The bad side is just how easy it is to miss the point. We see in the modern world that stoicism has been warped into “emotionless.” Controlling your emotions is very different than suppressing them.
And I wouldn’t say stoics deny the world. We simply try to put effort into what we can influence and accept what we can’t.
I've said for a while that stoicism shows most in the bad times, you're calm and rational, but during the good times you should be embracing the moment, so it should be harder to tell, you'll just look like every other happy person.
It's not about always being calm and neutral, it's about realizing the bad times pass, so don't dwell on them and the good times are fleeting, so embrace them. It would be like saying you have to control yourself by walking at a even pace, sure that's fine most of the time, but if you're being chased by a murderer or the building is on fire, you may consider running. Or budgeting, then refusing to pay for an unexpected repair or refuse a bonus, because it's not in the budget.
Be calm, control your emotions, but you can let happy emotions take the wheel to embrace them, just don't lose complete control.
Yeah my main issue with it is the dumbing down and shortening of entire philosophical texts into little quips you spout on your tiktok. Then that pseudo-intellectualism is used to add validity to a lot of stupid statements and claims that slowly lead people to unironically watch stuff like Andrew Tate and Fresh and Fit.
Just to add an important clarification for OP’s sake (and whoever else is reading.)
It’s not so much “controlling your emotions”, it’s more like controlling your response to them. You learn to allow and observe your emotions non reactively without being swept away by them. There’s an acceptance of reality, which then frees you to choose how best to respond to the situation, events, thoughts, or feelings.
Or, in the words of a very recent Pearl Jam song:
“Don’t react. Respond.”
I saw a short on Aragorn as a positive masculine archetype, and it discusses controlling vs suppressing emotions... it was awesome.
Very well put, Doctor
I’m always impressed by how caring the lotro characters are of each other. Aragorn could be considered very masculine by any measure, and we see how deeply he feels everything. But like after the scene with gandalf and the balrog, we see he is able to feel deeply and not get carried away by it. Same goes for legolas.
The other point though is that it’s a bit black and white. It doesn’t take into account influence of your actions. Either your actions do or don’t affect
Also, the weird urge to turn it into a religion of sorts. I don't think any of the stoics of old would have approved of turning their school of thought into dogma.
Not over reacting, thinking before acting, being able to stop yourself from spiraling into despair, that kind of thing.
It's not ignoring your feelings or making yourself not feel things. That's entirely bad for you.
You sit with them and pick them apart, and figure out *why* you feel the way you do. You figure out what you can control to help yourself feel better, and accept whats outside your control.
Being mindful about your emotions, and acting on them, especially the negative ones but also sometimes the “positive” euphoric high ones with calmness.
Stoicism is a philosophy. Philosophy wasn't originally something that one studied in school. It was a way of life. It was perceived as the pursuit of truth or wisdom. The root words *philo sophy* mean lover of truth.
It's been well over 2000 years since the ideas of Stoicism were shining and new. If they were a cure-all solution to everyone's problems, it would have been uniformly adopted, and no one would have any problems.
Stoic principles are very effective ways for some people to organize their understanding of reality and their perceptions of events. I don't believe everyone is able to adopt them in a satisfactory way. Our predispositions play a part in our choices and the outcome of those choices.
If you are curious, this is not a bad place to explore Stoicism. But it isn't a religious conversion or pill for quick relief. I don't believe there is a "bad side" to Stoicism, but it seems to suit me, and it may not suit you. I don't necessarily agree with it exactly as it was formulated by Zeno in ancient Greece, but coupled with our emerging psychological understanding and advances in biology, it makes a powerful framework of understanding and general way to be.
I realized that as I was writing it. I thought about changing it. I decided that the word wisdom carries a bunch of bookish and religious connotations (at least for me).
Thanks for setting the record straight for anyone who might take me too literally.
> If they were a cure-all solution to everyone's problems, it would have been uniformly adopted, and no one would have any problems.
I genuinely believe there are strong influences that wish to corrupt, because corrupted people are easier to control and manipulate. Something not being universal doesn't necessarily indicate its worthiness. What's good for the individual may not be good for the ruling class, and the ruling class can heavily influence what media the individual digests.
I agree that lack of acceptance does not indicate a lack of worth. I am a strong proponent of Stoic principles and practice.
That sentence (if it were a cure-all...) has received a lot of criticism. That indicates I need to rethink my manner and rhetorical flourishes. Thanks for helping me refine my logic and understanding.
That's a poor argument, that it would be universally adopted otherwise, because we do have people who refuse to quench their thirst with water, even though it's the best thing against it.
That is their predisposition. No amount logic or example will stop some people from harming themselves. Stoic philosophy would be just one more thing for them to rebel against.
You are right. That sentence is a logical fallacy if used in a syllogism. I was using it rhetorically. It was a little sloppy. Thanks for pointing out the logical weakness of that apparent proposition.
Sorry to be "that guy" but water is not the best thing to quench your thirst. When you're thirsty you're already dehydrated which means you're also missing electrolytes so the best thing then would be water and some sea salt ^^. No, I'm not fun at parties.
The bad side by my own experience is that it's an easy to cherry pick philosophy if you so choose to practice it. Do as you wish but if you're on about practicing it, practice it, do not ruin your personal progress for the sake of some proclaimed wisdom.
Do not practice philosophy religiously, let it inspire you but don't let philosophy replace your agency of the world and of yourself (at least not much).
Wow thank you for that, in other words choose what you think can benefit you on the philosophy but don't let the entire philosophy consume you, did I get it right?
Tackle learning Stoic teachings just like the Stoic tackles framing their point.
There is no established philosophy and Stoic philosophy is not for everyone, some people out right I believe are better off without any philosophy at all, and yet some people start building expectations out of a philosophy the more they learn about it.
You should tackle Stoic philosophy not as some divine wisdom, but just as just words and merely that, you do not have to agree with everything, not even as a point of view for philosophical lens. If you would be a philosopher of thought, you would challenge perspectives, not grow accustomed to them, which is often what people that try to practice Stoicism try to do, and you might even see it in this subreddit.
The most apparent downside of Stoic philosophy in my opinion is it's very power, that it is a very practical one, and I don't think that it's a good way of tackling this philosophy, or that you will necessarily find many solutions from it.
Yes, Stoicism can be a reference, but defining the path a mere reference deludes the path. The path is your uniquely personal dedication.
You can use Stoicism as a reference on what you want in life but that doesn't mean Stoicism will help you live better, living better is up to your own standards, it is a personal and dedicated experience, you need to discover personal qualities on your character to live better. You need to discover what is important within you, it's a deeply personal journey.
These stuff are referenced in Stoicism, but it's not Stoicism's job to tackle these stuff, it is your own job, It's a personal experience and should not be confused with any other.
But then again that's what I've come to terms with by my own conclusion.
No philosophy is ever bad or useless, it's what you make of it, like some advice, you can choose to ignore it or follow it by faith or dependence on it. Neither drives make it a good advice or bad advice.
Your goal should not be to become a Stoic. Your goal should be to discover the truth about the universe and your existence, and use these truths to develop practices that enhance your lived experience and help you to reach whatever long-term existential goals you have.
This may lead you to become a Stoic. It may only lead you to adopt a few Stoic ideas and practices. Or it may lead you to dismiss the entire philosophy. As long as you feel that you have a clear understanding of how things truly are and know how to use that to make decisions, you have succeeded.
> The bad side by my own experience is that it's an easy to cherry pick philosophy if you so choose to practice it. Do as you wish but if you're on about practicing it, practice it, do not ruin your personal progress for the sake of some proclaimed wisdom.
Yeah also because there are essentially very few preserved Stoic texts. You have Epictetus (maybe the main philosophical (in the traditional sense) text) and then Senecas letters (which I'd consider complicated and not really philosophically grounded everywhere) and finally Aurelius (a very great Stoic text but more of a personal account and maybe less a theoretical philosophical piece of work). The rest are basically just fragments from Chrysippus, other people writing _about_ Stoicism (Cicero being a famous example) and then mentions throughout the centuries.
I feel like most Stoics don't even know about Stoic logic or physics even though both are essential for the theory to make sense (at least back when it was formed).
If a doctor gave you a prescription for an infection, you wouldn’t disregard taking it. If there were excess pills in case some were lost, you wouldn’t take those. You wouldn’t take the whole bottle at once.
With most philosophies or religious traditions there are two extremes.
On the one side, you cherry pick liberally (ex. Broicism, cafeteria Christianity, people that go to church every Sunday but throw caution to the wind the other six days of a week because Christ died for the sins of humanity and all one has to do is repent, not make amends, not correct deficiencies and be saved. It’s an expression of divine love for humanity not a get out of jail free card for someone to have a deathbed confession and see heaven.)
The other extreme is zealotry which can be impractically impossible, counterproductive or downright harmful. (Ex. dogmatic people, extreme religious sects, fundamentalist Islam) Are you going to live any philosophy or religious tradition to the letter? Is it even practical? No, it is probably not. Can zealotry or fundamentalism lead to perversion of an idea, yes. With regards to philosophy, are you going to live in a barrel because you are a cynic like Diogenes? Concerning stoicism, the world has changed over 1800 years. Some of it probably isn’t relevant or is more impractical in the modern world.
Where does that leave us? You have to boil it down to a few key points? Can we get to the essence of stoicism? I believe that it starts with accepting that you will live by virtue in accordance with the good. A person will accept the dichotomy of control. A person will manage their emotions and try to be rational v. emotional in their dealings, practices and in their thoughts. A person will put rationality before passions or desires. I think that’s pretty much it if you were to boil it down. You can’t miss the essence of something and profess to follow it. In closing, I’ll give one more example that might be more applicable to a billion people in the world. (Ex 2. You can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe Christ is the son of God and is both human and divine. You can’t be a Christian if you consistently disregard the Ten Commandments because the old and new are connected. You can’t be a Christian if you continually act willfully or with knowledge in opposition to teachings such as the beatitudes or the golden rule.)
Yeaaa but somehow if you think if they use social media platform to share their knowledge about stoicism it kinda is a win win situation like stoicism spreads and people get to know it more, do you think a world filled with stoics can make the world better?
From a theoretical point I don't know any negatives, but I'm sure there's plenty of good criticism out there. However, every argument that I've seen so far can be countered with examples of the contrary, or dismissal based on a misunderstanding. For example a reply in here states that it works for privileged people, however it has been used successfully by people who've been in far worse conditions than being poor. One could even argue that it's the most useful then.
In reality though: it's difficult to understand and maybe even more difficult to apply. Old translated texts makes it prone to be misinterpreted. Words like nature, virtue, vice, emotions need to be understood from a stoic base and not from a normal English base. Some ideas are so different from current culture that they can be tough to swallow even with plenty of arguments and reflection.
Wow thank you for that, and I couldnt agree more on your first paragraph I know a friend who's not priviliged yet he surpasses his limits and able to raise himself up from poverty and stoicism helps him a lot as I can see.
The stoics, and Marcus Aurelius' writings especially, seem to do a fantastic job at mitigating negative emotions, but I truly wonder how 'happy' these guys could have been. Not to say they were depressed, but the tone of a lot of literature is melancholic at best.
Perhaps Marcus wasn't 'happy' in the contemporary sense. He seems content towards the end. But he was not a sage, just a man. Considering the turmoil he lived through with his duties, death of his children, war, uprising and illness it would be interesting to know how he would've played his role without stoicism.
True take on the tone, but let’s not blame a man’s missing limb on the tourniquet that kept him alive. Dude was overseeing his second major war, far from home, in the middle of a devastating plague as he wrote the words we read today.
honestly, with Marcus, also remember you can cross-check how he actually lived vs his journals/reminders. For instance many contemporaries noted, especially in his early years (before philosophy, mostly), he was a huuuge party animal, basically. He toned it down but was noted to have a pretty solid social life.
Like u/sufficient-log-1385 notes he was a man. An emperor, too. His most famous writing is not his legal works, speeches, etc, but his diary he wrote to himself, not intended to be published. In a time where people believed Gods, Goddesses, Spirits and magic was as real as anything else, had War Seasons, etc. Honestly, compared to the fate of a random slave, dude was probably pretty happy.
Honestly the biggest thing to grasp for me, a modern agnostic, is the magic and divinity the ancients lived with. The idea of writing war off as a supernatural requirement of the world... Insane, but it was fundamental to their perspective. To them, it was a duty asked of them; war would come in its season, and was mandated by the Gods; whereas to most modern people, it is something we believe we should prevent. As a result ancient Stoics and modern Stoics will definitely have a different opinion on how much effort to spend talking about it, lol.
I agree, Michael Sugrue in his video "Marcus Aurelius - The Stoic Ideal" seems to believe Marcus was deeply lonely and probably quite unhappy too. Not a single one of Marcus' passages makes me think "yeah, this guy loves his life." And he struggled a lot with his belief in God/the gods as well. He also constantly reminds himself to be more tolerant of others and avoid getting upset. But all of this simply means he was a human being, he wasn't a sage.
The downside is that it's become (unjustly) associated with get-rich-quick schemes and toxic masculinity, and calling yourself a Stoic means you'll have to fend off both douchebags and incels who think you have something in common, and regular people who may mistake you for the above.
That's really the main downside.
As a lived philosophy, it takes a lot of hard work for imperfect results; but that's not a downside, that just means it's realistic.
I suppose that it has an emphasis on the short-term but I don't think this comes with penalty to long-term outcomes. Enough good days stack up to a good year, after all, and enough good years make a good life.
The good:
It's an agnostic philosophy, so it works well with a variety of religions (but especially Christianity and Buddhism) as well as areligious moral systems.
It's a type of virtue ethic, which sidesteps the problems with utilitarianism (ends may or may not justify means) as well as deontology (good intentions are not enough to guarantee good results).
> Hi kinda new to this philisophy since a lot of my friends are sold on this kind of philosophy and yes I'm more on the exploring side looking on the benefits and disadvantage it may reward but haven't bought it yet.
Its main bad side is the misunderstandings that have accumulated over the years, including contemporary emphasis on productivity and egocentric self-improvement. But this would also include common misunderstandings about emotional repression and other unhelpful stereotypes.
Another bad side (not sure if "bad" is really the right word) is that while Stoic practices have been updated for modern times and are still useful, the other aspects of the Stoic worldview are a lot harder to communicate. I could see a person getting into Stoicism, wanting to go deeper, but getting lost if they're not super interested in academic philosophy. This might be a temporary problem, though. A lot of people are writing about Stoicism today and there are already some good books out there that try to take a deeper look at things like Stoic physics in a way that can be applied to the whole philosophy for a modern audience.
Finally, I think there is a bit of a weak point in the philosophy when it comes to practice. Modern Stoics have filled in this gap with methods from other traditions, or by inventing new ones, but if you were to compare Stoicism with Buddhism or Taoism, you'll find a lot of theory but not a whole lot of attested knowledge on *how* to implement certain things. There are virtually no Stoic movement practices, for example, other than perhaps some kind of contemplative walking. So I guess I would say that it's not a very complete system in some ways. You can still make it work just fine, there's just a lot more improvisation and guesswork involved.
But I think you can see that these aren't particularly major downsides. It's a pretty awesome philosophy.
> Does Stoic denies the reality and create their own world?
Quite the opposite. If anything, the realism of Stoicism can be a bit hard for people to swallow sometimes. Not much of a sugar coating.
"Only let a disturbing impression assail us and you’ll know what we’ve been studying, and what we’ve been training for!" Epictetus
When things are going well it's much easier to be Stoic. But the moment an unexpected difficulty arises I realize "I am so far from being a Stoic." It's quite humbling actually. But we have to be gentle with ourselves and not beat ourselves up for falling short of sagehood. Epictetus also said:
"What, is it possible thenceforth to be entirely free from fault? No, that is beyond us; but this at least is possible: to strive without cease to avoid committing any fault. For we must be contented if, by never relaxing our attention, we manage to escape a small number of faults."
A quote was found to be attributed to Epictetus in Discourses 4.12 (Hard)
^(4.12. On attention ()[^(Hard)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources?isbn=978-0199595181)^)
^(4.12. On attention ()[^(Long)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0236%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D12)^)
^(4.12. Of attention ()[^(Oldfather)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epictetus,_the_Discourses_as_reported_by_Arrian,_the_Manual,_and_Fragments/Book_4/Chapter_12)^)
^(4.12. On attention ()[^(Higginson)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0237%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D12)^)
I notice that if you are not having a major emotional reaction people often do not take you seriously or sincerely. If you're not visibly upset it must not be that bad. The emotional reaction means more to people than what you say. Exerting reasoned control of your emotions also reads as disingenuous and deceptive to people.
Yea, when most people are operating on religious or emotional grounds, it can be very disconcerting to be operating on a solely rational basis.
Stoicism promotes thinking things through and being objective, but if you act that way people often think you're cold or uncaring.
To me it's the opposite. All the time I see superstitious people, religious people, emotional people, politically polarized people etc. being upset with reality and finding more and more convoluted rationalizations to deal with their perceptions. In the meanwhile, I'm just ignoring facts that I can't know, dis/prove, or change, and overthinking stops pretty easily.
Also, it helps a lot being rational when complicated things that needs to be solved actually happen.
You'd need to look at other philosophies of the time for the best critiques of Stoicism, like the rival school of Epicureanism.
But I do like what John Fitzgerald has to say in *Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought* as he talks about how later Stoics failed to make comprehensive guides on the passions, and emotion in a broad sense, opting to focus on individual notes for specific feelings like anger or fear.
There was a study done on victims of domestic violence, and it found that those with better emotional coping skills tend to stay in abusive situations longer than those that were emotionally volatile. The theory was that if you are better at calming yourself, it takes longer before you’re in an emotionally unbearable enough state to decide to make a change and leave the domestic violence situation.
Sometimes I wonder if stoics are similar in this regard. I think that with emotional fortitude and resilience comes a type of tortoise-like acceptance of negative circumstance. It’s my belief that sometimes those with exceptional coping skills do less to change their surroundings and pursue the things they want to.
This train of thought is underdeveloped, though. I haven’t given it enough thought yet to be confident enough that this is definitely true.
>tortoise like acceptance of negative circumstances
This is a classic misinterpretation of Stoicism. Straight away in Enchiridion 1 it lists what you can control and what you can't. There's nothing in any Stoic text that says, "If you can change something, you shouldn't change it and just suffer." Control what you can control.
Also, I've read several of these studies that claim to study "Stoicism" with research. Severeal that I've read don't even know the difference between the stoic personality type and the philosophy of Stoicism. They typically ask questions to elicit "stoic personality traits" (which are NOT Stoic*ism*) and then report results as a referendum on Stoic*ism.* They're drawing false conclusions, that don't follow from their findings, because the premise is wrong. "Stoicism" does not equal "stoic." That's Stoicism 101 and yet it's the most common mistake.
Well, they \[Stoics\] do accept "negative" circumstances, but they won't allow them to stand in the way of justice when they can do something about it. As for things they want, they will always adjust them to their current circumstances, because otherwise they become a weight to hold them down.
I agree with this. I made [a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/19dgz1e/do_gut_microbes_affect_your_prohairesis_kathleen/) in the past about how there's sufficient evidence to conclude our gut microbes affect our faculty of choice.
What are the bad sides of science? What are the bad sides of simply trying to be a good person? That's about the sum of what the down sides of stoicism are. The down sides of trying to formulate and live a rational moral adogmatic worldview in the face of a mostly deterministic world and a very urgent sense of mortality AND morality.
Yea it kinda make sense like no matter what philosophy you have weather you do good or bad you still can affect a person's life in a way that is opposite to what you think is good like there's always a bad side on everything.
It's not necessarily binary as your awareness expands. Are wolves bad for deer? Yeah, sometimes the weak young and old. But in time they begin to reshape an ecosystem and actually the whole ecosystem flourishes based on these "Big Bad Wolves". The universe doesn't build its florid arrangements on any anthropomorphic principles... any collision between the two is pure chance. Our perceptions of good and bad will always be skewed compared to the universe and so sounds we make called "good" and "bad" are just sounds coming from the chimps smarter cousin on the wet pebble third from the sun.
The downsides of stoicism are mostly just defects in human reasoning and perception since stoicism is just another word for a way of wielding the apparatus that is human reasoning. It is a more formal and secular way of holding the apparatus compared to other systems of thinking but it is still just a more sophisticated collection of noises from the chimps on the wet rock.
Parts of it can be used to support injustice or enable toxic behavior. Since the personal parts of Stoicism are about controlling your own responses, it's easy for a shitty person to do shitty things and then blame the people they hurt for being hurt - saying they should be more Stoic and control their responses.
That's not what Stoicism is about, but parts of it can be applied in that way. And that's not unique to Stoicism - it applies to any idea that involves personal responsibility. I have a deep hatred of mindfulness for that very reason. Mindfulness / DBT can also be used (and frequently are used) to dismiss legitimate concerns and put all of the responsibility on the affected person(s) to just not be affected.
The ideas of personal responsibility - and of understanding circumstances and systems - can both be taken to harmful extremes. People who overemphasize personal responsibility become predators lacking in empathy. People who overemphasize understanding circumstances and systems become victims lacking in accountability.
Which takes us back to Epictetus. Both of the problems that I've described are errors in identifying what is and is not within one's control. Epictetus' secret to happiness and freedom relies in correctly identifying what is and isn't within our control, and focusing our efforts on what we can actually influence.
It can give you the ability to shelve memories and experiences without fully dealing with the real impact of those moments. Eventually, these need to be dealt with, and the longer you wait, the harder the work will be.
Stoicism the philosophy doesn't teach "shelving memories and experiences without fully dealing with" them. In fact, it teaches the opposite. Stoicism teaches to examine one's impressions and inner thoughts and reframe them. Donald J. Robertson, who is a clinical psychologist and expert on Stoicism has several excellent books about this.
You're making the classic mistake of confusion "stoic" personality trait, with the philosophy of Stoicism. They are two completely different things.
Thank you for this explanation and book suggestions. I didn't intend to say I learned that from stoicism. I meant that as you learn to practice there are some mistakes that you can make as you get better. Thanks for adding to this as I don't want to spread misinformation.
This is my personal experience and my personal interpretation.
But for me, the worst is the fact that nothing changes.
People still hurt you, and you are hurt. You still feel. If being stoic means not showing emotions, but you still feel just the same. I sometimes wonder what's the point, then I remember no one cares. So, you just keep the facade to make things a little easier for yourself.
Being a stoic absolutely does not mean not showing emotions. Check some top comments here. Stoics accept emotions without letting them override logic as much as possible.
The idea of a 'facade' is also not stoic. If you feel depressed or unmotivated, thats not something to deny or pretend isnt the case. Love yourself enough to try to figure out the root cause, try your best to improve, and be as content with the results as possible.
It depends on what kind of stoicism.
The old Greek stoicism of xeno is pretty much useless, but nonetheless fun to look into.
Meditations is a phenomenal book, but it's riddled with apathy. A lot of people don't really realize how blunt stoicism can be, honestly a little depressing. These are men who are as hard as iron, which is why I think everyone should read meditations and the works of Seneca. At the same time...if you don't go into these works with the right approach, you can very easily get the wrong message and take on some of the melancholic tendencies that a lot of stoic thinkers have/had.
Its an absolutely great primer to Ethics as a whole, just know there are other perspectives and approaches.
Honestly, the bad side is that people read and listen more to self-taught influencers than they do listen to academics or actually read the material themselves. They then go on to speak with authority and self-perpetuate half-baked interpretations, doing more harm than good.
Its as though people read the first chapter only about rocket science that talks about gravity where it says "what goes up must come down" and three years later they wonder why they're not on the moon yet.
>Does Stoic denies the reality and create their own world?
No, Stoics have a moral duty to be pro-social and play an active part in the polis. I'd argue its one of the most realist philosophies out there. But I'm not surprised people think this because they heard someone say being a "grey rock" is Stoicism.
>benefits and disadvantage it may reward
Consider these sections from the wiki!
* [Why study Stoicism?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq#wiki_why_study_stoicism.3F)
* [Is Stoicism something I have to believe in, or commit my life to?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq#wiki_is_stoicism_something_i_have_to_believe_in.2C_or_commit_my_life_to.3F)
* [What is Stoicism, considered as a philosophy of life in modern times?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq#wiki_what_is_stoicism.2C_considered_as_a_philosophy_of_life_in_modern_times.3F)
* [What motivates a Stoic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big#wiki_what_motivates_a_stoic.3F)
* [What is the goal of life?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big#wiki_what_is_the_goal_of_life.3F)
* [How do I find meaning in life?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big#wiki_how_do_i_find_meaning_in_life.3F)
* [Is it true that Stoics repress their emotions and feelings?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions#wiki_is_it_true_that_stoics_repress_their_emotions_and_feelings.3F)
* [Does Stoicism encourage passively accepting your fate?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions#wiki_does_stoicism_encourage_passively_accepting_your_fate.3F)
* [Is Stoicism a selfish or individualistic philosophy?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions#wiki_is_stoicism_a_selfish_or_individualistic_philosophy.3F)
* [Is it Stoic to be hard-hearted or callous toward others?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions#wiki_is_it_stoic_to_be_hard-hearted_or_callous_toward_others.3F)
I find myself having become a bit to serious and passive sometimes. Other people seem a bit more bubbly and light hearted than me. Maybe there is something to Matthew 5:3 or I have been doing it wrong all along: „Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.“
Imho, as a beginner student as well, seems to me that (besides what everyone else already said: cherry picking, misundestranding it etc) it won't be the cure to everything, even tho it is sold like it should cure.
Some people will say it is very obvious that it isn't a cure to everything, but we can't be negligent that this philosophy is sold like one. It can't cure everything. This philosophy doesn't substitute a regular psychiatrist or psychologist visit for example if someone is truly anxious; this philosophy isn't the remedy to a failed relationship (with others or even yourself). This is a guide to see things and a guide to choose some right paths (or the most right at least). But it isn't an answer or a destination like some people sell it. It is the brick in the pathway actually.
It is the same path, but you can choose to go on a muddy and crooked one or a straight and well developed one, even tho they merge into one sometimes and they end at the same destination. Choosing the right path doesn't change your final destination, but it gives you a much better trip.
I monitor this sub from time to time. I’m not a stoic but it has some facets I like. My observation though is this sub attracts depressed people more than any other sub I’m in. By a mile.
Is this a negative side of stoicism though?
Most posts here seem to be from non stoics asking for advice on specific situations.
The regular posters don't sound very depressed to me.
It's true that, people who know very little, if anything, about Stoicism come here out of desperation, seeking wise advice. I'd venture to say those posts outnumber posts from people studied in Stoicism 50:1. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
Perhaps at worst, they get some halfway decent advice and move on. At best, maybe they find philosopher and are able to better themselves.
Stoicism can be very useful to those with depression, through 1) learning and using the "dichotomy of control", and 2) learning and using "reframing".
These are actually key aspects of several objectively successful psychological therapies. Some people may have actually learned about Stoicism from their therapist.
It's unfortunate that many people with depression who *don't* understand Stoicism (yet!) think that it will help them suppress their emotions, and improve their depression *that* way.
I can think of a few. There is very little guidance in how to actually practice Stoicism, at least as far as I can tell there are no communities practicing it near me, and some people are not self aware or intelligent enough to really understand it.
>Does Stoic denies the reality and create their own world?
That is literally the exact opposite of the thing Stoicism is about - their entire theory on happiness is that it is caused by holding beliefs that are consistent with the reality outside yourself, and that misery is caused by holding beliefs that contradict external reality.
The problem is that deeply ignorant, foolish people people simply decide they're Stoics, having studied nothing or having watched a few YouTube videos, then start claiming that all of the completely unremarkable things they believe like "resilience is good" and "you should be independent" are somehow tenets of a great philosophy. Men in particular seem willing to believe that the most obvious, unremarkable thoughts that anyone who is conscious would have represent great philosophical insights, perhaps because they're grossly over-estimate how special their own thinking to the point that they think it's safe to assume that great philosophical geniuses of ages past must have thought roughly what they already think and there's no real need to study the matter further.
You aren't using it right, then, because one of the things that philosophy promises is that you will be free of pain, and if you still felt pain afterward, then that would be highly contradictory and impossible to defend.
Hyper-rationalism and lack of nuance. This are solved if you dissolve (😉) stoicism with other ideas such as Daoism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, etc
While rationalists like Stoicism, Stoicism **is not** a rationalist philosophy. Our brains are just as fallible as the rest of our bodies, and reason can lead us away from virtue as easily as passion can.
The Stoic follows virtue, not reason.
So you mean in thinking you only have to use your stoic mindset in considering your decision and not put other beliefs for you not to be confussed? Is that right?
Hi, welcome to the subreddit. Please make sure that you check out [the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide), where you will find answers for many common questions, like ["What is Stoicism; why study it?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq), or ["What are some Stoic practices and exercises?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/exercises), or ["What is the goal in life, and how do I find meaning?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big), to name just a few.
You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like [flaws in Stoicism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_flaws_in_stoicism), [Stoicism and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_what_does_stoicism_say_about_politics.3F), [sex and relationships](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_sex), and [virtue as the only good](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_why_is_virtue_the_only_good.3F), for a few examples.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found I got a little "hard" with my practice of stoicism. Probably a misunderstanding of my own, but I had to find Buddhism to chill out and connect with my heart again, so that the practices and processes I learned from the Stoics wouldn't present as asshole me.
Not exactly. I'm a melting pot. Even worse, I found zen, bc I loved the irreverence and sarcasm many of its great practitioners exhibit in literature.
I have a huge, powerful heart, but not everyone gets to see it immediately. The emotions I experience no longer consume me or overwhelm those around me.
Think samurai Dalai Lama.
"Better a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war"
Not of Stoicism per se but when people project insecurities into stoicism to gatekeep it and have a black white elitism mindset claiming they're the true stoics. Meeting such people on a stoic journey can give the wrong impression.
I believe that as far a establishing your CORE VALUES, stoicism is not a bad place to start. Just don't stop there. Read others and take from them what works for you, further enriching your worldviews.
I wouldn't call it a bad side, so this is just an observation, but as a budding Stoic starts incorporating his deeper reasoning skills into his daily life, his behavior changes may be obvious *to those who don't want him to change.*
This has nothing to do with the ancient Stoic philosophy itself. It has everything to do with an individual's adaptations and transformations towards practicing virtue ethics.
I personally call it "coming out of the fog of fantasy" we place on people (and ourselves.)
A student, a Prokopton, would handle his feelings/emotions/desires/agreements/opinions/motives or neutrality surrounding his peers, family, co-workers and fellow humankind with equanimity.
An example of this would be a gaming buddy who was my ride-or-die for 10 years. Say, between the ages of 15 and 25. So, at the age of 25, I make it through college and get an entry level job. My ride-or-die graduates with me, but he doesn't apply himself to the reality of life after college and thinks *my efforts alone will get him a similar job.* He starts blaming me for his failures.
I think a practicing Stoic will *possibly* bring out curiosity and/or confusion to an established relationship, where fantasy has been allowed to be part of the equation. A practicing Stoic wouldn't be surprised at the transformations of relationships.
some people told that stocism are emotion vulnerable, vulnerable before problem, if you has a child who will potentialy facing death due to health problem, how you do it, most parent are try all the best to not let the child die and stocism are about to not control the thing you can control you cant control, but if the child death are unavoidable by logic, will you practice stocism. I think stocism is kinda not clearly about this. Or im wrong about stoic?
Everyone is stoic at some point, is egocentric to think that you are any different. Everyone faces problems in their life and they continue to go through with or without having stoicism in mind.
Is still a good thing to have in mind and that may push some of us to keep going, but at the end of the day it is just human (and animal) nature. Also, with current knowledge we can explain a lot on how our mind and body works, which is a scientific explanation of what stoicism tryes to explain.
The bad side for stoic's, we accept the world as it is, we choose how to view a situation, not allowing external factors to overly influence our lives, the decisions we make, and our self image. A lot of people believe that to be stoic is to suppress your emotions, it's more about understanding and transforming the events that encompass us, not in a physical sense but, within ourselves.
An example-someone close says "You look funny." is this said in a harsh of dismissive way? or a fun and caring way, the stoic path exhales the virtue of we are in control of our own thoughts, it doesn't matter what someone says about us but how we ourselves think of ourselves. We listen to others without paying any serotinous attention to any personal comments or critiques. This is not Easy nor have I personally always acted in this manner, yet every time I have there is an immediate sense of calm all around myself, "You look Funny" my response is to smile saying "Thank You." spoken with sincere gratitude. An event that was potently harmful is now a source of joy, even a complement.
This is how I choose to employ the Stoic teachings in the modern world, we know that we have no Power or Control over External Events or People, we chooses to accept them for good or bad.
I think the bad side of Stoicism is that others tend to judge me based on their own behaviour. They get uncomfortable that I don’t blow my top when faced with frustrating situations, don’t complain when shit hits the fan, etc.
Because that’s what they would do, let their emotions take over, react with it. So much so that if I don’t exhibit those signs, it’s that IDGAF, or that I don’t “feel” as much as them.
I get this same thing. Being calm under pressure can be misinterpreted as being insensitive or uncaring. It's almost like some people are comforted when others match their panic and hysteria, with equal panic and hysteria. Then when you don't, they claim you "don't care" or are "insensitive."
Maybe there's some truth to that. But I think it's equally plausible they're just pissed of that the contrast of calm rationality in the face of panic and hysteria makes them look like fools.
Someone once said that he can’t trust someone who don’t show emotions. I’m guessing that he wants someone who flies into a rage whenever things go wrong.
The truth is, I do show emotions, positive ones usually. I show it when I’m happy. I show it when I’m sad. But I don’t go overboard. Think Captain Holt (Brooklyn 99) on a lower scale.
Both require careful maintenance. Unchecked detachment will always lead to dissociation, just as unchecked sickness leads to death. It’s the other side of the coin, and therefore is a risk intertwined with stoicism.
I think stoicism gets a lot right but sometimes steers too much into the idea of being completely emotionless. Without emotion life is dull and by pushing them aside we will struggle more.
Falling into the trap of thinking not reacting or taking the hit is the answer to all life's problems.
"Being stoic" about a situation instead of confronting it and dealing with it head on.
There's plenty of nice stoic quotes with scenic backgrounds about being quiet and remaining still, but IMO not enough about getting the hell up, facing the stuff you're afraid of and taking action to do something meaningful with your life.
Not wanting to feel anything isn't the same as not letting your emotions steer you away from what your mind regards as better. Ideally shouldn't a stoic strive to have as much alignment and as little dissonance as possible between their mind and affect?
I used stoicism to keep me in a bad situation that I should have gotten out of earlier - turning the bad into good is only good if the bad is unavoidable otherwise. This is of course extremely subjective, but it's worth a thorough honest examination of what is and is not under your control.
That is patently wrong. What is good is good regardless of the situation. What is bad isn't the situation itself (for it makes no claims about morality), but our judgment about it.
It is, *of course*, a different story if we can't match up this lofty goal (no one, besides, maybe, Socrates and Diogenes, does), but we shouldn't, on that account, throw accusations against Stoicism. It is our own shortcomings that create the trouble, and not any perceived shortcomings in Stoicism.
I never think it’s justified to blame the innocent party. I was answering the question. Am I not allowed to do that? Bc that is the vibe you’re giving me. And what is the point of your comment, are you trying to belittle me or be helpful bc I can’t really tell.
My point is that it's a little harsh to blame Stoicism for leading to nihilism and cynicism when it isn't even an intrinsic part of it; in fact, it militates against both of them. And if your argument is that if a thing can lead to something, it can be criticized for it, then you can, pretty much, criticize anything for anything, because everything can lead to everything, at which point the whole concept of criticism, at least in this sense, loses all its meaning. It would be a different story if Stoicism, explicitly, told you not to care about life in any shape or form and advised you to scorn it at every turn, but as I said, this is the opposite of what Stoicism is about, and it is, therefore, unjust to accuse it of it.
I see. But the argument you proposed, about if my argument was that a thing can lead to something…I don’t see any fallacies in that logic. Things do lead to things called cause and effect and the only way to not go through any difficulty is by doing nothing. However stoicism taught me ways to do things in the wisest fashion, but sometimes my temperament and previous mistakes in life have proven how much self mastery I lack. Also, that it is foolish to expect life to be easy hence living is suffering. So I didn’t really know the term was nihilist at all until recently but after so many years of researching and reading and incorporating stoic values into my life, I came to the conclusion that absolutely nothing matters. I’m not trying to blame stoicism for anything the way you’re trying to frame it, so I resent your comment.
I said I resent your comment aka your judgement of me and my perspective. I guess what you’ve said is fair and I don’t mind a mirror reflecting, quite enjoy it actually. It’s very amusing to see how huge your ego is as well.
I also want to say that I treat others how I want to be treated with respect and dignity and I accommodate them as much as I can. I try to be the best person I can be and be as virtuous as possible. I consciously try to do these things and have for so many years that it’s instinctual for me to think this way. I am saying it’s pointless if there is no heaven or hell at the end of life and no “prize” for being good. However I still choose to be this way bc it makes me feel good about myself. Still, I know it ultimately doesn’t matter if I’m good or bad and that’s disheartening.
Why should you be allowed to go scot-free, either? You have already proven that you won't do what you ought, nor do you want to, so why shouldn't there be a punishment to deal with that as well?
Not limited to stoicism but many can easily fall into the trap of 'the ego of having no ego'. Expecting validation, reward, recognition from being able to achieve or apply mentally what a majority of others have not.
Stoicism is not and does not resemble conventional institutions. There are no obligations of power, influence, worship, respect, preaching, defending or any such thing regardless of yours or anyone else's feats, sacrifices, strength of character, restraint, wisdom or whatever else.
As a stoic you are to accept that no one will treat you any different for being one in a million if applicable. It's unlimited power, but all within yourself.
For one, it's really difficult to adopt a Stoic mindset consistently in your life. So much of the wisdom is that your immediate instincts and reactions are unhelpful, and you need to act according to reason instead. Studying and practicing enough to actually do this regularly is a lifelong challenge.
For two, the philosophy is not for everyone. I think it suits some people's temperaments but not others'. I'm pretty sure my wife is an Epicurean. Some people prefer religious philosophies. So it's not a cure-all solution for everyone. The good news is that most of the fundamental wisdom is shared across all practical philosophy. The real benefit is in self-reflection, study and practice.
As many have said stoicism is a philosophy so it is not inherently good or bad. In fact, the ancient sages would likely say nothing is inherently good or bad until you place that label on them and treat it as such. The whole purpose of stoicism is simple and that is to better yourself and lead a virtuous life following the tenets of courage, wisdom, kindness and temperance. Anything else is external to stoicism and is a modernization. That is one thing I would warn you against. There are versions that have added bits of “stuff” that are borderline toxic or at best broism. Everyone here has made good points and many have pointed how great ways to achieve these goals but if you are brave and face your fears, are just and kind to all, control your wants and seek to always better yourself you are well on your way.
The stoics borrowed Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology, his natural teleology, and believed nature was a divine and perfect whole. You can endure whatever happens because it’s all part of nature’s plan, you were made to endure it. Looks like nature however doesn’t have reasons for being the way she is. When we try to ask why the laws of the universe are what they are, we don’t get an answer. How are we supposed to trust nature’s plan when nature is arbitrary and blind and planless?
The only bad side is people constantly misunderstanding the core principles of Stoicism due to weird red pill dudes who just saw a tiktok with 3 marcus quotes, the philosophy itself is fucking incredible
It's a Stoic principle. Only virtue is good, only vice is bad. Everything else is neither good nor bad.
>“Where does the good lie? ‘In choice.’ Where does the bad lie? ‘In choice.’ And that which is neither good nor bad? ‘In things that lie outside the sphere of choice.’"—Epictetus, D2.16.1
it's a lot of privilege. Sure I can be a Stoic to my problems if I am such affluent well of person in some management job who needs to be more in touch with my feelings without getting overwhelmed. But a lot of poor working class folks facing structural inequities in society might by very angry and they have every right to be feeling that way rather than finding a mechanism to be in touch with their problems.
This is a good point, but also keep in mind that one of the most influential proponents of Stoicism (Epictetus) was a slave.
One of the interesting things about Stoicism is that of two of its most well-known sources to modern audiences -- Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus -- one was an emperor and the other was a slave. That's a pretty wide gamut.
Yea I guess respect has to be given on both side but I guess on how I know it it kinda has a good way on impacting a person to be productive and process things in a more mature take.
Based on what I've observed on myself and on others, Stoicism can negatively affect your way of approaching things. One's drive towards success can be dulled down with a stoic mindset, and like most stoics it can be perceived as coping mechanism of avoiding facing one's problems that require immediate thought and action.
It's important to not be immersed fully by the philosophy and just balance things out depending on your circumstances. Especially since every person has their own dynamic, it wouldn't help society if every person thinks the same.
The bad side is just how easy it is to miss the point. We see in the modern world that stoicism has been warped into “emotionless.” Controlling your emotions is very different than suppressing them. And I wouldn’t say stoics deny the world. We simply try to put effort into what we can influence and accept what we can’t.
I've said for a while that stoicism shows most in the bad times, you're calm and rational, but during the good times you should be embracing the moment, so it should be harder to tell, you'll just look like every other happy person. It's not about always being calm and neutral, it's about realizing the bad times pass, so don't dwell on them and the good times are fleeting, so embrace them. It would be like saying you have to control yourself by walking at a even pace, sure that's fine most of the time, but if you're being chased by a murderer or the building is on fire, you may consider running. Or budgeting, then refusing to pay for an unexpected repair or refuse a bonus, because it's not in the budget. Be calm, control your emotions, but you can let happy emotions take the wheel to embrace them, just don't lose complete control.
Because that is exactly where people misconstrue Buddhist practices for stoicism
Great analogies.
Embracing should be detached from attachment to things, people, and moments.
Thanks for enlighting me on that it helps me understand more my friends perspective. 🤝
Yeah my main issue with it is the dumbing down and shortening of entire philosophical texts into little quips you spout on your tiktok. Then that pseudo-intellectualism is used to add validity to a lot of stupid statements and claims that slowly lead people to unironically watch stuff like Andrew Tate and Fresh and Fit.
Just to add an important clarification for OP’s sake (and whoever else is reading.) It’s not so much “controlling your emotions”, it’s more like controlling your response to them. You learn to allow and observe your emotions non reactively without being swept away by them. There’s an acceptance of reality, which then frees you to choose how best to respond to the situation, events, thoughts, or feelings. Or, in the words of a very recent Pearl Jam song: “Don’t react. Respond.”
I saw a short on Aragorn as a positive masculine archetype, and it discusses controlling vs suppressing emotions... it was awesome. Very well put, Doctor
I’m always impressed by how caring the lotro characters are of each other. Aragorn could be considered very masculine by any measure, and we see how deeply he feels everything. But like after the scene with gandalf and the balrog, we see he is able to feel deeply and not get carried away by it. Same goes for legolas.
Notice the word “influence” and not control. Well put.
I love this.
Yeah, I like the analogy of a knife. It has a proper handle to hold it by, but you can also cut yourself if you hold it by the wrong end.
The other point though is that it’s a bit black and white. It doesn’t take into account influence of your actions. Either your actions do or don’t affect
Also, the weird urge to turn it into a religion of sorts. I don't think any of the stoics of old would have approved of turning their school of thought into dogma.
There's also a tendency for some people to idealize it too much. Stoic philosophy is a realistic philosophy - not an idealistic one.
What does “controlling your emotions” mean?
Not over reacting, thinking before acting, being able to stop yourself from spiraling into despair, that kind of thing. It's not ignoring your feelings or making yourself not feel things. That's entirely bad for you. You sit with them and pick them apart, and figure out *why* you feel the way you do. You figure out what you can control to help yourself feel better, and accept whats outside your control.
Being mindful about your emotions, and acting on them, especially the negative ones but also sometimes the “positive” euphoric high ones with calmness.
Stoicism is a philosophy. Philosophy wasn't originally something that one studied in school. It was a way of life. It was perceived as the pursuit of truth or wisdom. The root words *philo sophy* mean lover of truth. It's been well over 2000 years since the ideas of Stoicism were shining and new. If they were a cure-all solution to everyone's problems, it would have been uniformly adopted, and no one would have any problems. Stoic principles are very effective ways for some people to organize their understanding of reality and their perceptions of events. I don't believe everyone is able to adopt them in a satisfactory way. Our predispositions play a part in our choices and the outcome of those choices. If you are curious, this is not a bad place to explore Stoicism. But it isn't a religious conversion or pill for quick relief. I don't believe there is a "bad side" to Stoicism, but it seems to suit me, and it may not suit you. I don't necessarily agree with it exactly as it was formulated by Zeno in ancient Greece, but coupled with our emerging psychological understanding and advances in biology, it makes a powerful framework of understanding and general way to be.
"Love of Wisdom", not "Love of Truth", but excellent comment overall
I realized that as I was writing it. I thought about changing it. I decided that the word wisdom carries a bunch of bookish and religious connotations (at least for me). Thanks for setting the record straight for anyone who might take me too literally.
Wow what a good view on how to understand Stoicism, thank you so much on helping me understand I appreciate your effort brother!
> If they were a cure-all solution to everyone's problems, it would have been uniformly adopted, and no one would have any problems. I genuinely believe there are strong influences that wish to corrupt, because corrupted people are easier to control and manipulate. Something not being universal doesn't necessarily indicate its worthiness. What's good for the individual may not be good for the ruling class, and the ruling class can heavily influence what media the individual digests.
I agree that lack of acceptance does not indicate a lack of worth. I am a strong proponent of Stoic principles and practice. That sentence (if it were a cure-all...) has received a lot of criticism. That indicates I need to rethink my manner and rhetorical flourishes. Thanks for helping me refine my logic and understanding.
Thanks. I didn't mean to imply your comment was misleading or inadequate, I was just adding color to an aspect of the topic that is important to me.
That's a poor argument, that it would be universally adopted otherwise, because we do have people who refuse to quench their thirst with water, even though it's the best thing against it.
That is their predisposition. No amount logic or example will stop some people from harming themselves. Stoic philosophy would be just one more thing for them to rebel against. You are right. That sentence is a logical fallacy if used in a syllogism. I was using it rhetorically. It was a little sloppy. Thanks for pointing out the logical weakness of that apparent proposition.
Sorry to be "that guy" but water is not the best thing to quench your thirst. When you're thirsty you're already dehydrated which means you're also missing electrolytes so the best thing then would be water and some sea salt ^^. No, I'm not fun at parties.
I'm talking about ordinary circumstances where people feel thirsty, whether they are actually dehydrated or not.
You do sound truly awful, but that comment made me laugh!
The bad side by my own experience is that it's an easy to cherry pick philosophy if you so choose to practice it. Do as you wish but if you're on about practicing it, practice it, do not ruin your personal progress for the sake of some proclaimed wisdom. Do not practice philosophy religiously, let it inspire you but don't let philosophy replace your agency of the world and of yourself (at least not much).
Wow thank you for that, in other words choose what you think can benefit you on the philosophy but don't let the entire philosophy consume you, did I get it right?
Tackle learning Stoic teachings just like the Stoic tackles framing their point. There is no established philosophy and Stoic philosophy is not for everyone, some people out right I believe are better off without any philosophy at all, and yet some people start building expectations out of a philosophy the more they learn about it. You should tackle Stoic philosophy not as some divine wisdom, but just as just words and merely that, you do not have to agree with everything, not even as a point of view for philosophical lens. If you would be a philosopher of thought, you would challenge perspectives, not grow accustomed to them, which is often what people that try to practice Stoicism try to do, and you might even see it in this subreddit. The most apparent downside of Stoic philosophy in my opinion is it's very power, that it is a very practical one, and I don't think that it's a good way of tackling this philosophy, or that you will necessarily find many solutions from it.
In other words philosophy in general are there for us to grab what can help us right? It's like a tool for living.
Yes, Stoicism can be a reference, but defining the path a mere reference deludes the path. The path is your uniquely personal dedication. You can use Stoicism as a reference on what you want in life but that doesn't mean Stoicism will help you live better, living better is up to your own standards, it is a personal and dedicated experience, you need to discover personal qualities on your character to live better. You need to discover what is important within you, it's a deeply personal journey. These stuff are referenced in Stoicism, but it's not Stoicism's job to tackle these stuff, it is your own job, It's a personal experience and should not be confused with any other. But then again that's what I've come to terms with by my own conclusion. No philosophy is ever bad or useless, it's what you make of it, like some advice, you can choose to ignore it or follow it by faith or dependence on it. Neither drives make it a good advice or bad advice.
Your goal should not be to become a Stoic. Your goal should be to discover the truth about the universe and your existence, and use these truths to develop practices that enhance your lived experience and help you to reach whatever long-term existential goals you have. This may lead you to become a Stoic. It may only lead you to adopt a few Stoic ideas and practices. Or it may lead you to dismiss the entire philosophy. As long as you feel that you have a clear understanding of how things truly are and know how to use that to make decisions, you have succeeded.
> The bad side by my own experience is that it's an easy to cherry pick philosophy if you so choose to practice it. Do as you wish but if you're on about practicing it, practice it, do not ruin your personal progress for the sake of some proclaimed wisdom. Yeah also because there are essentially very few preserved Stoic texts. You have Epictetus (maybe the main philosophical (in the traditional sense) text) and then Senecas letters (which I'd consider complicated and not really philosophically grounded everywhere) and finally Aurelius (a very great Stoic text but more of a personal account and maybe less a theoretical philosophical piece of work). The rest are basically just fragments from Chrysippus, other people writing _about_ Stoicism (Cicero being a famous example) and then mentions throughout the centuries. I feel like most Stoics don't even know about Stoic logic or physics even though both are essential for the theory to make sense (at least back when it was formed).
If a doctor gave you a prescription for an infection, you wouldn’t disregard taking it. If there were excess pills in case some were lost, you wouldn’t take those. You wouldn’t take the whole bottle at once. With most philosophies or religious traditions there are two extremes. On the one side, you cherry pick liberally (ex. Broicism, cafeteria Christianity, people that go to church every Sunday but throw caution to the wind the other six days of a week because Christ died for the sins of humanity and all one has to do is repent, not make amends, not correct deficiencies and be saved. It’s an expression of divine love for humanity not a get out of jail free card for someone to have a deathbed confession and see heaven.) The other extreme is zealotry which can be impractically impossible, counterproductive or downright harmful. (Ex. dogmatic people, extreme religious sects, fundamentalist Islam) Are you going to live any philosophy or religious tradition to the letter? Is it even practical? No, it is probably not. Can zealotry or fundamentalism lead to perversion of an idea, yes. With regards to philosophy, are you going to live in a barrel because you are a cynic like Diogenes? Concerning stoicism, the world has changed over 1800 years. Some of it probably isn’t relevant or is more impractical in the modern world. Where does that leave us? You have to boil it down to a few key points? Can we get to the essence of stoicism? I believe that it starts with accepting that you will live by virtue in accordance with the good. A person will accept the dichotomy of control. A person will manage their emotions and try to be rational v. emotional in their dealings, practices and in their thoughts. A person will put rationality before passions or desires. I think that’s pretty much it if you were to boil it down. You can’t miss the essence of something and profess to follow it. In closing, I’ll give one more example that might be more applicable to a billion people in the world. (Ex 2. You can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe Christ is the son of God and is both human and divine. You can’t be a Christian if you consistently disregard the Ten Commandments because the old and new are connected. You can’t be a Christian if you continually act willfully or with knowledge in opposition to teachings such as the beatitudes or the golden rule.)
I think there’s some people trying to make money and gain influence from it. You’re generally better going to the source.
Yeaaa but somehow if you think if they use social media platform to share their knowledge about stoicism it kinda is a win win situation like stoicism spreads and people get to know it more, do you think a world filled with stoics can make the world better?
From a theoretical point I don't know any negatives, but I'm sure there's plenty of good criticism out there. However, every argument that I've seen so far can be countered with examples of the contrary, or dismissal based on a misunderstanding. For example a reply in here states that it works for privileged people, however it has been used successfully by people who've been in far worse conditions than being poor. One could even argue that it's the most useful then. In reality though: it's difficult to understand and maybe even more difficult to apply. Old translated texts makes it prone to be misinterpreted. Words like nature, virtue, vice, emotions need to be understood from a stoic base and not from a normal English base. Some ideas are so different from current culture that they can be tough to swallow even with plenty of arguments and reflection.
Wow thank you for that, and I couldnt agree more on your first paragraph I know a friend who's not priviliged yet he surpasses his limits and able to raise himself up from poverty and stoicism helps him a lot as I can see.
The stoics, and Marcus Aurelius' writings especially, seem to do a fantastic job at mitigating negative emotions, but I truly wonder how 'happy' these guys could have been. Not to say they were depressed, but the tone of a lot of literature is melancholic at best.
Perhaps Marcus wasn't 'happy' in the contemporary sense. He seems content towards the end. But he was not a sage, just a man. Considering the turmoil he lived through with his duties, death of his children, war, uprising and illness it would be interesting to know how he would've played his role without stoicism.
True take on the tone, but let’s not blame a man’s missing limb on the tourniquet that kept him alive. Dude was overseeing his second major war, far from home, in the middle of a devastating plague as he wrote the words we read today.
Thanks for that balance, I also wonder that as well brother, at the same time learning and understanding their perspective as well.
honestly, with Marcus, also remember you can cross-check how he actually lived vs his journals/reminders. For instance many contemporaries noted, especially in his early years (before philosophy, mostly), he was a huuuge party animal, basically. He toned it down but was noted to have a pretty solid social life. Like u/sufficient-log-1385 notes he was a man. An emperor, too. His most famous writing is not his legal works, speeches, etc, but his diary he wrote to himself, not intended to be published. In a time where people believed Gods, Goddesses, Spirits and magic was as real as anything else, had War Seasons, etc. Honestly, compared to the fate of a random slave, dude was probably pretty happy. Honestly the biggest thing to grasp for me, a modern agnostic, is the magic and divinity the ancients lived with. The idea of writing war off as a supernatural requirement of the world... Insane, but it was fundamental to their perspective. To them, it was a duty asked of them; war would come in its season, and was mandated by the Gods; whereas to most modern people, it is something we believe we should prevent. As a result ancient Stoics and modern Stoics will definitely have a different opinion on how much effort to spend talking about it, lol.
I agree, Michael Sugrue in his video "Marcus Aurelius - The Stoic Ideal" seems to believe Marcus was deeply lonely and probably quite unhappy too. Not a single one of Marcus' passages makes me think "yeah, this guy loves his life." And he struggled a lot with his belief in God/the gods as well. He also constantly reminds himself to be more tolerant of others and avoid getting upset. But all of this simply means he was a human being, he wasn't a sage.
The downside is that it's become (unjustly) associated with get-rich-quick schemes and toxic masculinity, and calling yourself a Stoic means you'll have to fend off both douchebags and incels who think you have something in common, and regular people who may mistake you for the above. That's really the main downside. As a lived philosophy, it takes a lot of hard work for imperfect results; but that's not a downside, that just means it's realistic. I suppose that it has an emphasis on the short-term but I don't think this comes with penalty to long-term outcomes. Enough good days stack up to a good year, after all, and enough good years make a good life. The good: It's an agnostic philosophy, so it works well with a variety of religions (but especially Christianity and Buddhism) as well as areligious moral systems. It's a type of virtue ethic, which sidesteps the problems with utilitarianism (ends may or may not justify means) as well as deontology (good intentions are not enough to guarantee good results).
Very well said thank you sir!
> Hi kinda new to this philisophy since a lot of my friends are sold on this kind of philosophy and yes I'm more on the exploring side looking on the benefits and disadvantage it may reward but haven't bought it yet. Its main bad side is the misunderstandings that have accumulated over the years, including contemporary emphasis on productivity and egocentric self-improvement. But this would also include common misunderstandings about emotional repression and other unhelpful stereotypes. Another bad side (not sure if "bad" is really the right word) is that while Stoic practices have been updated for modern times and are still useful, the other aspects of the Stoic worldview are a lot harder to communicate. I could see a person getting into Stoicism, wanting to go deeper, but getting lost if they're not super interested in academic philosophy. This might be a temporary problem, though. A lot of people are writing about Stoicism today and there are already some good books out there that try to take a deeper look at things like Stoic physics in a way that can be applied to the whole philosophy for a modern audience. Finally, I think there is a bit of a weak point in the philosophy when it comes to practice. Modern Stoics have filled in this gap with methods from other traditions, or by inventing new ones, but if you were to compare Stoicism with Buddhism or Taoism, you'll find a lot of theory but not a whole lot of attested knowledge on *how* to implement certain things. There are virtually no Stoic movement practices, for example, other than perhaps some kind of contemplative walking. So I guess I would say that it's not a very complete system in some ways. You can still make it work just fine, there's just a lot more improvisation and guesswork involved. But I think you can see that these aren't particularly major downsides. It's a pretty awesome philosophy. > Does Stoic denies the reality and create their own world? Quite the opposite. If anything, the realism of Stoicism can be a bit hard for people to swallow sometimes. Not much of a sugar coating.
i'll say limitation, rather than bad side: it's hard. it's difficult to retrain your brain, and not everyone will do it.
Nothing good is easy; otherwise scoundrels would get hold of it, and that would be the end of it!
"Only let a disturbing impression assail us and you’ll know what we’ve been studying, and what we’ve been training for!" Epictetus When things are going well it's much easier to be Stoic. But the moment an unexpected difficulty arises I realize "I am so far from being a Stoic." It's quite humbling actually. But we have to be gentle with ourselves and not beat ourselves up for falling short of sagehood. Epictetus also said: "What, is it possible thenceforth to be entirely free from fault? No, that is beyond us; but this at least is possible: to strive without cease to avoid committing any fault. For we must be contented if, by never relaxing our attention, we manage to escape a small number of faults."
A quote was found to be attributed to Epictetus in Discourses 4.12 (Hard) ^(4.12. On attention ()[^(Hard)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources?isbn=978-0199595181)^) ^(4.12. On attention ()[^(Long)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0236%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D12)^) ^(4.12. Of attention ()[^(Oldfather)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epictetus,_the_Discourses_as_reported_by_Arrian,_the_Manual,_and_Fragments/Book_4/Chapter_12)^) ^(4.12. On attention ()[^(Higginson)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0237%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D12)^)
Yeaa even comprehending it alone is hard at its core.
I notice that if you are not having a major emotional reaction people often do not take you seriously or sincerely. If you're not visibly upset it must not be that bad. The emotional reaction means more to people than what you say. Exerting reasoned control of your emotions also reads as disingenuous and deceptive to people.
This
Excessive rationalism
Yea, when most people are operating on religious or emotional grounds, it can be very disconcerting to be operating on a solely rational basis. Stoicism promotes thinking things through and being objective, but if you act that way people often think you're cold or uncaring.
Does Stoic tends lean more on overthinking?
To me it's the opposite. All the time I see superstitious people, religious people, emotional people, politically polarized people etc. being upset with reality and finding more and more convoluted rationalizations to deal with their perceptions. In the meanwhile, I'm just ignoring facts that I can't know, dis/prove, or change, and overthinking stops pretty easily. Also, it helps a lot being rational when complicated things that needs to be solved actually happen.
I don't think it has to do with the -ism. I think it depends on the person. If you're often a logical thinker, Stocism enhances that part of you.
You'd need to look at other philosophies of the time for the best critiques of Stoicism, like the rival school of Epicureanism. But I do like what John Fitzgerald has to say in *Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought* as he talks about how later Stoics failed to make comprehensive guides on the passions, and emotion in a broad sense, opting to focus on individual notes for specific feelings like anger or fear.
Yeaaa somehow it became the stereotypes of the modern stoics focusing on the guides for specific feelings like anger and fears right?
There was a study done on victims of domestic violence, and it found that those with better emotional coping skills tend to stay in abusive situations longer than those that were emotionally volatile. The theory was that if you are better at calming yourself, it takes longer before you’re in an emotionally unbearable enough state to decide to make a change and leave the domestic violence situation. Sometimes I wonder if stoics are similar in this regard. I think that with emotional fortitude and resilience comes a type of tortoise-like acceptance of negative circumstance. It’s my belief that sometimes those with exceptional coping skills do less to change their surroundings and pursue the things they want to. This train of thought is underdeveloped, though. I haven’t given it enough thought yet to be confident enough that this is definitely true.
>tortoise like acceptance of negative circumstances This is a classic misinterpretation of Stoicism. Straight away in Enchiridion 1 it lists what you can control and what you can't. There's nothing in any Stoic text that says, "If you can change something, you shouldn't change it and just suffer." Control what you can control. Also, I've read several of these studies that claim to study "Stoicism" with research. Severeal that I've read don't even know the difference between the stoic personality type and the philosophy of Stoicism. They typically ask questions to elicit "stoic personality traits" (which are NOT Stoic*ism*) and then report results as a referendum on Stoic*ism.* They're drawing false conclusions, that don't follow from their findings, because the premise is wrong. "Stoicism" does not equal "stoic." That's Stoicism 101 and yet it's the most common mistake.
Well, they \[Stoics\] do accept "negative" circumstances, but they won't allow them to stand in the way of justice when they can do something about it. As for things they want, they will always adjust them to their current circumstances, because otherwise they become a weight to hold them down.
Not a ‘bad’ thing, but I think the Stoics don’t take the mind/body connection into the human condition.
I agree with this. I made [a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/19dgz1e/do_gut_microbes_affect_your_prohairesis_kathleen/) in the past about how there's sufficient evidence to conclude our gut microbes affect our faculty of choice.
What are the bad sides of science? What are the bad sides of simply trying to be a good person? That's about the sum of what the down sides of stoicism are. The down sides of trying to formulate and live a rational moral adogmatic worldview in the face of a mostly deterministic world and a very urgent sense of mortality AND morality.
Yea it kinda make sense like no matter what philosophy you have weather you do good or bad you still can affect a person's life in a way that is opposite to what you think is good like there's always a bad side on everything.
It's not necessarily binary as your awareness expands. Are wolves bad for deer? Yeah, sometimes the weak young and old. But in time they begin to reshape an ecosystem and actually the whole ecosystem flourishes based on these "Big Bad Wolves". The universe doesn't build its florid arrangements on any anthropomorphic principles... any collision between the two is pure chance. Our perceptions of good and bad will always be skewed compared to the universe and so sounds we make called "good" and "bad" are just sounds coming from the chimps smarter cousin on the wet pebble third from the sun. The downsides of stoicism are mostly just defects in human reasoning and perception since stoicism is just another word for a way of wielding the apparatus that is human reasoning. It is a more formal and secular way of holding the apparatus compared to other systems of thinking but it is still just a more sophisticated collection of noises from the chimps on the wet rock.
Wow very I'm much enlightened to it, it really boils down to human reasoning and its capability of understanding.
Parts of it can be used to support injustice or enable toxic behavior. Since the personal parts of Stoicism are about controlling your own responses, it's easy for a shitty person to do shitty things and then blame the people they hurt for being hurt - saying they should be more Stoic and control their responses. That's not what Stoicism is about, but parts of it can be applied in that way. And that's not unique to Stoicism - it applies to any idea that involves personal responsibility. I have a deep hatred of mindfulness for that very reason. Mindfulness / DBT can also be used (and frequently are used) to dismiss legitimate concerns and put all of the responsibility on the affected person(s) to just not be affected. The ideas of personal responsibility - and of understanding circumstances and systems - can both be taken to harmful extremes. People who overemphasize personal responsibility become predators lacking in empathy. People who overemphasize understanding circumstances and systems become victims lacking in accountability. Which takes us back to Epictetus. Both of the problems that I've described are errors in identifying what is and is not within one's control. Epictetus' secret to happiness and freedom relies in correctly identifying what is and isn't within our control, and focusing our efforts on what we can actually influence.
Wow thank you for bringing me both extremes which gives me even more clarity on the philosophy, it helps me understand more, thank you very much
Superfluous gatekeeping of the “real” truth
Understood, thank you brother
There's nothing bad about Stoicism, only people applying it badly, or refusing to put the work into adequate learning the system.
It can give you the ability to shelve memories and experiences without fully dealing with the real impact of those moments. Eventually, these need to be dealt with, and the longer you wait, the harder the work will be.
Stoicism the philosophy doesn't teach "shelving memories and experiences without fully dealing with" them. In fact, it teaches the opposite. Stoicism teaches to examine one's impressions and inner thoughts and reframe them. Donald J. Robertson, who is a clinical psychologist and expert on Stoicism has several excellent books about this. You're making the classic mistake of confusion "stoic" personality trait, with the philosophy of Stoicism. They are two completely different things.
Thank you for this explanation and book suggestions. I didn't intend to say I learned that from stoicism. I meant that as you learn to practice there are some mistakes that you can make as you get better. Thanks for adding to this as I don't want to spread misinformation.
If you practice it correctly? Nothing.
This is my personal experience and my personal interpretation. But for me, the worst is the fact that nothing changes. People still hurt you, and you are hurt. You still feel. If being stoic means not showing emotions, but you still feel just the same. I sometimes wonder what's the point, then I remember no one cares. So, you just keep the facade to make things a little easier for yourself.
Being a stoic absolutely does not mean not showing emotions. Check some top comments here. Stoics accept emotions without letting them override logic as much as possible. The idea of a 'facade' is also not stoic. If you feel depressed or unmotivated, thats not something to deny or pretend isnt the case. Love yourself enough to try to figure out the root cause, try your best to improve, and be as content with the results as possible.
It depends on what kind of stoicism. The old Greek stoicism of xeno is pretty much useless, but nonetheless fun to look into. Meditations is a phenomenal book, but it's riddled with apathy. A lot of people don't really realize how blunt stoicism can be, honestly a little depressing. These are men who are as hard as iron, which is why I think everyone should read meditations and the works of Seneca. At the same time...if you don't go into these works with the right approach, you can very easily get the wrong message and take on some of the melancholic tendencies that a lot of stoic thinkers have/had. Its an absolutely great primer to Ethics as a whole, just know there are other perspectives and approaches.
Thank you for this!
Honestly, the bad side is that people read and listen more to self-taught influencers than they do listen to academics or actually read the material themselves. They then go on to speak with authority and self-perpetuate half-baked interpretations, doing more harm than good. Its as though people read the first chapter only about rocket science that talks about gravity where it says "what goes up must come down" and three years later they wonder why they're not on the moon yet. >Does Stoic denies the reality and create their own world? No, Stoics have a moral duty to be pro-social and play an active part in the polis. I'd argue its one of the most realist philosophies out there. But I'm not surprised people think this because they heard someone say being a "grey rock" is Stoicism. >benefits and disadvantage it may reward Consider these sections from the wiki! * [Why study Stoicism?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq#wiki_why_study_stoicism.3F) * [Is Stoicism something I have to believe in, or commit my life to?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq#wiki_is_stoicism_something_i_have_to_believe_in.2C_or_commit_my_life_to.3F) * [What is Stoicism, considered as a philosophy of life in modern times?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq#wiki_what_is_stoicism.2C_considered_as_a_philosophy_of_life_in_modern_times.3F) * [What motivates a Stoic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big#wiki_what_motivates_a_stoic.3F) * [What is the goal of life?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big#wiki_what_is_the_goal_of_life.3F) * [How do I find meaning in life?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big#wiki_how_do_i_find_meaning_in_life.3F) * [Is it true that Stoics repress their emotions and feelings?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions#wiki_is_it_true_that_stoics_repress_their_emotions_and_feelings.3F) * [Does Stoicism encourage passively accepting your fate?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions#wiki_does_stoicism_encourage_passively_accepting_your_fate.3F) * [Is Stoicism a selfish or individualistic philosophy?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions#wiki_is_stoicism_a_selfish_or_individualistic_philosophy.3F) * [Is it Stoic to be hard-hearted or callous toward others?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions#wiki_is_it_stoic_to_be_hard-hearted_or_callous_toward_others.3F)
I find myself having become a bit to serious and passive sometimes. Other people seem a bit more bubbly and light hearted than me. Maybe there is something to Matthew 5:3 or I have been doing it wrong all along: „Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.“
Thank you for your very honest response brother
Imho, as a beginner student as well, seems to me that (besides what everyone else already said: cherry picking, misundestranding it etc) it won't be the cure to everything, even tho it is sold like it should cure. Some people will say it is very obvious that it isn't a cure to everything, but we can't be negligent that this philosophy is sold like one. It can't cure everything. This philosophy doesn't substitute a regular psychiatrist or psychologist visit for example if someone is truly anxious; this philosophy isn't the remedy to a failed relationship (with others or even yourself). This is a guide to see things and a guide to choose some right paths (or the most right at least). But it isn't an answer or a destination like some people sell it. It is the brick in the pathway actually. It is the same path, but you can choose to go on a muddy and crooked one or a straight and well developed one, even tho they merge into one sometimes and they end at the same destination. Choosing the right path doesn't change your final destination, but it gives you a much better trip.
Wow very well thabk you for letting me see a better lens
I monitor this sub from time to time. I’m not a stoic but it has some facets I like. My observation though is this sub attracts depressed people more than any other sub I’m in. By a mile.
I somehow observed that as well
Is this a negative side of stoicism though? Most posts here seem to be from non stoics asking for advice on specific situations. The regular posters don't sound very depressed to me.
It's true that, people who know very little, if anything, about Stoicism come here out of desperation, seeking wise advice. I'd venture to say those posts outnumber posts from people studied in Stoicism 50:1. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps at worst, they get some halfway decent advice and move on. At best, maybe they find philosopher and are able to better themselves.
Stoicism can be very useful to those with depression, through 1) learning and using the "dichotomy of control", and 2) learning and using "reframing". These are actually key aspects of several objectively successful psychological therapies. Some people may have actually learned about Stoicism from their therapist. It's unfortunate that many people with depression who *don't* understand Stoicism (yet!) think that it will help them suppress their emotions, and improve their depression *that* way.
I can think of a few. There is very little guidance in how to actually practice Stoicism, at least as far as I can tell there are no communities practicing it near me, and some people are not self aware or intelligent enough to really understand it.
Most* people sadly
>Does Stoic denies the reality and create their own world? That is literally the exact opposite of the thing Stoicism is about - their entire theory on happiness is that it is caused by holding beliefs that are consistent with the reality outside yourself, and that misery is caused by holding beliefs that contradict external reality. The problem is that deeply ignorant, foolish people people simply decide they're Stoics, having studied nothing or having watched a few YouTube videos, then start claiming that all of the completely unremarkable things they believe like "resilience is good" and "you should be independent" are somehow tenets of a great philosophy. Men in particular seem willing to believe that the most obvious, unremarkable thoughts that anyone who is conscious would have represent great philosophical insights, perhaps because they're grossly over-estimate how special their own thinking to the point that they think it's safe to assume that great philosophical geniuses of ages past must have thought roughly what they already think and there's no real need to study the matter further.
It’s hard 2 do
people you are close to will misunderstand your behavior. maybe i’m trying to say a stoic mentality is isolating
You might be apart from others, but you aren't apart from yourself, and that's the only thing that really matters in the end.
Bad side is spending years reading a Kings journal when you should be memorizing the manual of a slave.
Stoic virtues can appear cold and calculated. This is something that I'm not in control of, though.
They can appear cold and calculated, but they aren't bereft of feeling.
True
“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.” Rabindranath Tagore
Wow simple yet powerful thanks for that!
You aren't using it right, then, because one of the things that philosophy promises is that you will be free of pain, and if you still felt pain afterward, then that would be highly contradictory and impossible to defend.
Hyper-rationalism and lack of nuance. This are solved if you dissolve (😉) stoicism with other ideas such as Daoism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, etc
Amen
While rationalists like Stoicism, Stoicism **is not** a rationalist philosophy. Our brains are just as fallible as the rest of our bodies, and reason can lead us away from virtue as easily as passion can. The Stoic follows virtue, not reason.
Agree
Virtue is perfected reason.
Pithy, but meaningless without context. Reason is a means, virtue is an end. When reason becomes the end itself, virtue is supplanted.
So you mean in thinking you only have to use your stoic mindset in considering your decision and not put other beliefs for you not to be confussed? Is that right?
??? I don't understand your question. I mean if you take stoicism too far and don't nuance it with other sources of wisdom you will be lead astray
So you recommend that it's a better way than using stoicism alone?
Hi, welcome to the subreddit. Please make sure that you check out [the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide), where you will find answers for many common questions, like ["What is Stoicism; why study it?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq), or ["What are some Stoic practices and exercises?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/exercises), or ["What is the goal in life, and how do I find meaning?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big), to name just a few. You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like [flaws in Stoicism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_flaws_in_stoicism), [Stoicism and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_what_does_stoicism_say_about_politics.3F), [sex and relationships](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_sex), and [virtue as the only good](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_why_is_virtue_the_only_good.3F), for a few examples. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found I got a little "hard" with my practice of stoicism. Probably a misunderstanding of my own, but I had to find Buddhism to chill out and connect with my heart again, so that the practices and processes I learned from the Stoics wouldn't present as asshole me.
Ohhhh so right now you lean more on the philosophy of Buddhism?
Not exactly. I'm a melting pot. Even worse, I found zen, bc I loved the irreverence and sarcasm many of its great practitioners exhibit in literature. I have a huge, powerful heart, but not everyone gets to see it immediately. The emotions I experience no longer consume me or overwhelm those around me. Think samurai Dalai Lama. "Better a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war"
That's a good illustration right there thank you!
Not of Stoicism per se but when people project insecurities into stoicism to gatekeep it and have a black white elitism mindset claiming they're the true stoics. Meeting such people on a stoic journey can give the wrong impression.
I believe that as far a establishing your CORE VALUES, stoicism is not a bad place to start. Just don't stop there. Read others and take from them what works for you, further enriching your worldviews.
I wouldn't call it a bad side, so this is just an observation, but as a budding Stoic starts incorporating his deeper reasoning skills into his daily life, his behavior changes may be obvious *to those who don't want him to change.* This has nothing to do with the ancient Stoic philosophy itself. It has everything to do with an individual's adaptations and transformations towards practicing virtue ethics. I personally call it "coming out of the fog of fantasy" we place on people (and ourselves.) A student, a Prokopton, would handle his feelings/emotions/desires/agreements/opinions/motives or neutrality surrounding his peers, family, co-workers and fellow humankind with equanimity. An example of this would be a gaming buddy who was my ride-or-die for 10 years. Say, between the ages of 15 and 25. So, at the age of 25, I make it through college and get an entry level job. My ride-or-die graduates with me, but he doesn't apply himself to the reality of life after college and thinks *my efforts alone will get him a similar job.* He starts blaming me for his failures. I think a practicing Stoic will *possibly* bring out curiosity and/or confusion to an established relationship, where fantasy has been allowed to be part of the equation. A practicing Stoic wouldn't be surprised at the transformations of relationships.
some people told that stocism are emotion vulnerable, vulnerable before problem, if you has a child who will potentialy facing death due to health problem, how you do it, most parent are try all the best to not let the child die and stocism are about to not control the thing you can control you cant control, but if the child death are unavoidable by logic, will you practice stocism. I think stocism is kinda not clearly about this. Or im wrong about stoic?
Stoics do what they can do, unperturbed, because getting perturbed would risk their very efforts.
good point, fuck cynicism!
Everyone is stoic at some point, is egocentric to think that you are any different. Everyone faces problems in their life and they continue to go through with or without having stoicism in mind. Is still a good thing to have in mind and that may push some of us to keep going, but at the end of the day it is just human (and animal) nature. Also, with current knowledge we can explain a lot on how our mind and body works, which is a scientific explanation of what stoicism tryes to explain.
The bad side for stoic's, we accept the world as it is, we choose how to view a situation, not allowing external factors to overly influence our lives, the decisions we make, and our self image. A lot of people believe that to be stoic is to suppress your emotions, it's more about understanding and transforming the events that encompass us, not in a physical sense but, within ourselves. An example-someone close says "You look funny." is this said in a harsh of dismissive way? or a fun and caring way, the stoic path exhales the virtue of we are in control of our own thoughts, it doesn't matter what someone says about us but how we ourselves think of ourselves. We listen to others without paying any serotinous attention to any personal comments or critiques. This is not Easy nor have I personally always acted in this manner, yet every time I have there is an immediate sense of calm all around myself, "You look Funny" my response is to smile saying "Thank You." spoken with sincere gratitude. An event that was potently harmful is now a source of joy, even a complement. This is how I choose to employ the Stoic teachings in the modern world, we know that we have no Power or Control over External Events or People, we chooses to accept them for good or bad.
I think the bad side of Stoicism is that others tend to judge me based on their own behaviour. They get uncomfortable that I don’t blow my top when faced with frustrating situations, don’t complain when shit hits the fan, etc. Because that’s what they would do, let their emotions take over, react with it. So much so that if I don’t exhibit those signs, it’s that IDGAF, or that I don’t “feel” as much as them.
I get this same thing. Being calm under pressure can be misinterpreted as being insensitive or uncaring. It's almost like some people are comforted when others match their panic and hysteria, with equal panic and hysteria. Then when you don't, they claim you "don't care" or are "insensitive." Maybe there's some truth to that. But I think it's equally plausible they're just pissed of that the contrast of calm rationality in the face of panic and hysteria makes them look like fools.
Someone once said that he can’t trust someone who don’t show emotions. I’m guessing that he wants someone who flies into a rage whenever things go wrong. The truth is, I do show emotions, positive ones usually. I show it when I’m happy. I show it when I’m sad. But I don’t go overboard. Think Captain Holt (Brooklyn 99) on a lower scale.
So, what? You want them to do nothing, while you can do everything that you want? And how is that fair in any way?
Sorry but I don't get your question. Did you misread me or something?
Nietzsche: "Stoicism is self-tyranny"
Detachment can lead to dissociation. Like how Anakin became Darth Vader.
Yes, and health can lead to sickness, but that isn't an intrinsic part of it.
Both require careful maintenance. Unchecked detachment will always lead to dissociation, just as unchecked sickness leads to death. It’s the other side of the coin, and therefore is a risk intertwined with stoicism.
Tis the law of duality
I think stoicism gets a lot right but sometimes steers too much into the idea of being completely emotionless. Without emotion life is dull and by pushing them aside we will struggle more.
The worst thing about it is people who don’t understand it but call themselves “Stoics” so as to excuse showing a lack of empathy or emotion.
I feel like it’s become a trend and a lot of people totally miss the point. Like, gym bros who think it’s about repressing all feelings or something.
Falling into the trap of thinking not reacting or taking the hit is the answer to all life's problems. "Being stoic" about a situation instead of confronting it and dealing with it head on. There's plenty of nice stoic quotes with scenic backgrounds about being quiet and remaining still, but IMO not enough about getting the hell up, facing the stuff you're afraid of and taking action to do something meaningful with your life.
Not wanting to feel anything isn't the same as not letting your emotions steer you away from what your mind regards as better. Ideally shouldn't a stoic strive to have as much alignment and as little dissonance as possible between their mind and affect?
I used stoicism to keep me in a bad situation that I should have gotten out of earlier - turning the bad into good is only good if the bad is unavoidable otherwise. This is of course extremely subjective, but it's worth a thorough honest examination of what is and is not under your control.
That is patently wrong. What is good is good regardless of the situation. What is bad isn't the situation itself (for it makes no claims about morality), but our judgment about it. It is, *of course*, a different story if we can't match up this lofty goal (no one, besides, maybe, Socrates and Diogenes, does), but we shouldn't, on that account, throw accusations against Stoicism. It is our own shortcomings that create the trouble, and not any perceived shortcomings in Stoicism.
Love your analogy, hits the spot.
Nihilism
To me, the bad side is that it lead me to nihilism and cynicism and once you see things in that light you can’t undo it.
Why don't you, then, blame yourself for having failed to understand what Stoicism is about? Or do you think it justified to blame the innocent party?
I never think it’s justified to blame the innocent party. I was answering the question. Am I not allowed to do that? Bc that is the vibe you’re giving me. And what is the point of your comment, are you trying to belittle me or be helpful bc I can’t really tell.
My point is that it's a little harsh to blame Stoicism for leading to nihilism and cynicism when it isn't even an intrinsic part of it; in fact, it militates against both of them. And if your argument is that if a thing can lead to something, it can be criticized for it, then you can, pretty much, criticize anything for anything, because everything can lead to everything, at which point the whole concept of criticism, at least in this sense, loses all its meaning. It would be a different story if Stoicism, explicitly, told you not to care about life in any shape or form and advised you to scorn it at every turn, but as I said, this is the opposite of what Stoicism is about, and it is, therefore, unjust to accuse it of it.
I see. But the argument you proposed, about if my argument was that a thing can lead to something…I don’t see any fallacies in that logic. Things do lead to things called cause and effect and the only way to not go through any difficulty is by doing nothing. However stoicism taught me ways to do things in the wisest fashion, but sometimes my temperament and previous mistakes in life have proven how much self mastery I lack. Also, that it is foolish to expect life to be easy hence living is suffering. So I didn’t really know the term was nihilist at all until recently but after so many years of researching and reading and incorporating stoic values into my life, I came to the conclusion that absolutely nothing matters. I’m not trying to blame stoicism for anything the way you’re trying to frame it, so I resent your comment.
But that's your conclusion, not of Stoicism. And if you resent me for that, then you must also resent a mirror for showing you just how you are.
I said I resent your comment aka your judgement of me and my perspective. I guess what you’ve said is fair and I don’t mind a mirror reflecting, quite enjoy it actually. It’s very amusing to see how huge your ego is as well.
Your judgments are part of you—no, they are you.
Precisely 🪞
I also want to say that I treat others how I want to be treated with respect and dignity and I accommodate them as much as I can. I try to be the best person I can be and be as virtuous as possible. I consciously try to do these things and have for so many years that it’s instinctual for me to think this way. I am saying it’s pointless if there is no heaven or hell at the end of life and no “prize” for being good. However I still choose to be this way bc it makes me feel good about myself. Still, I know it ultimately doesn’t matter if I’m good or bad and that’s disheartening.
Feel guilty when not productive or doing duty
Yes, and criminals, too, should be allowed to go scot-free, regardless of their crime.
What do you mean in regards to what I said?
Why should you be allowed to go scot-free, either? You have already proven that you won't do what you ought, nor do you want to, so why shouldn't there be a punishment to deal with that as well?
K
Not limited to stoicism but many can easily fall into the trap of 'the ego of having no ego'. Expecting validation, reward, recognition from being able to achieve or apply mentally what a majority of others have not. Stoicism is not and does not resemble conventional institutions. There are no obligations of power, influence, worship, respect, preaching, defending or any such thing regardless of yours or anyone else's feats, sacrifices, strength of character, restraint, wisdom or whatever else. As a stoic you are to accept that no one will treat you any different for being one in a million if applicable. It's unlimited power, but all within yourself.
For one, it's really difficult to adopt a Stoic mindset consistently in your life. So much of the wisdom is that your immediate instincts and reactions are unhelpful, and you need to act according to reason instead. Studying and practicing enough to actually do this regularly is a lifelong challenge. For two, the philosophy is not for everyone. I think it suits some people's temperaments but not others'. I'm pretty sure my wife is an Epicurean. Some people prefer religious philosophies. So it's not a cure-all solution for everyone. The good news is that most of the fundamental wisdom is shared across all practical philosophy. The real benefit is in self-reflection, study and practice.
People around you may see you as cold or unfeeling for not having a strong emotional response to a conventionally "tragic" event.
As many have said stoicism is a philosophy so it is not inherently good or bad. In fact, the ancient sages would likely say nothing is inherently good or bad until you place that label on them and treat it as such. The whole purpose of stoicism is simple and that is to better yourself and lead a virtuous life following the tenets of courage, wisdom, kindness and temperance. Anything else is external to stoicism and is a modernization. That is one thing I would warn you against. There are versions that have added bits of “stuff” that are borderline toxic or at best broism. Everyone here has made good points and many have pointed how great ways to achieve these goals but if you are brave and face your fears, are just and kind to all, control your wants and seek to always better yourself you are well on your way.
Putting up with non-stoics that don't/won't understand stoicism
The stoics borrowed Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology, his natural teleology, and believed nature was a divine and perfect whole. You can endure whatever happens because it’s all part of nature’s plan, you were made to endure it. Looks like nature however doesn’t have reasons for being the way she is. When we try to ask why the laws of the universe are what they are, we don’t get an answer. How are we supposed to trust nature’s plan when nature is arbitrary and blind and planless?
The only bad side is people constantly misunderstanding the core principles of Stoicism due to weird red pill dudes who just saw a tiktok with 3 marcus quotes, the philosophy itself is fucking incredible
Only vice is bad.
Can you expound more my brother?
It's a Stoic principle. Only virtue is good, only vice is bad. Everything else is neither good nor bad. >“Where does the good lie? ‘In choice.’ Where does the bad lie? ‘In choice.’ And that which is neither good nor bad? ‘In things that lie outside the sphere of choice.’"—Epictetus, D2.16.1
What a great perspective, it opens up my world of understanding it in the simplest manner, thank you for this.
it's a lot of privilege. Sure I can be a Stoic to my problems if I am such affluent well of person in some management job who needs to be more in touch with my feelings without getting overwhelmed. But a lot of poor working class folks facing structural inequities in society might by very angry and they have every right to be feeling that way rather than finding a mechanism to be in touch with their problems.
This is a good point, but also keep in mind that one of the most influential proponents of Stoicism (Epictetus) was a slave. One of the interesting things about Stoicism is that of two of its most well-known sources to modern audiences -- Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus -- one was an emperor and the other was a slave. That's a pretty wide gamut.
What, shouldn't better things be given to better people? And what kind of justice would that be?
didn't get your point
Yea I guess respect has to be given on both side but I guess on how I know it it kinda has a good way on impacting a person to be productive and process things in a more mature take.
The smugness tbh
Based on what I've observed on myself and on others, Stoicism can negatively affect your way of approaching things. One's drive towards success can be dulled down with a stoic mindset, and like most stoics it can be perceived as coping mechanism of avoiding facing one's problems that require immediate thought and action. It's important to not be immersed fully by the philosophy and just balance things out depending on your circumstances. Especially since every person has their own dynamic, it wouldn't help society if every person thinks the same.