Just watched the last 3 parts of your critique. Amazing work! My final philosophy discussion this semester was Stoicism vs Epicureanism. I was one of the very few that chose to side with Epicureanism and critique Stoic flaws. You expanded on my points so well and brought in some awesome examples from other texts, voices, and media that expertly supported your critiques. This last part was the most significant point in my opinion. Something I touched on in my discussion but was limited in my word count so wasn’t able to fully elaborate on. Again, excellently done!
Stoicism never concerned itself with questioning is "nature". It pretty quickly debases itself into putting "people who live in according to nature" vs people who are irrational and behave in unnatural ways. If you ask me, this sounds like a pre-fascist/racist thought. Stocisim, in my interpretation serves (ironically) as slave (life denying) morality and bourgeois (aspirationalist/ ideal / formal) morality simultaneously.
Just watched the last 3 parts of your critique. Amazing work! My final philosophy discussion this semester was Stoicism vs Epicureanism. I was one of the very few that chose to side with Epicureanism and critique Stoic flaws. You expanded on my points so well and brought in some awesome examples from other texts, voices, and media that expertly supported your critiques. This last part was the most significant point in my opinion. Something I touched on in my discussion but was limited in my word count so wasn’t able to fully elaborate on. Again, excellently done!
Stoicism never concerned itself with questioning is "nature". It pretty quickly debases itself into putting "people who live in according to nature" vs people who are irrational and behave in unnatural ways. If you ask me, this sounds like a pre-fascist/racist thought. Stocisim, in my interpretation serves (ironically) as slave (life denying) morality and bourgeois (aspirationalist/ ideal / formal) morality simultaneously.