15 ms·

Indifference is a power (2015)

207 points by suioir 8mo ago

wagwang 8mo ago
Stoics always think they are above caring about stupid shit, but that's the fun of life. The last sentence of Nietzsche's quote is completely right.
Jblx2 8mo ago
Here is the HN discussion on this article from back in 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12994262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12994262
fs_software 8mo ago
> Any misfortune ‘that lies outside the sphere of choice’ should be considered an opportunity to strengthen our resolve, not an excuse to weaken it. This is an interesting perspective that I've practiced but haven't explicitly considered before.
behole 8mo ago
[flagged]
blamestross 8mo ago
My journey with stoicism has been useful and powerful at every phase, but for future and fellow walkers of this path I leave advice: You you a mindful stoic or a dissociated one? I'd argue dissociation, at least in the short term, is a critical part of the process. To not let the gut reactions carry you away. You do often need to realize, those reactions are still often happening. You body does it's own thing and you need to be mindful when it does that. Fear, shock, anxiety, elation, they all happen even if you keep a clear conscious mind. The in the situation, the work is in correcting for the biases they give. In the medium term, if you aren't going back and holding the emotions you set aside, you are doing it wrong. Stoicism sells as "magical no emotion land" but you are flesh and flesh has emotions. Both reasonable and unreasonable. You job is to manage and integrate them effectively. Stoicism is a good toolkit for managing and analyzing emotions, but if you don't add going back and feeling those emotions to the tools, you are just a timebomb running an emotional debt and dissociating from it. I've done that, and watched others do the same. Odds are this message won't actually change things if you are there right now, but maybe it will nudge you in the right direction.
- randomtoast 8mo ago
  > In the medium term, if you aren't going back and holding the emotions you set aside, you are doing it wrong. Stoicism sells as "magical no emotion land" but you are flesh and flesh has emotions. Both reasonable and unreasonable. You job is to manage and integrate them effectively. I think it's helpful not to identify with your emotions. You may experience emotions, but you are not your emotions. That's the difference between saying "I'm angry" and "I feel anger arising within me."
  - nathan_compton 8mo ago
    I guess what I don't get about this is: couldn't you apply the same mode to other internal states? "I understand this," vs "I feel understanding arising in me?" Maybe that is good, now that I write it out. I think "understanding" is actually a pretty dumb mental state to invest a lot in.
  - blamestross 8mo ago
    That is a dissociating mode, a more mindful one, but still intentionally distancing yourself from your experiences. It works great for improving your perception of yourself and being mindful. Its a meditation. It also isn't really available in a crisis, in the moment. All our long term work is really to train the anxious idiot part of ourselves who runs the show most of the time how to cope with what the world and body are doing right now. That person is very much connected to their emotions, no matter what story we make up about it. You need practice being that person feeling those emotions as well as practice analyzing them.
- Y_Y 8mo ago
  > but if you don't add going back and feeling those emotions to the tools, you are just a timebomb running an emotional debt and dissociating from it What would that entail? I can't imagine e.g. taking some time on Sunday afternoon to feel that panic I suppressed from the crisis on Monday.
  - blamestross 8mo ago
parpfish 8mo ago
I can’t help but think that the rise in stoicisms popularity among manosphere types because it lets them repackage a lot of more undesirable masculine traits under a legitimate label— You’re not allowed to feel things. Emotions make you weak. Just suck it up and power through. Bottle it up. Whether those traits a “real stoicism” or not doesn’t matter, because that’s the way it gets spread through TikTok length discourse
- vannucci 8mo ago
  This is the exact phrasing I was just searching for, and I fear the same thing that this pop stoicism revival is trying to formalize some really asocial behaviors.
  - prox 8mo ago
    Reminds of “We belief something first, and then we pick our reasons for it.” People aren’t really engaging with their philosophy (“love of wisdom”) but pick and choose so it reinforces what they already believe. They don’t exactly think about it they stay mildly glossing some concepts in the popular amateur/ social media sphere.
    - aquariusDue 8mo ago
      In some ways I always wonder if this Build-A-Bear thingy we've developed in the last 100 or so years regarding spirituality, morals, principles and all that as an alternative to traditional religious practices isn't just as lame as what it's meant to replace but in its own kind. I'm not advocating for religious institutions or theocracy, mind you, I'm trying to formulate an argument how someone talking about how living life in accordance to Stoics on YouTube or Christ in a church is more of an aesthetics issue than a virtue one. Though I feel by the time I successfully formulate that argument I'll have multiple groups clamoring for my head.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    It's not just pop stoicism. For years now it seems to me that a lot of memes regarding personal conduct spread on social media that essentially try to dress up toxic behavior in a positive light and encourage it. I'm aware that society had these same sorts of issues prior to social media but it's still depressing watching it play out.
belinder 8mo ago
A bit similar to "Expect the worst, hope for the best"
- c22 8mo ago
  I always expect a reversion to the mean and hope I'm right.
everdrive 8mo ago
Actual stoicism is kind of darkly funny. Here's a word-for-word (translated, of course) excerpt from Epictetus: "It's possible to understand what nature wants from situations where we're no different from other people. For example, when a slave breaks someone else's cup we're instantly ready to say 'These things happen.' So when it's a cup of yours that gets broken, appreciate that you have the same attitude as when it's someone else's cup. Transfer the principle to things of greater importance. Has someone else's child or wife died? There's no one who wouldn't say 'So it goes.' But when it's one's own child or wife who's died, the automatic response is 'Oh, no!' and 'Poor me!' It's essential to remember how we feel when we hear of this happening to others." There are a few (darkly) funny claims in here: - _ANYONE_ would be pretty indifferent to hear that someone's wife or child has died. - You should feel the same about your wife or child as someone else's. - Potentially, you should feel the same way about your wife as you do a cup. I'm being cheeky with the last one, and I don't think there's _nothing_ to the quote above, however I cannot imagine most people being able to adopt this view, or seeing it as a view which _should_ be adopted.
- throwaw12 8mo ago
  IMO, its not dark. How I perceived it, Epictetus wants to say: things happen and you are on a spectrum of emotions based on the context (in case of death, how close you were to the person), try to minimize the length of the spectrum.
  - everdrive 8mo ago
    I agree in part. You could read Epictetus as saying "just try not caring about people," which I think is the incorrect reading. Instead, I think he's saying something like "take a step back and realize that your deep personal attachments don't look so important when you step outside your perspective. You can use this realization to help get past the deep emotional pain that is normal for people to feel." However, the line about other's indifference I think can only be read as dark funny to a modern reader: > has someone else's child or wife died? There's no one who wouldn't say 'So it goes.'
    - 8mo ago
PedroBatista 8mo ago
Stoicism is like recommending having a couple drinks ( literally ) to a "normal" person with mild social anxiety with a need to go out in the World and live life. It works and it's good advice. Unfortunately it gets recommended to everybody at every point in their lives, which include alcoholics and people in crisis. In a more direct way: Stop with this "no emotion" "I'm a fortress" bullshit. It only helps a narrow group of people in specific circumstances of their lives but wreaks havoc on everybody else because it's misplaced and mostly a lie or at least a very incomplete picture.
- N_Lens 8mo ago
  Very well put!
per1 8mo ago
[flagged]
webdevver 8mo ago
[flagged]
- KellyCriterion 8mo ago
  really? are you sure? Take a look into the illustration about Seneca on wasting your time, e.g. - from what Ive observed: Successful people know exactly when their time gets wasted and what could be done instead and not to waste time on irrelevant things. There are lot of inspiring mind sets in there.
- jebarker 8mo ago
  You know Marcus Aurelius was emperor of Rome right? It's not startup founder successful, but it's definitely moderately successful.
  - oldjim798 8mo ago
    I'm not sure there is much worth in imitating a Roman Emperor. They were violent megalomaniacal psychopaths to a man. There is little, about Marcus as a human being, I would consider "successful". Just because he was a good Emperor doesn't mean he was a morally successful person. To me, successful "mind hacks" help us become more success at being better people; not enabling a horrible empire. Of course the final word on Marcus should go to Mary Beard, the best classist of her generation: --->“I have never understood what people get out of him. It’s a bad book. It’s hard to argue about it — it’s so evidently garbage that it’s hard to sit down with somebody who doesn’t think it’s garbage and fight it out. He’s a terrible writer."
    - jebarker 8mo ago
      I'm definitely not a classicist, but I think it's unfair to criticize his writing abilities too much. He wasn't writing a book for others as I understand it, it was his personal diaries. EDIT: also most people are reading a translation, so there's another layer of editorial in there.
  - parpfish 8mo ago
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
dot_treo 8mo ago
In the past I've been trying to adopt the stoic mindset, but always struggled. But I continued to read and learn about it. Unrelatedly, I came across a recomendation for David Burns "Feeling Good" here on hackernews a couple of years ago. Reading it with my interest in stoicism in mind, I honestly found it to be probably the best modern day handbook to actually adopting the stoic mindset - without ever mentioning it. As far as I understand stoicism, it is all about seeing things as they are, and understanding that the only thing that we really control is our reaction / interpretation of events. And the CBT approach that is explained in Feeling Good/Feeling Great is exactly how you do this. With this perspective Marcus Aurelius Meditations suddenly make a lot more sense. They are his therapy homework.
- zeroonetwothree 8mo ago
  Love that book. It changed my life.
- maxverse 8mo ago
  If anyone Googles it and is wondering about Feeling Good (1999) and Feeling Great (2020) by the same author, it seems like Feeling Great is just an updated version of the original book, based on more experience and new insights. Here's the author discussing the difference: https://feelinggood.com/2020/10/26/213-from-feeling-good-to-feeling-great/ https://feelinggood.com/2020/10/26/213-from-feeling-good-to-...
richardanaya 8mo ago
Happiness only comes from the achievement of values. The greatest bamboozlement of stoicism is teaching people to be indifferent to achieving their values. It lobotomizes upside gains in a world that's full of opportunity to a mind of reason.
- andsoitis 8mo ago
  > teaching people to be indifferent to achieving their values That's inaccurate. Stoicism teaches indifference to outcomes you don’t fully control, while demanding total commitment to the values you do control such as your character, choices, and actions.
havblue 8mo ago
While it isn't expressly stoic, I'm liking the gray rock tactic more and more as I age. You can just not fight the people who are rude to you and not engage with ideas that frustrate you. When you reduce your personal connections to what you have direct control over and your actual responsibility, the need to argue with most people is very low.
andsoitis 8mo ago
Mel Robins' popular "Let Them Theory" captures some of the sentiment of Stoicism. https://www.melrobbins.com/book/the-let-them-theory/ https://www.melrobbins.com/book/the-let-them-theory/
- drjasonharrison 8mo ago
  Key phrase "captures some of the sentiment of Stoicism". Her book could be cut down to about ten pages. If Books Could Kill reviewed her book in April 2025: "Peter and Michael discuss The Let Them Theory, a self-help guide to seeking bliss through unmitigated complacency." https://open.spotify.com/episode/2RupLQH4eBnUX4mo1zAAFz?si=hysThgHWQUaOe_GLGA2nHw https://open.spotify.com/episode/2RupLQH4eBnUX4mo1zAAFz?si=h...
  - recursive 8mo ago
    > Her book could be cut down to about ten pages. Should I understand that to be a critique?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
rramadass 8mo ago
Samkhya Philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya) gives a far more comprehensive model to analytically go beyond the three sources of suffering (viz. from own body/mind, from other beings/things, from acts of god). You can then think of specific practices from Buddhism eg. Tibetan Lojong - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojong - and Stoicism as applications within that framework. PS: Keith Seddon's Epictetus' Handbook and the Tablet of Cebes: Guides to Stoic Living is one of the best books in stoic literature. - https://www.routledge.com/Epictetus-Handbook--and-the-Tablet-of-Cebes-Guides-to-Stoic-Living/Seddon/p/book/9780415324526 https://www.routledge.com/Epictetus-Handbook--and-the-Tablet...
game_the0ry 8mo ago
> Any misfortune ‘that lies outside the sphere of choice’ should be considered an opportunity to strengthen our resolve, not an excuse to weaken it. This is a solid reframe that has helped me in difficult times: any bad luck turned from a setback/obstacle to an empowering stepping stone to the next level.
voidhorse 8mo ago
Yawn I am so over stoicism being the philosophy du jour. I shouldn't be surprised, since it's stony individualism aligns extremely well with the amoral and increasingly draconian imperatives of unbridled, self-interested capital (I guess one could write a book on this), but man seeing it constantly referenced in dumbed down contentless rehashing of the surface level engagements one could have with a body of thought in all this popular media is becoming so tiring. If you're actually interested in stoicism I highly encourage picking up books by some actual scholars.
begueradj 8mo ago
Since the Covid theater, Stoicism is everywhere: that's why I don't read about it anymore because wherever the mass and Pavlov dogs head, the truth is elsewhere.
- MonkeyClub 8mo ago
  That's kind of a narrow take; the mainstream may be directed towards a good thing and just not have the depth to draw a benefit, its attention being superficial and fleeting. E.g. the Pavlovian dog metaphor is quite a mainstream trope, but doesn't it carry an important message nevertheless? If anything, I would say that fleeting takes and offhand dismissals are what determines and solidifies the mainstream's superficiality.
  - begueradj 8mo ago
    My whole comment refers to the "Propaganda" book by Edward Bernays.
- nathan_compton 8mo ago
  If you always walk in the opposite direction of the crowd you are still letting them control where you go.
Aurornis 8mo ago
I find classic Stoicism interesting, but these modern social media and influencer versions of Stoicism feel like something else entirely. The heading and subheading of this article invoke ideas of indifference and warriors and prisoners. This appeals to frustrated people, more often men, who are struggling with emotional regulation and want a solution that feels like a tough response. Maybe there’s something useful in here, but more often than not when I see younger people I work with invoke stoicism it’s as a weak defensive mechanism to dodge their emotions for a while rather than deal with them. The modern simplified ideal of stoicism is just being too tough to care and flexing to show others that you don’t care. Anecdotally, I haven’t seen anyone embrace this social media version of stoicism and thrive on it long term. At best it’s just a phase that helps them get past something temporary, but at worst it’s a misleading ideal that leads them to bottling up and ignoring problems until they become too unbearable to ignore. Some times you do have to care and you have to address the root cause, not just listen to some influencers telling you to be so tough you don’t care like legions of warriors and prisoners in past literature.
- jvanderbot 8mo ago
  I think of the "tough warrior philosopher" messaging as the installation medium for this hack. All hacks need an attractive bait/installer. Once the hack sets in, you start reading more b/c you identify partially as "philosopher", and you start to see more of the genuine, peaceful, forgiving side, like in Meditations. The "we are all flawed men" kind of thing.
  - Aurornis 8mo ago
    > I think of the "tough warrior philosopher" messaging as the installation medium for this hack. All hacks need an attractive bait/installer. The average young person who discovers stoicism via articles like this or via an influencer isn’t going to do a deep dive into classic literature as the next step. They’re going to seek out more influencer slop that delivers more of what drew them to it: The prisoner/warrior bait about being so tough that you don’t care about anything.
    - 8mo ago
tsunamifury 8mo ago
While stoicism was not invented by Marcus Aurelius the particular flavor referred to these days was and let’s be absolutely clear what it was: Stoicism was Aurelius ways to justify mass death and conquering of an empire while creating a mental patterns that roughly said “don’t worry too much about.”
- iammjm 8mo ago
  Did you actually ever read something by Aurelius?
  - tsunamifury 8mo ago
    Have you? Please refute this. Do you know any history of his rule? He was the bloodiest most expansionist and slave oriented emperor of otherwise the most oppressive empires in all of history.
    - iammjm 8mo ago
      I read his "Meditations", and what I found there was mostly related to better ways of dealing with everyday hardships, and not a "justification of mass death and conquering of an empire". As to your claim about him being the "bloodiest most expansionist and slave oriented emperor", I think this is simply factually incorrect. Seems like you have a gripe with the Roman Empire in general, and you are missing the point of this thread.
      - tsunamifury 8mo ago
        My guy. Please read even a little bit of history. He very likely killed almost 1% of the population of the known world at the time.
xzjis 8mo ago
You really have to already be privileged, and not directly affected by these so-called “external causes” the author talks about, to be able to take comfort in ignoring them. But is that even desirable? Do we actually want to live in a society where the privileged ignore other people’s problems simply because they can? Is it even acceptable to say: “A fascist militia (ICE) kills a lesbian woman for no reason other than the fact that she is lesbian, but since I’m not the one targeted by ICE, I should disconnect from social media, turn off the TV, and ignore this injustice”? Not only can external problems that affect our mental health serve as a driving force for action—because it is possible to organize and fight against the causes of these injustices—but in addition, inaction in the face of what is initially “external” inevitably leads to a point where we ourselves become affected by those same injustices. I want to quote a sermon by the German pastor Martin Niemöller, who spoke precisely about this: > First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Communist. > > Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Socialist. > > Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Trade Unionist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Jew. > > Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
thejackgoode 8mo ago
I used to be a fan, it entirely ruined CBT for me - you can only gaslight yourself so well into ignoring emotional compass and I think I maxed it out before encountering CBT approach.
vicek22 8mo ago
I like the moral part of Stoicism a lot, and even though the original texts are slightly morbid, the core idea makes perfect logical sense. You can't fully control things outside of your mind, and when you try to control them, you suffer (e.g. you don't want to get sick, but you will, you don't want to get old , but you will) What I struggled with was applying this "logical understanding" to my day-to-day life. In other words, the recommended practice of morning and evening meditation was always too early and too late, respectively. I needed to have tools to use in the difficult moments directly. I recently discovered Acceptance Commitment Therapy - It's an interesting mix of mindfulness and living in accordance with your values. If you also struggle to bring the stoic teachings to your minute-by-minute life, give the book "ACT made simple" a try. There are differences.. Stoic teaching would have you analyse the thought (impression) and discard it as something out of your control. Whilst ACT will have you accept that the thought exists, but not identify with it. Stoics give you the values (virtues), ACT lets you pick them. But all in all, those two approaches are complementary.
speak_plainly 8mo ago
If Socratic philosophy is the greatest threat to state power, Stoicism is the framework for mass compliance. It's a psychological strategy for emotional management that replaces the traditional goals of inquiry. This system encourages individuals to obey authority and limit their emotional range to reach a state of internal comfort. This objective discourages the act of questioning. In this regard, it functions as an anti-philosophy. The modern interest in Stoicism in my opinion is a move toward a secular version of the Christian experience. Modern Stoicism retains the Christian emphasis on submission and endurance while ignoring the superstitious elements inherent in Stoic physics, such as providential fatalism. If your objective is to maintain a state of functioning passivity, Stoicism is the effective solution (but I wouldn't recommend it).
- nathan_compton 8mo ago
  I don't think of stoicism as passive, though - it is just about responding rationally rather than irrationally, and one important aspect is focus on what can actually be modified, controlled or accomplished, not on fantasy. That idea seems crucial to modernity, where the main manner of control is to dangle outrage after outrage in front of everyone to keep them focused on spectacle and NOT focused on what they can actually, materially, physically do to change the world.
- mrweasel 8mo ago
  In some sense I agree, there is a level of defeatism in at least part of the wisdom of the stoics and very little questioning of authority. You do have the "If it's not right don't do it, if it's not true don't say it", and you are suppose to act on things if they are within your control. There's just no encouragement that you're more capable than you think or that you should do anything beyond "The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury." That doesn't really topple oppressive regimes. It's a bit of a interesting take, you should act with virtue, but there is no encouragement to act against oppression and question authority. It seems very much like something to ignore and hope there's not a clash.
alphazard 8mo ago
A lot of comments here use this metaphor of emotions as things that flow from a source, and need to be expressed or they will accumulate and explode. I think this can be traced to pop-psychology bullshit, and there isn't any neuroscientific basis backing it up. It seems like wishful thinking by people who like expressing their emotions to others and want to justify their spend on therapists, or their occasional emotional outbursts. Instead, the evidence points to the brain building habits around emotions and their regulation the same way it builds habits around everything else. If you practice not feeling emotions or becoming identified with them, then that habit will continue and they will become easier to not feel. There is not a debt to be paid, or a buildup to be released. This is often framed in different ways, mediators talk about "creating distance" and "noticing but not indulging". The timeless grug-brain approach is "ignoring", described by emotional people as "bottling up". These are different ways to frame the same phenomenon, which is that the brain does what it has practiced.
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  A Stoic would say that negative emotions have root causes in the misconceptions you hold about how the world works, and what you can and cannot affect about it. If you don't proactively address those root causes (which doesn't require "expressing" the emotion, but does require noticing and judging it without reflexive acceptance) the negativity will in fact "keep flowing" and your short-term disregard of it will be less and less effective. It's not a good "habit" to disregard negative emotions without also examining them.
- Jblx2 8mo ago
  >emotions as things that flow from a source, and need to be expressed Yes, this does seem to be the assumption that many are (uncritically?) making. I wonder where this idea comes from. Anyone know the provenance of this? Has this concept been handed down from antiquity? Or Jung or Freud or ? Or is this something relatively modern?
- svat 8mo ago
  “Ignoring” is not the same as “noticing”; the difference is right there in the words! You are right that it is undesirable to be a slave to one's emotions, to keep having emotional outbursts or “expressing” all emotions impulsively. But at the other extreme if you try to address this by building a habit of dissociation and “ignoring” your feelings (as you propose), that is also not good, and not how Stoicism or meditation address it. (To use an analogy: it would be bad for a parent to be a slave to their children, or for a charioteer to be led by their horses instead of controlling them. But ignoring them isn't great either!) Stoicism addresses this preemptively, building a practice of having a proportionate response to things outside our control. Meditation also addresses this by, as you said, noticing emotions when they arise, recognizing them for what they are (creating some distance), and letting them pass instead of indulging them. Ignoring your emotions or letting them burst out are both different from letting them pass/seeing them through.
ertgbnm 8mo ago
Stoicism has always struck me as cognitive behavioural therapy (specifically the cognitive triangle) but for boys who think therapy is for women and is rife for misuse from people who don't understand it. I understand stoicism is deeply entwined with modern CBT and the roots can be traced back basically, but why misuse the ancient form when we have decades of evolution and study on CBT?
tracerbulletx 8mo ago
I'm more of a zen and taoism kind of person.
Jgoauh 8mo ago
[flagged]
- BJones12 8mo ago
  Do you think that therapy will lead to a better outcome for those men than following stoic practices?
  - Jgoauh 8mo ago
    They're not following stoic practices, they're rebranding alpha-havingemotionsisforwomen-broness as stoicism, and yes therapy leads to better outcomes then this, fight club came out 26 years ago get with the program "Do you really think going to therapy will lead to a better outcome for Tyler Durden than following regular exercise and community with his friends ?" this is what you sound like
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
joduplessis 8mo ago
I think a lot of modern day stoicism is stoicism-without-hardship. And I think hardship is necessary for stoicism - otherwise all you have is determined detachment, which is something else entirely.
- bethekidyouwant 8mo ago
  Ton arrière-arrière grand-père a vécus la grosse misère ton arrière grand-pere il ramassait des cennes noires et pis ton grand-pere miracle est devenue millionaires ton pere en na hériter il a toute mit dans ses réer et pis toé tite jeunesse tu doit ton cul au ministaire. pas moyen davoir. un prés dans une intitustion banquaire. pour calmer tes envie de huldoper la cassière tu lit des livre qui parle ... de simplicité vonlontaire - I think each generation can have a different reason for adopting any philosophy it’s about whether it serves you or not.
BugsJustFindMe 8mo ago
My absolute favorite (this is irony) form of stoicism in the modern era is when a company director paid some multiple of your salary sends a daily stoic quote to everyone in the organization that amounts to telling people to work longer hours and accept more abuse and to shut up about not getting even cost-of-living raises because they should be grateful that they're employed at all. Should people be grateful for employment? Mmmmm....debatable. Should that be the chosen form of interaction from a position of imbalanced power? My fucking god, no. Try being slightly less of a sociopath.
SteveJS 8mo ago
Ada Palmer has a great blog post on why Stocism is so appealing to rich folks. Her writing is always excellent. https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powerful https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powe...
j45 8mo ago
My favourite part of stoicism is needing to use the example of an emperor ruling over people trying to stay grounded as he can given the unfortunate circumstances of being the ruler of everything as the way forward for every average man to deeply relate to. Stoicism has its definite positives, but balancing the privileged emperor is always worth being mindful and expressive of.
black_13 8mo ago
[dead]
renewiltord 8mo ago
“If the rule you followed brought you to this, what use is the rule?” The primary thing many who follow Stoicism do is tell people how much Stoicism they’re doing. Every time I see someone espousing Stoicism I never think to myself “I would love to be like that guy”. These two things together make it seem like it’s just a viral meme. The male equivalent of the TikTok insistence that they won’t date anyone who “doesn’t go to therapy”.
anondual 8mo ago
I don't know how much the modern take on stoicism diverges from its historical origins, but I'm among those who believe that it ultimately pumps a delusion: that one can solve mind aches with mind hacks. Contemplative mystics (e.g. Zen, Dao) can recognize in stoicism some elemental truths --mainly that our emotions tend to be driven by the fiction created by thoughts--, but they also see it as incomplete at best and at worst, just another misguided attempt at trusting the mind as a solution architect to the problems that it creates, which often results in other subtler problems like bypassing. Such traditions don't practice control or avoidance of emotions, but rather use them as teaching devices through aware observation when they manifest in experience (bodily sensations and thoughts). Through this "witnessing" there's realization of their fundamental nature, along with surrendering and integration of shadow elements. On the surface the result may appear the same as what stoicism purports to give you, but there's a radical difference. Where stoicism aims for thought-driven control, mystics know there's none to be found and instead encourage to trust in and to reconnect with our intuitive nature. Allow pain, feel it fully, let it go, and return in the flow. If you're not into mysticism, but are interested in this kind of work for the practical purpose of navigating your experience of life with less suffering, here's a secular curriculum: start with some embodiment practice (contemplation in bodily sensations, yoga nidra, body scan meditations, soft butter meditations, Tai Chi, Qigong, any physical activity done with heightened awareness of the body), find a good teacher or therapist to guide you into Shadow Work, supplement with regular Trauma and Tension Release Exercises (TRE), sprinkle some Loving Kindness meditations to take things to another level. Do this and you won't just look the part, you'll feel it to your core.
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  > Where stoicism aims for thought-driven control, mystics know there's none to be found and instead encourage to trust in and to reconnect with our intuitive nature. Allow pain, feel it fully, let it go, and return in the flow. The idea that thought is also ultimately driven by intuitions is one that stoics would've been quite familiar with. Part of the problem here is a definitional matter: should we restrict our view solely to the negative emotions, or admit that a positive "spirit" also exists in us that's ultimately just as intuitive and emotional? There isn't one single answer AIUI; both views are useful for different purposes, but it's true that a more "mystical" point of view could lead us to the latter. Some of the Stoics do talk about notions like "the good and bad daimon (or genius)" in ways that might somehow hint at the same reality, even though these intuitions are quite hard to understand in a modern context.
Isamu 8mo ago
Anger is an energy
joshuakoehler 8mo ago
> Stockdale rejected the false optimism proffered by Christianity, because he knew, from direct observation, that false hope is how you went insane in that prison. With all due respect to Stockdale, I wonder what definition of "Christianity" he had in mind. Historic, biblical Christianity doesn't make delusive promises to palliate suffering by implying that it will be brief or underwhelming. Just read the depths that David was brought to in the Psalms, or Job's experience, or the Apostle Paul's. Look at the thousands upon thousands of steeled and joyful Christian martyrs under the persecution by the Roman empire. Rather the Scriptures again and again plainly tell us to expect suffering - but the remedy goes far deeper than a mere Stoical submission to an impersonal logos in nature. Suffering, contrary to the Stoics, is not natural - to pretend that it is goes against our deepest sensibilities and experience. Rather the Scriptures explain the reason for suffering - it is due to living in a world that is experiencing the consequences of rebellion against its Creator. It should hurt, and denying this places us in an inevitable contradiction. The Stoics may argue this isn't much different than their own philosophy - both recognize it's a reality one way or another after all. However, Christianity goes on and ascends far higher, both subjectively and objectively. Both speak of the Logos, but the Logos of Christianity is far more than a distant, abstract principle. He is the one who cannot suffer, but who entered into this world of suffering through the Incarnation to redeem men by suffering more than any of them ever will. Thus Christianity presents a realist's view of suffering - it is common, deep, often bewildering. But Christians _are_ to submit to it as for their ultimate good. Like the Stoic, the Christian accepts it as a refiners fire: > My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. But unlike the Stoic, the Christian sees the source of it is far more personal, and will bring him to a far greater victory and joy than the best of the Stoics every could achieve. > For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. ... And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. ... Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. I can understand the draw to Stoicism felt by many today, and respect the movement in many ways, but I think the neo-Stoics overlook a greater philosophy, one which eventually drew in vast numbers of Stoics seeking a better way.
electrosphere 8mo ago
I recently spent time on Stoicism Week 2025: https://modernstoicism.com/stoic-week-2025-live-like-a-stoic-and-discover-a-wiser-calmer-you/ https://modernstoicism.com/stoic-week-2025-live-like-a-stoic... This years theme was on well-being, I found it useful.

207 points by suioir 8mo ago

Stoics always think they are above caring about stupid shit, but that's the fun of life. The last sentence of Nietzsche's quote is completely right.

Jblx2 8mo ago

Here is the HN discussion on this article from back in 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12994262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12994262

fs_software 8mo ago

> Any misfortune ‘that lies outside the sphere of choice’ should be considered an opportunity to strengthen our resolve, not an excuse to weaken it. This is an interesting perspective that I've practiced but haven't explicitly considered before.

behole 8mo ago

[flagged]

blamestross 8mo ago

My journey with stoicism has been useful and powerful at every phase, but for future and fellow walkers of this path I leave advice: You you a mindful stoic or a dissociated one? I'd argue dissociation, at least in the short term, is a critical part of the process. To not let the gut reactions carry you away. You do often need to realize, those reactions are still often happening. You body does it's own thing and you need to be mindful when it does that. Fear, shock, anxiety, elation, they all happen even if you keep a clear conscious mind. The in the situation, the work is in correcting for the biases they give. In the medium term, if you aren't going back and holding the emotions you set aside, you are doing it wrong. Stoicism sells as "magical no emotion land" but you are flesh and flesh has emotions. Both reasonable and unreasonable. You job is to manage and integrate them effectively. Stoicism is a good toolkit for managing and analyzing emotions, but if you don't add going back and feeling those emotions to the tools, you are just a timebomb running an emotional debt and dissociating from it. I've done that, and watched others do the same. Odds are this message won't actually change things if you are there right now, but maybe it will nudge you in the right direction.

randomtoast 8mo ago
> In the medium term, if you aren't going back and holding the emotions you set aside, you are doing it wrong. Stoicism sells as "magical no emotion land" but you are flesh and flesh has emotions. Both reasonable and unreasonable. You job is to manage and integrate them effectively. I think it's helpful not to identify with your emotions. You may experience emotions, but you are not your emotions. That's the difference between saying "I'm angry" and "I feel anger arising within me."
- nathan_compton 8mo ago
  I guess what I don't get about this is: couldn't you apply the same mode to other internal states? "I understand this," vs "I feel understanding arising in me?" Maybe that is good, now that I write it out. I think "understanding" is actually a pretty dumb mental state to invest a lot in.
- blamestross 8mo ago
  That is a dissociating mode, a more mindful one, but still intentionally distancing yourself from your experiences. It works great for improving your perception of yourself and being mindful. Its a meditation. It also isn't really available in a crisis, in the moment. All our long term work is really to train the anxious idiot part of ourselves who runs the show most of the time how to cope with what the world and body are doing right now. That person is very much connected to their emotions, no matter what story we make up about it. You need practice being that person feeling those emotions as well as practice analyzing them.
Y_Y 8mo ago
> but if you don't add going back and feeling those emotions to the tools, you are just a timebomb running an emotional debt and dissociating from it What would that entail? I can't imagine e.g. taking some time on Sunday afternoon to feel that panic I suppressed from the crisis on Monday.
- blamestross 8mo ago

parpfish 8mo ago

I can’t help but think that the rise in stoicisms popularity among manosphere types because it lets them repackage a lot of more undesirable masculine traits under a legitimate label— You’re not allowed to feel things. Emotions make you weak. Just suck it up and power through. Bottle it up. Whether those traits a “real stoicism” or not doesn’t matter, because that’s the way it gets spread through TikTok length discourse

vannucci 8mo ago
This is the exact phrasing I was just searching for, and I fear the same thing that this pop stoicism revival is trying to formalize some really asocial behaviors.
- prox 8mo ago
  Reminds of “We belief something first, and then we pick our reasons for it.” People aren’t really engaging with their philosophy (“love of wisdom”) but pick and choose so it reinforces what they already believe. They don’t exactly think about it they stay mildly glossing some concepts in the popular amateur/ social media sphere.
  - aquariusDue 8mo ago
    In some ways I always wonder if this Build-A-Bear thingy we've developed in the last 100 or so years regarding spirituality, morals, principles and all that as an alternative to traditional religious practices isn't just as lame as what it's meant to replace but in its own kind. I'm not advocating for religious institutions or theocracy, mind you, I'm trying to formulate an argument how someone talking about how living life in accordance to Stoics on YouTube or Christ in a church is more of an aesthetics issue than a virtue one. Though I feel by the time I successfully formulate that argument I'll have multiple groups clamoring for my head.
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  It's not just pop stoicism. For years now it seems to me that a lot of memes regarding personal conduct spread on social media that essentially try to dress up toxic behavior in a positive light and encourage it. I'm aware that society had these same sorts of issues prior to social media but it's still depressing watching it play out.

belinder 8mo ago

A bit similar to "Expect the worst, hope for the best"

c22 8mo ago
I always expect a reversion to the mean and hope I'm right.

everdrive 8mo ago

Actual stoicism is kind of darkly funny. Here's a word-for-word (translated, of course) excerpt from Epictetus: "It's possible to understand what nature wants from situations where we're no different from other people. For example, when a slave breaks someone else's cup we're instantly ready to say 'These things happen.' So when it's a cup of yours that gets broken, appreciate that you have the same attitude as when it's someone else's cup. Transfer the principle to things of greater importance. Has someone else's child or wife died? There's no one who wouldn't say 'So it goes.' But when it's one's own child or wife who's died, the automatic response is 'Oh, no!' and 'Poor me!' It's essential to remember how we feel when we hear of this happening to others." There are a few (darkly) funny claims in here: - _ANYONE_ would be pretty indifferent to hear that someone's wife or child has died. - You should feel the same about your wife or child as someone else's. - Potentially, you should feel the same way about your wife as you do a cup. I'm being cheeky with the last one, and I don't think there's _nothing_ to the quote above, however I cannot imagine most people being able to adopt this view, or seeing it as a view which _should_ be adopted.

throwaw12 8mo ago
IMO, its not dark. How I perceived it, Epictetus wants to say: things happen and you are on a spectrum of emotions based on the context (in case of death, how close you were to the person), try to minimize the length of the spectrum.
- everdrive 8mo ago
  I agree in part. You could read Epictetus as saying "just try not caring about people," which I think is the incorrect reading. Instead, I think he's saying something like "take a step back and realize that your deep personal attachments don't look so important when you step outside your perspective. You can use this realization to help get past the deep emotional pain that is normal for people to feel." However, the line about other's indifference I think can only be read as dark funny to a modern reader: > has someone else's child or wife died? There's no one who wouldn't say 'So it goes.'
  - 8mo ago

PedroBatista 8mo ago

Stoicism is like recommending having a couple drinks ( literally ) to a "normal" person with mild social anxiety with a need to go out in the World and live life. It works and it's good advice. Unfortunately it gets recommended to everybody at every point in their lives, which include alcoholics and people in crisis. In a more direct way: Stop with this "no emotion" "I'm a fortress" bullshit. It only helps a narrow group of people in specific circumstances of their lives but wreaks havoc on everybody else because it's misplaced and mostly a lie or at least a very incomplete picture.

N_Lens 8mo ago
Very well put!

per1 8mo ago

[flagged]

webdevver 8mo ago

[flagged]

KellyCriterion 8mo ago
really? are you sure? Take a look into the illustration about Seneca on wasting your time, e.g. - from what Ive observed: Successful people know exactly when their time gets wasted and what could be done instead and not to waste time on irrelevant things. There are lot of inspiring mind sets in there.
jebarker 8mo ago
You know Marcus Aurelius was emperor of Rome right? It's not startup founder successful, but it's definitely moderately successful.
- oldjim798 8mo ago
  I'm not sure there is much worth in imitating a Roman Emperor. They were violent megalomaniacal psychopaths to a man. There is little, about Marcus as a human being, I would consider "successful". Just because he was a good Emperor doesn't mean he was a morally successful person. To me, successful "mind hacks" help us become more success at being better people; not enabling a horrible empire. Of course the final word on Marcus should go to Mary Beard, the best classist of her generation: --->“I have never understood what people get out of him. It’s a bad book. It’s hard to argue about it — it’s so evidently garbage that it’s hard to sit down with somebody who doesn’t think it’s garbage and fight it out. He’s a terrible writer."
  - jebarker 8mo ago
    I'm definitely not a classicist, but I think it's unfair to criticize his writing abilities too much. He wasn't writing a book for others as I understand it, it was his personal diaries. EDIT: also most people are reading a translation, so there's another layer of editorial in there.
- parpfish 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

dot_treo 8mo ago

In the past I've been trying to adopt the stoic mindset, but always struggled. But I continued to read and learn about it. Unrelatedly, I came across a recomendation for David Burns "Feeling Good" here on hackernews a couple of years ago. Reading it with my interest in stoicism in mind, I honestly found it to be probably the best modern day handbook to actually adopting the stoic mindset - without ever mentioning it. As far as I understand stoicism, it is all about seeing things as they are, and understanding that the only thing that we really control is our reaction / interpretation of events. And the CBT approach that is explained in Feeling Good/Feeling Great is exactly how you do this. With this perspective Marcus Aurelius Meditations suddenly make a lot more sense. They are his therapy homework.

zeroonetwothree 8mo ago
Love that book. It changed my life.
maxverse 8mo ago
If anyone Googles it and is wondering about Feeling Good (1999) and Feeling Great (2020) by the same author, it seems like Feeling Great is just an updated version of the original book, based on more experience and new insights. Here's the author discussing the difference: https://feelinggood.com/2020/10/26/213-from-feeling-good-to-feeling-great/ https://feelinggood.com/2020/10/26/213-from-feeling-good-to-...

richardanaya 8mo ago

Happiness only comes from the achievement of values. The greatest bamboozlement of stoicism is teaching people to be indifferent to achieving their values. It lobotomizes upside gains in a world that's full of opportunity to a mind of reason.

andsoitis 8mo ago
> teaching people to be indifferent to achieving their values That's inaccurate. Stoicism teaches indifference to outcomes you don’t fully control, while demanding total commitment to the values you do control such as your character, choices, and actions.

havblue 8mo ago

While it isn't expressly stoic, I'm liking the gray rock tactic more and more as I age. You can just not fight the people who are rude to you and not engage with ideas that frustrate you. When you reduce your personal connections to what you have direct control over and your actual responsibility, the need to argue with most people is very low.

andsoitis 8mo ago

Mel Robins' popular "Let Them Theory" captures some of the sentiment of Stoicism. https://www.melrobbins.com/book/the-let-them-theory/ https://www.melrobbins.com/book/the-let-them-theory/

drjasonharrison 8mo ago
Key phrase "captures some of the sentiment of Stoicism". Her book could be cut down to about ten pages. If Books Could Kill reviewed her book in April 2025: "Peter and Michael discuss The Let Them Theory, a self-help guide to seeking bliss through unmitigated complacency." https://open.spotify.com/episode/2RupLQH4eBnUX4mo1zAAFz?si=hysThgHWQUaOe_GLGA2nHw https://open.spotify.com/episode/2RupLQH4eBnUX4mo1zAAFz?si=h...
- recursive 8mo ago
  > Her book could be cut down to about ten pages. Should I understand that to be a critique?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

rramadass 8mo ago

Samkhya Philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya) gives a far more comprehensive model to analytically go beyond the three sources of suffering (viz. from own body/mind, from other beings/things, from acts of god). You can then think of specific practices from Buddhism eg. Tibetan Lojong - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojong - and Stoicism as applications within that framework. PS: Keith Seddon's Epictetus' Handbook and the Tablet of Cebes: Guides to Stoic Living is one of the best books in stoic literature. - https://www.routledge.com/Epictetus-Handbook--and-the-Tablet-of-Cebes-Guides-to-Stoic-Living/Seddon/p/book/9780415324526 https://www.routledge.com/Epictetus-Handbook--and-the-Tablet...

game_the0ry 8mo ago

> Any misfortune ‘that lies outside the sphere of choice’ should be considered an opportunity to strengthen our resolve, not an excuse to weaken it. This is a solid reframe that has helped me in difficult times: any bad luck turned from a setback/obstacle to an empowering stepping stone to the next level.

voidhorse 8mo ago

Yawn I am so over stoicism being the philosophy du jour. I shouldn't be surprised, since it's stony individualism aligns extremely well with the amoral and increasingly draconian imperatives of unbridled, self-interested capital (I guess one could write a book on this), but man seeing it constantly referenced in dumbed down contentless rehashing of the surface level engagements one could have with a body of thought in all this popular media is becoming so tiring. If you're actually interested in stoicism I highly encourage picking up books by some actual scholars.

begueradj 8mo ago

Since the Covid theater, Stoicism is everywhere: that's why I don't read about it anymore because wherever the mass and Pavlov dogs head, the truth is elsewhere.

MonkeyClub 8mo ago
That's kind of a narrow take; the mainstream may be directed towards a good thing and just not have the depth to draw a benefit, its attention being superficial and fleeting. E.g. the Pavlovian dog metaphor is quite a mainstream trope, but doesn't it carry an important message nevertheless? If anything, I would say that fleeting takes and offhand dismissals are what determines and solidifies the mainstream's superficiality.
- begueradj 8mo ago
  My whole comment refers to the "Propaganda" book by Edward Bernays.
nathan_compton 8mo ago
If you always walk in the opposite direction of the crowd you are still letting them control where you go.

Aurornis 8mo ago

I find classic Stoicism interesting, but these modern social media and influencer versions of Stoicism feel like something else entirely. The heading and subheading of this article invoke ideas of indifference and warriors and prisoners. This appeals to frustrated people, more often men, who are struggling with emotional regulation and want a solution that feels like a tough response. Maybe there’s something useful in here, but more often than not when I see younger people I work with invoke stoicism it’s as a weak defensive mechanism to dodge their emotions for a while rather than deal with them. The modern simplified ideal of stoicism is just being too tough to care and flexing to show others that you don’t care. Anecdotally, I haven’t seen anyone embrace this social media version of stoicism and thrive on it long term. At best it’s just a phase that helps them get past something temporary, but at worst it’s a misleading ideal that leads them to bottling up and ignoring problems until they become too unbearable to ignore. Some times you do have to care and you have to address the root cause, not just listen to some influencers telling you to be so tough you don’t care like legions of warriors and prisoners in past literature.

jvanderbot 8mo ago
I think of the "tough warrior philosopher" messaging as the installation medium for this hack. All hacks need an attractive bait/installer. Once the hack sets in, you start reading more b/c you identify partially as "philosopher", and you start to see more of the genuine, peaceful, forgiving side, like in Meditations. The "we are all flawed men" kind of thing.
- Aurornis 8mo ago
  > I think of the "tough warrior philosopher" messaging as the installation medium for this hack. All hacks need an attractive bait/installer. The average young person who discovers stoicism via articles like this or via an influencer isn’t going to do a deep dive into classic literature as the next step. They’re going to seek out more influencer slop that delivers more of what drew them to it: The prisoner/warrior bait about being so tough that you don’t care about anything.
  - 8mo ago

tsunamifury 8mo ago

While stoicism was not invented by Marcus Aurelius the particular flavor referred to these days was and let’s be absolutely clear what it was: Stoicism was Aurelius ways to justify mass death and conquering of an empire while creating a mental patterns that roughly said “don’t worry too much about.”

iammjm 8mo ago
Did you actually ever read something by Aurelius?
- tsunamifury 8mo ago
  Have you? Please refute this. Do you know any history of his rule? He was the bloodiest most expansionist and slave oriented emperor of otherwise the most oppressive empires in all of history.
  - iammjm 8mo ago
    I read his "Meditations", and what I found there was mostly related to better ways of dealing with everyday hardships, and not a "justification of mass death and conquering of an empire". As to your claim about him being the "bloodiest most expansionist and slave oriented emperor", I think this is simply factually incorrect. Seems like you have a gripe with the Roman Empire in general, and you are missing the point of this thread.
    - tsunamifury 8mo ago
      My guy. Please read even a little bit of history. He very likely killed almost 1% of the population of the known world at the time.

xzjis 8mo ago

You really have to already be privileged, and not directly affected by these so-called “external causes” the author talks about, to be able to take comfort in ignoring them. But is that even desirable? Do we actually want to live in a society where the privileged ignore other people’s problems simply because they can? Is it even acceptable to say: “A fascist militia (ICE) kills a lesbian woman for no reason other than the fact that she is lesbian, but since I’m not the one targeted by ICE, I should disconnect from social media, turn off the TV, and ignore this injustice”? Not only can external problems that affect our mental health serve as a driving force for action—because it is possible to organize and fight against the causes of these injustices—but in addition, inaction in the face of what is initially “external” inevitably leads to a point where we ourselves become affected by those same injustices. I want to quote a sermon by the German pastor Martin Niemöller, who spoke precisely about this: > First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Communist. > > Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Socialist. > > Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Trade Unionist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Jew. > > Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

thejackgoode 8mo ago

I used to be a fan, it entirely ruined CBT for me - you can only gaslight yourself so well into ignoring emotional compass and I think I maxed it out before encountering CBT approach.

vicek22 8mo ago

I like the moral part of Stoicism a lot, and even though the original texts are slightly morbid, the core idea makes perfect logical sense. You can't fully control things outside of your mind, and when you try to control them, you suffer (e.g. you don't want to get sick, but you will, you don't want to get old , but you will) What I struggled with was applying this "logical understanding" to my day-to-day life. In other words, the recommended practice of morning and evening meditation was always too early and too late, respectively. I needed to have tools to use in the difficult moments directly. I recently discovered Acceptance Commitment Therapy - It's an interesting mix of mindfulness and living in accordance with your values. If you also struggle to bring the stoic teachings to your minute-by-minute life, give the book "ACT made simple" a try. There are differences.. Stoic teaching would have you analyse the thought (impression) and discard it as something out of your control. Whilst ACT will have you accept that the thought exists, but not identify with it. Stoics give you the values (virtues), ACT lets you pick them. But all in all, those two approaches are complementary.

speak_plainly 8mo ago

If Socratic philosophy is the greatest threat to state power, Stoicism is the framework for mass compliance. It's a psychological strategy for emotional management that replaces the traditional goals of inquiry. This system encourages individuals to obey authority and limit their emotional range to reach a state of internal comfort. This objective discourages the act of questioning. In this regard, it functions as an anti-philosophy. The modern interest in Stoicism in my opinion is a move toward a secular version of the Christian experience. Modern Stoicism retains the Christian emphasis on submission and endurance while ignoring the superstitious elements inherent in Stoic physics, such as providential fatalism. If your objective is to maintain a state of functioning passivity, Stoicism is the effective solution (but I wouldn't recommend it).

nathan_compton 8mo ago
I don't think of stoicism as passive, though - it is just about responding rationally rather than irrationally, and one important aspect is focus on what can actually be modified, controlled or accomplished, not on fantasy. That idea seems crucial to modernity, where the main manner of control is to dangle outrage after outrage in front of everyone to keep them focused on spectacle and NOT focused on what they can actually, materially, physically do to change the world.
mrweasel 8mo ago
In some sense I agree, there is a level of defeatism in at least part of the wisdom of the stoics and very little questioning of authority. You do have the "If it's not right don't do it, if it's not true don't say it", and you are suppose to act on things if they are within your control. There's just no encouragement that you're more capable than you think or that you should do anything beyond "The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury." That doesn't really topple oppressive regimes. It's a bit of a interesting take, you should act with virtue, but there is no encouragement to act against oppression and question authority. It seems very much like something to ignore and hope there's not a clash.

alphazard 8mo ago

A lot of comments here use this metaphor of emotions as things that flow from a source, and need to be expressed or they will accumulate and explode. I think this can be traced to pop-psychology bullshit, and there isn't any neuroscientific basis backing it up. It seems like wishful thinking by people who like expressing their emotions to others and want to justify their spend on therapists, or their occasional emotional outbursts. Instead, the evidence points to the brain building habits around emotions and their regulation the same way it builds habits around everything else. If you practice not feeling emotions or becoming identified with them, then that habit will continue and they will become easier to not feel. There is not a debt to be paid, or a buildup to be released. This is often framed in different ways, mediators talk about "creating distance" and "noticing but not indulging". The timeless grug-brain approach is "ignoring", described by emotional people as "bottling up". These are different ways to frame the same phenomenon, which is that the brain does what it has practiced.

zozbot234 8mo ago
A Stoic would say that negative emotions have root causes in the misconceptions you hold about how the world works, and what you can and cannot affect about it. If you don't proactively address those root causes (which doesn't require "expressing" the emotion, but does require noticing and judging it without reflexive acceptance) the negativity will in fact "keep flowing" and your short-term disregard of it will be less and less effective. It's not a good "habit" to disregard negative emotions without also examining them.
Jblx2 8mo ago
>emotions as things that flow from a source, and need to be expressed Yes, this does seem to be the assumption that many are (uncritically?) making. I wonder where this idea comes from. Anyone know the provenance of this? Has this concept been handed down from antiquity? Or Jung or Freud or ? Or is this something relatively modern?
svat 8mo ago
“Ignoring” is not the same as “noticing”; the difference is right there in the words! You are right that it is undesirable to be a slave to one's emotions, to keep having emotional outbursts or “expressing” all emotions impulsively. But at the other extreme if you try to address this by building a habit of dissociation and “ignoring” your feelings (as you propose), that is also not good, and not how Stoicism or meditation address it. (To use an analogy: it would be bad for a parent to be a slave to their children, or for a charioteer to be led by their horses instead of controlling them. But ignoring them isn't great either!) Stoicism addresses this preemptively, building a practice of having a proportionate response to things outside our control. Meditation also addresses this by, as you said, noticing emotions when they arise, recognizing them for what they are (creating some distance), and letting them pass instead of indulging them. Ignoring your emotions or letting them burst out are both different from letting them pass/seeing them through.

ertgbnm 8mo ago

Stoicism has always struck me as cognitive behavioural therapy (specifically the cognitive triangle) but for boys who think therapy is for women and is rife for misuse from people who don't understand it. I understand stoicism is deeply entwined with modern CBT and the roots can be traced back basically, but why misuse the ancient form when we have decades of evolution and study on CBT?

tracerbulletx 8mo ago

I'm more of a zen and taoism kind of person.

Jgoauh 8mo ago

[flagged]

BJones12 8mo ago
Do you think that therapy will lead to a better outcome for those men than following stoic practices?
- Jgoauh 8mo ago
  They're not following stoic practices, they're rebranding alpha-havingemotionsisforwomen-broness as stoicism, and yes therapy leads to better outcomes then this, fight club came out 26 years ago get with the program "Do you really think going to therapy will lead to a better outcome for Tyler Durden than following regular exercise and community with his friends ?" this is what you sound like
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]

joduplessis 8mo ago

I think a lot of modern day stoicism is stoicism-without-hardship. And I think hardship is necessary for stoicism - otherwise all you have is determined detachment, which is something else entirely.

bethekidyouwant 8mo ago
Ton arrière-arrière grand-père a vécus la grosse misère ton arrière grand-pere il ramassait des cennes noires et pis ton grand-pere miracle est devenue millionaires ton pere en na hériter il a toute mit dans ses réer et pis toé tite jeunesse tu doit ton cul au ministaire. pas moyen davoir. un prés dans une intitustion banquaire. pour calmer tes envie de huldoper la cassière tu lit des livre qui parle ... de simplicité vonlontaire - I think each generation can have a different reason for adopting any philosophy it’s about whether it serves you or not.

BugsJustFindMe 8mo ago

My absolute favorite (this is irony) form of stoicism in the modern era is when a company director paid some multiple of your salary sends a daily stoic quote to everyone in the organization that amounts to telling people to work longer hours and accept more abuse and to shut up about not getting even cost-of-living raises because they should be grateful that they're employed at all. Should people be grateful for employment? Mmmmm....debatable. Should that be the chosen form of interaction from a position of imbalanced power? My fucking god, no. Try being slightly less of a sociopath.

SteveJS 8mo ago

Ada Palmer has a great blog post on why Stocism is so appealing to rich folks. Her writing is always excellent. https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powerful https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powe...

j45 8mo ago

My favourite part of stoicism is needing to use the example of an emperor ruling over people trying to stay grounded as he can given the unfortunate circumstances of being the ruler of everything as the way forward for every average man to deeply relate to. Stoicism has its definite positives, but balancing the privileged emperor is always worth being mindful and expressive of.

black_13 8mo ago

[dead]

renewiltord 8mo ago

“If the rule you followed brought you to this, what use is the rule?” The primary thing many who follow Stoicism do is tell people how much Stoicism they’re doing. Every time I see someone espousing Stoicism I never think to myself “I would love to be like that guy”. These two things together make it seem like it’s just a viral meme. The male equivalent of the TikTok insistence that they won’t date anyone who “doesn’t go to therapy”.

anondual 8mo ago

I don't know how much the modern take on stoicism diverges from its historical origins, but I'm among those who believe that it ultimately pumps a delusion: that one can solve mind aches with mind hacks. Contemplative mystics (e.g. Zen, Dao) can recognize in stoicism some elemental truths --mainly that our emotions tend to be driven by the fiction created by thoughts--, but they also see it as incomplete at best and at worst, just another misguided attempt at trusting the mind as a solution architect to the problems that it creates, which often results in other subtler problems like bypassing. Such traditions don't practice control or avoidance of emotions, but rather use them as teaching devices through aware observation when they manifest in experience (bodily sensations and thoughts). Through this "witnessing" there's realization of their fundamental nature, along with surrendering and integration of shadow elements. On the surface the result may appear the same as what stoicism purports to give you, but there's a radical difference. Where stoicism aims for thought-driven control, mystics know there's none to be found and instead encourage to trust in and to reconnect with our intuitive nature. Allow pain, feel it fully, let it go, and return in the flow. If you're not into mysticism, but are interested in this kind of work for the practical purpose of navigating your experience of life with less suffering, here's a secular curriculum: start with some embodiment practice (contemplation in bodily sensations, yoga nidra, body scan meditations, soft butter meditations, Tai Chi, Qigong, any physical activity done with heightened awareness of the body), find a good teacher or therapist to guide you into Shadow Work, supplement with regular Trauma and Tension Release Exercises (TRE), sprinkle some Loving Kindness meditations to take things to another level. Do this and you won't just look the part, you'll feel it to your core.

zozbot234 8mo ago
> Where stoicism aims for thought-driven control, mystics know there's none to be found and instead encourage to trust in and to reconnect with our intuitive nature. Allow pain, feel it fully, let it go, and return in the flow. The idea that thought is also ultimately driven by intuitions is one that stoics would've been quite familiar with. Part of the problem here is a definitional matter: should we restrict our view solely to the negative emotions, or admit that a positive "spirit" also exists in us that's ultimately just as intuitive and emotional? There isn't one single answer AIUI; both views are useful for different purposes, but it's true that a more "mystical" point of view could lead us to the latter. Some of the Stoics do talk about notions like "the good and bad daimon (or genius)" in ways that might somehow hint at the same reality, even though these intuitions are quite hard to understand in a modern context.

Isamu 8mo ago

Anger is an energy

joshuakoehler 8mo ago

> Stockdale rejected the false optimism proffered by Christianity, because he knew, from direct observation, that false hope is how you went insane in that prison. With all due respect to Stockdale, I wonder what definition of "Christianity" he had in mind. Historic, biblical Christianity doesn't make delusive promises to palliate suffering by implying that it will be brief or underwhelming. Just read the depths that David was brought to in the Psalms, or Job's experience, or the Apostle Paul's. Look at the thousands upon thousands of steeled and joyful Christian martyrs under the persecution by the Roman empire. Rather the Scriptures again and again plainly tell us to expect suffering - but the remedy goes far deeper than a mere Stoical submission to an impersonal logos in nature. Suffering, contrary to the Stoics, is not natural - to pretend that it is goes against our deepest sensibilities and experience. Rather the Scriptures explain the reason for suffering - it is due to living in a world that is experiencing the consequences of rebellion against its Creator. It should hurt, and denying this places us in an inevitable contradiction. The Stoics may argue this isn't much different than their own philosophy - both recognize it's a reality one way or another after all. However, Christianity goes on and ascends far higher, both subjectively and objectively. Both speak of the Logos, but the Logos of Christianity is far more than a distant, abstract principle. He is the one who cannot suffer, but who entered into this world of suffering through the Incarnation to redeem men by suffering more than any of them ever will. Thus Christianity presents a realist's view of suffering - it is common, deep, often bewildering. But Christians _are_ to submit to it as for their ultimate good. Like the Stoic, the Christian accepts it as a refiners fire: > My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. But unlike the Stoic, the Christian sees the source of it is far more personal, and will bring him to a far greater victory and joy than the best of the Stoics every could achieve. > For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. ... And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. ... Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. I can understand the draw to Stoicism felt by many today, and respect the movement in many ways, but I think the neo-Stoics overlook a greater philosophy, one which eventually drew in vast numbers of Stoics seeking a better way.

electrosphere 8mo ago

I recently spent time on Stoicism Week 2025: https://modernstoicism.com/stoic-week-2025-live-like-a-stoic-and-discover-a-wiser-calmer-you/ https://modernstoicism.com/stoic-week-2025-live-like-a-stoic... This years theme was on well-being, I found it useful.