Perhaps I didn't define definition well enough, I should've mentioned that was the goal.

But anyhow, now you know what I meant.

Yes, but you interpreted Google's definition falsely.

And that's why I said that Google's definition is incomplete.

The definition is the end result

Not necessarily.

From what you said, googles definition is the end result

Yes.

But it's incomplete because the person who's in the process of achieving Stoicism's goal, is considered a Stoic, and therefore a part of Stoicism, too.

The definition isn't always the end result, and certainly not in this case.

If you’re in the process of becoming a Stoic, you aren’t a stoic

Not yet

That doesn’t make sense

I didn't say that. I said that the person who is in the process of achieving Stoicism's goal is considered a Stoic.

So a person who is not displaying their emotions, yet can't completely endure pain, is a Stoic, but hasn't achieved Stoicism's goal.

How are they a Stoic if they haven’t yet learned to endure pain without showing emotion(the definition of stoicism)

For example, the goal of Christianity is to reconcile man to God. The person who isn't reconciled to God, but follows the Christian beliefs, values and scripts, is a Christian who hasn't achieved their goal.

@moira I said they can't completely endure it.

Which is partial, which makes them a Stoic, which relates to the example above.

I've got to go, but we can continue this conversation later.

Another definition for stoic is being able to not show whatever you feel and accept whatever happens

Also says it describes anyone who seems to be very emotionless or blank

So being able to endure pain without showing emotion is the end result

However according to 3 sources it’s also the definition

You said being a stoic didn’t require you to not face pain by yourself or not display emotions

Which goes against his definition even if it is the end result

Also the original argument in this debate was whether or not stoicism is for everyone and you and me both agreed it’s not

Don't be a egoist, don't be a hedonist, don't be a subjectivist, because you're literally wrong

End of philosophy

I never said that facing pain while displaying it is Stoicism. What I said, is that a person whose goal is Stoicism's goal, being the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of emotions, and is in the process of achieving this goal, is a Stoic.

Take Christianity, for example. The goal of Christianity is the reconciliation of man to God. As far as I know, no living person I'd reconciled with God, and yet there are approximately two billion Christians out there. Therefore, the end goal of a philosophy, religion, or ideology is not its definition, and that's why I said that Google's definitions are incomplete, and so are these other definitions that you've found.

What I said about the display of emotions, is that, through Stoicism, the person starts by facing/enduring pain or hardship with displaying it, and then, throughout the whole process, they eliminate the display of pain, but that elimination comes naturally - it's not necessarily forced. Whoever forces it to achieve that goal, although they're a Stoic indeed, the way they're trying to achieve Stoicism's goal, is incorrect. @moira

@OrthoGoat Egoism and Hedonism are two unnecessary evils indeed, but subjectivism is the one philosophic ideology which determines the world the best. Objectivism depends on the existence of a higher being and its rules, which is something subjectivism condemns, because in order to understand and determine the world, you must not insert the higher being in your pursuit.

> Don't be a egoist, don't be a hedonist, don't be a subjectivist, because you're literally wrong
"Because you're literally wrong." That's the problem with Objectivism. The lack of arguments, due to the existence of a higher beings' rules and teachings.

Morality is subjective change my mind.

If morality is subjective, then in theory people are free to do whatever they desire, including acts like murder

like im gonna read and respond to all of that

Discord philosophers are not very intellectual generally

same case here

the thing is the higher being exists

thats where subjectivism is idealistic

it wishes that the world was different and imposes that it is

it dosent take a person with an iq over 105 and 5 minutes of free thought to realize that a higher being exists

We deserve to be raped. I don't know why, it’s just a feeling I have

That’s about as far as people go most the time anyway

@Florida Man
That's not what the concept of subjective morality is about. I didn't say that morality doesn't exist, I said that morality differs from culture to culture, individual to individual and so on. Technically, the only things that stop you from murdering someone you hate, are a) your subjective moral code, b) the rules and laws and c) your mental stability and health. A psychopath's moral code does not stop him from killing someone, therefore he relies on only the B factor.

So moral relativism then?

@OrthoGoat If you don't want to read or partake in a conversation like this, then do not make initial unjustified, out-of-context, irrelevant statements.
Again, you must not insert a higher being into the subjectivity of the moral code, for the reasons I listed in my first message.

@Florida Man Yes.

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***AntiLibertyAktion#5017 has been warned., This is a serious channel, adhom and phrases like "like im gonna read and respond to all of that" is unallowed.***

So if all morals are relative, then there's no way of saying you're better than someone since all morals are relative and equal

Its pretty obvious that moral relativism leads to incoherent conclusions

Not all morals are equal, no one said that, but no, there's no way to relate to things that aren't the same.

I'd argue that all morals would be equal under such relativism

So how does one define what moralism is?

@Sentient23 Yes, perhaps some conclusions of moral relativism are more incoherent or ambiguous for most people, since it's not easy for everyone to understand it. It's not as clear as moral objectivism, which simply assumes the existence of a higher being along with the existence of its rules and teachings.

Since if the foundation, or the reference point is arbitrary, and equally arbitrary to mine reference point, then all morals would be equal, since the reference point/axiom is picked arbitrarily

@valencia/Vaida Following your moral code.

> @OrthoGoat If you don't want to read or partake in a conversation like this, then do not make initial unjustified, out-of-context, irrelevant statements.
> Again, you must not insert a higher being into the subjectivity of the moral code, for the reasons I listed in my first message.
@Koninos I read your message

Its not about not understanding. its about actually understanding, and then deriving the logical consequence of moral relativism

Which leads to absurdity

How does it lead to absurdity?

> Since if the foundation, or the reference point is arbitrary, and equally arbitrary to mine reference point, then all morals would be equal, since the reference point/axiom is picked arbitrarily

That doesn't justify why moral subjectivism leads to absurd conclusions.

It actually does? Its pretty absurd that x and the antithesis of X are equally right

It's not X and the antithesis of X. It's about the X which is approximately the same as Y, being equally right with the anthesis of Y which is approximately the same as the antithesis of X.
Would you like to name your Xs though, in order to understand what you speak of?

The distinction you provided not only makes no sense, but is useless. I'm not talking about propositions which are approximately same/similar. I'm talking about inherently incompatible moral propositions. I.e if X was true, it would entail the falsity of the antithesis of X

X and Y would be literally any incompatible moral proposition

@Sentient23 Name your X, give me an example. Give me an example of a moral.

Any moral.

I don't see how its necessary

But alright. "transgenderism is inherently wrong" - X
"transgenderism is inherently right" - Y

Thank you, I just needed to further understand your position in order to respond to you in my best way possible.

Okay so basically what you're saying is that a moral, it being transgenderism being inherently wrong, cannot be equal to its antithesis, it being transgenderism being inherently right. I do understand your confusion, so I'll try to make the position of moral relativism as clear as possible.

To understand why X, and the antithesis of X(=Y) are equal, you must assume the following:
a) That a higher being's existence is unknown, and not brought into the conversation, to justify the objectivism of X and Y.
b) That different people, cultures, religions, have different moral standards; I believe that you agree with this one.

With the assumption of A and B, we make a draft conclusion: That X and Y depend on the people, their cultures and their religions. Therefore, without a universal, objective moral code, which 99.99% of the times is justified through the existence of a higher being along with its rules and teachings, both X and Y depend on the people, their cultures and their religions. Hence, if you get a person of a certain moral code, who believes that X is true, and then you get another person, of another certain moral code, who claims that Y is true, both, according to their personalities/cultures/religions(/or whatever has defined their moral code) are telling their own truth. The conclusion being, that these truths are equal.

@Sentient23

Yes

That's what i said

Okay, so basically you agree with my opinion, it being that X and Y are equally true?

Yes?

That's what I said?

Oh okay lmao, I apologise, I thought you disagreed with that.

**@fart egg** has been detained.

@Koninos got a question for you

what do you think about muh democracy is bad because people are stupid and its also an illusion and doesnt work

Oof.

talking about a more direct philosophy

that isnt scientific analysis at all

he literally wrote in the text people are too stupid for democracy

Who?

read something from schumpeter

thats his name

hes a jewish philosopher born in like 1900 or something

was*

Ooh

> what do you think about muh democracy is bad because people are stupid and its also an illusion and doesnt work
@Ater Votum

Well, personally I believe that the way democracy currently operates is a very stupid way indeed. In order for democracy to work, you need the vast majority of the masses to be well-educated, which is not happening right now. Although I am a fanatical fan of Democracy, I do realize that there are some serious drawbacks that come with it, but no ideology is flawless, and in my opinion, democracy is the system with the fewer flaws. Now, regarding the statement you posted, I'll break it up to three sections: A) the "people are stupid," the B) it's an illusion and the C) it doesn't work. Before I go in depth for all three of them, I have to mention that all these three statements are wrong.

A) The people are stupid only if you let them be stupid. No living person has ever wanted to be stupid. But even if we suppose that the people are stupid, then they must be educated. In my opinion, objective education which mentions subjective positions yet doesn't support any is the best kind of education. Also the educational system must explain how Democracy works and how it's vital. Well-educated people means smarter people. Yet, the majority of the people nowadays are smart enough to make smart decisions, in most countries. Educational reformation is necessary in all cases, however. Claiming that the people -nowadays at least- are all stupid, is no valid statement, but a mere hypothesis, which can never be true. The spirit of the people, through democracy, is let free, and therefore it's easier for stupid people to become smarter, than in living in an Authoritarian system. Authoritarian systems above well-educated and smart people can't exist, due to the brain capacity of the people to understand that Democracy > Authoritarianism.

_ _
B) This statement is true when it concerns Representative Democracy, and not Direct Democracy. In Representative Democracy, you truly live in an illusion, because you're simply not living in a Democratic system, but an Authoritarian one. I believe that's what people refer to when they claim that Democracy is an illusion - to Representative Democracy, which is the modern form of democracy unfortunately. And to be honest, I agree with the fact that Representative Democracy is nothing but a mere illusion.

C) I don't get how people are even capable of making such irrational statement. No but really, even Representative Democracy can work, which is proven through the very existence of modern "democratic" states of the West, like the USA, the UK, France, etc etc. In the Antiquity, in Ancient Athens, no matter how back in time that was, Direct Democracy also worked, and it worked so effectively, that it made Athens the ruler of the Greek world. So yeah, it can work, and it can actually work better than any other system.

_ _
My response wasn't completely Philosophic, I must admit, but Democracy itself, in my opinion and the opinion of many other Philosophers, is a great philosophical issue, rather than a political or an economic one.

very nicely said

actually funny thing is he more or less agreed with parliamentarian democracy because then "youre voting people who know well"

which is the stupidest shit ive ever heard

he still said direct democracy was an illusion since you arent always part of the majority which means that youre not really deciding anything as an individual

which is true but it really doesnt mean anything

in a direct democracy obviously the individual doesnt reign but the majority

> he still said direct democracy was an illusion since you arent always part of the majority which means that youre not really deciding anything as an individual

But that doesn't even make any sense, because democracy is not about YOU deciding about something, it's about THEM, with them being the majority.

Yes