Why then, pray, if we are endowed by nature for such greatness, do not all men, or many, become like him? What, do all horses become swift, all dogs keen to follow the scent? What then? Because I have no natural gifts, shall I on that account give up my discipline? Far be it from me! Epictetus will not be better than Socrates; but if only I am not worse, that suffices me. For I shall not be a Milo, either, and yet I do not neglect my body; nor a Croesus, and yet I do not neglect my property; nor, in a word, is there any other field in which we give up the appropriate discipline merely from despair of attaining the highest.
-Epictetus
stoics in general are really good. I heard that Plato was pretty fit dude, but for philosophies that focus on fit you should look into the stoics and other greek/romans way of thinking.
Check out Taoism. I've been reading Lieh-tzu's collection of Taoist philosophical musings.
I'm also a student of Stoicism. The Taoists also came to similar principles and insights to the Stoics.
Neitzche is to philosophy as salt is to cooking. >small bit adds flavor and passion >too much ruins a dish completely
Read a bit of thus spoke zarathustra and remember that Nietzsche's philosophy is inherently flawed, but just because something is idealistic doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be strived for.
>Ubermensch is one who can make his own morality and follow it as a code to the letter, and lives his life powerfully and passionately as he does so.
The ubermensch is inherently unobtainable (as humans are now at least), but as I said just because something is unobtainable doesnt mean its bad.
Man cannot bind himself to his own morality and stick to it. We will always find a way around it and take shortcuts. Also Nietzche's criticisms of other philosophies are sometimes legitimate, and other times are just due to a misunderstanding or misinterpreting of different tenets.
stoics in general are really good. I heard that Plato was pretty fit dude, but for philosophies that focus on fit you should look into the stoics and other greek/romans way of thinking.
Reading these books is a nasty stage of LARP. Your desire to read them is formed not from genuine interest, but from the tranny mentality of seeing le cool trad men on the internet, and then thinking that if you can forcefully insert such philosophy into you, you will be like them. You have a tainted desire. It is much more healthy to let whatever interests you have naturally take reign. You have created a simulacra of what these men were and had to say in their specific historical time and context and have become an arch-homosexual in your simulation thereof. You would be better off pursuing a general interest, drawing ideas from your circumstances in doing it, and perhaps then finding some thinker whose ideas are a more fleshed out version of your own insights. Stoicism is the most cringe form of philosophy there is in the modern era. It is a pure reaction to le cringe postmodern cucks. You cannot fake being in that school like the ancients were. If you truly wanted just a hint of life advice from these texts, then go for it. If you have the slightest idea that doing these things as laid out by Seneca or Aurelius will make you into some idealized version of yourself, you are making a mistake. What will make you more well-rounded is just fulfilling your lot in life that you already have, and by making improvements to yourself as you see them from a level-headed standpoint.
>Your desire to read them is formed not from genuine interest, but from the tranny mentality of seeing le cool trad men on the internet, and then thinking that if you can forcefully insert such philosophy into you, you will be like them.
Anon, the only inherent skill humans are born with and posses since childhood is mimicry, it's literally how we learn from each other.
If you see someone successful, and have no skills yourself, your only survival mechanism you have will kick in, which is to mimic people who are successful.
I understand this point, but my idea here is that there is some sort of distinction between the mimicry of something you encounter in your real life versus the mimicry of an idea you conceptualize of in your own head. To emulate your father or a virtuous friend is different than the phenomenon I propose is taking place. The latter is more-so a product of modernity than what we might call a natural mimicry.
If it is a slippery slope, it's quite a long one. People have interests quite naturally. There are interests besides sexual depravity or substance abuse or any other vice. It's silly to think one should totally suppress the things that bring him joy. One does not need to read philosophy to understand that moderation, even self-imposed, is key in living a balanced life. Don't you have passion toward anything anon? I'd imagine you like fitness. Does your indulgence therein feel like a road to hedonism? If you went to college, did you not enjoy your course of study? If you hate your job, is there not something ingrained into you that you would like to do instead? Why would one read philosophy to determine what one should do unless they first encounter some sort of difficulty in this initial arena? To pursue philosophy before having a tangible reason to besides a true inborn draw toward it is at least weakly homomorphic to what I had outlined, I conjecture.
I pursue philosophy as part of my spiritual cope. I was drawn to it after a bout of intense suffering a few years ago. It has stayed with me to navigate the difficulties of existence and try to make wiser decisions daily.
Psychology is literally all bullshit. Either you have agency and everything you do is your own choice and responsibility, or you don't and you're a dumb/dangerous animal.
Wendell Berry for sure - food security is the ultimate and only assurance of a healthy and free life. Gf and I are starting a vegetable garden/chicken coop soon, but I've been doing mostly herbs, fungi, and microgreens (chinese cabbage) indoors for the past three years. Grow and eat whole foods, simple as.
Pretty much just the SwoleShack trifecta (Wendell Berry, Gene Logsdon, Edward Abbeh) for me in terms of philosophy. Although I defer to C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Charles Williams, Bishop Kallistos Ware, and Phillip Sherrard for my general worldview/theology.
A healthy dose of Terrance McKenna as well, but nothing too serious
Based homesteader. Got any advice for someone trying to get into that world? I do some home fermentation (started my first batch of sauerkraut yesterday, have been making kefir and kombucha for years) and would love to start a practical garden.
not him but look into permaculture on youtube, they amount of landscape engineering that goes into a lot of the homesteads are amazing and surprisingly simple to set up. I also recommend Gabe Brown's "Dirt to Soil" for a good intro into sustainable homesteading.
Fermentation is great, I made a batch of sauerkraut last year and loved it. Field Guide to Urban Gardening by Espiritu is a classic, and will give you a rough introduction to raised beds, pest control, vertical gardening, micro greens and more accessible diy projects on your road to an actual vegetable garden. Since you like fermentation, you honestly might get a lot out of growing mushrooms (buy a lion's mane kit and if you like the process there's a whole world of resources on the various tek's you can use for larger yield) and bread making. In terms of practical gardening, vertical gardening is accessible regardless of place and much less costly than setting up grow lights for microgreens. I'd recommend finding a copy of Espiritu on libgen, and then trying out fungi, bread, and vertical gardening and see if any of those stick with you!
not him but thanks I really liked this post. I just started making my own kefir and have done research on breadmaking and mushroom growing. Thanks again and if you have nay more info Id love to hear it
Listen to this lecture on The Republic. I’ve never fully read the book but listen to this a few times and it’ll help you to begin to see into the matrix. As for physical books, any 19th century Russian novel will have enough depth to get you thinking about what it is to be a man. Check out Fathers and Sons.
None. You are supposed to craft a philosophy from those books and test it by living. If it works never change it and if it doesn't then find a new philosophy. Anything other than good enough is just living inside ur head not doing anything
Meditations (obviously)
Epictetus complete works
Machiavelli, the prince
Also, don’t come to SwoleShack for literature insight, virtually all boards are filled with illiterate zoomers who hate books.
Outwitting The Devil
https://7saturdays.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/notes-and-lessons-from-napoleon-hills-1928-masterpiece-outwitting-the-devil/ >No human being owes another any degree of duty which robs him of his privilege of building his thought-habits in a positive environment. On the other hand, every human being is duty bound to himself to remove from his environment every influence which even remotely tends to develop negative thought-habits.
>Isn’t this a cold-blooded philosophy?
>Only the strong survive. No one can be strong without removing himself from all influences which develop negative thought-habits. Negative thought-habits result in the loss of the privilege of self-determination, no matter what or who may cause those habits. Positive thought-habits may be controlled by the individual and made to serve his aims and purposes. Negative thought-habits control the individual and deprive
him of the privilege of self-determination.
>The drifter always moves without exercising caution. He acts first and thinks later, if at all. He does not choose his friends. He drifts along and allows people to attach themselves to him on their own terms. He does not choose an occupation. He drifts through school and is glad to get the first job that will give him food and clothing. He invites people to cheat him at trade by neglecting to inform himself of the rules of trade. He invites illness by neglecting to inform himself of the rules of sound health. He invites poverty by neglecting to protect himself against the environmental influences of the poverty-stricken. He invites failure at every step he takes by neglecting to exercise the caution to observe what causes people to fail. He invites fear in all its forms by his lack of caution in examining the causes of fear. He fails in marriage because he neglects to use caution in his choice of a mate, and he uses still less caution in his methods of relating himself to her after marriage. He loses his friends or converts them into enemies by his lack of caution in relating himself to them on the proper basis.
Stoicism
Why then, pray, if we are endowed by nature for such greatness, do not all men, or many, become like him? What, do all horses become swift, all dogs keen to follow the scent? What then? Because I have no natural gifts, shall I on that account give up my discipline? Far be it from me! Epictetus will not be better than Socrates; but if only I am not worse, that suffices me. For I shall not be a Milo, either, and yet I do not neglect my body; nor a Croesus, and yet I do not neglect my property; nor, in a word, is there any other field in which we give up the appropriate discipline merely from despair of attaining the highest.
-Epictetus
Any other useful philosophies next to stoicism?
Buddhism is just stoicism on crack really
Check out Taoism. I've been reading Lieh-tzu's collection of Taoist philosophical musings.
I'm also a student of Stoicism. The Taoists also came to similar principles and insights to the Stoics.
Neitzche is to philosophy as salt is to cooking.
>small bit adds flavor and passion
>too much ruins a dish completely
Read a bit of thus spoke zarathustra and remember that Nietzsche's philosophy is inherently flawed, but just because something is idealistic doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be strived for.
>inherently flawed
Want to explain this homosexual?
>Ubermensch is one who can make his own morality and follow it as a code to the letter, and lives his life powerfully and passionately as he does so.
The ubermensch is inherently unobtainable (as humans are now at least), but as I said just because something is unobtainable doesnt mean its bad.
Man cannot bind himself to his own morality and stick to it. We will always find a way around it and take shortcuts. Also Nietzche's criticisms of other philosophies are sometimes legitimate, and other times are just due to a misunderstanding or misinterpreting of different tenets.
Its irrational and self refuting, thats sort of the whole point
Same with any other post modern thinker
What exactly do you think his philosophy is?
it's pronounced stow-ic, not stoike
stoics in general are really good. I heard that Plato was pretty fit dude, but for philosophies that focus on fit you should look into the stoics and other greek/romans way of thinking.
You're welcome.
his older stuff, yes
but still fucking based
oh god, thanks I just found the 199 page save of all his post from december 2014
good shit
>I just found the 199 page save of all his post from december 2014
Post it
here are all his post up to december 2014 in one pdf file
with a proper reader even all the internal linking should work
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vDOT9mHtML-iRqpU
Quick rundown? What am I looking at here?
>https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vDOT9mHtML-iRqpU
Absolutely based tier. I honestly didn't think anyone here at all would have a clue regarding what I posted. Impressive, very nice.
Zoomers should read this. They really missed out on this wisdom.
Unbelievably based, I'd also add the Book of Pook, same kinda thing and available for free online
Sun and Steal definitely.
He killed himself through seppuku by the way.
gay waist of time
book of five rings is much better and give you the knowledge how to master the blade
OP, dear anon, this is the post you're looking for, this is the book that will change your life and the book i wish i had found earlier
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
i won't bother to go into what it's about, you asked the question and here's your answer
don't listen to anyone who hates on the author, if you read her book you'll understand all you need to know about them
Book about this topic from a woman? Lmao
A israeli woman*
some of the best books ever written are by female authors, what's your point?
YWNBAW, sweaty
>Ayn Rand
I'd rather die than waste even 1 more minute of my life reading her slop.
whatever you say peter keating, nice troll 4/5
Reading these books is a nasty stage of LARP. Your desire to read them is formed not from genuine interest, but from the tranny mentality of seeing le cool trad men on the internet, and then thinking that if you can forcefully insert such philosophy into you, you will be like them. You have a tainted desire. It is much more healthy to let whatever interests you have naturally take reign. You have created a simulacra of what these men were and had to say in their specific historical time and context and have become an arch-homosexual in your simulation thereof. You would be better off pursuing a general interest, drawing ideas from your circumstances in doing it, and perhaps then finding some thinker whose ideas are a more fleshed out version of your own insights. Stoicism is the most cringe form of philosophy there is in the modern era. It is a pure reaction to le cringe postmodern cucks. You cannot fake being in that school like the ancients were. If you truly wanted just a hint of life advice from these texts, then go for it. If you have the slightest idea that doing these things as laid out by Seneca or Aurelius will make you into some idealized version of yourself, you are making a mistake. What will make you more well-rounded is just fulfilling your lot in life that you already have, and by making improvements to yourself as you see them from a level-headed standpoint.
>Your desire to read them is formed not from genuine interest, but from the tranny mentality of seeing le cool trad men on the internet, and then thinking that if you can forcefully insert such philosophy into you, you will be like them.
Anon, the only inherent skill humans are born with and posses since childhood is mimicry, it's literally how we learn from each other.
If you see someone successful, and have no skills yourself, your only survival mechanism you have will kick in, which is to mimic people who are successful.
I understand this point, but my idea here is that there is some sort of distinction between the mimicry of something you encounter in your real life versus the mimicry of an idea you conceptualize of in your own head. To emulate your father or a virtuous friend is different than the phenomenon I propose is taking place. The latter is more-so a product of modernity than what we might call a natural mimicry.
> It is much more healthy to let whatever interests you have naturally take reign.
This is a very slippery slope to hedonism.
If it is a slippery slope, it's quite a long one. People have interests quite naturally. There are interests besides sexual depravity or substance abuse or any other vice. It's silly to think one should totally suppress the things that bring him joy. One does not need to read philosophy to understand that moderation, even self-imposed, is key in living a balanced life. Don't you have passion toward anything anon? I'd imagine you like fitness. Does your indulgence therein feel like a road to hedonism? If you went to college, did you not enjoy your course of study? If you hate your job, is there not something ingrained into you that you would like to do instead? Why would one read philosophy to determine what one should do unless they first encounter some sort of difficulty in this initial arena? To pursue philosophy before having a tangible reason to besides a true inborn draw toward it is at least weakly homomorphic to what I had outlined, I conjecture.
I pursue philosophy as part of my spiritual cope. I was drawn to it after a bout of intense suffering a few years ago. It has stayed with me to navigate the difficulties of existence and try to make wiser decisions daily.
The old and new testament.
Psychology is literally all bullshit. Either you have agency and everything you do is your own choice and responsibility, or you don't and you're a dumb/dangerous animal.
>In this world, if you go into the mountains, and decide to go deeper and yet deeper, instead you will emerge at the gate
-The Book of 5 Rings
Sun and Steel as well as another personal experience changed my views on death.
**The translation is kinda hokey tho
How to win friends (book)
Wendell Berry for sure - food security is the ultimate and only assurance of a healthy and free life. Gf and I are starting a vegetable garden/chicken coop soon, but I've been doing mostly herbs, fungi, and microgreens (chinese cabbage) indoors for the past three years. Grow and eat whole foods, simple as.
Pretty much just the SwoleShack trifecta (Wendell Berry, Gene Logsdon, Edward Abbeh) for me in terms of philosophy. Although I defer to C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Charles Williams, Bishop Kallistos Ware, and Phillip Sherrard for my general worldview/theology.
A healthy dose of Terrance McKenna as well, but nothing too serious
Based homesteader. Got any advice for someone trying to get into that world? I do some home fermentation (started my first batch of sauerkraut yesterday, have been making kefir and kombucha for years) and would love to start a practical garden.
not him but look into permaculture on youtube, they amount of landscape engineering that goes into a lot of the homesteads are amazing and surprisingly simple to set up. I also recommend Gabe Brown's "Dirt to Soil" for a good intro into sustainable homesteading.
Fermentation is great, I made a batch of sauerkraut last year and loved it. Field Guide to Urban Gardening by Espiritu is a classic, and will give you a rough introduction to raised beds, pest control, vertical gardening, micro greens and more accessible diy projects on your road to an actual vegetable garden. Since you like fermentation, you honestly might get a lot out of growing mushrooms (buy a lion's mane kit and if you like the process there's a whole world of resources on the various tek's you can use for larger yield) and bread making. In terms of practical gardening, vertical gardening is accessible regardless of place and much less costly than setting up grow lights for microgreens. I'd recommend finding a copy of Espiritu on libgen, and then trying out fungi, bread, and vertical gardening and see if any of those stick with you!
not him but thanks I really liked this post. I just started making my own kefir and have done research on breadmaking and mushroom growing. Thanks again and if you have nay more info Id love to hear it
Listen to this lecture on The Republic. I’ve never fully read the book but listen to this a few times and it’ll help you to begin to see into the matrix. As for physical books, any 19th century Russian novel will have enough depth to get you thinking about what it is to be a man. Check out Fathers and Sons.
None. You are supposed to craft a philosophy from those books and test it by living. If it works never change it and if it doesn't then find a new philosophy. Anything other than good enough is just living inside ur head not doing anything
Cosmos
i don't read cause i'm not a homo
Obligatory /fitlit/ manifesto post
https://pdflake.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Bronze-Age-Mindset-PDF.pdf
Meditations (obviously)
Epictetus complete works
Machiavelli, the prince
Also, don’t come to SwoleShack for literature insight, virtually all boards are filled with illiterate zoomers who hate books.
nope reading is for homosexuals have fun getting aids
The only important philosopher I take notes from is Diogenes
/fit/'s scripture:
https://mega.nz/folder/v6AzSDSJ#9nFO3qrNGUEKs3M-uMFfuw/folder/mnoSnawY
Wtf that's just cheese pizza
negative. tis a library that has been open for years from SwoleShack.
Outwitting The Devil
https://7saturdays.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/notes-and-lessons-from-napoleon-hills-1928-masterpiece-outwitting-the-devil/
>No human being owes another any degree of duty which robs him of his privilege of building his thought-habits in a positive environment. On the other hand, every human being is duty bound to himself to remove from his environment every influence which even remotely tends to develop negative thought-habits.
>Isn’t this a cold-blooded philosophy?
>Only the strong survive. No one can be strong without removing himself from all influences which develop negative thought-habits. Negative thought-habits result in the loss of the privilege of self-determination, no matter what or who may cause those habits. Positive thought-habits may be controlled by the individual and made to serve his aims and purposes. Negative thought-habits control the individual and deprive
him of the privilege of self-determination.
>The drifter always moves without exercising caution. He acts first and thinks later, if at all. He does not choose his friends. He drifts along and allows people to attach themselves to him on their own terms. He does not choose an occupation. He drifts through school and is glad to get the first job that will give him food and clothing. He invites people to cheat him at trade by neglecting to inform himself of the rules of trade. He invites illness by neglecting to inform himself of the rules of sound health. He invites poverty by neglecting to protect himself against the environmental influences of the poverty-stricken. He invites failure at every step he takes by neglecting to exercise the caution to observe what causes people to fail. He invites fear in all its forms by his lack of caution in examining the causes of fear. He fails in marriage because he neglects to use caution in his choice of a mate, and he uses still less caution in his methods of relating himself to her after marriage. He loses his friends or converts them into enemies by his lack of caution in relating himself to them on the proper basis.
Bible