[anechouapechou]

This is a very common misconception. Stoics (at least in the classical sense, which is what I study) seek to classify their emotions as either positive or as passions. And through the analysis of their own opinions, using logic and the concept of aligning with nature and the common good, they seek to agree with what is correct, disagree with what is incorrect, and suspend judgment on that which is not evident. A person can only be good or bad through actions that are their own responsibility; therefore, things outside of their own responsibility (such as a Stoic's son dying) cannot make them either good or bad, but rather their reaction to the event can. The interpretation that if a Stoic suffers when experiencing the death of their own son, they are being a bad Stoic is actually completely incorrect. They will only be a bad Stoic if, from this event, they allow themselves to be carried away by the suffering that is natural to every person who has a natural affection, and start to have opinions and actions contrary to nature.

[crazygringo]

I'm going to push back on the idea that it's a misconception.

Stoicism treats the (negative) passions as necessarily grounded in false beliefs.

Whereas modern psychology treats our negative emotions as valuable messages that something is affecting our well-being and needs to be addressed.

Stoicism treats negative emotions as errors. Something to be reasoned away, i.e. suppressed. Modern psychology tells us not to reason away but rather to feel fully, to accept, to process and therefore integrate and grow.

[anechouapechou]

Modern psychology (CBT) is built on a Stoic idea: “It’s not things that upset us, but our opinions about things.”

Stoicism doesn’t tell you to repress feelings. It tells you to examine them, to look at the beliefs behind them. If the belief is false (“this event ruins my life”), you correct it; if it’s true, you accept the feeling without letting it take over.

The Stoics called destructive emotions “passions,” but they also recognized healthy ones, like rational joy, caution, and goodwill. The goal isn’t emotional numbness, it’s clarity and alignment with reason and nature.

So, far from emotional blindness, Stoicism actually inspired the same kind of introspection that modern psychology promotes, just with a different vocabulary.

I would encourage you to read about CBT’s history and it’s influence on more modern psychology techniques. It’s likely that you are representing the Stoicism you commonly read about these days, on reddit, youtube and even on some books that take some liberties on translating it or do a bad job of it (it’s hard…). Most modern sources absolutely suck. A good translation from the original greek sources of Epictetus is very hard to come by.

[crazygringo]

Modern psychology is not CBT. In fact, CBT is widely criticized by psychologists as treating symptoms rather than causes. It's a favorite of health plans because it's short and cheap, not because it's best at helping people long-term. Some of the criticisms of Stoicism are also criticisms of CBT.

What I'm talking about is traditional psychodynamic therapy that is about integration and growth. Not about changing behavioral patterns merely on the surface via cognitive reframing. When you actually allow yourself to integrate and process your emotions, the kind of mental work that stoicism and CBT focus on becomes unnecessary for most people. (CBT techniques can be helpful as a kind as urgent emergency measures, but not as a long-term solution.)

I know you seem to think I've gotten my ideas from Reddit. I can assure you, I've studied this stuff extensively both from the psychology and therapeutic sides of the literature. I've even written, critiquing Seneca's On Anger. I'm not operating from some pop understanding here. What disappoints me is the modern popularity of stoicism within certain circles today, because it actually contains some very harmful ideas.

[anechouapechou]

There is no central, certified, Stoicism source. I have read a little bit of Seneca’s work, and it wasn’t for me. Just realize that there are many authors, and even considering the generality of the most famous ones, saying that Stoicism preaches repressing emotions is just categorically false. I’m not interested in going in circles here though. Thank you for the discussion!

[crazygringo]

Nowhere did I claim there was a certified source, nor did I say I was basing anything exclusively off Seneca.

But when you write:

> they seek to agree with what is correct, disagree with what is incorrect

That's the repression part -- the "disagree with what is incorrect". Emotions are not correct or incorrect, they simply are. They are valuable and need to be processed and integrated. If you don't, if you simply conclude that a passion is "incorrect", that is repression. So no, it's not "categorically false".

I hope the discussion has been helpful, whether to you or others here. I've seen stoic philosophy do harm to people, which is why I want people to be aware of how it does not align with current thought on psychological health.