Don’t have to take everything a man says as gospel. Bruce Lee said it best “ Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own “
A man once asked Bruce Lee "you talk a lot about peace but you teach fight? how you combine both together?". then Bruce Lee told him to fuck off and ate his dog
@@leversandpulleys9274 Good point. Bruce also used to provoke fights on the streets just to test his skills. That's not an example of good behavior if you ask me.
I use stoicism instrumentally, like a box that I put the things I can not control .. but not when it comes to my goals in life, because I'm highly aware of the fine line between stoicism and nihilsm
Yeah, no, Stoicism isn't even close to nihilism. Sure, it does advocate for not getting too emotional when bad stuff happens, though even that's only because it's considered irrational (and rationality is valued very highly in stoicism). Stoicism makes a shitload of claims about what's meaningful, and about what people should and shouldn't do. I don't really understand the connection people sometimes make between nihilism and stoicism, but maybe it's because not everyone realizes you don't need fear or pleasure alone to drive you in life when you have a strong sense of meaningfulness for what you do. Honestly, I feel like people who are driven mainly by fear and the desire for pleasure are the ones who lack strong value systems, and are just being pulled through life by their impulses and neuroticism. AFAICT, when people lack real meaning in their lives is when they turn to hedonism and fear to fill the void. But having strong values should just lead you to focus and work hard. Getting upset when something goes wrong is usually just a distraction from fixing the problem. That's why in Stoicism one of the main themes you'll see is that one should care about giving a strong EFFORT, but not directly about the OUTCOME (since your effort is the only variable you can actually control, and thus the only one relevant to anything you care about). But choosing not to worry about things isn't the same as literally believing that nothing has any inherent value. It just means you don't consider worrying valuable. (All that said, IMO Stoicism has some flaws. For one thing, life isn't complete without a splash of emotion here and there. But it's also got some really good points for how live meaningfully and let go of pointless fear, and understanding them works well to enrich life)
@@jeremylynwood3604 what values exist outside of pleasure of some kind. While you could argue pleasure is different than what is "good" youd be hard pressed to define good or value outside a positive emotional experience of some kind that's not completely arbitrary which would be circular reasoning and thus irrational. What is justice or virtue outside evaluations that make something valued based on some kind of subjective judgment that affirms its value? Sure I can arbitrarily label red being the best color but I cant get to that conclusion by reason. Same with conceptions of fair or unfair. Independent of evaluation or preference for one out come over another e.g we should not harm self or others we cannot even define what justice is. What is justice outside our emotional response to it? Not to mention the inevitability of defining such subjective experiences as the root of our understanding if such concepts like justice because of OUR nature which is Nietzsches point.. we cannot be other than we are but the stoics would have us be otherwise
@@jeremylynwood3604 even though i use many stoic teachings in my life, i don't really call myself one because stoicism is heavily anchored on their metaphysical and meta ethical views which i am skeptical
One was an accomplished man who chose the life of stoicism. The other was a man who was nihilistic, depressed and turned himself mad in isolation. One tested his stoicism while having the option to lead a more epicurean lifestyle, the other did not live by his philosophy. No debate needed. I’d prefer to see one of Seneca and Epicurus.
If Nietzsche "hated" stoicism, then why did he take one of stoic principles - that being _Amor fati_ - and put it in such an important place in his own philosophy? We need to take a look beyond 'Beyond Good and Evil', to see that he didn't despise this philosophy, but regarded it with deep respect. One reason for that is the already mentioned 'Amor fati'. Another reason is the fact that he decided to use his words to criticise it: we do not criticise that which we do not consider important or does not concern us in any way whatsoever. I could also argue that Nietzsche lived his life in a stoic way: remember, he had always suffered from numerous health problems, yet he fearlessly took a path of a dangerous living (by leaving his safe job place as a professor) in order to be able to improve himself as a philosopher - or, in other words, endure what has to be endured, in order to fulfill one's duty as a human being: in his case, writing great works of philosophy which still affect our thought.
Maybe he didn't "hate" stoicism, but the essence of the contention Nietzche had against stoicism is its rejection of the passions. This is the same criticism he levied against Christianity and other forms of faith. Core to the criticism is that stoicism is a contradictory philosophical outlook. In imposing so much restraint to the self, as a means to act in accordance with this detached conception of nature, the stoic is trying to act against the fate of suffering. There is an analogous character in stoicism and asceticism. Instead of expressing one's self and one's life, the stoic sees himself in fault and tries to repress himself to act in accordance with virtue, or "nature". Nietzche valued directed expression of emotions, not repression.
The difference between Nietzsche & 'most' of Stoicism is the means in which they aim to achieve their end goal. The result may ultimately be the same, or similar in-spirit, and the path may even almost be identical, but the ideas which provide the impetus for action are worlds apart(or maybe just words apart haha like just worded extremely differently as in core message and goal is ultimately sorta the same but the wording is just extremely different haha also I'm retarded)
"Vengeance on Intellect, and other Backgrounds of Morality. Morality - where do you think it has its most dangerous and rancorous advocates? - There, for example, is an ill-constituted man, who does not possess enough of intellect to be able to take pleasure in it, and just enough of culture to be aware of the fact; bored, satiated, and a self-despiser; besides being cheated unfortunately by some hereditary property out of the last consolation, "blessing of labour," the self-forgetfulness in the "day’s work"; one who is thoroughly ashamed of his existence - perhaps also harbouring some vices, - and who on the other hand (by means of books to which he has no right, or more intellectual society than he can digest), cannot help vitiating himself more and more, and making himself vain and irritable: such a thoroughly poisoned man - for intellect becomes poison, culture becomes poison, possession becomes poison, solitude becomes poison, to such ill-constituted beings - gets at last into a habitual state of vengeance and inclination for vengeance.... What do you think he finds necessary, absolutely necessary in order to give himself the appearance in his own eyes of superiority over more intellectual men, so as to give himself the delight of perfect revenge, at least in imagination? It is always morality that he requires, one may wager on it; always the big moral words, always the high-sounding words: justice, wisdom, holiness, virtue; always the Stoicism of gestures (how well Stoicism hides what one does not possess!); always the mantle of wise silence, of affability, of gentleness, and whatever else the idealist-mantle is called, in which the incurable self-despisers and also the incurably conceited walk about. Let me not be misunderstood: out of such born enemies of the spirit there arises now and then the rare specimen of humanity who is honoured by the people under the name of saint or sage: it is out of such men that there arise those prodigies of morality that make a noise, and make history, - St Augustine was one of these men. Fear of the intellect, vengeance on the intellect - Oh! how often have these powerfully impelling vices become the root of virtues! Yea, virtue itself! - And asking the question among ourselves, even the philosopher’s pretension to wisdom, which has occasionally been made here and there on the earth, the maddest and most immodest of all pretensions, - has it not always been above all in India as well as in Greece, a means of concealment? Sometimes, perhaps, from the point of view of education which hallows so many lies, it is a tender regard for growing and evolving persons, for disciples who have often to be guarded against themselves by means of the belief in a person (by means of an error). In most cases, however, it is a means of concealment for a philosopher, behind which he seeks protection, owing to exhaustion, age, chilliness, or hardening; as a feeling of the approaching end, as the sagacity of the instinct which animals have before their death, - they go apart, remain at rest, choose solitude, creep into caves, become wise.... What? Wisdom a means of concealment of the philosopher from intellect?" Friedrich Nietzsche - The Gay Science Book V - Aphorism # 359
@@miniemikeimouse6720 Nietzsche seems to be projecting his own emotions on to the stoic, emotions the stoic may not have or even be trying to repress. His criticism here also seems to be a criticism of a particular type of person rather than an idea, it's almost an ad hominem. I'm also not convinced that he understands Stoicism...
The problem is based on the meanings we, human beings, give to the words: The term "nature" is interpreted differently by Stoicism and Nietzsche, and apparently this difference creates a tension. If you ask scientists or artists, they will give totally different meaning(s) to "the" nature (or to nature) and possibly clash with both Stoicisms and Nietzsche. Who is correct? Nobody and everybody: Once we use language we are in an altogether different 'dimension' which is bound to be 'artificial' anyway, not natural. An example: Ask 10 different artists to paint an object, then ask yourself this question: "Which one of these paintings is the closest or the truest to the object?" None of them, because they are simply paintings, and only the creatures with the knowledge or perspective of paintings will make some sense from any one of these paintings. Defining the nature or anything else in linguistic terms has more or less a similar effect: There is no 'correct way' of describing nature through language or formulas; there are only artificial or human ways.
Yeh, and you just made a whole host of platonic assumptions there, which Nietzsche would have rejected. Perhaps look at Nietzsche on ‘truth’ then come back and edit the comment.
A kind of challenge for this would be the concept of archetypes, symbols so prevalent that they are somehow hardwired into our most basic instinct. Like the binaries of being/not being, light/dark, life/death, which are nearly omnipresent in historical thought, either as tense opposites or different aspects of the circles we experience over and over. In the case of these things, we might actually be a natural manifestation of these archetypes, as we can't conceive either the world or ourselves without them, unable to either impose or abandon them. Eastern philosophers saw this as the fundamental issue to human existence and promoted the idea of enlightenment as a means to transcend the cycles of death and rebirth. While Nietzsche and other existentialist may be promoting something more in the lines of amor fati, authentic living and self overcoming as the proper response to the "problematic".
very well said. I too see the folly in language and the role semantics plays on personal views and our role in a culture or society. I often ask others what they think makes them unique. I then ask them If you are unique then you do not adhere to any ideology for the purpose of that ideology is uniformity to create "common sense" or a specific set of rules to which you are self governed. To me an ideology is more like a role playing game. each one has an advantage over another and is similar to rock paper scissors. Stoicism itself has an advantage. That advantage being that despite its flaw with pertaining to nature or emulating it is that one can be detached from two polarized parties and find a common solution. Until a point where one like Nietsche polarized against stoicism. However to counter Nietsche I would claim that stoicism is a practice that can make one successful by not letting others see what acts control your emotions. granted it goes against the basis of these quotes the truth is stoicism helps you hide that emotional reaction that gives you away and let's others know what angers and fears control you. Even taking joy in something can be used against you. Our parents do it to us to motivate us into obeying their rules. Because as Sigmund Freud said, I'm paraphrasing, right and wrong can only be determined when their exists a reward or consequence to an action. meaning that without a consequence and a language to construct our ritualistic views in culture, right and wrong cease to exist. But we made up a construct with which we could convey ideas to others and when something threatened lives fear set within a majority population who, through sheer power in numbers, either explicitly or implicitly created the foundation for societal constructs. To quote my man Thor in Infinity War "all words are made up." which means our constructs are made up. the only thing we can be sure of is that their is a common chemical reaction to certain stimuli we've chosen to call emotions. but not every individual will react to the same stimuli the same way. part of that is due to societal programming and part of that is due to chemical differences in each individual and how they interpret the emotion they feel aka "free will". such as fight or flight response. a binary choice made up of your personal construct of limitations and abilities at your disposal unique to you in a case by case play out of events. Anyway I've talked to much. no one will probably read this whole thing. If you did... Thanks for hanging around. the thoughts rock but the thumbs suck at writing them.
harle nock You started well there, but it doesn’t follow that Nietzsche is trying to re-essentialize ‘truth’. What you appear to be suggesting is a gross form of relativism. Nietzsche rejected that too.
The problem is that Nietzsche was well aware of the Greek term that was used by the stoic philosophers. His rejection of it isn’t a linguistic issue, but a philosophic one
Exactly while he (from my knowledge of stoicism and its framework at this moment of my life) doesn't understand stoicism, his different perspective is very necessary for my own personal judgments, I hope I made sense. :D
I think that both Stoic idealism and virtues as well as Nietzschean Philosophy of Ubermensch is very important for life. There are times in life where u need to be a stoic and there are times where u have to be a Nietzschean.
Not many people are interested in philosophy that much and even if there were, it would be hard for them to find his channel as only a small of percentage of existencialists end up here.
We shouldn't forget, though, that Nietzsche didn't reject everything from the stoic worldview. For starters, when he was in middle school he was very keen on stoicism and the concept that you aren't affected by things you have no control over. But most importantly, he later on adopted the concept of Amor Fati (the love of everything that happens, a yes to life), which was originally taken from the stoics. Stoics stressed the importance of our "inner freedom", and put it in direct relation with the aforementioned Amor Fati. Stoicism isn't to be thought of as a philosophy of resentment and "décadence".
As a point I would to say that he would later reject the ideology of Amor Fati later in his life, as he saw the idea to be abhorrent in the case of of many who have or would have suffered in life with no reconcilliliation.
He superimposes a more contemporary meaning to “live according to nature.” He never addresses the stoic internal locus of control teachings. Also, it can be confusing if the word nature is loosely defined.
@@alecmisra4964 Exactly the point. Stoicism is just acknowleding the fact of " natures nature". That is that "natures nature" is the process of birth, growt, decay, death, randomness in organic life. And that this is a universal nature. That is that it is the " truth" all over the universe. The stoic view is that all we can do is to acept the fact that all we have power over is how we react to this process. That is if you can handle it and not revert to metafysics or the Gods. That is the Gods may be behind it all. But the fact is that you need to acept that this is how things are and that all you have power over is your own reaction. In Stoicism it dont matter if God is behind it all, or if it`s a intelligent process or just random chanse. The focus is on what you can do about it. It`s ultra minimalistic and there is no way to argue against it on a logical level.
Great video. Something Nietzsche did miss though is that Epictetus actually recommends people against calling themselves Stoics because of the vast implications of this claim. He speaks about how easier it is to try your best to practice Stoicism, than become a Stoic.
Believing in Stoicism turns it into religion. Stoicism should not be a religious dogma, everything in it should be tested and everything false discarded.
Thanks for publishing. As somebody who is a fan of stoicism, I still like to get different viewpoints on it. I think you could go a lot deeper on this.
@@cinemaster9012 Stoicism was founded on the tail of Cynicism. But Stoicism is far more hopeful and productive then Cynicism. If you look at the most Famous Stoics like Marcus Auerlius and Seneca they were both very accomplished men. Diogenes the Cynic not so much not that he gave a shit lol
@FiniteAutomaton Thanks for the info. Frankly though, that he was taught how to analyze the use of language in historical texts (which is what you learn from studying philology) or in what esteem he held certain groups are not the most relevant things to discussing how well he understood a specific philosophy. What he actually said about that philosophy though, is. That said, I understand that he was fairly educated in classical works and studied a pretty good amount of Greek philosophy, but even that doesn't ensure that he had a particularly thorough understanding of all the different schools of thought. There were many, many complex belief systems in ancient Greece and Rome, and the way he speaks of Stoicism in particular really doesn't seem to indicate a very sophisticated understanding of it. I am very curious about what he said about Cynicism though, so thanks for the tips there!
@FiniteAutomaton "Gruesome, malevolent and problematic aspects of existence which comes from a feeling of well-being, an overflowing of health, and abundance of existence" Firstly is "comes" a typo? Is that meant to say come? I can only understand this if it's intended to be "come" as otherwise I'm completely lost. Regardless I don't understand how these horrors stem from joyous health. I was doing quite well with your comment and all was in order but at the end there I was unable to understand the meaning of what was written. It would also be jolly good to have a clearer picture of the so called model or whatever that sentence is actually trying to say that doesn't conjure images of an overly sexually minded composer genius. I really have no clue what is going on in that last sentence of yours. Sorry.
This video is a misleading incomplete presentation of Nietzsche's view of the value of Stoicism.. Note in Daybreak Bk. 5, #546, Nietzsche''s admiration for Epictetus and Nietzsche's comment that such is life is one of supreme bravery. By implication and adaptation a life modeled after the Stoics can still be lived. The Stoic view of nature has the limitations this video rightly describes, but it is incomplete to claim Nietzsche hated Stoicism in sum.
Nietzsche does not call it supreme bravery as a compliment. He is pointing to it as unobtainable by the average person who he sees adopting slave moralities.
@@mykulpierce I think Nietzsche is calling attention to different types of slave moralities - Stoicism represented by Epictetus and Christianity. Nietzsche admires Epictetus because his happiness or serenity is dependent upon himself whereas Christians must look outside themselves for happiness now and in the future. Nietzsche did not respect someone looking for "inexpressible glories" in the next world for happiness as is the rule among almost all Christians.
The philosophy of Nietzsche and stoicism. A perfect combination if you want to live a life with quality, honor, virtue and deep spiritual adventures. Do them both. Is like Bjj and Muay Thai together.
You don't need an already existing philosophy to live a meaningful life. Someone else's philosophy has got nothing to do with how you're gonna live life. They provide inspiration but thinking they'll help you live with honor and virtue is a joke
@@matryxgeounlymyted56quarde9 if you believe something, someone out there will believe something contradictory, so why cant i believe in two things that contradict each other. i cant prove either of us right or wrong, which in itself is somewhat contradictory
Nietzsche made the mistake a lot of people do when they don't look too carefully into Stoicism. The tenant of Stoicism is not "live in accordance with nature", it is 'live accordance with your nature" or to man's nature. It means defining what sets you apart for other species and trying to apply that best to you life. In the case of humans, it is reason. Nice of you to tuck that disclaimer in the last 20 seconds of the video that he probably didn't understand Stoicism. He obviously did not. Nietzsche was espousing a morality 'above' typical human morality, or at least separate from it. He is kind of obligated to dismantle all philosophies that operate in the current ethical norm. Too bad he went of half-cocked on Stoicism; as a Stoic and an appreciator of his work I would have loved to her his impressions on actual Stoicism.
@FiniteAutomaton The idea is that reason is the one defining quality that separates man from animals. Or rather "reason" is the term Stoics use to define that which separates us. It is giving that aspect primacy in our interpretation of events and life itself that Stoics advocate (for themselves).
@FiniteAutomaton what is your definition of reason? It is quite obvious to me that a strong predisposition for reason is human nature or, at least, the tendency to make use of reason to fulfill motives. People do not make subjectively illogical decisions although they may be objectively illogical. And stoicism is religious by nature. If you do not believe in a higher moral will and your ability to intuitively interact with it, then there is no argument there to be had.
@FiniteAutomaton I did not say that religiosity is inseparable from Stoic argument, only that there is no argument to be had when there is a denial of that exact intuitive faculty of which you just made mention of. If you are only interested in evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the topic, I am sorry to dismay you. It is only a matter of belief. That is why I said there is no argument. The idea of virtue and the ability to attain and exercise it is axiomatic for the stoics. Where human nature is concerned, are we not just playing a definition game which also comes down to one’s own beliefs or outlook? I find any question to whether there is an ideal or a point to human life, although it is a valid question, to be completely sterile. In order to make this more pragmatic, I will formulate it as so: Humans are idealists in that they have an accurate conception of how they would like the world to be. A moral framework is developed that dictates what can be done or what cannot be done according to the ideal. The faculty of reason is used to navigate this framework. Reason is thus an essential part to human nature, whether there is a universal ideal or not. It is not parity of reasoning. The aim of practicing Stoicism is to maximize the amount of actions that one performs, which fit one’s conception of morally righteous. However, this is not the psychological mindset of a Stoic, and there is no point in debating over the existence of virtue.
Nietzsche was physically and spiritually unhealthy , his mind did not have a healthy operating system. The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts and the mind with state of the physical body and the physical body with the state of the mind. Nietzsche could not cope with the realities of existence.
@@austinkierulf8333 let's not argue that Nietzsche cared about others, his whole 'master morality' comes at the cost of the weak. So Nietzsche should be the last one to complain
Nietzsche did not criticized for the sake of doing so, nor did he actually hate the philosophies he criticized. I believe his goal was to inspire thinking for yourself, to understand why you have the thoughts and beliefs you have, where do they come from and what flaws they might have. He did not care if people agreed with him, in fact i believe he said he liked more those people who didn’t like him because that meant they were true to themselves.
As Much As I Am In Great Gratitude For Having Discovered Nietzche In My Life Time , His Brilliance Lies In His Questions More Than His Answers....He Missed The Mark About The Stoics Meaning Of "Living By Nature" Which Has A More "Taoist Flavor" To It.
Interesting that I had to scroll to here searching for this kind of comment. I agree. Seems the main problem is the ambiguity of the term “nature”. I don’t think Stoics meant it in the way Nietzche understood it. As brilliant as Nietzche was this is essentially a strawman fallacy: he is attacking a misconstrued idea.
@@Petrvsco My take on what is meant by "Nature" , ie; to live according to "Nature" is to live according to "Reason" that it is our unique skill of reasoning that is our "Nature" and by observing how Nature itself manifests we can "reason" our way into "Being Like Water" as a metaphor for living.
Amor Fati is not unique to the Stoics, but predates them, with origins in Christianity or earlier. In Christianity, this idea appears as acceptance of the events of life as divinely willed, with the consequent affirmation of life as such as divine, as a product of the divine will, and the implication that to hate life is blasphemous.
@Ali Rizvi My mistake; "amor fati" goes even further back to the Homeric Greeks, who recognized and embraced fate (e.g. the death of Achilles in the Iliad). The Iliad/Odyssey derive from oral traditions of perhaps 2000 BC or older.
Nietzsche did not 'hate' Stoic philosophy. In many ways he was stoic and a Stoic. Neither can it be said that he was an Epicurean. He took from both traditions and from others too, even the ones he thoroughly hated. There is something of the reform Christian, in Nietzsche - if you want to look for it. He was certainly nearer to being a Stoic than being an Epicurean - certainly one of today's neo-Epicureans, who would make him vomit if he were unfortunate enough to meet such a hipster-fascist Last Man- and not know it. He was with the Cynics - and nodded to the Stoics. The chief error of the Epicurean, for N, was that they failed to realise that virtue is what life is about. Nietzsche was always willing to learn from all schools - even if it were a negative lesson. Virtue, belief in a form of virtue, growing in adversity and growth and morality coming through personal development, were important to Nietzsche's often changing ideas. The contemporary world could be improved if we rejected the mushy modern Epicureanism that has been spewed on us - and instead read such movements through Nietzsche's critical eye. He We could do a lot worse than embracing Nietzsche's idiosyncratic take on Stoicism, Cynicism and others.
@@dottorstranamore4150 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcomannic_Wars . Peace and War is a part of beeing a stoic. When there is peace there is peace. When its time to fight, there is war. The point is that when the war is over you get over it and dont hate your former enemies. Its just business
Stoicism has its limits. Just as any other philosophy does. Therefore it's ultimately no more advantaging than any other philosophy. It's about the human being's vulnerability. A stoic is just as much vulnerable to the extremities of nature as a non-stoic is. And a stoic doesn't have a monopoly on Stoicism either. Anyone can practice operating in the face of adversity exactly as a stoic would and still choose to not identify as being one.
Saying that stoicism is no more advantageous than any other philosophy feels like equating all philosophy. Surely there are worse ways of viewing the world than stoicism.
I really like this. I had never thought much of it before, but it makes sense. Simply being a stoic would make each of an individual's actions with other people force them to act in a similar manner. By not openly showing emotions it's difficult for others to connect with a person and by only talking about issues that matter we tend to force others to do the same because that's the only way they can get a conversation out of us
I’m friends with a Christian who most would probably classify as a stoic. Very rarely expresses emotion, very tight lipped, doesn’t say more than needs to be said. Most of our communication is essentially non verbal. It’s tough to describe but it is a nice way to interact with someone.
@@sushitrash9911 Yeah, maybe people interpret it that way because modern day life ruins people emotions. So, people seem to just want to get rid of emotions.
I just found out about this channel and I cannot be more excited seeing all those videos about Jung and Nietzsche which are awaiting for me. Grateful that channels like yours exist.
Lol! Honestly, he seems like he was a pretty emotional guy so I wouldn't be surprised. I just wish more of his arguments addressed the core ideas of Stoicism rather than being so superficial and pedantic. He was absolutely brilliant so I think he could have had some really valuable insight into its problems if he tried. I guess you could construct a deeper criticism of Stoicism from his works in general, though.
@@jeremylynwood3604 You missed the point. When you call Nietzche "a pretty emotional guy", you say that as if it is a bad thing. This is exactly what Nietzche is attacking when he attacks stoicism.
@@TheCocoaisCongealed I think like you're assuming that; I'm a pretty emotional guy myself and I don't think being emotional in itself is a bad thing. I can see the point in criticizing Stoicism for trying to turn people into robots - actually, I agree with it. But, everyone needs to reach a balance, and at least for me Stoicism helps provide a good framework for being more balanced. There's a time and place for everything, and Stoicism helps shine a light on ways to optimize one's life so that you are not being POINTLESSLY emotional. I try to make my emotion count, if you know what I'm trying to say.
Very nicely done interpretation. I recently worked through Beyond good and evil as well as the addition Die Genealogie der Moral (sorry for not having the English title in mind rn. Read both of them in German) and I also found myself pondering about these paragraphs, as I am also quite interested in Seneca and Aurel, probably the most wellknown stoics. I came to the conclusion that the interpretation must be tightly observed. For instance the mentioning and interpretation of nature by Nietzsche and the comparison of the same usage of word by the stoics. I think it is necessary to also see what Nietzsche has been searching for in his work and considering the additional Streitschrift Zur Genealogie der Moral to clarify it even further. As I see it stoics mostly addressed a philosophy for one's self. How to conduct and how to live. Nietzsche especially in these books was searching on a bigger scale. A scale of society and moral. He wasn't too concerned about one's actions but more about the building of valuesystems in society. There are many points where you could point this out. Especially also in his mentions of Kant and his discussion of the "creation" of bad conscience (schlechtes Gewissen). What I take away from Nietzsche is that stoicism is not enough to build a valuesystem. It is still a good way to learn how to conduct yourself and how to face hardship (my opinion. Nitzsche didn't say anything about that in the book)
@@fredericktorres1325 He understood stoicism to be a weak stance against mankind's interests in turning the world into something we value and the desire of competing against the natural struggle of life due to anger, pride, envy, revenge, discomfort, and or lust. To deny oneself is cowardice. It's the stance that human nature is to great or volatile to be harnessed or understood that living is too dangerous. Acceptance isn't indifference; it's defeat. Nietzsche stands for homeric heroism and creative genius. The stoics would view Achilles as immoral for acting on his rash anger in killing Hector, but Achillies kills because it's apart of his will. He's not divorced from his anger because it serves him. It's not his enemy, but something he creates meaning with. If you want to be at war with yourself, then let that be your virtue, but to call it truth is a misstep in understanding human nature.
Joshua L there’s some things that you must accept defeat on though. If your mom dies, There’s no one to retaliate against for this injustice besides God... you have no choice but to accept this thing you have no control over. Maybe you need to let off some steam first, but in the end you must accept.
OK - this is an easy error to make with Nietzsche - He dislike Stoicism but not because it was stoicism - and this may seem to be a paradox but like a lot of N. it is not. Stoics liked Eternal Recurrence - so did N. Stoics liked a form of Perspectivism - so did N. Stoics liked a balanced artistic perspective [Apollo/Dion] to living a happy life - so did N. So how can N. trash Stoics in BGE and in other places - he's NOT trashing Stoics - he was trashing systematic accounts of a rules-based life. Just like he trashed Christianity - like he trashed Plato and all organized religions and philosophical systems in BGE and his other writings So the point here is critical - N. does not care a whit about Stoicism if you think he does then you are missing the point of Nietzsche.
@cc kk Thanks for taking the time to reply to me - I might suggest something you can consider - Nietzsche's view on "Will to Power and the "Superman". When I first started reading N. I was fascinated by these two subjects. So many commentators talked about them - then I got a really good Philo Prof who suggested I find out what N. actually said about these things in his actual writings - you want to know what I found out [and my Prof already knew] - Nietzsche hardly mentions these in his actual writings - commentators who talk about them are simply wrong or misunderstanding N. You can do your own research - read through BGE or GofM or The Gay Science and find the Superman reference or Will to Power discussions - you wont find many and often none and in his late writings you will find they are not mentioned at all. btw his "Will to Power" book was not his - it was his sisters who cobbled together his notebooks out of context. Don't know if this will help - but when I discovered it - it helped me understand N. much better
@@JamesJoyce12 They are discussed in Zarathustra though, his only and probably most important work of his later life. To me it seems that he was criticizing how dogmatic philosophies become once they are accepted by the masses. Like the Stoics during his time, you can easily tell they aren't much like the Stoics today, as stoics no longer pretend to live according to nature. They know they live a life of discipline and they know it is not the one truth.
All those comments made me really happy! It's nice to see comments wich are thoughtful and open for criticism. Wouldn't have thought that this would exist in this time and age 😂 so thank you all ❤️
@D L Luke "Taoism ... while you may still be living within it". In a sense, going with the flow of nature? In a sense, accepting things of which we might not be in control? That is very similar to Stoicism. As for the argument in this video, beyond being two different pairs of philosophies, I don't see a similarity.
@@yeezet4592 From my experience with smart people. they mostly think about it, since saying it can't possibly any benefit - something smart people gotta consider.
"There is truth in everything." This applies to Stoicism too. There are some good in it, but ultimately, I have to agree with Nietzche and his point about indifference and all. Thank you for this - glad I saw it.
4:58 In the picture here, he could only do that if his tie wasn't tied. Kinda takes away from the drama if you first calmly untie your tie before ripping open your shirt.
I know that the aphorism you bringed up appears at the begining of the Beyond good and evil. I'm a fan a stoicism (I have at least one book of every great stoic), but I also agree with Nietzsche when he claimed that the idea of living according to nature is clunky. As Lapis Lazuli asked in one episode from Steven Universe: " Why would I want to (live according to nature) ?" Well, the stoics were pantheists, therefore they believe that living as nature is living as a god. Why did they believed that nature=God ? Because nature shares many traits of gods (nature can create and kill people, keeps you alive, feeds you etc.) Nietzsche was a stoic, not a philosophical one but his actions can be considered stoics : he had good reasons to commit suicide (nihilism, rejected by women, poverty, mental ilnesses etc.) but he always figured out a way to stay as strong as possible. Btw, great video !
Honestly a great explanation Anubis, I never thought about it that way, but I can see how Nietzsche seems to have a bit of a misunderstanding of what stoicism is
Nietzsche said you can't help but live according to nature, because we are from nature and part of it. He is saying that when the stoics said their principles are according to nature, they we're talking out their arse. And that they were also using this connection to make claims that their specially chosen principles and ideas, were superior to others, because they were according to nature. Nietzsche might have despised this especially, because he strongly believed we should embrace our unfolding into nature.
Sounds like his issues exist within some semantic elements of Stoicism that create a sense of too far a grasp of the philosophy itself relative to what it is trying to achieve.
Stoicism has relieved me of my anxiety, and suffering. Made me a strong human being if you agree or not. Alot of people misunderstood the stoic philosophy.
@@jernyx9139 thats not the point of stoicism.. Stoicism doesn't even point out to do what you want lmao The point is when you have a problem just solve it rationally, because the problem is already there your still gonna have to face it whether you like it or not "The problem isnt the problem but your attitude towards the problem" (idk who said that)
@@barsalty6768 Thats not the point of my comment... I know what stoicism is... In my comment I made an example where if something saves u from anxiety/suffereing it doesnt mean its good
As a practicing Stoic, I can tell you he absolutely misquoted Stoicism and railed against an idea which is not part of Stoicism. This is documented and easily verifiable, so not so much of bold claim. If someone claimed Christianity was bogus, because electrocuting Jesus on a cross was not a form of capital punishment in Rome at the time, you'd say the same thing regardless of who said it. Christianity may be bogus, but that is clearly not a valid reason why.
Do you what I love about Nietzsche? He was like Socrates, it doesn't matter what the ideas are, he will attack it with the most of his intellectual capabilities. He does not do this with malice, but to break peoples hold on ideologies that leave them blind to unseen knowledge and wisdom. When we conform to an ideology we become blind and hold onto it with emotions, which leaves us ignorant of what we cannot see yet. To make it more simple, he is encouraging us to question our beliefs and think for ourselves. If we follow another philosophical path, we will be led to the same predictable location without any of the adventure of discovering new realms within ourselves. Of course, he can be a little rude about it, but that is what gets peoples attention. I might be wrong about all of this but at least I am trying to find my own way of seeing it.
A good compliment to this video would be Sigmund Freud's work on the concept of narcissism. It'll probably outline that projection of tyranny in a more coherent light then Nietzsche did.
How did he hated Stoicism when he himself said that my formula for human greatest is Amor Fati, loving everything which comes your way, sufferings of the world and whatever else may come. And that's the core concept of Stoicism, loving everything which comes your way, endure everything which comes your way because why not try your best to overcome them when you know that one day you're gonna die but always having in your mind humility and fairness, and not because it's hard for them to get for themselves what may not belong to them but because it's simply not right. None of the Stoics didn't said sit down all day and do nothing about sufferings, they obviously said you work the hardest you can to overcome them but with kindness, humility and above all fairness because what's wrong doesn't belong to you. Maybe he misunderstood what according to nature meant for the Stoics.
I said that none of the Stoics said sit down all day and do nothing but get up and do your best but without taking what is wrong and does not belong to you. This is will power right here. Do you think that taking what's not yours is fine?
Lol So you're saying that is better to return to being animals? It is harder for me to do a really simple thing that you cannot imagine right because it has to be done right than steal let's say 1 billion of dollars.
That's the essence of philosophy in my opinion. Take in as much as you can and keep the things that ring true to you. If you read about stoicism and none of it rings true other than amor fati then so be it. Take that and discard the rest. I think if you go even further that is the very role modern philosophy has, to take all the came before and choose the parts that make the most sense to you and then I suppose the next step is to pass on what you learned to someone else so they can do the same!
@Shadow Skull I guess I didn't interpret what he said as advocating confirmation bias, rather encouraging people to embrace different ideas even if it comes from a mode of thinking that severely contradicts your own
@@jjpapalabrou4591 But why? When stoicism preaches not being offended, why go against that? A stoic does not care particularly that someone disagrees with him. A stoic doesn't care if someone else attacks his honor. What matters to a stoic is his own virtues, and living in accordance with those virtues.
@Martha Polanski indifferent from outputs beyond the self. He will go in public and say this if he craves attention. However the reaction doesn't matter to a stoic
This has helped me find a little bit of peace. I am practicing stoic. I love most of it but every now and then a few stoic quotes I struggle with. Thank you for doing this video.
The monstrous leap he took between living according to nature and living according to life is appalling. To live according to nature is to attempt to align oneself as closely as possible with the outside, objective world. To live according to life is - as portrayed in this viewpoint - to live according to the whims and wants of the subjective human mind. A subjective human does not naturally live in accordance with the objective world, hence why stoicism suggests making a conscious effort toward doing so, so as to minimize our actions’ contradictions with objective reality and effectively be more successful in our endeavors.
Very misleading video. Nietzsche's greatest influence and favourite philosopher was Heraclitus, who was also the foremost influence on the Stoics. Nietzsche describes the universe as an eternal fire, a continual flux of the unity of opposites, just like the Stoics (such as Marcus Aurelius) and Heraclitus.
This was really interesting as a stoic student myself. He makes it out to sound like the stoics that he met in his time lived in an echo chamber which is very possible as anything that becomes “popular” tends to follow that path.
I feel like Nietsche is using a strawman argument here. Particularly when he describes a Stoic view of living according to nature. If he were to steelman the Stoic position before arguing against it he would acknowledge that the Stoic definition of nature is very different than the common definition. For Stoics, humans are unique blessed with the gift of reason and rational thought, so for a human to live according to his nature is to embrace rationality.
But we are not rational animals. Yes, we use rationale as a tool, but that is the extent of its utility in our primate grip - just tool-usage. Once we accept that as a first principle, it's very challenging to steelman stoicism and Nietzsche's argument against Stoicism really weighs much heavier upon second lift.
@@NorthEngine666 would he now...lol....and he would have to use Rationality to make his point wouldn't he...any attempt to debase Logic and Reason...must use Logic and Reason ....what else do you appeal to...my Faith...my Dreams...my Ghost...will you attempt to communicate with me via Telepathy ???...if your going to use words, you must assume I am rational...in order for me to understand your point...by what other means will you make your point ???...it goes on par with trying to say Reality isnt real...you must first appeal to Reality in order to refute it.
@@Sepazuzu logic and reason can be used to infer facts understand desire it cannot be used to eliminate desire as desire are sensations of the brain it makes little sense to say I am thirsty because I believe I am or should be or have a philosophy of thirst thirst is dependent on brain states that make us thirsty not thoughts about thirst stoics did not know this as they were philosophers not neuroscientists
I have studied Nietzsche (in a rather casual fashion) for 10 years and this has really helped me thanks Nietzsche insisted that we live *in the world* on which the stoics had no insistence The Novel Zorba the Greek is based on the theme of living in the world vs outside the world, as in to that end very Nietzschian
To put it simply, - nietzche saw the stoic philosophy as the argument that " if we are all true to our nature we will all have the same moral code. " as the stoics believed strongly in the logos, that a divine order is within everything and every event so stripped down to our core we will all essentially be the same orderly and principled and in line with the universe. Nietzche believed nature is chaotic as is our inherent nature and to teach people that traveling the beaten path is being true to their nature is forcing them to ironically resist their nature. Of course the argument is more nuanced than this as stoicism has many different schools.
The idea about nature that prevailed after the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and throughout much of the 20th century is now outmoded. This idea could be summarized in Tennyson's phrase, "Nature, red in tooth and claw". Scientists in the 21st century emphasize the part that social structures, cooperation---and yes, that forbidden word, love---play in evolution. Marcus Aurelius expressed this very modern, 21st century view in the following: "Meditate often on the interconnectedness and mutual interdependence of all things in the universe. For in a sense, all things are mutually woven together and therefore have an affinity for each other" and "We were made not for ourselves but for others." I trust that the ruthless egotism advocated by people like Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer will prove to be "unfit" in the process of natural selection.
@⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ The Stoics had the idea of an "Anima Mundi" or "Soul of the World"---a benevolent soul or spirit in nature. One can argue whether this was a projection or a perception, but it was an essentially religious and mystical idea. Accordingly Stoicism is either a religious philosophy or a philosophical religion like Vedanta, the philosophy of the Upanishads in Hinduism. Some people feel or perceive the existence of a World Soul and rational arguments cannot dissuade them. The Anima Mundi is the world-wide expression of the Logos, a word that is inadequately translated as "reason". It is really very difficult to translate. The Jewish philosopher Philo adopted the idea of the Logos, and it subsequently found its way into the Gospel of John, who wrote, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" and "The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us". This is, of course, a reference to Jesus and his divinity. The Stoic would say that the Logos has become flesh---or is embodied---in everyone of us, and that we are each divine at least in potential. When the Stoic exhorts us to live according to nature he really means "Live in harmony with the Logos that is within you." I would compare the Logos with the Vedantic idea of the atma. Since Nietzsche hated religion he had good reason to hate Stoicism, for these ideas are religious. However, I do not trust Nietzsche regarding religion, for I think he had a "blind spot" instead of mystical perception. Why should I trust a blind man when I have eyes?
I doubt your arguments premises credibility. Nietzsche criticized the teleological evolutionary principle of Herbert Spencer (in principle for it's continuation of christian discourse, e.i. christian value-systems) and objected to Charles Darwrins principle of survival and conditioning as been a passive principle. Nietzsche concept of the will to power was describe as a hypotese by himself, and whether he in fact believed in the world as essential an expression of a will to power, is not that important. For the fact is, he desribed it's essential character as relational, depending on the struggle between wills, and therefore reality itself only could be constituted in tensionful relations. The world is therefore constituted by an independence, relation between wills, and not an atomistic egoism.
There is a flow state that some fighters reach, that some gurus, prophets, even farmers walk where there is just one. One action to take. Always one. The one best word followed by the one best word, an angle of the arm with the best velocity, the perfect timing for crops as if the farmer knew the past, present and future simultaneously. This is perhaps the place Nietsche didn't reach, despite his great heights. This place, is founded, as the stoics say on the only universal truths in this world- the virtues. But beyond the virtues is the one. Some call it divinity. The sublime. The Doa. The holy ghost. It has many names, yet the animals, plants, nature know it far better than human beings. But that is not because they can not know. It's that the lust for control lies in the deepest cracks of humanity to the point of being nearly unknowable. To first revel in the virtues, and then somehow find a way to not control others, to somehow find a way to see the depths their ego will take to lord over every one and everything, if a person can someone even identify and then annihilate that base instinct, perhaps our deepest instinct to control; to then let go, to truly let go, (and this is key)from a place of virtue, an absolute leap of faith, is to win. Effortlessly.
I suppose it’s the way you look at it. Stoicism may be seen as burying emotions, and not truly allowing yourself to experience them, which is what we are here for right? To experience? If we do not allow this ‘experience’ we may be creating energy/emotional blockages from not actually allowing yourself to learn the lesson of that emotion, which down the track may result in negative behavioural patterns or manifested in the form of physical illness
I don't think it s burying your emotions but it s not letting your emotions influence the course of your actions (or at least reflect seriously on how they influence it and why and if it is positive). Let s say for example, something happened that my boss made me really angry that I just wanted to cry and throw a chair at him. I can pause for 10 min, go elsewhere cry for that period of time, vent a bit and then come back to have an adult conversation with him/her to talk things rationally. At the end of the day, I could ask myself what triggered that reaction from me and what to do about it in the future. I expressed my emotions but I didn't let them influence how to handle the problem (otherwise I would have thrown the chair at my boss and walked away). Of course you can argue that when you re an ideal stoic your boss or others don't really anger you. But this level of stoicism is an ideal and it can't be met in ALL situations due to the emotional nature of humans. However, making an effort towards it every day is worthwhile.
“Gods are Ideas and Ideas are Gods” -Pythagoras To come to terms with the Idea “Living According To (Our) Nature” - What is this pointing to? Does it mean to live “Naturally” by the rhythm’s of - “Nature” - such as Taoism suggests? Nietzsche and the Stoics understanding about this can bewilder us, as it has me for quite some time. The best comprehension for me is more like what Bruce Lee says “Be Water 💦 My Friend”. When I merge this idea with Zeno’s insight “Well Being is realized in small steps, but this is no small act” - it occurs to me that “Living According To Nature” means living by what is second nature to us i.e.; using our ability to reason…and “reason” has landed on applying the analogy “Be Water 💦 My Friend”❤️🔥
He was very right. But that's because stoicism has alot of its foundations built on ancient misunderstandings of reality and that part should be easily forgiven, as we would all probably think in a similar way if we were living thousands of years ago. What is undeniably true about stoicism, are the benefits of its practical application. The ancient theology side of it is to be taken with a pinch of salt, and that should be obvious.
Agreed. It easly seen the flaws that they didn't know of but many thing can be used to advance yourself. Rightly so this goes with many thing in life we as people pick what we hold as useful.
I always read "live according to nature" as saying, "live with the understanding that you are part of nature and your goals must be within nature's." the stoics believed in sympatheia, the idea that everything the universe is connected, part of one whole. the awareness that the individual is an extension of the universe can help to shape a more holistic idea of justice in the grand scheme.
I was about to write the same thing...problem solved..In fact, I have always looked at it that way nevertheless I can understand his way of thinking if I hear it as explained on this video
My two biggest gripes with stoicism were that it always came off as really "White Messiah-ey". Not to mention the fact that it gives no real barometer for how to determine right from wrong, while also making the assertion that it can justly tell you what to do. Which to me always seemed like putting the cart before the horse.
@@avivastudios2311 true, but they also had a super big emphasis on serving your community and following your duties as a son/daughter, sibling, parent etc. which tbh I didn't understand as much since they also preached that everything outside of your will was meant to be indifferent, even other people.
Nietzsche seem to profess a completely different understanding of the Self and its environment compared to the stoics. First I was a little bit surprised, but then I remembered what sort of man we're talking about. Great video!
Nietzsche was critical of Stoicism (How can life become a point of view?) but I don't think he hated it. He knew of its tyranny because it was afterall a system, and Nietzsche distrusted systems and systemisers.
I’d say there’s a lot wrong with Nietzsche’s philosophy, believing our lives should be dedicated to the creation of some ubermensch figure for one thing. But hell if I know for sure, all I can say is that Nietzsche is a much smarter figure than pretty much everyone here, and does have some valid points.
Whats great about being a nihilist? A being that creates his own morality has no morality. If you believe that good and evil are subjective you cannot have a morality, you are just larping. To have a morality you must believe in the objective and unchanging nature of good and you cant have that without God. A nihilist is by his nature amoral. A man with no morality is but a beast.
When I read this passage from Nietzsche I totally agreed with him or at least my interpretation of what I read. The people who say "nature is our mother and she feeds us, takes care of us" - that's just whack. To a degree our civilization is and should be against nature. Nature would have us be like animals (prey and predator, kill or be killed etc); refinement and progress is opposite to nature. Furthermore, I despise new age and seudo spiritualism which is basically repackaged stoicism. Thank you for your great videos.
It sounds like this is a criticism of stoicism if taken on ideologically rather than as a personal philosophy. Stoic philosophy as, I understand it, is based more in the humility of the individual and allowing yourself to exist within the flow of your own nature as well as the nature of the universe around you. I may be wrong but I don't recall any part of the stoic philosophy that suggested an interference into the lives of others. There is also no suggestion of 'indifference' but more of a reasoned and measured response to any instance. Pure indifference would be contrary to stoicism. That said, I think he nailed it when speaking about a philosophy believing in itself since it would appear that as soon as any philosophy becomes 'self aware' and starts writing 'rules' on how to act it will ultimately be corrupted. I believe this is what is meant by 'tyranny' as described in the video.
His criticism could be due to exactly that, the reasoned and measured response. More specifically, the behavior of stoics he had encountered. This seems to be an example of the corruption.
I try to live according to the stoics. That is, by nature and in accordance with my nature. I agree with them that life is hard: always has been and always will be. It is only to be expected even when times are good. But I see nature as inherently cruel. And my nature is not to accept it. My nature is to rage and thrash. I am as a flailing fish thrown into the deck of a boat. Suffering may be nature, but I have no natural nor moral obligation to be OK with that or deal with it gracefully. I will not give cruel nature my neck willingly nor trodge through a quagmire like a stupid ox when another less bothersome route is available for those who hate pain and are willing to apply just a little more imagination to avoid it.
Good video! I think nietzsche's rejection of stoicism is more for its ethic, its way of living, that "being prepared for everything". He compares stoicism with epicuirism in some part of the book and says something about it.
If one reads a little bit about Stoicism one will learn fast that a real Stoic would never say that he's a Stoic, as there's no need to. He knows that he is and doesn't need to tell someone, he's living his philosophy, not teaching it. I think that Nietzsche was in some way very Stoic like (his love never got returned, he suffered from sicknesses and yet he never let it take it over), but to say that he was a Stoic is by no means true.
@@TheMusicLauncher It is a good point when the point is meant to counter someone's brutal criticism of stoicism to such an extent that they would refuse to accept it in any way while holding a primary tenant of it as their moral basis. You're utterly reading the comment and thought process wrong from my purview.
@@eerieandcold Uhm, no. Stoicism is teaching you to always remember that you'll die one day and that you should accept the things that will happen in your future. Have you ever read Epictetus or Seneca?
In the Latin word malus [bad] (which I place alongside melas [black]) the common man could be designated as the dark-coloured, above all as the dark-haired ("hic niger est" [this man is black]), as the pre-Aryan inhabitant of Italian soil, who stood out from those who became dominant, the blonds, that is, the conquering race of Aryans, most clearly through this colour. At any rate, the Gaelic race offers me an exactly corresponding example. The word fin (for example, in the name Fin-Gal), the term designating nobility and finally the good, noble, and pure, originally referred to the blond-headed man in contrast to the dusky, dark-haired original inhabitants. -Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche Essay 1, aphorism 5.
at the end of the day, I would take the parts of any philosophy that make the most sense to me and incorporate it into my life. No need to religiously follow every aspect of it. The parts of stoicism that stood out to me were regarding things we can and cannot control, and to see things in which they really are through rational thought. It brought me a great deal of peace.
"you would like everything to be made after your own image." Isn't one of the fundamental tenets of stoicism the absence of desire for things outside of oneself? I think Nietsche is mischaracterizing stoicism here.
exactly, I knew I wasn't the only one, He grossly misunderstood stoicism, and it's crazy because it's HIM. I need to research a little to see if he was saying this at a particular point in his life where he was out of touch.
I thought the basic principles of stocism are that: Man is rational, man is a social creature. This is his nature, therefore he must live according to what satisfies these most.
Read Nietzsche's Beyond Good And Evil. It really helps to understand the larger context where he brings up the stoics. He is really attempting to make a much broader point about how all philosophers engage in their own process of asserting universal truths which are expressions of their own will to power. I also think the Stoicism we see now takes more the form of a personal self-help philosophy as opposed to an ethical or moral system for which one advocates in the way early stoics did.
You are grossly misunderstanding the point. He said "You CLAIM to be 'one with nature', but in reality you are trying to impose something upon the world". Reiterating the fact that the Stoics CLAIM that they lack desire for things outside of oneself does not refute Nietzsche's point that they are, in reality, not.
Agreed. Stoicism is more the opposite. Accepting that you yourself are a part of nature and letting go of any desire to control external outcomes or indulge in regret or disappointment. Are our bodies not born and sustained from nature? From dust you were made and to dust you shall return. Learning to appreciate where you are rather than where you wanted to be or where you might go is stoicism. You do what you can and accept everything as it is. Pain is an undeniable part of life but suffering is self-created.
I used to like Nietsche, bit he talks too much. How can he say that Stoics don't live according to Justice when Justice is for the Stoics one of the four primordial Virtues? How can he call Stoics extravagant when his own work is as extravagant and convoluted as it gets? How can he call them indifferent when they used to have a huge sense of individual and social responsibility. Nietsche definetly misinterpreted Stoicism, and now I like his work a little bit less.
I don’t think this guy knows what stoicism is. It’s not about living in accordance with nature, it’s about mastery of ones self. “To be even minded is the greatest virtue” “Just keep in mind; the more we value things outside our control, the less control we have” “It does not matter what you bear, but only, how you bear it.” “A gem cannot be perfected without friction, nor a man without trials” “To be calm is the highest achievement of the self” If anything that’s going against human nature; it is human nature to seek comfort of difficulties; it is human nature to be controlled by your emotions, not to remain calm and in control.
Well stated argument brother. Thank you for this analysis and logical scrutiny of stoicism. Do you have any recommendations for reading? I just finished 'Meditations'.
Well done i would deffinatly love a more in depth video where you can maybe talk about the structure stoicism a bit better for those who may not be familiar with it but i would love to see more of his thoughts and as well as yours
Thank you for this video. Nietzsche was right about stoicism, it's an absurd worldview to hold in a universe that is utterly indifferent to our existence. People who continue to hold this philosophy today are fooling themselves
Nature is organized chaos and the stoic is one form of psychological structure to deal with the absurdity of existence, which he acknowledges as part of life.
@@asdfg_98 sure. Start by the classic and fundamental Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. You should find it in any cheap bookstore for less than 10 dollars.
Humility is at the core of being a Stoic. This idea that humility kills dangerous pride is at the core of Stoic philosophy. Marcus Aurelius often humbled himself so that his exalted rank would not cause him to think of himself as a superior being. Seneca experienced poverty so that his wealth wouldn’t corrupt him. Cato used to go about bareheaded and barefoot, an appearance far below his station so he wasn’t tainted by success and power.
I live in a third world country, so many situations are very repetitive and also there are environments of intolerance where the majority reach unfair consensus. So it depends on the situation to take an stoic approach or a existencial approach, taking into account that "the existencial" could lead to futile fights (yes, fights, no debate at all)
There may NOT in fact be a conflict. Stoics would argue to simply deal with the reality at hand IS the will to have power over one’s reaction to reality.
@@thechangingtimes You are taking the ''will to power'' as words on their face value, probably not even understanding the meaning Nietzsche put into that expression. ''Will to power'' as a universal rule of nature and its expansion. What you said not only undermined Nietzsche that but also the stoicism as a philosophy, as ''following nature'' should not take any extra power.
For me living in “accordance with nature” entails accepting whatever happens in your life, especially the bad stuff with indifference because it’s natural to expect things to go wrong at some point one way or another. If you expect it and understand that it’s natural you won’t get too upset over it
I think this is living in accordance with your nature or stoicism. But we all live in accordance with nature itself right? We might reject things like resentment, anger, pity, but they are a part of our nature. rejecting ourselves is not fully living in accordance with even our own nature. Stoicism is starting to sound more like living in discordance from nature lol
Falls 2Shine The way stoicism defines it is you have to choose what your ideals are, virtues you strive to have or embody. This would be your “nature” or true self. You don’t necessarily suppress, reject or ignore the feelings you described actively, you simply learn to be indifferent to them. It’s about acceptance more than anything.
Oh I see..the Nietzschean/Jungian view is that you don't get to choose who you are, you become who you are and can only Self actualize. This is considered living according to your nature, as apposed to living according to your ideals, or ideal nature. Which I think is the main issue Nietzsche had here with the stoics.
Falls 2Shine Yea your probably right! Although his view on stoicism is really flawed... either he didn’t understand it or he was trolling, as the video mentions at the end. You have Marcus Aurelius emperor of Rome and Epectictus slave turned philosopher; both embodied stoicism while living completely different lives.
That's cute. Nietzsche knew greek, he was a philologist, the object of his studies was to understand words. What Nietzsche was saying is that the Stoics didn't get what the nature of humans are.
@@mefisth8678 I do not think so, I think he citicises it rightfully, even though I also fancy stoicism and it is certainly a nice approach, but it actually is not that consistent in it´s explanations. I would have to agree with Nietzsche, but still recommend stiocism, since it lays value on acceptance of situation and on progres by sacrifice, which Nietzsche does as well. the difference is in the varied interpretations, of those and other concepts, they are dealing with.
@Med Taki Yes, this was kind the problem that Nietzsche had with Western philosophy they are almost all about raw rationality. They didn't get the dyonysian aspect of life the problem of free will, emotions, our subconscious. They simplified human nature too much
@Med Taki Just to say, the idea that there is no free will and that our thoughts are predetermined is a metaphysical position among others. It's been a trend to present it as an incontrovertible scientific fact in some recent popular science books, but that's actually incorrect if you look into it. Most contemporary scientists have limited grounding in philosophy, which is a bit unfortunate
@Med Taki Your thoughts and feelings are not predetermined whatsoever and you can definitely change them intentionally. They are predictable but they are definitely not predetermined like hanging on some string of causality waiting to be plucked at the perfect moment.
As others have said, this all hinges on the definition of "Nature", which the Stoics themselves took too mean a variety of things. It could mean human nature, nature as the physical universe, or a number of other things. Nietzche narrowly describes Nature as the former two. Most often, it seems the Stoics are using Nature to mean something more like, "Fate". Even within the same breath, they can use it in different ways. Take for example this quote from Marcus Aurelius: "To be vexed by anything that happens is a kind of succession from nature (fate) which compromises the nature (physical or etheral) of all things."
Hmmm, I guess I should read "Beyond Good and Evil". I've read meditations and The Art of Living a few times. Based on what I hear in this video, Nietzsche is way out of line in his argument. Just MHO.
Definitely give it a read. Even if you disagree he makes compelling arguments that will make you question all sorts of previously held beliefs. It’s all about the mindset you approach it with. His work is not for everyone, he acknowledged it and found joy in that. I think that in itself is a beautiful thing, hope you enjoy if you do read it. Amazing book.
I disagree, while I disagree with a lot of what Nietzsche says, Nietzsche has always had a point whenever he makes a criticism of something. And we need to put our egos at the door for a moment and remember Nietzsche was much smarter than us, and so we probably have a misconception as to what he’s trying to say. To make a true judgement on what he’s saying I’d need to read this over and think about it for quite a while, and even then I’d still not truly understand his meaning.
Stoics persistently circle the drain of life. I have such contempt for stoicism it borders on loathing. I honestly feel like a reincarnation if Nietzsche when discussing stoicism, my contempt runs THAT deep for them. Stoicism is what the sheep teach the wolves so that the wolves can be lulled into complacency.
I have been reading and studying stoic philosophy for years now. I still don't consider myself a stoic but I wanted to point out that part of teaching of stoicism isn't to become an exact copy or word for word stoic as the philosophy encourages individuality and the importance of one's own experiences. This includes religion and culture. I recommend Ryan Holiday and Echart Toles work to anyone wanting to learn or how to practice stoicism in the modern age. Hope this helps
![MISSING: SLIM SHADY [Expanded Mourner’s Edition Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xh8qgHrOO1g/mqdefault.jpg)
Take a free 1-1 coaching session with us to start your transformation journey: maiorumsociety.com/
Don’t have to take everything a man says as gospel. Bruce Lee said it best “ Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own “
True Words...Actually this is what Nietzsche would say as well...
A man once asked Bruce Lee "you talk a lot about peace but you teach fight? how you combine both together?". then Bruce Lee told him to fuck off and ate his dog
@@leversandpulleys9274 wtf
@@leversandpulleys9274 a jojo reference?
@@leversandpulleys9274 Good point. Bruce also used to provoke fights on the streets just to test his skills. That's not an example of good behavior if you ask me.
I use stoicism instrumentally, like a box that I put the things I can not control .. but not when it comes to my goals in life, because I'm highly aware of the fine line between stoicism and nihilsm
yousef mahmood spot on!
Yeah, no, Stoicism isn't even close to nihilism. Sure, it does advocate for not getting too emotional when bad stuff happens, though even that's only because it's considered irrational (and rationality is valued very highly in stoicism). Stoicism makes a shitload of claims about what's meaningful, and about what people should and shouldn't do. I don't really understand the connection people sometimes make between nihilism and stoicism, but maybe it's because not everyone realizes you don't need fear or pleasure alone to drive you in life when you have a strong sense of meaningfulness for what you do. Honestly, I feel like people who are driven mainly by fear and the desire for pleasure are the ones who lack strong value systems, and are just being pulled through life by their impulses and neuroticism. AFAICT, when people lack real meaning in their lives is when they turn to hedonism and fear to fill the void. But having strong values should just lead you to focus and work hard. Getting upset when something goes wrong is usually just a distraction from fixing the problem. That's why in Stoicism one of the main themes you'll see is that one should care about giving a strong EFFORT, but not directly about the OUTCOME (since your effort is the only variable you can actually control, and thus the only one relevant to anything you care about). But choosing not to worry about things isn't the same as literally believing that nothing has any inherent value. It just means you don't consider worrying valuable.
(All that said, IMO Stoicism has some flaws. For one thing, life isn't complete without a splash of emotion here and there. But it's also got some really good points for how live meaningfully and let go of pointless fear, and understanding them works well to enrich life)
@@jeremylynwood3604 what values exist outside of pleasure of some kind. While you could argue pleasure is different than what is "good" youd be hard pressed to define good or value outside a positive emotional experience of some kind that's not completely arbitrary which would be circular reasoning and thus irrational. What is justice or virtue outside evaluations that make something valued based on some kind of subjective judgment that affirms its value? Sure I can arbitrarily label red being the best color but I cant get to that conclusion by reason. Same with conceptions of fair or unfair. Independent of evaluation or preference for one out come over another e.g we should not harm self or others we cannot even define what justice is. What is justice outside our emotional response to it? Not to mention the inevitability of defining such subjective experiences as the root of our understanding if such concepts like justice because of OUR nature which is Nietzsches point.. we cannot be other than we are but the stoics would have us be otherwise
@@jeremylynwood3604 even though i use many stoic teachings in my life, i don't really call myself one because stoicism is heavily anchored on their metaphysical and meta ethical views which i am skeptical
Absolutely, use what it's true, leave the rest.
Loved to have seen a live debate between Nietzsche and Seneca
One was an accomplished man who chose the life of stoicism. The other was a man who was nihilistic, depressed and turned himself mad in isolation. One tested his stoicism while having the option to lead a more epicurean lifestyle, the other did not live by his philosophy. No debate needed. I’d prefer to see one of Seneca and Epicurus.
I’d rather see him debate modern economists, psychologists, political analysts, and philosophy historians since he attacked pretty much everyone.
If Nietzsche "hated" stoicism, then why did he take one of stoic principles - that being _Amor fati_ - and put it in such an important place in his own philosophy?
We need to take a look beyond 'Beyond Good and Evil', to see that he didn't despise this philosophy, but regarded it with deep respect. One reason for that is the already mentioned 'Amor fati'. Another reason is the fact that he decided to use his words to criticise it: we do not criticise that which we do not consider important or does not concern us in any way whatsoever. I could also argue that Nietzsche lived his life in a stoic way: remember, he had always suffered from numerous health problems, yet he fearlessly took a path of a dangerous living (by leaving his safe job place as a professor) in order to be able to improve himself as a philosopher - or, in other words, endure what has to be endured, in order to fulfill one's duty as a human being: in his case, writing great works of philosophy which still affect our thought.
Maybe he didn't "hate" stoicism, but the essence of the contention Nietzche had against stoicism is its rejection of the passions. This is the same criticism he levied against Christianity and other forms of faith. Core to the criticism is that stoicism is a contradictory philosophical outlook. In imposing so much restraint to the self, as a means to act in accordance with this detached conception of nature, the stoic is trying to act against the fate of suffering. There is an analogous character in stoicism and asceticism. Instead of expressing one's self and one's life, the stoic sees himself in fault and tries to repress himself to act in accordance with virtue, or "nature". Nietzche valued directed expression of emotions, not repression.
@@TheCocoaisCongealed stoicism is not against emotions, which they see as natural.
The difference between Nietzsche & 'most' of Stoicism is the means in which they aim to achieve their end goal. The result may ultimately be the same, or similar in-spirit, and the path may even almost be identical, but the ideas which provide the impetus for action are worlds apart(or maybe just words apart haha like just worded extremely differently as in core message and goal is ultimately sorta the same but the wording is just extremely different haha also I'm retarded)
"Vengeance on Intellect, and other Backgrounds of Morality. Morality - where do you think it has its most dangerous and rancorous advocates? - There, for example, is an ill-constituted man, who does not possess enough of intellect to be able to take pleasure in it, and just enough of culture to be aware of the fact; bored, satiated, and a self-despiser; besides being cheated unfortunately by some hereditary property out of the last consolation, "blessing of labour," the self-forgetfulness in the "day’s work"; one who is thoroughly ashamed of his existence - perhaps also harbouring some vices, - and who on the other hand (by means of books to which he has no right, or more intellectual society than he can digest), cannot help vitiating himself more and more, and making himself vain and irritable: such a thoroughly poisoned man - for intellect becomes poison, culture becomes poison, possession becomes poison, solitude becomes poison, to such ill-constituted beings - gets at last into a habitual state of vengeance and inclination for vengeance.... What do you think he finds necessary, absolutely necessary in order to give himself the appearance in his own eyes of superiority over more intellectual men, so as to give himself the delight of perfect revenge, at least in imagination? It is always morality that he requires, one may wager on it; always the big moral words, always the high-sounding words: justice, wisdom, holiness, virtue; always the Stoicism of gestures (how well Stoicism hides what one does not possess!); always the mantle of wise silence, of affability, of gentleness, and whatever else the idealist-mantle is called, in which the incurable self-despisers and also the incurably conceited walk about. Let me not be misunderstood: out of such born enemies of the spirit there arises now and then the rare specimen of humanity who is honoured by the people under the name of saint or sage: it is out of such men that there arise those prodigies of morality that make a noise, and make history, - St Augustine was one of these men. Fear of the intellect, vengeance on the intellect - Oh! how often have these powerfully impelling vices become the root of virtues! Yea, virtue itself! - And asking the question among ourselves, even the philosopher’s pretension to wisdom, which has occasionally been made here and there on the earth, the maddest and most immodest of all pretensions, - has it not always been above all in India as well as in Greece, a means of concealment? Sometimes, perhaps, from the point of view of education which hallows so many lies, it is a tender regard for growing and evolving persons, for disciples who have often to be guarded against themselves by means of the belief in a person (by means of an error). In most cases, however, it is a means of concealment for a philosopher, behind which he seeks protection, owing to exhaustion, age, chilliness, or hardening; as a feeling of the approaching end, as the sagacity of the instinct which animals have before their death, - they go apart, remain at rest, choose solitude, creep into caves, become wise.... What? Wisdom a means of concealment of the philosopher from intellect?"
Friedrich Nietzsche - The Gay Science
Book V - Aphorism # 359
@@miniemikeimouse6720 Nietzsche seems to be projecting his own emotions on to the stoic, emotions the stoic may not have or even be trying to repress. His criticism here also seems to be a criticism of a particular type of person rather than an idea, it's almost an ad hominem. I'm also not convinced that he understands Stoicism...
The problem is based on the meanings we, human beings, give to the words: The term "nature" is interpreted differently by Stoicism and Nietzsche, and apparently this difference creates a tension. If you ask scientists or artists, they will give totally different meaning(s) to "the" nature (or to nature) and possibly clash with both Stoicisms and Nietzsche. Who is correct? Nobody and everybody: Once we use language we are in an altogether different 'dimension' which is bound to be 'artificial' anyway, not natural.
An example: Ask 10 different artists to paint an object, then ask yourself this question: "Which one of these paintings is the closest or the truest to the object?" None of them, because they are simply paintings, and only the creatures with the knowledge or perspective of paintings will make some sense from any one of these paintings. Defining the nature or anything else in linguistic terms has more or less a similar effect: There is no 'correct way' of describing nature through language or formulas; there are only artificial or human ways.
Yeh, and you just made a whole host of platonic assumptions there, which Nietzsche would have rejected. Perhaps look at Nietzsche on ‘truth’ then come back and edit the comment.
A kind of challenge for this would be the concept of archetypes, symbols so prevalent that they are somehow hardwired into our most basic instinct. Like the binaries of being/not being, light/dark, life/death, which are nearly omnipresent in historical thought, either as tense opposites or different aspects of the circles we experience over and over. In the case of these things, we might actually be a natural manifestation of these archetypes, as we can't conceive either the world or ourselves without them, unable to either impose or abandon them.
Eastern philosophers saw this as the fundamental issue to human existence and promoted the idea of enlightenment as a means to transcend the cycles of death and rebirth. While Nietzsche and other existentialist may be promoting something more in the lines of amor fati, authentic living and self overcoming as the proper response to the "problematic".
very well said. I too see the folly in language and the role semantics plays on personal views and our role in a culture or society. I often ask others what they think makes them unique. I then ask them If you are unique then you do not adhere to any ideology for the purpose of that ideology is uniformity to create "common sense" or a specific set of rules to which you are self governed. To me an ideology is more like a role playing game. each one has an advantage over another and is similar to rock paper scissors. Stoicism itself has an advantage. That advantage being that despite its flaw with pertaining to nature or emulating it is that one can be detached from two polarized parties and find a common solution. Until a point where one like Nietsche polarized against stoicism. However to counter Nietsche I would claim that stoicism is a practice that can make one successful by not letting others see what acts control your emotions. granted it goes against the basis of these quotes the truth is stoicism helps you hide that emotional reaction that gives you away and let's others know what angers and fears control you. Even taking joy in something can be used against you. Our parents do it to us to motivate us into obeying their rules. Because as Sigmund Freud said, I'm paraphrasing, right and wrong can only be determined when their exists a reward or consequence to an action.
meaning that without a consequence and a language to construct our ritualistic views in culture, right and wrong cease to exist. But we made up a construct with which we could convey ideas to others and when something threatened lives fear set within a majority population who, through sheer power in numbers, either explicitly or implicitly created the foundation for societal constructs.
To quote my man Thor in Infinity War "all words are made up." which means our constructs are made up. the only thing we can be sure of is that their is a common chemical reaction to certain stimuli we've chosen to call emotions. but not every individual will react to the same stimuli the same way. part of that is due to societal programming and part of that is due to chemical differences in each individual and how they interpret the emotion they feel aka "free will". such as fight or flight response. a binary choice made up of your personal construct of limitations and abilities at your disposal unique to you in a case by case play out of events.
Anyway I've talked to much. no one will probably read this whole thing. If you did... Thanks for hanging around. the thoughts rock but the thumbs suck at writing them.
harle nock You started well there, but it doesn’t follow that Nietzsche is trying to re-essentialize ‘truth’. What you appear to be suggesting is a gross form of relativism. Nietzsche rejected that too.
The problem is that Nietzsche was well aware of the Greek term that was used by the stoic philosophers. His rejection of it isn’t a linguistic issue, but a philosophic one
I’ve always felt Nietzsche and Stoicism to be two halves of a complete work in strength and self mastery
Exactly while he (from my knowledge of stoicism and its framework at this moment of my life) doesn't understand stoicism, his different perspective is very necessary for my own personal judgments, I hope I made sense. :D
You mean self tyranny 🙃
@@BookWorm2369 yes , ive definitely moved away from stoicism in more recent times
@@Ariaa76 yesss
I think that both Stoic idealism and virtues as well as Nietzschean Philosophy of Ubermensch is very important for life. There are times in life where u need to be a stoic and there are times where u have to be a Nietzschean.
This is well done, I expected a lot more views on the video. I hope the channel grows and prospers, you bring good content to the table.
Thanks so much! by the looks at my analytics this video will probably do really well in the coming days in terms of views, your support mean a lot! 😊
Not many people are interested in philosophy that much and even if there were, it would be hard for them to find his channel as only a small of percentage of existencialists end up here.
Well, it's a "niche" subject...
Love the positivity
@@arfarfarf256 a "Nietzsche" subject hahhaa
We shouldn't forget, though, that Nietzsche didn't reject everything from the stoic worldview. For starters, when he was in middle school he was very keen on stoicism and the concept that you aren't affected by things you have no control over. But most importantly, he later on adopted the concept of Amor Fati (the love of everything that happens, a yes to life), which was originally taken from the stoics. Stoics stressed the importance of our "inner freedom", and put it in direct relation with the aforementioned Amor Fati. Stoicism isn't to be thought of as a philosophy of resentment and "décadence".
As a point I would to say that he would later reject the ideology of Amor Fati later in his life, as he saw the idea to be abhorrent in the case of of many who have or would have suffered in life with no reconcilliliation.
But Philosophy can be a problem... Right?
He superimposes a more contemporary meaning to “live according to nature.” He never addresses the stoic internal locus of control teachings. Also, it can be confusing if the word nature is loosely defined.
Stoic wisdom is about " natures nature". sickness, death. How we react to it. Its pointless to argue against it
50shadesofblack F****** THANK YOU SOMEONE SAID IT.
@@Ikaros23 but natures nature is anything that is. Boundless.
@@alecmisra4964 Exactly the point. Stoicism is just acknowleding the fact of " natures nature". That is that "natures nature" is the process of birth, growt, decay, death, randomness in organic life. And that this is a universal nature. That is that it is the " truth" all over the universe. The stoic view is that all we can do is to acept the fact that all we have power over is how we react to this process. That is if you can handle it and not revert to metafysics or the Gods. That is the Gods may be behind it all. But the fact is that you need to acept that this is how things are and that all you have power over is your own reaction. In Stoicism it dont matter if God is behind it all, or if it`s a intelligent process or just random chanse. The focus is on what you can do about it. It`s ultra minimalistic and there is no way to argue against it on a logical level.
Within the context of a rational animal, to live according to nature is to live according to reason.
Great video. Something Nietzsche did miss though is that Epictetus actually recommends people against calling themselves Stoics because of the vast implications of this claim. He speaks about how easier it is to try your best to practice Stoicism, than become a Stoic.
Weird to see a black Saffer here. Weird, but nice.
@@dannyarcher6370 why is it weird
@@imoyabrax450 Because black South Africans are a bunch of collectivists who despise Western thought.
Believing in Stoicism turns it into religion. Stoicism should not be a religious dogma, everything in it should be tested and everything false discarded.
What a distinction without a difference!
Thanks for publishing. As somebody who is a fan of stoicism, I still like to get different viewpoints on it. I think you could go a lot deeper on this.
"I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good" -Seneca
His arguments seem to apply more to Cynicism than Stoicism
I thought the same thing
@@cinemaster9012 Stoicism was founded on the tail of Cynicism. But Stoicism is far more hopeful and productive then Cynicism. If you look at the most Famous Stoics like Marcus Auerlius and Seneca they were both very accomplished men. Diogenes the Cynic not so much not that he gave a shit lol
Ism’s, Ism’s everywhere. Excuse the criticism. 😁☮️❤️🙏🏻
@FiniteAutomaton Thanks for the info. Frankly though, that he was taught how to analyze the use of language in historical texts (which is what you learn from studying philology) or in what esteem he held certain groups are not the most relevant things to discussing how well he understood a specific philosophy. What he actually said about that philosophy though, is. That said, I understand that he was fairly educated in classical works and studied a pretty good amount of Greek philosophy, but even that doesn't ensure that he had a particularly thorough understanding of all the different schools of thought. There were many, many complex belief systems in ancient Greece and Rome, and the way he speaks of Stoicism in particular really doesn't seem to indicate a very sophisticated understanding of it. I am very curious about what he said about Cynicism though, so thanks for the tips there!
@FiniteAutomaton
"Gruesome, malevolent and problematic aspects of existence which comes from a feeling of well-being, an overflowing of health, and abundance of existence"
Firstly is "comes" a typo? Is that meant to say come? I can only understand this if it's intended to be "come" as otherwise I'm completely lost.
Regardless I don't understand how these horrors stem from joyous health. I was doing quite well with your comment and all was in order but at the end there I was unable to understand the meaning of what was written.
It would also be jolly good to have a clearer picture of the so called model or whatever that sentence is actually trying to say that doesn't conjure images of an overly sexually minded composer genius. I really have no clue what is going on in that last sentence of yours. Sorry.
SIGN UP NEWSLETTER // WEBSITE: thoughtsonthinking.org
Nihilism is remodeled cynicism. Friedrich Nietzsche is Diogenes reborn. Look at his biography.
This video is a misleading incomplete presentation of Nietzsche's view of the value of Stoicism.. Note in Daybreak Bk. 5, #546, Nietzsche''s admiration for Epictetus and Nietzsche's comment that such is life is one of supreme bravery. By implication and adaptation a life modeled after the Stoics can still be lived. The Stoic view of nature has the limitations this video rightly describes, but it is incomplete to claim Nietzsche hated Stoicism in sum.
It's almost as if this can't be adequately explained in a five-minute video...
Raptor Jesus it’s almost as if you could make hour long videos if you really wanted.
@@sabertooth160 Your point being?
Nietzsche does not call it supreme bravery as a compliment. He is pointing to it as unobtainable by the average person who he sees adopting slave moralities.
@@mykulpierce I think Nietzsche is calling attention to different types of slave moralities - Stoicism represented by Epictetus and Christianity. Nietzsche admires Epictetus because his happiness or serenity is dependent upon himself whereas Christians must look outside themselves for happiness now and in the future. Nietzsche did not respect someone looking for "inexpressible glories" in the next world for happiness as is the rule among almost all Christians.
The philosophy of Nietzsche and stoicism. A perfect combination if you want to live a life with quality, honor, virtue and deep spiritual adventures. Do them both. Is like Bjj and Muay Thai together.
You don't need an already existing philosophy to live a meaningful life. Someone else's philosophy has got nothing to do with how you're gonna live life. They provide inspiration but thinking they'll help you live with honor and virtue is a joke
@@701delbronx8 everything is a contradiction, you know that
@@antichrist7608 - Proof.?.
@@matryxgeounlymyted56quarde9 if you believe something, someone out there will believe something contradictory, so why cant i believe in two things that contradict each other. i cant prove either of us right or wrong, which in itself is somewhat contradictory
@@matryxgeounlymyted56quarde9 wait do you just post this on everything?
"All life is a game of luck"
Jack in Titanic
"But a true man makes his own luck"
The other man.
Shay Cormac?
that wasnt jack lol, it was the funny loud guy who likes brandy and cigars, then Cal says " A real man makes his own luck",
I've often wondered about this area so it's great to see someone covering this. Really well done, brilliant.
Nietzsche made the mistake a lot of people do when they don't look too carefully into Stoicism. The tenant of Stoicism is not "live in accordance with nature", it is 'live accordance with your nature" or to man's nature. It means defining what sets you apart for other species and trying to apply that best to you life. In the case of humans, it is reason. Nice of you to tuck that disclaimer in the last 20 seconds of the video that he probably didn't understand Stoicism. He obviously did not.
Nietzsche was espousing a morality 'above' typical human morality, or at least separate from it. He is kind of obligated to dismantle all philosophies that operate in the current ethical norm. Too bad he went of half-cocked on Stoicism; as a Stoic and an appreciator of his work I would have loved to her his impressions on actual Stoicism.
@FiniteAutomaton The idea is that reason is the one defining quality that separates man from animals. Or rather "reason" is the term Stoics use to define that which separates us. It is giving that aspect primacy in our interpretation of events and life itself that Stoics advocate (for themselves).
@FiniteAutomaton what is your definition of reason? It is quite obvious to me that a strong predisposition for reason is human nature or, at least, the tendency to make use of reason to fulfill motives. People do not make subjectively illogical decisions although they may be objectively illogical.
And stoicism is religious by nature. If you do not believe in a higher moral will and your ability to intuitively interact with it, then there is no argument there to be had.
@FiniteAutomaton I did not say that religiosity is inseparable from Stoic argument, only that there is no argument to be had when there is a denial of that exact intuitive faculty of which you just made mention of. If you are only interested in evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the topic, I am sorry to dismay you. It is only a matter of belief. That is why I said there is no argument. The idea of virtue and the ability to attain and exercise it is axiomatic for the stoics.
Where human nature is concerned, are we not just playing a definition game which also comes down to one’s own beliefs or outlook? I find any question to whether there is an ideal or a point to human life, although it is a valid question, to be completely sterile.
In order to make this more pragmatic, I will formulate it as so: Humans are idealists in that they have an accurate conception of how they would like the world to be. A moral framework is developed that dictates what can be done or what cannot be done according to the ideal. The faculty of reason is used to navigate this framework. Reason is thus an essential part to human nature, whether there is a universal ideal or not. It is not parity of reasoning. The aim of practicing Stoicism is to maximize the amount of actions that one performs, which fit one’s conception of morally righteous. However, this is not the psychological mindset of a Stoic, and there is no point in debating over the existence of virtue.
Nietzsche was physically and spiritually unhealthy , his mind did not have a healthy operating system. The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts and the mind with state of the physical body and the physical body with the state of the mind. Nietzsche could not cope with the realities of existence.
@@JoeyDeLago "the soul is dyed with the colour of it's thoughts" Marcus Aurelius?
“How could you live with such indifference”
Very easily
that's selfishness. Are you indifference to the sufferings of others. Do you not have empathy?
@@austinkierulf8333 let's not argue that Nietzsche cared about others, his whole 'master morality' comes at the cost of the weak. So Nietzsche should be the last one to complain
Nietzsche did not criticized for the sake of doing so, nor did he actually hate the philosophies he criticized. I believe his goal was to inspire thinking for yourself, to understand why you have the thoughts and beliefs you have, where do they come from and what flaws they might have. He did not care if people agreed with him, in fact i believe he said he liked more those people who didn’t like him because that meant they were true to themselves.
As Much As I Am In Great Gratitude For Having Discovered Nietzche In My Life Time , His Brilliance Lies In His Questions More Than His Answers....He Missed The Mark About The Stoics Meaning Of "Living By Nature" Which Has A More "Taoist Flavor" To It.
Interesting that I had to scroll to here searching for this kind of comment. I agree. Seems the main problem is the ambiguity of the term “nature”. I don’t think Stoics meant it in the way Nietzche understood it. As brilliant as Nietzche was this is essentially a strawman fallacy: he is attacking a misconstrued idea.
@@Petrvsco My take on what is meant by "Nature" , ie; to live according to "Nature" is to live according to "Reason" that it is our unique skill of reasoning that is our "Nature" and by observing how Nature itself manifests we can "reason" our way into "Being Like Water" as a metaphor for living.
I think so too
Nietzsche: "I hated stoicism"
Stoic: "Why you implore your people to Amor Fati?"
Nietzsche: "That wasn't me, that was patricia"
@Ali Rizvi more enhanced? that sounds just like amor fati
PATRICIAAAA
Ryder if you want a miserable life and keep overthinking problems that has no solution, yeah maybe stoic is lame.
Amor Fati is not unique to the Stoics, but predates them, with origins in Christianity or earlier. In Christianity, this idea appears as acceptance of the events of life as divinely willed, with the consequent affirmation of life as such as divine, as a product of the divine will, and the implication that to hate life is blasphemous.
@Ali Rizvi My mistake; "amor fati" goes even further back to the Homeric Greeks, who recognized and embraced fate (e.g. the death of Achilles in the Iliad). The Iliad/Odyssey derive from oral traditions of perhaps 2000 BC or older.
Nietzsche did not 'hate' Stoic philosophy. In many ways he was stoic and a Stoic.
Neither can it be said that he was an Epicurean. He took from both traditions and from others too, even the ones he thoroughly hated. There is something of the reform Christian, in Nietzsche - if you want to look for it.
He was certainly nearer to being a Stoic than being an Epicurean - certainly one of today's neo-Epicureans, who would make him vomit if he were unfortunate enough to meet such a hipster-fascist Last Man- and not know it.
He was with the Cynics - and nodded to the Stoics. The chief error of the Epicurean, for N, was that they failed to realise that virtue is what life is about. Nietzsche was always willing to learn from all schools - even if it were a negative lesson.
Virtue, belief in a form of virtue, growing in adversity and growth and morality coming through personal development, were important to Nietzsche's often changing ideas.
The contemporary world could be improved if we rejected the mushy modern Epicureanism that has been spewed on us - and instead read such movements through Nietzsche's critical eye. He
We could do a lot worse than embracing Nietzsche's idiosyncratic take on Stoicism, Cynicism and others.
He was not stoic, but he totally destroyed you stoics. ahhhha
@@meroqero1476 I never said he was a Stoic.
If you followed the thread, you would know that.
@@damianbylightning6823 In many ways he was stoic and a Stoic.
Your whole comment is so full of inaccuracies it gives me a headache.
@@prs_81 Elaborate.
The virgin horse hugger vs The Chad Emperor Horse mounter
Lol :))
But he was an anti-war emperor, as a stoic
@@dottorstranamore4150 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcomannic_Wars . Peace and War is a part of beeing a stoic. When there is peace there is peace. When its time to fight, there is war. The point is that when the war is over you get over it and dont hate your former enemies. Its just business
Based.
Ad hominem
Stoicism has its limits. Just as any other philosophy does. Therefore it's ultimately no more advantaging than any other philosophy. It's about the human being's vulnerability. A stoic is just as much vulnerable to the extremities of nature as a non-stoic is. And a stoic doesn't have a monopoly on Stoicism either. Anyone can practice operating in the face of adversity exactly as a stoic would and still choose to not identify as being one.
All philosophies are not equal. Yes none are perfect but some are better than others.
@@scotthorstmeier define better
@@StradexEngine
Do not hurt people as much.
A good philosophy would probably be one that is logically consistent?
Saying that stoicism is no more advantageous than any other philosophy feels like equating all philosophy. Surely there are worse ways of viewing the world than stoicism.
I really like this. I had never thought much of it before, but it makes sense. Simply being a stoic would make each of an individual's actions with other people force them to act in a similar manner. By not openly showing emotions it's difficult for others to connect with a person and by only talking about issues that matter we tend to force others to do the same because that's the only way they can get a conversation out of us
I’m friends with a Christian who most would probably classify as a stoic. Very rarely expresses emotion, very tight lipped, doesn’t say more than needs to be said. Most of our communication is essentially non verbal. It’s tough to describe but it is a nice way to interact with someone.
Stoics are not emotionless beings, or those who suppress emotions. Stoics manage their emotions with the goal to act rationally.
@@alexxx4434exactly! People miss understand the stoics as being emotionless and dull but that is the farthest from the truth :)
@@sushitrash9911 Yeah, maybe people interpret it that way because modern day life ruins people emotions. So, people seem to just want to get rid of emotions.
put simply: Nietzsche was about overcoming nature, the Stoics were about living according to it.
I just found out about this channel and I cannot be more excited seeing all those videos about Jung and Nietzsche which are awaiting for me. Grateful that channels like yours exist.
Thanks! I have loads of content planned 😊
Sounds like Nietzsche was personally attacked by Stoicism 😂
Lol! Honestly, he seems like he was a pretty emotional guy so I wouldn't be surprised. I just wish more of his arguments addressed the core ideas of Stoicism rather than being so superficial and pedantic. He was absolutely brilliant so I think he could have had some really valuable insight into its problems if he tried. I guess you could construct a deeper criticism of Stoicism from his works in general, though.
He sounds like that about a lot of things.
@@jeremylynwood3604 You missed the point. When you call Nietzche "a pretty emotional guy", you say that as if it is a bad thing. This is exactly what Nietzche is attacking when he attacks stoicism.
@@TheCocoaisCongealed I think like you're assuming that; I'm a pretty emotional guy myself and I don't think being emotional in itself is a bad thing. I can see the point in criticizing Stoicism for trying to turn people into robots - actually, I agree with it. But, everyone needs to reach a balance, and at least for me Stoicism helps provide a good framework for being more balanced. There's a time and place for everything, and Stoicism helps shine a light on ways to optimize one's life so that you are not being POINTLESSLY emotional. I try to make my emotion count, if you know what I'm trying to say.
Nietzsche attacked everyone that wasn't him.
Very nicely done interpretation.
I recently worked through Beyond good and evil as well as the addition Die Genealogie der Moral (sorry for not having the English title in mind rn. Read both of them in German) and I also found myself pondering about these paragraphs, as I am also quite interested in Seneca and Aurel, probably the most wellknown stoics.
I came to the conclusion that the interpretation must be tightly observed. For instance the mentioning and interpretation of nature by Nietzsche and the comparison of the same usage of word by the stoics.
I think it is necessary to also see what Nietzsche has been searching for in his work and considering the additional Streitschrift Zur Genealogie der Moral to clarify it even further.
As I see it stoics mostly addressed a philosophy for one's self. How to conduct and how to live.
Nietzsche especially in these books was searching on a bigger scale. A scale of society and moral. He wasn't too concerned about one's actions but more about the building of valuesystems in society. There are many points where you could point this out. Especially also in his mentions of Kant and his discussion of the "creation" of bad conscience (schlechtes Gewissen).
What I take away from Nietzsche is that stoicism is not enough to build a valuesystem. It is still a good way to learn how to conduct yourself and how to face hardship (my opinion. Nitzsche didn't say anything about that in the book)
I think Nietzsche understood stoicism from a psychological perspective rather than a purely philosophical one.
At least half of psychology is applied philosophy
He didn't understand stoicism at all, clearly, thinking that acceptance of negative events is the same as indifference.
@@fredericktorres1325 He understood stoicism to be a weak stance against mankind's interests in turning the world into something we value and the desire of competing against the natural struggle of life due to anger, pride, envy, revenge, discomfort, and or lust. To deny oneself is cowardice. It's the stance that human nature is to great or volatile to be harnessed or understood that living is too dangerous. Acceptance isn't indifference; it's defeat. Nietzsche stands for homeric heroism and creative genius. The stoics would view Achilles as immoral for acting on his rash anger in killing Hector, but Achillies kills because it's apart of his will. He's not divorced from his anger because it serves him. It's not his enemy, but something he creates meaning with. If you want to be at war with yourself, then let that be your virtue, but to call it truth is a misstep in understanding human nature.
Joshua L there’s some things that you must accept defeat on though. If your mom dies, There’s no one to retaliate against for this injustice besides God... you have no choice but to accept this thing you have no control over. Maybe you need to let off some steam first, but in the end you must accept.
Or perhaps you retaliate by making it your life mission to ensure that humans will live forever?
OK - this is an easy error to make with Nietzsche - He dislike Stoicism but not because it was stoicism - and this may seem to be a paradox but like a lot of N. it is not.
Stoics liked Eternal Recurrence - so did N.
Stoics liked a form of Perspectivism - so did N.
Stoics liked a balanced artistic perspective [Apollo/Dion] to living a happy life - so did N.
So how can N. trash Stoics in BGE and in other places - he's NOT trashing Stoics - he was trashing systematic accounts of a rules-based life.
Just like he trashed Christianity - like he trashed Plato and all organized religions and philosophical systems in BGE and his other writings
So the point here is critical - N. does not care a whit about Stoicism if you think he does then you are missing the point of Nietzsche.
you mean as if he hated the praxis but not the a priori? lol
@cc kk Thanks for taking the time to reply to me - I might suggest something you can consider - Nietzsche's view on "Will to Power and the "Superman".
When I first started reading N. I was fascinated by these two subjects. So many commentators talked about them - then I got a really good Philo Prof who suggested I find out what N. actually said about these things in his actual writings - you want to know what I found out [and my Prof already knew] - Nietzsche hardly mentions these in his actual writings - commentators who talk about them are simply wrong or misunderstanding N. You can do your own research - read through BGE or GofM or The Gay Science and find the Superman reference or Will to Power discussions - you wont find many and often none and in his late writings you will find they are not mentioned at all.
btw his "Will to Power" book was not his - it was his sisters who cobbled together his notebooks out of context.
Don't know if this will help - but when I discovered it - it helped me understand N. much better
@@JamesJoyce12 They are discussed in Zarathustra though, his only and probably most important work of his later life. To me it seems that he was criticizing how dogmatic philosophies become once they are accepted by the masses. Like the Stoics during his time, you can easily tell they aren't much like the Stoics today, as stoics no longer pretend to live according to nature. They know they live a life of discipline and they know it is not the one truth.
@Connor Mcbride He might be wrong, but there's no point to call him names and use homophobic insults. Try and be more civilized.
All those comments made me really happy! It's nice to see comments wich are thoughtful and open for criticism. Wouldn't have thought that this would exist in this time and age 😂 so thank you all ❤️
It’s a similar debate to the ideas of Confucius vs. Taoism from the east.
S explain the differences then genius
@@gonosol Hundreds and hundreds of differences. Completely different philosophies and ways of thinking.
To those of you who are name calling, since we mention Confucius: He who sling mud lose ground.
@D L Luke "Taoism ... while you may still be living within it". In a sense, going with the flow of nature? In a sense, accepting things of which we might not be in control? That is very similar to Stoicism. As for the argument in this video, beyond being two different pairs of philosophies, I don't see a similarity.
@D L Luke Right on, thanks.
Nietzsche interested me in my teen angsty years. Aurelius is what makes sense to me in my adulthood.
Perfectly balanced as all things should be.
You got dumber lol
@@GhGh-gq8oo Well well well, i don't know a single smart person calling others dumb. So i suppose your comment tells way more about you.
@@focusaddiction3460 I think most smart people call others dumb
@@yeezet4592 From my experience with smart people. they mostly think about it, since saying it can't possibly any benefit - something smart people gotta consider.
"There is truth in everything." This applies to Stoicism too. There are some good in it, but ultimately, I have to agree with Nietzche and his point about indifference and all. Thank you for this - glad I saw it.
4:58 In the picture here, he could only do that if his tie wasn't tied. Kinda takes away from the drama if you first calmly untie your tie before ripping open your shirt.
i don't know why but i find this comment comforting
I know that the aphorism you bringed up appears at the begining of the Beyond good and evil.
I'm a fan a stoicism (I have at least one book of every great stoic), but I also agree with Nietzsche when he claimed that the idea of living according to nature is clunky. As Lapis Lazuli asked in one episode from Steven Universe: " Why would I want to (live according to nature) ?"
Well, the stoics were pantheists, therefore they believe that living as nature is living as a god. Why did they believed that nature=God ? Because nature shares many traits of gods (nature can create and kill people, keeps you alive, feeds you etc.)
Nietzsche was a stoic, not a philosophical one but his actions can be considered stoics : he had good reasons to commit suicide (nihilism, rejected by women, poverty, mental ilnesses etc.) but he always figured out a way to stay as strong as possible.
Btw, great video !
That's interesting, normally Nietzsche is identified as an egoist.
Nietzsche had big problems, Freud might have been able to help him, I wonder if they ever crossed paths.
Honestly a great explanation Anubis, I never thought about it that way, but I can see how Nietzsche seems to have a bit of a misunderstanding of what stoicism is
Nietzsche said you can't help but live according to nature, because we are from nature and part of it.
He is saying that when the stoics said their principles are according to nature, they we're talking out their arse. And that they were also using this connection to make claims that their specially chosen principles and ideas, were superior to others, because they were according to nature.
Nietzsche might have despised this especially, because he strongly believed we should embrace our unfolding into nature.
@@jimgraham6722 Lou Salomé was friend with both Nietzsche and Freud.
Was thinking about making a video on this topic. Couldn't have explained it better. Great content!
Awesome! Thank you!
Sounds like his issues exist within some semantic elements of Stoicism that create a sense of too far a grasp of the philosophy itself relative to what it is trying to achieve.
Stoicism has relieved me of my anxiety, and suffering. Made me a strong human being if you agree or not. Alot of people misunderstood the stoic philosophy.
Stoicism also made me realize what happiness is.
I've never been so happy and grateful in my life
That doesnt matter on basis of if stoicism is right
if murdering and raping other people saves me from suffering does that mean its right and other people dont understand it? 🤣🤣😂😂😂 such a stupid claim
@@jernyx9139 thats not the point of stoicism..
Stoicism doesn't even point out to do what you want lmao
The point is when you have a problem just solve it rationally, because the problem is already there your still gonna have to face it whether you like it or not
"The problem isnt the problem but your attitude towards the problem" (idk who said that)
@@barsalty6768 Thats not the point of my comment... I know what stoicism is... In my comment I made an example where if something saves u from anxiety/suffereing it doesnt mean its good
Anyone that claims Nietzsche didn't understand something is making a very, very bold claim.
😂😂.
LOL best comment
As a practicing Stoic, I can tell you he absolutely misquoted Stoicism and railed against an idea which is not part of Stoicism. This is documented and easily verifiable, so not so much of bold claim. If someone claimed Christianity was bogus, because electrocuting Jesus on a cross was not a form of capital punishment in Rome at the time, you'd say the same thing regardless of who said it. Christianity may be bogus, but that is clearly not a valid reason why.
@@Carnyx_1 I don't think electrocuting people on the cross was ever a form of capital punishment 😂
@@Carnyx_1 So stoicism is not that which is in accordance with nature?
Do you what I love about Nietzsche? He was like Socrates, it doesn't matter what the ideas are, he will attack it with the most of his intellectual capabilities. He does not do this with malice, but to break peoples hold on ideologies that leave them blind to unseen knowledge and wisdom. When we conform to an ideology we become blind and hold onto it with emotions, which leaves us ignorant of what we cannot see yet. To make it more simple, he is encouraging us to question our beliefs and think for ourselves. If we follow another philosophical path, we will be led to the same predictable location without any of the adventure of discovering new realms within ourselves. Of course, he can be a little rude about it, but that is what gets peoples attention. I might be wrong about all of this but at least I am trying to find my own way of seeing it.
Love hearing the arguements against my personal philosophies. And he brought up good points!
A good compliment to this video would be Sigmund Freud's work on the concept of narcissism. It'll probably outline that projection of tyranny in a more coherent light then Nietzsche did.
How did he hated Stoicism when he himself said that my formula for human greatest is Amor Fati, loving everything which comes your way, sufferings of the world and whatever else may come. And that's the core concept of Stoicism, loving everything which comes your way, endure everything which comes your way because why not try your best to overcome them when you know that one day you're gonna die but always having in your mind humility and fairness, and not because it's hard for them to get for themselves what may not belong to them but because it's simply not right. None of the Stoics didn't said sit down all day and do nothing about sufferings, they obviously said you work the hardest you can to overcome them but with kindness, humility and above all fairness because what's wrong doesn't belong to you.
Maybe he misunderstood what according to nature meant for the Stoics.
I said that none of the Stoics said sit down all day and do nothing but get up and do your best but without taking what is wrong and does not belong to you. This is will power right here.
Do you think that taking what's not yours is fine?
Lol
So you're saying that is better to return to being animals?
It is harder for me to do a really simple thing that you cannot imagine right because it has to be done right than steal let's say 1 billion of dollars.
And yet Nietzsche implores us to AMOR FATI !?
To love fate. Regardless of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...
That's the essence of philosophy in my opinion. Take in as much as you can and keep the things that ring true to you. If you read about stoicism and none of it rings true other than amor fati then so be it. Take that and discard the rest. I think if you go even further that is the very role modern philosophy has, to take all the came before and choose the parts that make the most sense to you and then I suppose the next step is to pass on what you learned to someone else so they can do the same!
@Shadow Skull Well said.
@Shadow Skull I guess I didn't interpret what he said as advocating confirmation bias, rather encouraging people to embrace different ideas even if it comes from a mode of thinking that severely contradicts your own
@Shadow Skull When the most famous stoic is an emperor, it's hard to argue that "aggressive resignation" is the aim. That is nihilism, not stoicism.
As a stoic, I'm offended, yet indiffrent.^^
you should be offended because he doesn't understand a thing or two about stoicism
@@jjpapalabrou4591 But why? When stoicism preaches not being offended, why go against that? A stoic does not care particularly that someone disagrees with him. A stoic doesn't care if someone else attacks his honor. What matters to a stoic is his own virtues, and living in accordance with those virtues.
as a stoic you should just be quite like a terrace bro.
@Martha Polanski indifferent from outputs beyond the self. He will go in public and say this if he craves attention. However the reaction doesn't matter to a stoic
"apathy is death" - the nihilist
He reminds me of Ayn Rand, someone who had a lot to say about how miserable they were, but not much useful advice on how to overcome it.
Nietzsche has a lot of useful advice I think.
Nothing like Rand
This has helped me find a little bit of peace. I am practicing stoic. I love most of it but every now and then a few stoic quotes I struggle with. Thank you for doing this video.
The monstrous leap he took between living according to nature and living according to life is appalling. To live according to nature is to attempt to align oneself as closely as possible with the outside, objective world. To live according to life is - as portrayed in this viewpoint - to live according to the whims and wants of the subjective human mind. A subjective human does not naturally live in accordance with the objective world, hence why stoicism suggests making a conscious effort toward doing so, so as to minimize our actions’ contradictions with objective reality and effectively be more successful in our endeavors.
Very misleading video. Nietzsche's greatest influence and favourite philosopher was Heraclitus, who was also the foremost influence on the Stoics. Nietzsche describes the universe as an eternal fire, a continual flux of the unity of opposites, just like the Stoics (such as Marcus Aurelius) and Heraclitus.
This was really interesting as a stoic student myself. He makes it out to sound like the stoics that he met in his time lived in an echo chamber which is very possible as anything that becomes “popular” tends to follow that path.
I feel like Nietsche is using a strawman argument here. Particularly when he describes a Stoic view of living according to nature. If he were to steelman the Stoic position before arguing against it he would acknowledge that the Stoic definition of nature is very different than the common definition. For Stoics, humans are unique blessed with the gift of reason and rational thought, so for a human to live according to his nature is to embrace rationality.
I think Nietzsche would say rationality is limited.
But we are not rational animals. Yes, we use rationale as a tool, but that is the extent of its utility in our primate grip - just tool-usage.
Once we accept that as a first principle, it's very challenging to steelman stoicism and Nietzsche's argument against Stoicism really weighs much heavier upon second lift.
@@NorthEngine666 would he now...lol....and he would have to use Rationality to make his point wouldn't he...any attempt to debase Logic and Reason...must use Logic and Reason ....what else do you appeal to...my Faith...my Dreams...my Ghost...will you attempt to communicate with me via Telepathy ???...if your going to use words, you must assume I am rational...in order for me to understand your point...by what other means will you make your point ???...it goes on par with trying to say Reality isnt real...you must first appeal to Reality in order to refute it.
You don’t get the point
@@Sepazuzu logic and reason can be used to infer facts understand desire it cannot be used to eliminate desire as desire are sensations of the brain it makes little sense to say I am thirsty because I believe I am or should be or have a philosophy of thirst thirst is dependent on brain states that make us thirsty not thoughts about thirst stoics did not know this as they were philosophers not neuroscientists
I have studied Nietzsche (in a rather casual fashion) for 10 years and this has really helped me thanks
Nietzsche insisted that we live *in the world* on which the stoics had no insistence
The Novel Zorba the Greek is based on the theme of living in the world vs outside the world, as in to that end very Nietzschian
Neitzche getting crazy all about that horse was not very stoic tho
That wasn’t very cash money of him
Mahmoud Alwajed he was sick
Lmao
To put it simply, -
nietzche saw the stoic philosophy as the argument that " if we are all true to our nature we will all have the same moral code. " as the stoics believed strongly in the logos, that a divine order is within everything and every event so stripped down to our core we will all essentially be the same orderly and principled and in line with the universe.
Nietzche believed nature is chaotic as is our inherent nature and to teach people that traveling the beaten path is being true to their nature is forcing them to ironically resist their nature.
Of course the argument is more nuanced than this as stoicism has many different schools.
The idea about nature that prevailed after the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and throughout much of the 20th century is now outmoded. This idea could be summarized in Tennyson's phrase, "Nature, red in tooth and claw". Scientists in the 21st century emphasize the part that social structures, cooperation---and yes, that forbidden word, love---play in evolution. Marcus Aurelius expressed this very modern, 21st century view in the following: "Meditate often on the interconnectedness and mutual interdependence of all things in the universe. For in a sense, all things are mutually woven together and therefore have an affinity for each other" and "We were made not for ourselves but for others." I trust that the ruthless egotism advocated by people like Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer will prove to be "unfit" in the process of natural selection.
@⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ The Stoics had the idea of an "Anima Mundi" or "Soul of the World"---a benevolent soul or spirit in nature. One can argue whether this was a projection or a perception, but it was an essentially religious and mystical idea. Accordingly Stoicism is either a religious philosophy or a philosophical religion like Vedanta, the philosophy of the Upanishads in Hinduism. Some people feel or perceive the existence of a World Soul and rational arguments cannot dissuade them. The Anima Mundi is the world-wide expression of the Logos, a word that is inadequately translated as "reason". It is really very difficult to translate. The Jewish philosopher Philo adopted the idea of the Logos, and it subsequently found its way into the Gospel of John, who wrote, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" and "The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us". This is, of course, a reference to Jesus and his divinity. The Stoic would say that the Logos has become flesh---or is embodied---in everyone of us, and that we are each divine at least in potential. When the Stoic exhorts us to live according to nature he really means "Live in harmony with the Logos that is within you." I would compare the Logos with the Vedantic idea of the atma. Since Nietzsche hated religion he had good reason to hate Stoicism, for these ideas are religious. However, I do not trust Nietzsche regarding religion, for I think he had a "blind spot" instead of mystical perception. Why should I trust a blind man when I have eyes?
I doubt your arguments premises credibility. Nietzsche criticized the teleological evolutionary principle of Herbert Spencer (in principle for it's continuation of christian discourse, e.i. christian value-systems) and objected to Charles Darwrins principle of survival and conditioning as been a passive principle. Nietzsche concept of the will to power was describe as a hypotese by himself, and whether he in fact believed in the world as essential an expression of a will to power, is not that important. For the fact is, he desribed it's essential character as relational, depending on the struggle between wills, and therefore reality itself only could be constituted in tensionful relations. The world is therefore constituted by an independence, relation between wills, and not an atomistic egoism.
There is a flow state that some fighters reach, that some gurus, prophets, even farmers walk where there is just one. One action to take. Always one. The one best word followed by the one best word, an angle of the arm with the best velocity, the perfect timing for crops as if the farmer knew the past, present and future simultaneously. This is perhaps the place Nietsche didn't reach, despite his great heights. This place, is founded, as the stoics say on the only universal truths in this world- the virtues. But beyond the virtues is the one. Some call it divinity. The sublime. The Doa. The holy ghost. It has many names, yet the animals, plants, nature know it far better than human beings. But that is not because they can not know. It's that the lust for control lies in the deepest cracks of humanity to the point of being nearly unknowable. To first revel in the virtues, and then somehow find a way to not control others, to somehow find a way to see the depths their ego will take to lord over every one and everything, if a person can someone even identify and then annihilate that base instinct, perhaps our deepest instinct to control; to then let go, to truly let go, (and this is key)from a place of virtue, an absolute leap of faith, is to win. Effortlessly.
I suppose it’s the way you look at it. Stoicism may be seen as burying emotions, and not truly allowing yourself to experience them, which is what we are here for right? To experience? If we do not allow this ‘experience’ we may be creating energy/emotional blockages from not actually allowing yourself to learn the lesson of that emotion, which down the track may result in negative behavioural patterns or manifested in the form of physical illness
That's a misinterpretation of stoicism.
I don't think it s burying your emotions but it s not letting your emotions influence the course of your actions (or at least reflect seriously on how they influence it and why and if it is positive).
Let s say for example, something happened that my boss made me really angry that I just wanted to cry and throw a chair at him. I can pause for 10 min, go elsewhere cry for that period of time, vent a bit and then come back to have an adult conversation with him/her to talk things rationally. At the end of the day, I could ask myself what triggered that reaction from me and what to do about it in the future.
I expressed my emotions but I didn't let them influence how to handle the problem (otherwise I would have thrown the chair at my boss and walked away).
Of course you can argue that when you re an ideal stoic your boss or others don't really anger you. But this level of stoicism is an ideal and it can't be met in ALL situations due to the emotional nature of humans. However, making an effort towards it every day is worthwhile.
“Gods are Ideas and Ideas are Gods” -Pythagoras
To come to terms with the Idea “Living According To (Our) Nature” - What is this pointing to? Does it mean to live “Naturally” by the rhythm’s of - “Nature” - such as Taoism suggests? Nietzsche and the Stoics understanding about this can bewilder us, as it has me for quite some time. The best comprehension for me is more like what Bruce Lee says “Be Water 💦 My Friend”. When I merge this idea with Zeno’s insight “Well Being is realized in small steps, but this is no small act” - it occurs to me that “Living According To Nature” means living by what is second nature to us i.e.; using our ability to reason…and “reason” has landed on applying the analogy “Be Water 💦 My Friend”❤️🔥
He was very right. But that's because stoicism has alot of its foundations built on ancient misunderstandings of reality and that part should be easily forgiven, as we would all probably think in a similar way if we were living thousands of years ago.
What is undeniably true about stoicism, are the benefits of its practical application. The ancient theology side of it is to be taken with a pinch of salt, and that should be obvious.
Agreed. It easly seen the flaws that they didn't know of but many thing can be used to advance yourself. Rightly so this goes with many thing in life we as people pick what we hold as useful.
I always read "live according to nature" as saying, "live with the understanding that you are part of nature and your goals must be within nature's." the stoics believed in sympatheia, the idea that everything the universe is connected, part of one whole. the awareness that the individual is an extension of the universe can help to shape a more holistic idea of justice in the grand scheme.
I was about to write the same thing...problem solved..In fact, I have always looked at it that way nevertheless I can understand his way of thinking if I hear it as explained on this video
The stoics are pantheistic. They said live according to nature because then you would live like gods.
My two biggest gripes with stoicism were that it always came off as really "White Messiah-ey". Not to mention the fact that it gives no real barometer for how to determine right from wrong, while also making the assertion that it can justly tell you what to do. Which to me always seemed like putting the cart before the horse.
I thought Stocism was about being strong in tough situations. It's not telling you what you have do to, it's telling you how to survive the world.
@@avivastudios2311 true, but they also had a super big emphasis on serving your community and following your duties as a son/daughter, sibling, parent etc. which tbh I didn't understand as much since they also preached that everything outside of your will was meant to be indifferent, even other people.
Nietzsche seem to profess a completely different understanding of the Self and its environment compared to the stoics. First I was a little bit surprised, but then I remembered what sort of man we're talking about.
Great video!
Nietzsche was critical of Stoicism (How can life become a point of view?) but I don't think he hated it. He knew of its tyranny because it was afterall a system, and Nietzsche distrusted systems and systemisers.
Systems does indeed risk of oppression or hypocrisy. However, we create separate systems to have social, national, cultural, (etcetera), identities.
The Stoic virtues actually are Justice Courage Temperance and Wisdom
I think we can all agree that Nietzsche and the Stoic philosophers are great in their own ways
A fair point to make Jojo. I find myself loving Nietzsche and stoicism
Nah
I’d say there’s a lot wrong with Nietzsche’s philosophy, believing our lives should be dedicated to the creation of some ubermensch figure for one thing.
But hell if I know for sure, all I can say is that Nietzsche is a much smarter figure than pretty much everyone here, and does have some valid points.
Captain Obvious
Whats great about being a nihilist? A being that creates his own morality has no morality. If you believe that good and evil are subjective you cannot have a morality, you are just larping. To have a morality you must believe in the objective and unchanging nature of good and you cant have that without God. A nihilist is by his nature amoral. A man with no morality is but a beast.
When I read this passage from Nietzsche I totally agreed with him or at least my interpretation of what I read. The people who say "nature is our mother and she feeds us, takes care of us" - that's just whack. To a degree our civilization is and should be against nature. Nature would have us be like animals (prey and predator, kill or be killed etc); refinement and progress is opposite to nature. Furthermore, I despise new age and seudo spiritualism which is basically repackaged stoicism. Thank you for your great videos.
It sounds like this is a criticism of stoicism if taken on ideologically rather than as a personal philosophy. Stoic philosophy as, I understand it, is based more in the humility of the individual and allowing yourself to exist within the flow of your own nature as well as the nature of the universe around you. I may be wrong but I don't recall any part of the stoic philosophy that suggested an interference into the lives of others. There is also no suggestion of 'indifference' but more of a reasoned and measured response to any instance. Pure indifference would be contrary to stoicism.
That said, I think he nailed it when speaking about a philosophy believing in itself since it would appear that as soon as any philosophy becomes 'self aware' and starts writing 'rules' on how to act it will ultimately be corrupted. I believe this is what is meant by 'tyranny' as described in the video.
His criticism could be due to exactly that, the reasoned and measured response. More specifically, the behavior of stoics he had encountered. This seems to be an example of the corruption.
I try to live according to the stoics. That is, by nature and in accordance with my nature. I agree with them that life is hard: always has been and always will be. It is only to be expected even when times are good.
But I see nature as inherently cruel. And my nature is not to accept it. My nature is to rage and thrash. I am as a flailing fish thrown into the deck of a boat. Suffering may be nature, but I have no natural nor moral obligation to be OK with that or deal with it gracefully. I will not give cruel nature my neck willingly nor trodge through a quagmire like a stupid ox when another less bothersome route is available for those who hate pain and are willing to apply just a little more imagination to avoid it.
And while Nietzche rages against stoicism, they who practicing are listening to him, sipping coffee ☕
floating above everyone else
u mean practicing absurdism?
Clayton Longfellow if it can be practiced, it’s not absurd.
Water would be better lol
@@PierreLucSexMy preference is tea
Good video! I think nietzsche's rejection of stoicism is more for its ethic, its way of living, that "being prepared for everything". He compares stoicism with epicuirism in some part of the book and says something about it.
His Amor Fati seems very stoic to me.
If one reads a little bit about Stoicism one will learn fast that a real Stoic would never say that he's a Stoic, as there's no need to. He knows that he is and doesn't need to tell someone, he's living his philosophy, not teaching it.
I think that Nietzsche was in some way very Stoic like (his love never got returned, he suffered from sicknesses and yet he never let it take it over), but to say that he was a Stoic is by no means true.
@@TheMusicLauncher true. But I was only talking about Amor Fati which seemed to me a bit of the stoic thinking.
@@mouhssineasmer3673 Well, it seems. But to say that everything that suggest to accept ones fate as Stoic is not really a good point
@@TheMusicLauncher It is a good point when the point is meant to counter someone's brutal criticism of stoicism to such an extent that they would refuse to accept it in any way while holding a primary tenant of it as their moral basis. You're utterly reading the comment and thought process wrong from my purview.
@@eerieandcold Uhm, no. Stoicism is teaching you to always remember that you'll die one day and that you should accept the things that will happen in your future. Have you ever read Epictetus or Seneca?
In the Latin word malus [bad] (which I place alongside melas [black]) the common man could be designated as the dark-coloured, above all as the dark-haired ("hic niger est" [this man is black]), as the pre-Aryan inhabitant of Italian soil, who stood out from those who became dominant, the blonds, that is, the conquering race of Aryans, most clearly through this colour. At any rate, the Gaelic race offers me an exactly corresponding example. The word fin (for example, in the name Fin-Gal), the term designating nobility and finally the good, noble, and pure, originally referred to the blond-headed man in contrast to the dusky, dark-haired original inhabitants.
-Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche
Essay 1, aphorism 5.
And yet the man had quite the stoic life himself in Switzerland and France
It’s like a heroin addict telling you not to do heroine while their shooting up.
He recognized its problems, but loved it too much.
at the end of the day, I would take the parts of any philosophy that make the most sense to me and incorporate it into my life. No need to religiously follow every aspect of it. The parts of stoicism that stood out to me were regarding things we can and cannot control, and to see things in which they really are through rational thought. It brought me a great deal of peace.
"you would like everything to be made after your own image." Isn't one of the fundamental tenets of stoicism the absence of desire for things outside of oneself? I think Nietsche is mischaracterizing stoicism here.
exactly, I knew I wasn't the only one, He grossly misunderstood stoicism, and it's crazy because it's HIM. I need to research a little to see if he was saying this at a particular point in his life where he was out of touch.
I thought the basic principles of stocism are that: Man is rational, man is a social creature. This is his nature, therefore he must live according to what satisfies these most.
Read Nietzsche's Beyond Good And Evil. It really helps to understand the larger context where he brings up the stoics. He is really attempting to make a much broader point about how all philosophers engage in their own process of asserting universal truths which are expressions of their own will to power. I also think the Stoicism we see now takes more the form of a personal self-help philosophy as opposed to an ethical or moral system for which one advocates in the way early stoics did.
You are grossly misunderstanding the point. He said "You CLAIM to be 'one with nature', but in reality you are trying to impose something upon the world". Reiterating the fact that the Stoics CLAIM that they lack desire for things outside of oneself does not refute Nietzsche's point that they are, in reality, not.
Agreed. Stoicism is more the opposite. Accepting that you yourself are a part of nature and letting go of any desire to control external outcomes or indulge in regret or disappointment. Are our bodies not born and sustained from nature? From dust you were made and to dust you shall return. Learning to appreciate where you are rather than where you wanted to be or where you might go is stoicism. You do what you can and accept everything as it is. Pain is an undeniable part of life but suffering is self-created.
I used to like Nietsche, bit he talks too much. How can he say that Stoics don't live according to Justice when Justice is for the Stoics one of the four primordial Virtues? How can he call Stoics extravagant when his own work is as extravagant and convoluted as it gets? How can he call them indifferent when they used to have a huge sense of individual and social responsibility. Nietsche definetly misinterpreted Stoicism, and now I like his work a little bit less.
I don’t think this guy knows what stoicism is. It’s not about living in accordance with nature, it’s about mastery of ones self.
“To be even minded is the greatest virtue”
“Just keep in mind; the more we value things outside our control, the less control we have”
“It does not matter what you bear, but only, how you bear it.”
“A gem cannot be perfected without friction, nor a man without trials”
“To be calm is the highest achievement of the self”
If anything that’s going against human nature; it is human nature to seek comfort of difficulties; it is human nature to be controlled by your emotions, not to remain calm and in control.
Stoicism suggests to blame the victim, because the former can't respond to an injust action, but never hold accountable the perprator.
Thank you for this. Your voice is lovely, clear. Im rereading Nietzsche atm and it's so much more cathartic than Stoicism (until the women parts)
Sorry those parts make your bum sore. Need some preparation H, I assume?
@@AdolfStalin your response to the original comment reveals you as the butt hurt.
@@maxabeles no
@@AdolfStalin what’s the point of being rude like that? What are you even trying to express, really?
@@hellogoodbye3786 I was making a point that some of the most important philosophers had a bone to pick with women and for good reason
Well stated argument brother. Thank you for this analysis and logical scrutiny of stoicism. Do you have any recommendations for reading? I just finished 'Meditations'.
Well done i would deffinatly love a more in depth video where you can maybe talk about the structure stoicism a bit better for those who may not be familiar with it but i would love to see more of his thoughts and as well as yours
At some time in out life we"ll find usefulness in one philosophy of the other. No point to argue.
exactly nobody actually knows anything everyone is just guessing whats right and wrong 😂
Thank you for this video. Nietzsche was right about stoicism, it's an absurd worldview to hold in a universe that is utterly indifferent to our existence. People who continue to hold this philosophy today are fooling themselves
Elaborate
This was a very stimulating clip, so thanks for your help in sharing information and insight. Ideas are great to discuss and consider.
Simply,
Stoicism gives you armor, which is too heavy for most people.
Nietzsche gives you hammer, which is not everyone can raise
Nature is organized chaos and the stoic is one form of psychological structure to deal with the absurdity of existence, which he acknowledges as part of life.
As an stoic, I find Nietzsche's critiques to be pretty well done, and accurately so. The stoic must remember humility too.
Would you recommended me a book about stoicism and its values?
@@asdfg_98 sure. Start by the classic and fundamental Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. You should find it in any cheap bookstore for less than 10 dollars.
Humility is at the core of being a Stoic. This idea that humility kills dangerous pride is at the core of Stoic philosophy. Marcus Aurelius often humbled himself so that his exalted rank would not cause him to think of himself as a superior being. Seneca experienced poverty so that his wealth wouldn’t corrupt him. Cato used to go about bareheaded and barefoot, an appearance far below his station so he wasn’t tainted by success and power.
I live in a third world country, so many situations are very repetitive and also there are environments of intolerance where the majority reach unfair consensus. So it depends on the situation to take an stoic approach or a existencial approach, taking into account that "the existencial" could lead to futile fights (yes, fights, no debate at all)
Thanks, now I can't reconcile my preference for Stoicism with the Will to Power. Seriously though very thoughtful stuff.
There may NOT in fact be a conflict. Stoics would argue to simply deal with the reality at hand IS the will to have power over one’s reaction to reality.
Perhaps the road to power can be walked as a stoic, accepting that that is the only road.
@@thechangingtimes You are taking the ''will to power'' as words on their face value, probably not even understanding the meaning Nietzsche put into that expression. ''Will to power'' as a universal rule of nature and its expansion.
What you said not only undermined Nietzsche that but also the stoicism as a philosophy, as ''following nature'' should not take any extra power.
For me living in “accordance with nature” entails accepting whatever happens in your life, especially the bad stuff with indifference because it’s natural to expect things to go wrong at some point one way or another. If you expect it and understand that it’s natural you won’t get too upset over it
I think this is living in accordance with your nature or stoicism. But we all live in accordance with nature itself right?
We might reject things like resentment, anger, pity, but they are a part of our nature. rejecting ourselves is not fully living in accordance with even our own nature.
Stoicism is starting to sound more like living in discordance from nature lol
Falls 2Shine The way stoicism defines it is you have to choose what your ideals are, virtues you strive to have or embody. This would be your “nature” or true self. You don’t necessarily suppress, reject or ignore the feelings you described actively, you simply learn to be indifferent to them. It’s about acceptance more than anything.
Oh I see..the Nietzschean/Jungian view is that you don't get to choose who you are, you become who you are and can only Self actualize.
This is considered living according to your nature, as apposed to living according to your ideals, or ideal nature.
Which I think is the main issue Nietzsche had here with the stoics.
Falls 2Shine Yea your probably right! Although his view on stoicism is really flawed... either he didn’t understand it or he was trolling, as the video mentions at the end. You have Marcus Aurelius emperor of Rome and Epectictus slave turned philosopher; both embodied stoicism while living completely different lives.
@@joshavila1176 Maybe a good skill to have, but not a universal truth.
I feel like nietzche misunderstands what the stoical meant by “nature”
That's cute. Nietzsche knew greek, he was a philologist, the object of his studies was to understand words. What Nietzsche was saying is that the Stoics didn't get what the nature of humans are.
@@mefisth8678 I do not think so, I think he citicises it rightfully, even though I also fancy stoicism and it is certainly a nice approach, but it actually is not that consistent in it´s explanations. I would have to agree with Nietzsche, but still recommend stiocism, since it lays value on acceptance of situation and on progres by sacrifice, which Nietzsche does as well. the difference is in the varied interpretations, of those and other concepts, they are dealing with.
@Med Taki Yes, this was kind the problem that Nietzsche had with Western philosophy they are almost all about raw rationality. They didn't get the dyonysian aspect of life the problem of free will, emotions, our subconscious. They simplified human nature too much
@Med Taki Just to say, the idea that there is no free will and that our thoughts are predetermined is a metaphysical position among others.
It's been a trend to present it as an incontrovertible scientific fact in some recent popular science books, but that's actually incorrect if you look into it.
Most contemporary scientists have limited grounding in philosophy, which is a bit unfortunate
@Med Taki Your thoughts and feelings are not predetermined whatsoever and you can definitely change them intentionally. They are predictable but they are definitely not predetermined like hanging on some string of causality waiting to be plucked at the perfect moment.
As others have said, this all hinges on the definition of "Nature", which the Stoics themselves took too mean a variety of things. It could mean human nature, nature as the physical universe, or a number of other things. Nietzche narrowly describes Nature as the former two. Most often, it seems the Stoics are using Nature to mean something more like, "Fate". Even within the same breath, they can use it in different ways. Take for example this quote from Marcus Aurelius:
"To be vexed by anything that happens is a kind of succession from nature (fate) which compromises the nature (physical or etheral) of all things."
Hmmm, I guess I should read "Beyond Good and Evil". I've read meditations and The Art of Living a few times. Based on what I hear in this video, Nietzsche is way out of line in his argument. Just MHO.
Definitely give it a read. Even if you disagree he makes compelling arguments that will make you question all sorts of previously held beliefs. It’s all about the mindset you approach it with. His work is not for everyone, he acknowledged it and found joy in that. I think that in itself is a beautiful thing, hope you enjoy if you do read it. Amazing book.
@@jacksoe3530 It doesn't help that many of his arguments are not his final belief, but mental exercises to work your brain "Beyond Good and Evil"
I disagree, while I disagree with a lot of what Nietzsche says, Nietzsche has always had a point whenever he makes a criticism of something. And we need to put our egos at the door for a moment and remember Nietzsche was much smarter than us, and so we probably have a misconception as to what he’s trying to say.
To make a true judgement on what he’s saying I’d need to read this over and think about it for quite a while, and even then I’d still not truly understand his meaning.
Ignore things you can't change don't be emotional about it but be a monster towards what is gonna make you achieve your true goals
Stoics persistently circle the drain of life. I have such contempt for stoicism it borders on loathing. I honestly feel like a reincarnation if Nietzsche when discussing stoicism, my contempt runs THAT deep for them. Stoicism is what the sheep teach the wolves so that the wolves can be lulled into complacency.
Couldn't agree more.
I have been reading and studying stoic philosophy for years now. I still don't consider myself a stoic but I wanted to point out that part of teaching of stoicism isn't to become an exact copy or word for word stoic as the philosophy encourages individuality and the importance of one's own experiences. This includes religion and culture. I recommend Ryan Holiday and Echart Toles work to anyone wanting to learn or how to practice stoicism in the modern age.
Hope this helps