Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I consider stoic philosophy as a tool something to use when u in need for it, not to leave by it, after all compressing emotions is unhealthy, and emotions is a part of human being so you can't leave without them

> You’re a person who gets irritated by the smallest things, things outside your control like a person loudly crunching chips in the cinema. Accept everything about this situation, your own responses included.

Personally, I'm actually not that irritable. You could say I'm more "stoic" than people are kind of "socially expected". I don't know if "socially expected" is the right term. In movies, people are easier to affect than I am in reality, for dramaturgic reasons and I feel like other people try to emulate movie-behaviour.

Just because you can talk yourself into being angry about something, doesn't mean that's your most natural and honest mental state towards it.

I'm all for honesty towards yourself. That's what I like about Nietzsche. Sometimes being honest can mean that you aren't as emotionally affected as society expects you to.

Being honest towards yourself can sometimes be tricky. For example imagine a grandma who likes to bake cake and knit sweaters for her grandchildren. People might say to her that she should listen to her own desires and she might be tempted to invest less work in others to achieve that, but in truth the might be happiest when she actually makes other people happy.

I'm not sure what Nietzsche meant by the slave-mentality. Does this grandma have a slave-mentality? I guess some people think on a surface level that they should endure and please others but a deeper, surpressed, level they know that they are sacrificing their own happiness. That doesn't apply to all altruistic people. You would expect humans to be evolved to be altruistic to the extend it benefits your genes.

I also like these "strangely satisfying" Youtube videos, like where someone pops bubble wrap. You only get to feel satisfaction from these weird things if you are very honest to yourself, because society won't suggest it to you. Weird sexual fetishes are the same. People who aren't honest to themselves would rather eat at an expensive restaurant or visit a popular tourist destination, for example. (On the other hand society very much suggested to kids to buy fidget spinners and push pop, so it's not that clear cut either. The honest option is not necessarily the less obvious option and it's not necessarily the option that goes against social pressure.)

Sometimes you can choose how you feel about something. For example when you watch a race and you don't know any of the competitors, you might choose to invest your "heart" into anyone arbitrarily and feel good when they win and bad if they loose. There is this other youtube channel where they race marbles. I guess it would be anti-stoic to feel emotions when watching a marble race.

On a darker side of that, I can choose to "dehumanize" people and then I don't feel empathy towards them anymore. I can "dehumanize" a spider when my sister asks me to kill it and I can "humanize" another spider in a terrarium that my friend asks to to care for, while they are on vacation.

In these cases you can't choose based on what is most honest.

This article screams strawman argument from top to bottom. A couple of examples:

“Say my wife is feeling tired and irritable. I can either, as a good Stoic, try to feel good about that, or I can get up from the lounge and bring her a glass of wine and some crackers with Taramasalata.”

Nowhere in the Stoic philosophy does it suggest to “feel good” about someone you love being angry or sad. Realizing that you are not in control of something outside of your own person does not mean to feel good of be happy no matter what.

A good example would be your wife being sad and you not pretending you can control that by PRETENDING she stops, say because you are also tired. A good stoic would only focus on his own reaction, maybe by being a good person/husband and being supportive, instead of implicitly pretending that she should not do that “because you are my wife!!!”.

A good stoic would not get to the point of being too tired to NOT be supportive for his wife.

“This leads us to the passivity problem. If we focus only on our character, reactions, and actions, as Stoicism proposes, and put no effort into things that lie beyond our direct control, it seems to me that a practising Stoic will remain passive in the face of major problems like climate change or social inequality.”

Realizing you are not in control of climate change does not mean you are automatically allowed to simply don’t care about it, or contributing to making it worse, as the author implies.

It could mean to take the situation seriously enough to decide to change your own person and habits based on what society demands, but not seriously enough as to think that YOU have the power to change it personally.

The latter will grant you the feeling of impotency because, as we know, no single person is in charge of fixing climate change. No single person SHOULD even being in charge of that, even if it was possible.

Thinking that you have the power to fix things outside of your control is one of the most frequent and potent traps in human cognition. Recognizing this could lead you to maximize your positive impact, because you would focus on yourself without “wasting” energy fixing what you cannot possibly fix.

So focus on yourself and then have the biggest positive impact in the world.

Realizing that you cannot control what you cannot control does NOT mean “who cares!!!!!”.

It was Hegel who identified Stoicism as the slave philosophy in his Phänomenologie des Geistes. Hegel understood Stoicism as a stage in the development of the mind wherein we may assert to being free despite extreme privation. What Nietzsche saw was that Stoicism can keep us in a mentality of servitude rather than creating what does not yet exist. Marx further saw Stoicism as a tool of the ruling class to placate the proletariat so that they accept extreme privation like slaves. It's little wonder that Stoicism increases in popularity as the extremes of wealth grow ever wider.

To my understanding, Nietzsche basically says that slave-morality - us loving underdog stories, the poor and pitiful, sacrifice, humility, turning the other cheek, and so on - is, at its core, an inversion of master-morality, and Christianity is to blame for its popularity in the West. The slave-morality is mostly about one's attitude towards guilt, sin, vices, etc. - negative behaviors. Are some people good and some people bad (as in: high-quality and low-quality, powerful and weak, based and cringe, etc.), or some people good and some people evil? Do you treat harm done to strangers like a neutral action or a negative one?

Very good explanation. Being Stoic doesn’t mean being helpless, a doormat, or not caring. I spend so much energy on the “result” instead of what I have power over (myself, my actions, even my reactions). But it’s such a powerful idea, to work on what’s in my control and just let go of the other things. Thanks for the reply, nicely put

> Marx further saw Stoicism as a tool of the ruling class to placate the proletariat so that they accept extreme privation like slaves.

Where can I read more on this? My own search provided no results.

[deleted]

The first note to make would be that I am not sure you have the interpretation of passiveness in Stoicism right. If anything the Stoics used this exploration of what is or is not in our control for to 'overcome' and take control of certain issues in life. As well as this, I do not believe using Holliday as the bastion of Stoicism is correct. The way I describe his books on the Stoics are someone who has put a garishly green bath in an otherwise nice bathroom suite. His takes on Stoicism are not terrible, far from it, but it is clear he writes for mass appeal and it is very clear he comes from a marketing background. To what extent he is disseminating Stoicism and/or vacuously marketing for mass appeal in his obnoxiously cringe LinkedIn style of marketing techniques is a line he rides; I do recognise this may be a that is generally my own, but I would say reading core texts yourself if far more fruitful than his works (which is a given).

suppressing emotions is not the same as not letting them rule you. my understanding is that stoicism focuses on developing the strength of character and understanding of self that will enable you to live without emotion dragging you down unnecessarily.

All good points. To add on to your climate change example: there’s a big difference between that (you can at least affect change there) and, say, getting mad at the day’s weather or human nature (which exists totally outside your control). Epictetus said (I’m Paraphrasing) “I’m fond of a jug. When the jug breaks, I simply sweep it up. It’s in the jug’s nature to break.” You could try to protect your jug but once it breaks, you can’t go back in time, can’t change the reality of it being broken. So, yeah, a stoic isn’t going to sit and cast anger into the past about damage already done to the environment but also won’t give up and do absolutely nothing about a problem that isn’t in their sole, direct control.

Author simply does not understand Stoicism.

It is funny/interesting/crazy how Stoicism is essentially the Serenity Prayer but some still try to strawman it. Then again people strawman Nietzscheanism into being a teenage rebellion and about becoming superman, so eh.

Serenity Prayer: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

The only thing i dont like about stoicism os the brand itself.

When u have an " emperor" being one of the biggest examples, predicating good healthy lifestyles, and then said emperor, then decides to be fed and bathed by slaves, to me he is just a hypocrite. He could have changed the outcome, specially as a "loved and revered" emperor. But decided to act passively when he had control, he did not wanted to lose their standing and privileges, instead of pushing society forward like a good emperor,he was a weak willed douche, whose son rekt his legacy. So much for the stoics huh?

Choosing to be a lesser version of himself, Marcus a pussy.

[deleted]

That's literally not what Stoicism is though.

Some of the textual analysis was reasonable, (and definitely more a fan of Nietzsche than Aurelius), but it's arguable the author is over-emphasising the degree of passivity inherent to Stoic philosophy and drawing it to an unreasonable reductio ad absurdum that is closer to Zen Buddhism.

Well yea, when you read Epictetus he makes it very clear that he believes in divine providence. That the world is right how it is, and you just do your part… so you might as well be happy about it.

[deleted]

At least I've been introduced to Brigid Delaney, a writer I don't know. I'll have to hunt down her book. Has anyone read it?

Exactly my problem with the first part of the article. I mean he even ends that section saying that Nietzsche agrees: "Even if you’re (almost) guaranteed to fail, there is merit in extending yourself and expressing yourself into (or even against) the world.

Sure, you can’t control the outcome."

A stoic would say basically the same thing. I really can't believe the author didn't see this right in front of them.

But the equanimity part is something I struggle with myself when it comes to stoicism. I've recently started therapy and one of the biggest revelations is that I have (sub or not)consciously suppressed many, nearly all, of my emotional reactions in the interest of "mind over matter" and an Aristotilean concept of base emotions vs. a developed intellect that is "in control." To subscribe to this mindset blindly is to ignore nearly ALL the progress made in behavioral science and the associated philosophy. I haven't swung all the way to the other side, I'm extremely wary of all the "dopamine hit" psuedo-science out there. But at least in my personal experience, "allowing myself the permission to feel the emotions" (in the words of my therapist) before trying to wrangle them and force them into a constructive form has been very beneficial for my self-esteem and ability to think about myself and self-improvement.

Nice try Hedonists /s

Great read! Thanks for sharing!

Great read! Thanks for sharing!

[deleted]

I completely disagree with this approach and that’s okay.

>When u have an " emperor" being one of the biggest examples,

The other biggest example? A slave.

yeah and crazy that the person not understanding stoicism is the one lecturing others about it...mad world

Hey I mentioned Nietzche gib me updoot-this sub

Yeah, and one having actual say in the matter, but choosing to do nothing about it seems weak.

Like half-assing buddhism.

What was the top comment again? Oh right, something along the lines of doing the best within control or capabilities idk?

The way I read Nietzsche, he was not so much against stoicism, but instead supported a belief that we all feel the same emotions even if we don’t outwardly display them. Nietzsche viewed emotions and reason as complementary, but he also claimed that too much emotion was a display of weakness. It’s quite possible that he considered practicing stoics as being rather detached. However, I don’t read him as outright rebuking stoicism either.

Stoicism, at least the popular view of the Greek/Roman version, is about keeping your shit together whenever you hit a bump in the road. In that way you can attain a more satisfying life by focusing on the things that really matter. In a nutshell, bad things happen, so accept it and move on. I know stoicism is more than this, but in the case of the blog being referenced, the author seems to be focusing on stoicism within modern daily life.

I respect the author, Neil Durrant, and his position on this. He is an expert on ethics, and I am not, so I’m not going to attempt to criticize what he has written. I accept his views as valid. Stoicism is not for everyone, and I accept that as well. All I’m going to say is that I believe following the four virtues of stoicism is a worthy endeavour in our current culture in which emotions and fear seem to be ever-present.

Reference:

http://minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol13/Nietzsche.pdf

https://medium.com/nietzsches-philosophy/nietzsche-why-emotionally-weak-people-complain-all-the-time-12-15-d3245f43d778

This article showcases the fact that the author despite knowing the text, he clearly doesn’t understand it.

I just hope the author never reads The Bible

Yeah whoever wrote this article hasn't got a clue lol.

thank you for your response

I like your opinion.

I think there is a division of what stoicism historically was and the version of it we see implemented today.

I agree with the people saying his criticisms of stoicism aren't completely in line with the historic writings but at the same time I feel it is applicable to the pop-culture stoicism being thrown around today.

I'm personally of the opinion that I think the "pop culture stoicism" is a load of self help BS and I see where the OP article author is coming from in that respect. It in my opinion tells people to bottle things up without providing the philosophical groundwork to actually deal with those emotions and successfully move on.

Before someone replies to me "that's not stoicism" that's kind of my point. This isn't directed at Marcus Aurelius and the reality is 99% of people aren't going to read actual philosophy books they get their "Stoicism" second hand from the internet or culture.

I liked what Neil Durrant wrote about Nietzsche. About how the true key is to allow ourselves to experience human emotion then channel it/incorporate it into ethical action.

I'm not giving advice to anyone else but I found at least for me that emotionality is just another facet of our humanity. To be the most "complete" human possible we have to use those emotions not suppress them.

You've got it backwards. The serenity prayer is stoicism with extra baggage.

A stoic wouldn't ask a god for these traits; a stoic would understand that a god is one more thing outside of their control and instead work to develop these traits within themselves without the need for a god.

I agree with you; and yes, pop culture’s interpretation of stoicism is a bit skewed towards suggesting to not feel any emotions at all, as if that’s some sort of a bad thing. I never read anywhere in the ancient stoic texts where it said not to feel one’s emotions. Rather, the stoics’ point was for one to not react, or give in, to the emotions one is feeling at the moment. But then pop culture is often short-sighted when it comes to interpreting philosophy.

Interestingly, cognitive behaviour therapy’s roots are in part taken from Epictetus’ teachings on stoicism. One of CBT’s main tenants can be simply expressed in the words of Epictetus, in which he states “men are disturbed not by things, but by views which they take from them.” I consider this one quote of Epictetus, all by itself, as being worthy of practicing in everyday life.

My last comment is in regards to Donald Robertson’s book, The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT): Stoic Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychology. In his book he explains the origins of stoic therapy, as was practiced in Roman times, and how it directly influenced modern CBT therapy. It’s quite enlightening and worth the read if someone is so inclined.

Also worth reading is, https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/fixing-families/201910/what-stoics-can-teach-us-about-mental-health?amp

> Wouldn’t it be better, if my $20,000 road bike has been stolen, to allow me to be angry?

​

I wonder if they've checked their privilege recently.

Yeah, those unemotional Stoics.
"Whoever then understands what is good, can also know how to love", a statement by Epictetus combining the emotional commitment of justice with love towards others. Marcus Aurelius extended this to all that one meets: "Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart", and Seneca The Younger noted that "Joy comes to us from those whom we love even when they are absent".

There's a lot of love going around among these unemotional Stoics. Why is that?

You don’t actually “need” a god to understand the Serenity Prayer. It’s fairly straightforward logic. As an atheist, I understand what it means.

Putting aside the various arguments about which is the more pragmatically superior approach, look to the actual lives of the Stoic philosophers and then Nietzche by comparison... 😅

It's literally a prayer, a request for someone else to grant you the desired qualities.

I'm not missing the conceptual parallels. I'm saying that asking someone else to grant you these traits is less stoic than accepting that you lack them now and working to develop them without having someone grant them to you.

You’re too hung up on the “god” reference for your opinion to be of any value. Maybe you don’t understand “wisdom” and that is your problem.

The god part is irrelevant. The difference in philosophy here is whether you do something yourself or beg someone else to do it for you.

I'm just saying a stoic would work to better themselves rather than asking someone else to make them a better person.

Hang on to that. You might find it to be a useful point of view, in time.

I don't know where I stand on this. I'd have to read more.

I do have respect for "martyrs". Of course not, when they do something evil for a god that doesn't exist, but when someone sacrifices something for a good cause.

I suppose Nietzsche would regard martyrs as weak. I think when someone pays a high price for something, they are taking a risk. They are offering something that is regarded highly by many people, like time, money or health, for something else that has an even higher value to them, personally.

You know: Some people don't buy things on principle if they are expensive - that's a good rule of thumb, a heuristic - but occasionally it's more rational to pay a high price for something that is actually worth it. "I'm not buying these shoes, they cost $300!" - "Well yeah, but they last as long as four cheap shoes and they correct your bow-leggedness."

I think sometimes when evil bosses of companies accept the suffering of exploited child workers, for example, that is a sign of weakness. They might feel some empathy towards them, but they suppress it, because the rule of thumb is "money is good", "morality is too expensive", "eat or be eaten" and they don't dare to go against that rule. At their death bed, they might regret their life.

I'm making it easy for myself in assuming I'm and probably most people are altruistic at heart, so being strong and being nice is aligned but on the other hand, someone who is a sociopath would be strong if they act evil and weak if they act moral.

I guess I need to go back and read Nietzsche again. I read Thus Sprach Zarathustra and the parable of the eagle and the lamb, and it put me the fuck off because it really did come off as a “imma do what I want, cause I’m special” teenage rebellion. And I read that as a 14 year old who was neck deep in Ayn Rand fandom at the time.

Nietzsche makes more sense if you start reading him as if his words were in dialogue with Socrates. He's writing in contrast to him. My readings of him went down smoother as soon as I used this rule of thumb.

|The god part is irrelevant

I don’t understand your point. The serenity prayer makes sense even if you remove the reference to ”God”. I consider it as a figure of speech, as if you are coming to the realization (on your own). An epiphany so to speak.

I highly recommend reading the Christian Bible’s book of Proverbs, even if you don’t believe in Christianity.

That wouldn’t be stoic.

I’m an ex-Christian and I understand your criticism but I do think it rings empty for believers.

Asking “god, grant me” is a literal request, like you said, but (in my upbringing) the appeal to god is more about humility and invoking the spiritual. By selecting this prayer and holding it in their heart a person has made the decision to focus their intentions this way. It’s a different type of communication is all.

How the fuck is Nietzsche a good substitute for Stoicism. Like, you could at least suggested something remotely reasonable.

Nietzsche is great, but you never go full Nietzsche.

The root of stoicism was the understanding that the only thing one can control is themselves and their own reactions to the outside world. They knew they couldn't control the gods. So, rather than pray to Zeus for bravery or Hera for wisdom, they worked to foster bravery and wisdom within themselves. You can take their ideas and express them in prayer, but if you say that prayer is equivalent to that idea you're just wrong. The prayer adds supplication and dependence upon the divine that stoics rejected.

I don’t think it’s fair to equate the broad spectrum of modern religious practice and beliefs about divinity with millennium old beliefs about the Roman pantheon. It’s a little ahistorical to apply the writing of Marcus Aurelius to modern belief systems.

“They knew they couldn’t control the gods” is fundamental to many modern religions, especially non-fundamentalists, which make up the bulk of religious adherents AFAIK.

What about just being you.