself. You are a fraud, sir. And frankly, it doesn't take much of a social IQ to see how transparent you are behaving. The best success stories I read about are these guys who really seem like good dudes and all they needed was a social push and a betterment of themselves through positive physical and mental changes (i.e. practicing conversations, reading some self-help books, exercise, dressing better, and simply effort). Effort it key.

Again, that's why I don't like those subs. They subscribe to the circlejerk of their ecosystem and reality does not behave that way. Truth comes from within yourself...And Alan Watts.

I hope this makes sense. I'm a little bit high right now.

[–]skidkids 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't say it disgusts me, i just think its really cringey and pathetic.

[–]parolang 25ポイント26ポイント  (9子コメント)

I used to be pretty heavily involved in that subreddit, but eventually I found the movement intellectually bankrupt and, well, irrational. I was never a true misogynist or chauvinist, and so I could never see eye-to-eye with the views that seemed to come from a great deal of sexual angst and resentment. The pattern became clear, not just there, but all around the blogs about this subject, as to what everyone is there about.

There are probably more subscribers here also subscribed to TheRedPill than you think: "Stoicism" is a core part of their doctrine, and I used to see this place linked there regularly.

Not just in Stoic terms, but especially in Stoic terms, none of them are happy there, and this is true even when their menu of life hacks seem to them to work. They employ stoicism selectively, as yet another life hack, but they remain discontent with what they do not have.

I could go on, but it is mostly beside the point.

[–]10tothe24th 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

As /u/domperalt put it, there's nothing virtuous about what they're attempting, so by definition there's nothing Stoic about it. They employ Stoicism the same way mystics and pseudo-scientists employ quantum mechanics: twisting a superficial understanding of the subject to support their own pet hypotheses. Quantum mechanics means anything is possible! Stoicism is all about being super chill, bro!

[–]FUBARtheinsane 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

To be fair, you're making some pretty sweeping generalisations. It's possible to frequent TRP and take the good and leave the bad.

[–]10tothe24th 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's possible to frequent TRP and take the good and leave the bad.

That's true, I suppose. I do it with a number of subs I frequent (including this one). Though I would say there's a difference between frequenting a sub that you don't 100% agree with but which produces some content of merit and a sub that is fundamentally toxic that might spit out an occasional gem or two, if only because the Universe insists that broken clocks be right twice a day, no matter how hard they try not to be.

I wouldn't trust myself to be able to sift through the intellectual trash to find a few flecks of gold and not come out at least a little bit dirty, but mostly I think my confusion lies in the fact that whatever gold you might find there you could have found in greater quantities elsewhere, and less sludge to boot.

I understand that it's possible to do what you're saying, but I don't see the appeal when there are so many better options.

[–]PervyLemming 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know. I have control of myself and I have of control myself by controlling the people I'm in relationships with are two pretty different philosophies in my mind.

[–]whocaresyouguy 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel this way about /r/seduction. Some people see it as lying to women and playing mind games to make women sleep with you. I only take from it the advice of "working on yourself" and having "inner game" meaning you work on personal development every day in order to feel better about yourself and gaining more confidence.

Most things have a good and a bad side, you just have to take the good and discard the bad.

[–]johnnybigoode 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I know right.

I used to be all around /r/coontown and I'm not racist.

/s

[–]-Enkara- 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

But what about all the positive elements of coontown? Like being proud of yourself? Surely one can pick out the good while one wades through the overwhelming bad, surely there is no other way to achieve those goods anywhere else.

/s

[–]parolang 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then what I say is true of all of them, but for the exceptions.

[–]Bizkitgto -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I tend to share your viewpoint, I've browsed TRP quite a bit. They do have some gems on male self-improvement (Stoicism, health and nutrition, fitness, expanding knowledge, reading) and it's how I found Stoicism. They don't actively promote PUA or seduction techniques (they often direct people over to those subs).

In the beginning the core TRP beliefs were around the yin and yang, masculine and feminine, and how to embrace and live those natural/traditional roles in male and female relationships. There is a sub for Red Pill Women as well (r/RedPillWomen), and they believe in the same philosophy (probably more in line with the initial beliefs of TRP).

TRP is taking an interesting turn with MGTOW, Dark Triad (psychopaths) and Machiavellism. If anything, this should turn people away as this is where it diverts from Stoicism and living naturally.

[–]SelfHelpForBastards 20ポイント21ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think everyone, including TRP guys, can benefit from stoicism. And I think everyone should be able to post here without being harassed for their participation in other subs (as in your linked example).

[–]post-pao 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think what we can all do is benefit from some philosophical discussion. This is a philosophy subreddit, right? If somebody is making a disturbing or offensive claim, then it could and should be challenged by the person disturbed or offended. We're all capable of rational discussion.

[–]puddingpops 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

At the same time, this is a subreddit dealing with a specific philosophy. I wouldn't want it to necessarily get bogged down with having to refute this disgusting stuff over and over, that's gonna detract from what we're here to do, as well as get very tedious very quickly.

[–]SelfHelpForBastards 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I encourage people to read the thread linked to and decide for themselves whether that fellow was making a "disturbing or offensive claim" when he was called out.

[–]Mystletainn_kick 5ポイント6ポイント  (10子コメント)

What would be the positions of "The Red Pill"? From taking a look at it, seems to be related to PUA stuff. PUA stuff probably works if their goal is to pick up girls, but I can't see how it relates to stoicism, where the goals are different (Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius probably didn't go around picking up girls on the streets).

And what is modern Stoicism? The last great stoic philosopher was Epictetus. Is modern Stoicism Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius and classic Stoicism those Greek authors like Chrysippus that we know only by secondary literature?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the opinion of the ancient stoic philosophers about life. I would trust Epictetus or his master on how women should live their lives if they want to be happy than modern feminists.

[–]Aetheus 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

I would trust Epictetus or his master on how women should live their lives if they want to be happy than modern feminists.

Is that really wise, though? Progressive as they were for their times, Epictetus and his master nevertheless lived in an era where women weren't treated as equals or allowed a say in shaping society (Likewise, while the surviving Stoic texts as a whole were progressive in the "treat slaves like human beings" sort of way, I have yet to come across any Stoic text actually encouraging emancipation. Which is surprising, considering Epictetus was a freed slave).

And while we have heard plenty from Epictetus and other Stoics about how women should be allowed to learn philosophy, I have personally come across very little material telling us about what they thought about women and their place in society.

The only non-philosophical opinion on women I came across from Epictetus is that they shouldn't allow themselves to be sexualized from a young age (from a passage in Enchiridion, I believe).

[–]Mystletainn_kick 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, I don't really care much if someone is progressive or conservative. Much more so considering that in some ways, society has regressed.

It has been some time since I read Musonius, but from what I remember, he argued that women should follow the same advice he gave to men, except that they have different roles in society. Males are better suited than females to being in a shield wall and females are better suited than males in nurturing.

As for which advice to take, I would take the advice of the old stoics over anyone else's on how to better live a happy live. If people really had some knowledge of stoicism, depression would not really be such a large problem in modern society. And if I really wanted a girl to be unhappy, I would probably feed her a lot of modern feminist advice.

[–]Aetheus 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hmm. For all its flaws , I believe society as a whole today is a lot brighter than it was back in Epictetus' days. Sure, there are still corners of the world where slavery still exists or women are bullied into subservience, but those corners of the world are shrinking every day.

That said, while I'm not a feminist per se, I believe feminism (if we define it as "fighting for equal rights for women") still has a place in the world. Look at certain places in Pakistan, where women can still fear being shot just because they want to go to school and don't want to shut up and stay at home.

As for "being better at the nurturing role", I won't doubt that that's true (and the reason is equal parts biological as it is cultural). Nevertheless, we no longer live in an age where women are uneducated and men are the only ones capable of "bringing back the bacon". Women are (and should be) free to choose the roles they wish to play in life.

[–]Mystletainn_kick -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Materially speaking, society is much better than it was in Epictetus' days. Morally speaking, from the stoic point of view, I would imagine the situation of the world is pretty bad right now. A simple way to see this is how people view chastity vs promiscuity nowadays. We live in an era of hedonism. Most people don't even think there is something other than this.

As for feminism, there is a difference between "women in Pakistan should be able to study" to "modern western feminism". Studying is a good thing, for men and women. Musonius agreed with that.

Modern western feminism on the other hand, is awful. It creates hedonistic workaholics with a short fuse, it defends promiscuity... All the literature I have seen is "weak". Sometimes it ignores data.

[–]Aetheus 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmm. I don't quite agree to today's world being worse or as bad as Epictetus'. In fact, we've progressed a lot, morally speaking. Polite society frowns on open sexism, racism and deeds of inhumanity such as torture or slavery. In Epictetus' time, these were just everyday facts of life. Sure, we aren't a morally perfect society (and there never has been one, anyway), but humanity as a whole has made leaps and bounds in the past few centuries.

Besides, people were plenty promiscuous during the days of the Stoics! Hell, the ancient Greeks pretty much encouraged/invented pederasty, and Seneca does a fair bit of criticism on how his contemporaries spend their time having affairs with women and young boys. Remember, these were societies that deified a tyrant who raped his mother and sister, and seduced countless hapless mortals. Zeus screwed so many women I'm surprised he wasn't just straight up revered as a sex-god.

In either case, the Greeks and Romans did not shy away from sexuality. There has essentially never been a "good ol' days" where everybody was perfectly moral, because humans have been horny bastards since the dawn of time. The closest thing we have to a "pure and sexually conservative" society is essentially (extremely) radical Islam. And the results of that speak for themselves, really.

I feel that women in (most) western countries probably have equal opportunity as men do. That doesn't mean they can't be feminists, and stand up for women who are in less fortunate circumstances. And I have no idea how feminism of any form has anything to do with being a workaholic or promiscuity.

[–]648262 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

PUA stuff probably works if their goal is to pick up girls, but I can't see how it relates to stoicism, where the goals are different (Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius probably didn't go around picking up girls on the streets).

And that's the idea. To be an attractive person you should be someone like Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius - if you're a good catch they'll pick you up, but then you're busy writing your life's work or running an empire to really be too concerned about picking up girls. A step away from the shallow seduction mentality.

[–]Mystletainn_kick 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, that kind of makes some sense. But then, there is the matter of goals.

You shouldn't want to be like Epictetus because you would pick up more girls. You should aim to be Epictetus because you should want to have his wisdom. And forget about wanting to pick up more girls as an objective. Picking up more girls is not the way of achieving happiness.

(I would also strongly encourage you to not be like Diogenes if you want to pick up girls)

[–]648262 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

People enter TRP looking for ways to get girls, but they leave trying to become better men.

Well.. Some do. A lot of them end up angry at the world and not doing much else.

I would also strongly encourage you to not be like Diogenes if you want to pick up girl

Hehe, why's that?

[–]conqueror_of_destiny 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

"If only hunger could be satisfied by merely rubbing the belly" - Diogenes.

[–]Smartasm 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

to not be like Diogenes if you want to pick up girls

To be fair Diogenes's game works on more women than one would expect.

[–]csehszlovakze 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

I also check both subs from time to time. IMO there're 3 main categories regarding the subs: stoicists, redpillers and those who are both to varying extent. From that point of view, I don't see the need for male stoicists to differentiate between the sexes in any way, be it positive or negative.

[–]Enriquepollazzo 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

red pill is fucking idiotic

[–]648262 6ポイント7ポイント  (10子コメント)

I am happy to discuss this topic if you are interested in it.

I would like to ask you about some clarifications first.

  1. What is equality of women in your opinion?

  2. What are the main differences of modern stoicism and classical stoicism?

  3. Are the differences so big that it might need a separate sub-reddit for it?

In my opinion there are no differences between new and old stoicism. There is only old, and it is because someone had a great idea way back when that is still a topic people want to learn more about today.

And for whoever is concerned about it: I frequent TRP on a daily basis and you should probably tag me on your RES if you feel the need to silently judge me for it.

I do not speak on behalf of the sub in any sort of way. I am first and foremost a person, and as a person I am interested in a wide arrange of topics - just like everyone else. TRP and Stoicism being two of them.

I have my faults just like everyone else and I am sure you can go through my post history and find a lot of dirt if you so wish. I acknowledge that I do see a difference between genders, but I do not believe one is overall better than the other.

If that clears stuff, then let us begin. Thank you.

edit: typo, begin!

[–]parolang 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ancient and Modern Stoicism are necessarily different. For instance, we don't believe in Zeus and we believe that there are more than the four elements (water, fire, earth, air). And part of the task of Modern Stoicism is to determine what it should be, and not necessarily continuing ancient doctrine for its own sake.

In a Stoic context, equality means that both men and women are capable of virtue. It doesn't mean that men and women are the same or blank slates.

[–]KennyFulgencio 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

For instance, we don't believe in Zeus

whoa whoa, slow down there buddy

[–]648262 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

And part of the task of Modern Stoicism is to determine what it should be, and not necessarily continuing ancient doctrine for its own sake.

Yes, continious improvemement is important everywhere, but we may then miss out on the historical aspect of it. At what point does classical stoicism turn into modern stoicism and then into the next era of stoicism? If it is not the same, then they are different and it should be clarified which of them are the topic.

In a Stoic context, equality means that both men and women are capable of virtue. It doesn't mean that men and women are the same or blank slates.

I fully agree with this. It is a good way to word it. Was this not a stoic view in the classical era?

[–]parolang 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

In my opinion, if you get down to it, everyone has their own Stoicism, because Stoicism is fundamentally about living well. It is indifferent to me how other stoics practice stoicism, or what their beliefs are, or even how society as a whole perceives it.

Practically, if the doctrines diverge drastically, then there might be a reason to call them differently, but I haven't seen that too much. There still at the same time a diversity of opinion, but we all buzz near enough around the same ideas, as if we all know around where the pollen is.

I fully agree with this. It is a good way to word it. Was this not a stoic view in the classical era?

I basically found it here: https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/03

It really isn't incompatible with Red Pill ideas either. Part of what attracted me to RP at the time was that they opposed ideas which I also thought were intellectually bankrupt, like blank slate theories ("equalism" in RP terms). But when they hit on truths, they do so by accident based on prejudice, not on reason.

[–]648262 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

everyone has their own Stoicism, because Stoicism is fundamentally about living well. It is indifferent to me how other stoics practice stoicism, or what their beliefs are, or even how society as a whole perceives it.

Yes, absolutely. I wrote a reply the other day that I think I can reuse in this context because there is an interesting element here. I'll shorten it, but it goes like this:

Virtue is the sole good.

There is both a "why" (good) and a "how" (virtue) in the quote above. Doing pickup or psychology are not reasons for doing things. They are actions done to fulfill a reason. They are a "what".

Why > How > What

I support the notion that virtue is the road to being content and happy, and I apply it to my "what's".

Why do you do psychology? Because it makes you content with life. How do you do it? By doing the best that you can, continuously improve and sharing with your peers. You wouldn't do it if your "why" wasn't on point.

The "why" and "how" are alike and is what binds it all to stoicism, but "what" is where it can be anything. Its at that point the individual creates its path.

[–]parolang 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep. I might be more eclectic than the other stoics here, so from Nietzsche I've come to see creativity as essential to virtue. So the virtue of no two stoics are going to be the same, because they have each shaped their character differently, but without becoming vice.

[–]gaylordqueen69 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

How is it that everyone from that sub uses exactly the same style of writing?

Anyway. Modern and classic stoicism is incredibly different, largely accounting for the fact that we don't truly know what classic stoicism was. We have ancient texts and writings that give us an idea and a good summary, but we are lacking in the day-to-day minutiae that, in some respects, defines stoicism.

It's about the way one chooses to live, and without fully understanding how people lived in that time, we can never truly understand classic stoicism in the context it was originally intended. We simply don't have enough information on the lives of ordinary people from that time period. Only general ideas. Only impressions.

Any understanding of stoicism we have nowadays is, by necessity, adopted and interpreted rather than transcribed. Would a stoic in Aurelius' era find something in common with the stoics from today? Almost certainly. But would he share all of our viewpoints and strategies and practical implementations, or even the ones we have deemed to be the most important? Probably not.

Making a separate sub for Classic and Modern stoicism is a bad idea, by the way. Laughably bad. Although the differences are, likely, severe, we still can't separate the old from the new because of the nature of the way that we adopt the practices and the mindsets that are palatable and able to be parsed.

[–]648262 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How is it that everyone from that sub uses exactly the same style of writing?

Echo chamber - and to be fair; it's just me and that other guy on a lot of accounts.

It's about the way one chooses to live, and without fully understanding how people lived in that time, we can never truly understand classic stoicism in the context it was originally intended. We simply don't have enough information on the lives of ordinary people from that time period. Only general ideas. Only impressions.

This is a great point, because it really comes down to that with anything you learn. You can never really know. It is always just fragments you put together to make a picture that is just that; a picture.

Making a separate sub for Classic and Modern stoicism is a bad idea, by the way. Laughably bad. Although the differences are, likely, severe, we still can't separate the old from the new because of the nature of the way that we adopt the practices and the mindsets that are palatable and able to be parsed.

It's a good point as well. Might be interesting to look into flair. The historical aspect of stoicism isn't that interesting to someone who want to apply stoicism to their day-to-day activities. The historical aspect is "what", though modern goes more into "how".

[–]FUBARtheinsane 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well said. I frequent both subs and I take what is useful and leave what is not.

[–]MrChillBroBaggins 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The sub gets trashed on, and maybe for good reason, but I agree it has a lot of useful content.

[–]wea_boo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://symposion.acadiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2014.1.1.aikin_.mcgill1.pdf

[–]imperator-vitae 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Stoicism is about control of self, not jumping the gun and policing people for crimethink. Stoicism has its intellectual limits, and you should learn them.

[–]rigamortus76 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (17子コメント)

It doesn't really bother me if people want to twist Stoicism into whatever ugliness they want. If they do so, then they simply aren't talking about the same thing as I am when I talk about Stoicism, and then it's just worrying about a label. If I end up having to adopt some other label because of other people associating me with their twisted version, so be it.

[–]Eight_Rounds_Rapid 18ポイント19ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, I'd prefer to not lose the term.

[–]rigamortus76 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Me too.

[–]XanthippeSkippy 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

But that isn't under your control!

[–]Eight_Rounds_Rapid 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

If Marcus Aurelius can fight for the best interests of the Roman Empire and remain a stoic, I can fight for a preservation of an ancient term and tradition while remaining a stoic too.

[–]XanthippeSkippy 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

The problem isn't the act of fighting for something, it's the motivation. Marcus Aurelius fought for the best interests of the Roman Empire because that was his societal responsibility. You want "Stoicism" to remain tied to a certain definition because you, quote, "prefer" it. I share your preference, to be clear, but unless the best interests of society (rather than your own preference) are your motivation, it isn't in line with stoic principles.

Not that that makes you not a stoic, of course, because there is no perfect stoic.

[–]Eight_Rounds_Rapid 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Fair point. But I would maintain then that keeping stoicism about the philosophical tradition itself and not have it colonised by Red Pillers or PUA is in the social good

[–]jniamh 19ポイント20ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'm more concerned that if stoicism becomes associated with TRP, people will be put off from learning about it themselves.

[–]niczar 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's not a very stoic concern.

[–]niczar -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Accepting your nature as a man and what it entails, and living in harmony with it is at the root of The Red Pill. How is it not stoicism?

You are responsible, to a large extent, for what happens to you. Your social freedom is only restrained by your weakness to social pressure. Maintain your frame, build an immunity to attempts to manipulate your emotions as well as your tendency to let them guide you, become independent of outcomes in your pursuits.

Yes, The Red Pill is not nice. It's not evil either. It's about looking out for #1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any stoics making claims as to the social value of the philosophy; it's eminently individualistic.

[–]Skrioman 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sup.

[–]anaxarchos 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

We shall not forget pointing to our wiki which contains several quotes and excerpts about oikeiôsis.

[–]niczar 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's a great rebuttal to that idiot who said no woman has ever had any interest in stoicism. That guy's really dumb, whoever he is.

[–]Skrioman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because of the references to Ilaria Ramelli, you mean?