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