Whitepill The Stoic Man in the 21st Century - A detailed explanation of why you should accept things as they are

[John Cracovizk]

The following text was the draft of a thread I was writing to post on Looksmax.org, but since I never finished it (and to be honest, I don't have much desire to finish it), I never posted it... But I think the guys here would appreciate it even though it's unfinished, here you are:

---

1. Introduction

Imagine yourself in the place of a teacher at the poorest school in your neighborhood, in contact with students almost entirely from this place, with appearances, gestures, and conversations all embedded in this context...

You know that, from childhood, a person is taught to follow the bluepill doctrine and that society today is increasingly lost... But there? You have first-hand contact with this and see that the rabbit hole is even deeper... You hear girls aged 11 and 12 discussing how many boys they have had sex with, or that boys of the same age are already using substances and thinking about becoming involved in crime...

You see: even despite everything, there is still potential, they are perhaps from their entire lineage the children with the best opportunities and most financially established, having access to some kind of comfort and projection... However, because they are trapped in illusions, enters the turmoil, narcotics, and criminal factions... All of this is pushing everything aside and they are heading towards repeating the same steps as their parents: being little soldiers ready to go to the slaughterhouse. Well... Perhaps... Perhaps you can do something to... Save someone?

2. DEVELOPMENT

"There is no such thing as a good influence, Mr. Gray. All influence is immoral" – Oscar Wilde

For all men who have had contact with the contents here, for the avid readers of the Blackpill manifesto, I believe the best path to follow is Stoicism, to have it as a religion (of course, one can have separate religions like Christianity), but what is a religion?

Religion is different from spirituality; religion is a set of dogmas you follow to live healthily and functionally.

It is evident that religions like Christianity drew from Stoicism. The apostle Paul traveled to Greece and conversed with the Stoics, and his teachings were shared with the church founded by Jesus Christ, who preached Stoicism extensively:

"The world lies in evil."

"Do not cast your pearls before swine" (basically saying not to help those who do not want to be helped).

"Do good without looking at whom" (of course, this person must WANT to be helped).

"Do not judge, so you won't be judged."

"Trust in the teachings of God who knows and can do everything, for eventually, everything will be given, He will not leave any of His children behind, and all will be saved."

I know many of you are atheists and more materialistic, not caring much about religious matters, but see that faith in these words greatly helps a person with less critical mass to understand that it is an allegory, helping them live a more carefree life, without anxieties, major problems, and concerns about social issues that cannot be changed.

And as the original Stoics said: Pain is not a choice, but suffering is

An interesting parallel is to look at animals; they do not have the ability to create coherent narratives (the famous cope), and that's why they DO NOT regret.

You sometimes see an animal making a completely foolish decision like trying to face a larger predator and ending up losing an arm...The funniest (or not) thing is that these animals do not suffer from the loss of a limb. Of course, they feel pain, but they continue living.

While we see humans taking their own lives due to making bad decisions that didn't even cause them to lose something substantial like the bluepillers who take their lives because of a breakup, loss of job, or social embarrassment, this comes from the coherent narrative (cope).

When you regret, you create a narrative in your mind to explain to yourself why you did what you did. And then, we see the pain: "Help, I shouldn't have done that!! Wow, I should have said that to win the argument! My God, I messed up!". Animals don't think like that; they go, do, did, happened.

They don't make this causality of "I could have done better," and of course, the human adaptation so that its rationality could question its own actions or even repent of them or have the notion that it could have done better was essential for survival (After all, if it's with us, it's because it made us survive, in this case, our ancestors survived and reproduced to pass this on to us, giving us the gift of critical thinking, of how to improve... A scarce capacity as not all animals learn from mistakes).

Often we have the need, it is something very masculine, the need for intellectual reproduction, the reproductive instinct is dangerous, a biological determination (I would say a low instinct) that goes beyond physical reproduction (as explained in my Maskpill guide, we are biopsychosocial beings) because there is also the need to replicate intellectually. This need can be seen normally in arrogant, extremist, and intolerant people because they want you to accept their truth at all costs.

 

[Tabula Rasa]

Could you summarise the unfinished part, and what is the whole premise of the thread were it finished?

 

[John Cracovizk]

Could you summarise the unfinished part, and what is the whole premise of the thread were it finished?

Yea, ofc. I would probably continue to write about people's tendency to want to govern the world and impose their ideas about what is best for everyone. But I would use Dorian Gray's phrase to point that this is immoral and that good intentions do not always lead to positive results... Of course I do not fully agree with the phrase, since weighting positive influences (such as studying) with negative influences (using drugs) is illogical to me... You can do that if you want to, but you have no duty and no responsability with society or anyone else.

Stoicism as a philosophy that recognizes and accepts reality as it is, without trying to change or control it, emphasizes a lot the importance of living in accordance with nature and understanding that the world follows a determined plan... I would also addresses the formation of groups and gangs as an expression of human tribal instincts and I would advocate for a selfish approach to life, prioritizing individual well-being. Finally, highlight the importance of emotional and social intelligence for navigating society (maybe writing more about the Maskpill).

Basically, this thread would advocate for a rational selfishness.

 

[John Cracovizk]

Could you summarise the unfinished part, and what is the whole premise of the thread were it finished?

Also, where's the karma system so I can farm reps and brag in high school?

 

[Tabula Rasa]

Also, where's the karma system so I can farm reps and brag in high school?

wdym

 

[John Cracovizk]

wdym

 

[Tabula Rasa]

View attachment 393

There is reputation on this forum, it’s under reaction score. It’s not displayed front facing though.

 

[Tabula Rasa]

Have you read the works of the Stoics?

 

[John Cracovizk]

Have you read the works of the Stoics?

I read Stoicism by John Sellars and he gives a really good introduction to the philosophy, I started reading Epictetus, but took a break from it to focus on other stuff. I like some things about the Stoics but others I don't like so much, in general, I like their philosophy for things in the macro (society, for example), but in the micro I don't like it so much.

 

[Tabula Rasa]

the micro I don't like it so much.

How so?

 

[John Cracovizk]

How so?

When I think about Stoicism applied on a large scale, it's easy for me to see how it offers a solid approach to dealing with societal, political, and economic adversities. The idea of accepting what we cannot change and focusing our energy on what we can control is incredibly powerful. It helps maintain sanity in a chaotic and unpredictable world (sort of like Christianity do to my parents in a sense).

But when it comes to applying these principles in my own daily life, especially in more personal and emotional matters, I encounter some resistance. For example, when facing personal challenges like dealing conflicts in close relationships or with myself (addictions and etc), I often find myself struggling against the idea of simply accepting the situation and moving on. Instead, I feel a stronger need for control, a desire to change the circumstances somehow. I wrote this when I was thinking about it:

"Some may say that if you desire no outcome, you will always come out winning (something the Stoics would like to hear). But I tell you, my friends: that is a statement devoid of any passion. What passion is there in indifference? I answer you: none. A being without passion is a being that can be compared to being dead, after all, is being alive desirable to them? They will tell you (this comes from John Sellars' Stoicism): neither desirable nor undesirable, it is just a non-essential preference.

The truth is, as long as we live, victory and defeat, life and death, are challenges we must face with courage. Hiding behind a mask of indifference is a coherent narrative to reject pain, to reject nature, because pain is part of being human, only those who are alive feel pain. So I tell you, instead of hiding behind indifference, embrace your feelings, you can only feel sad because one day you felt happy."

 

[Tabula Rasa]

When I think about Stoicism applied on a large scale, it's easy for me to see how it offers a solid approach to dealing with societal, political, and economic adversities.

Not sure how it can be applied large scale, especially in a society, considering the basis of the philosophy itself is moreso individualistic.

But when it comes to applying these principles in my own daily life, especially in more personal and emotional matters, I encounter some resistance. For example, when facing personal challenges like dealing conflicts in close relationships or with myself (addictions and etc), I often find myself struggling against the idea of simply accepting the situation and moving on. Instead, I feel a stronger need for control, a desire to change the circumstances somehow. I wrote this when I was thinking about it:

"Some may say that if you desire no outcome, you will always come out winning (something the Stoics would like to hear). But I tell you, my friends: that is a statement devoid of any passion. What passion is there in indifference? I answer you: none. A being without passion is a being that can be compared to being dead, after all, is being alive desirable to them? They will tell you (this comes from John Sellars' Stoicism): neither desirable nor undesirable, it is just a non-essential preference.

The truth is, as long as we live, victory and defeat, life and death, are challenges we must face with courage. Hiding behind a mask of indifference is a coherent narrative to reject pain, to reject nature, because pain is part of being human, only those who are alive feel pain. So I tell you, instead of hiding behind indifference, embrace your feelings, you can only feel sad because one day you felt happy."

Perhaps.. adopting such an attitude would take a heavy mental fortitude, especially in this climate and era. But it’s not impossible, the long line of sages, monks and hermits throughout the ages are a testament to that.

From what I understand, the Stoics did emphasise the practice of virtue, so Stoicism may not necessarily be an act of indifference. The Stoics’ had a macro-lens in regards to how they approached their day-to-day, owing to their cosmology which viewed the universe on an infinitesimally large scale, of which our earthly troubles only amount to a thin thread within the cosmic workings of the universe.

 

[John Cracovizk]

Not sure how it can be applied large scale, especially in a society, considering the basis of the philosophy itself is moreso individualistic.

I appreciate your thoughtful response and the points you've raised. You're absolutely right that Stoicism does have its roots in individual philosophy.

However, I believe there's room to interpret Stoicism in a broader societal context, even if its primary focus is on the individual. Offering valuable insights into how individuals interact with the world around them. For me, the teaching to "accept the things we cannot change" and to "focus on what is within our control" is hugely useful when thinking about major and big problems which I indeed have no way to control (maybe in gathering a bunch of people or something, but I don't want that).

Perhaps.. adopting such an attitude would take a heavy mental fortitude, especially in this climate and era. But it’s not impossible, the long line of sages, monks and hermits throughout the ages are a testament to that.

From what I understand, the Stoics did emphasise the practice of virtue, so Stoicism may not necessarily be an act of indifference. The Stoics’ had a macro-lens in regards to how they approached their day-to-day, owing to their cosmology which viewed the universe on an infinitesimally large scale, of which our earthly troubles only amount to a thin thread within the cosmic workings of the universe.

I agree, I admire those who wish to follow that route in life (becoming a monk), but tbh, in my phase in rl right now I don't want to become neither of those you mentioned. Yeah, virtue is the only thing they weren't indifferent to, virtue is the only good thing for them. And if someone wants follow that path and truly resonates that everything that matters for them is being virtuous, it's good! But I don't think it's for me (being a pure follower of virtue, even though I like some of it, I don't think I can be a loyal follower), because stoicism basically denies other philosophies which I think are somewhat useful (like machiavelism, stoics reject lying anyway, while I think it's part of living in society) but I won't discard their knowledge either.

I don't remember who, but in the book Sellars' talks about a stoic philosopher who said that if the students truly thought and pondered about it, they probably wouldn't turned to be stoics and would follow other philosophy schools.

And yeah, it's somewhat similar to Christianity, isn't it? Both emphasize the importance of transcending earthly concerns and focusing on something greater (virtues, one as its own end and the other to reach heaven). Buddhism also aims to transcend mundane worries and attain a state of inner peace and enlightenment. I find them all quite fascinating, but I just don't see them very aligned with my current perspective.

 

[Tabula Rasa]

I appreciate your thoughtful response and the points you've raised. You're absolutely right that Stoicism does have its roots in individual philosophy.

However, I believe there's room to interpret Stoicism in a broader societal context, even if its primary focus is on the individual. Offering valuable insights into how individuals interact with the world around them. For me, the teaching to "accept the things we cannot change" and to "focus on what is within our control" is hugely useful when thinking about major and big problems which I indeed have no way to control (maybe in gathering a bunch of people or something, but I don't want that).

I agree, I admire those who wish to follow that route in life (becoming a monk), but tbh, in my phase in rl right now I don't want to become neither of those you mentioned. Yeah, virtue is the only thing they weren't indifferent to, virtue is the only good thing for them. And if someone wants follow that path and truly resonates that everything that matters for them is being virtuous, it's good! But I don't think it's for me (being a pure follower of virtue, even though I like some of it, I don't think I can be a loyal follower), because stoicism basically denies other philosophies which I think are somewhat useful (like machiavelism, stoics reject lying anyway, while I think it's part of living in society) but I won't discard their knowledge either.

I don't remember who, but in the book Sellars' talks about a stoic philosopher who said that if the students truly thought and pondered about it, they probably wouldn't turned to be stoics and would follow other philosophy schools.

And yeah, it's somewhat similar to Christianity, isn't it? Both emphasize the importance of transcending earthly concerns and focusing on something greater (virtues, one as its own end and the other to reach heaven). Buddhism also aims to transcend mundane worries and attain a state of inner peace and enlightenment. I find them all quite fascinating, but I just don't see them very aligned with my current perspective.

I think it’s more similar to Buddhism rather than Christianity

 

[Myst]

Good thread OP, read every sub-atomic particle.

 

[Bitter]

I read Stoicism by John Sellars and he gives a really good introduction to the philosophy, I started reading Epictetus, but took a break from it to focus on other stuff. I like some things about the Stoics but others I don't like so much, in general, I like their philosophy for things in the macro (society, for example), but in the micro I don't like it so much.

I read some Marcus Aurelius and Seneca.