alt Hacker NewsIndifference is a power
Comments
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-powe...
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?
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.
> 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.
Mel Robins' popular "Let Them Theory" captures some of the sentiment of Stoicism.
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.
I'm more of a zen and taoism kind of person.
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.
“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”.
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.
Samkhya Philosophy (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 - 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
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.”
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.
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).
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.