[Aurornis]

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.

[zozbot234]

Proper Stoicism is not about dodging your emotions, it's very much about dodging the adverse behavioral effects of your emotions. You're encouraged to work through your emotions proactively and in depth (the Stoics encouraged askesis which literally means 'training' or 'exercise') so that they don't adversely affect you and others down the road. Of course, you should also learn how to counter these effects in the moment, which often involves temporarily repressing and "bottling up" disagreeable emotions, such as anger. But there's really no expectation in the sources that this will suffice long term.

[Aurornis]

> Proper Stoicism is not about dodging your emotions, it's very much about dodging the adverse behavioral effects of your emotions.

I’m not disagreeing with this. I understand classic stoicism, but I’ve also seen the effects of modern pseudo-stoicism as pushed by influencers and social media.

Focusing on stoicism and trying to dodge the effects of your emotions is a reasonable strategy for someone who is truly stuck in a situation, like the prisoners or warriors cited in the article.

But it becomes a self-defeating action when the situation you’re dealing with is something that should be addressed or changed rather than dealing with it like you’re a prisoner and helpless victim. The common example is someone in a toxic job who is furiously consuming stoicism social media and trying to act stoic in the face of a job they hate instead of using that energy to apply for another job.

[zozbot234]

ISTM that improving one's emotional self-regulation is an excellent first-line response to being in what seems to be a toxic job. It may be that leaving that job and applying for another is still the right thing to do, all things considered, but we cannot know for sure unless we are in that situation ourselves and can de-stress enough to do a proper evaluation of it.

[Aurornis]

I agree that improving emotional regulation is a first step to building up the energy to change a situation.

My issue with modern internet style pseudo-stoicism is that it's fixated on becoming indifferent (the title of this article, even) and breeds a sort of learned helplessness. The article's sub-heading is about prisoners and warriors, but using techniques optimized for being a prisoner or stuck in a war isn't quite right for someone navigating a toxic relationship or toxic job where you're not actually entirely helpless.

[lazide]

The best emotion to change a situation (though you might not like the change!) is anger.

Indifference is the best emotion to stay in a situation.

[andsoitis]

It isn’t the fault of an ancient philosophy that modern humans twist it into superficial slob.

It certainly isn’t an indictment against Stoicism.

[Aurornis]

> It isn’t the fault of an ancient philosophy

As I said, I’m talking about the article and the pseudo-stoicism pushed on social media

[abandonliberty]

I'd recommend something like Breakfast with Seneca. It's an awesome read, and should hopefully help to differentiate the philosophy or school of stoicism and whatever we have now.

We're still human, and the collaborative problem solving the ancients did still applies today. That much of the concepts survived and maintained relevance from ancient Greece, to Rome, to now lends them a certain 'time tested' quality.

[raffael_de]

another example are soldiers who adapted to war and have to reintegrate back into society.

[HPsquared]

Indeed, one exercise is negative visualization. Think about the worst thing that can happen in other words, simulate the feelings and mentally rehearse a measured response.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

It's learning to not burden yourself with things you cannot control.

[Aurornis]

When applied indiscriminately as a fix-all philosophy, it treats everything as something you cannot control.

That's the problem.

[DebtDeflation]

>these modern social media and influencer versions of Stoicism feel like something else entirely

Yes, the pop philosophy folks tend to confuse Stoicism with Spartanism, just like they confuse Epicureanism with Hedonism. It also helps to have a basic understanding of ancient Aretaic (Virtue) Ethics and the context in which some of these works were written (e.g., was one work or school of thought developed in response to some other one that preceded it).

As always, it's best to read the original works, and in the case of the Stoics (Epictetus, Aurelius, Seneca) they're really not difficult reads assuming a decent modern translation.

Also stay away from the manosphere influencers who peddle the weird self help stuff you allude to, whether under the guise of Stoicism or anything else.

[rendaw]

What's the difference between Epicureanism and Hedonism?

[laserlight]

Epicureanism is sustainable hedonism.

[iamnothere]

Sustainable and importantly ethical.

[oooyay]

I'm not even sure you've nailed "classic" stoicism. More than a few stoics have related stoicism to normalizing your reaction to something that happens to you as if it happened to someone else. It implies maintaining a perspective that the world just does and that it's largely impersonal.

[jvanderbot]

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]

> 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.

[matwood]

The average young person probably does nothing at all. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Some percentage of people will come to Stoicism via an influencer and continue to dig.

[Aurornis]

> Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

But it's not a choice between good or perfect. The internet style stoicism becomes a sort of learned helplessness for people who skim articles and think it means you should assume everything is out of your control and instead focus on ignoring your emotions.

[baseballdork]

The contention is with "good". Is it good to have a bunch of people becoming emotionally stunted in case a handful dig further? Presumably there were people moved to stoicism prior to the current influencer trend, is that not good enough?

[Jblx2]

>a bunch of people becoming emotionally stunted

Do we have data that estimates how often people regress to become emotionally stunted from any cause (Stoicism, other philosophical readings, alcohol/drug abuse, Alzehimer's/other neurodegenerative conditions)?

https://www.google.com/search?q=emotionally+stunted

[jvanderbot]

That depends on how much credit you give to the average person. In this climate, probably a small amount, but I think the stoics would say that we should not judge them if they're not ready to hear the msg, but be glad they heard it and hope it settles in later.

[raffael_de]

Very well put. I'd add the psychological concept of dissociation which seems to be central to the hackernews version of stoicism. Instead of connecting to your emotions it encourages pushing them down. That's just going to postpone the moment when you have to deal with them. Either because of psychosomatic illness, depression, burn out or mental breakdown. Attempting to influence, change, control feelings/emotions by rational concepts and thinking is doomed to fail. Emotions are on a lower level than verbal and logical mental processes.

[tsunamifury]

As someone who has run multiple “empire tier” tech platforms, I’ve learned personally why you tend to develop this mindset.

This brand of stoicism you refer to is high order “cope” with your emotional self telling you it is wrong.

[b00ty4breakfast]

it's Broicism; Modern self-help for dudes that think enjoying sex is feminine and washing your bung is homoerotic. The primary consumer is unlikely to read the entirety of The Meditations and prefers short, punchy aphorisms they can memorize.

[komali2]

Yes, exactly what I've been thinking about. I remember a conversation I had here a few years back where a few of us were sharing how growing up on forums like 4chan had implanted in us a deep nihilism and cynicism, and how that was being mistaken for stoicism, when really it's just being emotionally stunted.

I've been thinking about this modern idea of stoicism along the same lines you've written here. Basically it seems like a lot of self help is directed towards this idea of regulating and controlling yourself, often by trying to overcome our inherent flaws as humans, which I don't necessarily disagree with. However, take for example this from the article:

> has given the name ‘negative visualisation’. By keeping the very worst that can happen in our heads constantly, the Stoics tell us, we immunise ourselves from the dangers of too much so-called ‘positive thinking’, a product of the mind that believes a realistic accounting of the world can lead only to despair. Only by envisioning the bad can we truly appreciate the good; gratitude does not arrive when we take things for granted.

This is fighting an uphill battle. Rather than work against our own psychology, it seems to me that the better thing to do is to leverage our irrationality to great affect, which is what positive thinking and self actualization does. "Fake it til you make it" genuinely does work.

I'm starting to feel like the better path to take is the one that fully acknowledges and embraces all of our sloppiness. I've been doing this with my ADHD: rather than trying to leverage system upon system to normalize my behavior, I've tried giving up on that entirely and instead focusing more on directing things like hyperfocus in productive directions. I've been trying to put aside this lie I've been telling myself that I can be some strong independent man forging his own path, and spending lots of time with people, asking people lots of questions instead of going home to read on my own. Rather than try to master my willpower when it came to weight loss, I accepted my weakness and threw away all the snacks in the house.

I think stoicism still has its place in attempting to prevent e.g. self harming behavior in response to e.g. anger or depression (blowing up on someone for example), but I feel lately like it's a pointless lie to pretend we can go through life without letting other people affect our emotions; or if not a lie, then that to try to do so cuts us off from an absolutely critical aspect of human existence.

[zozbot234]

> I think stoicism still has its place in attempting to prevent e.g. self harming behavior ...

Stoic sources actually state explicitly that Stoic ethics is all about preventing "self-harming behavior" arising from our emotions. They just have a much more expansive definition of what's "self-harming" than modern society does! Raw emotional responses are seen as mere facts of nature that cannot be meaningfully avoided and repressed, but they can still be subjected to reasonable judgment, and then accepted or critiqued. The common modern idea that Stoicism is merely about emotional repression and a totally "unemotional" stance is quite a misconception.

[komali2]

> The common modern idea that Stoicism is merely about emotional repression and a totally "unemotional" stance is quite a misconception.

Honestly, I blame Mr. Spock. Another thought I've been chewing on is emotional repression from a certain crowd of people who grew up as socially isolated nerds and / or autists that identified strongly with what they perceived as hyper rational characters like Spock. Sprinkle in high technology and the fact that these characters succeed at things nerds love and you get hero worship and emulation. Then add in all the masculine marketing we get from "stoic" characters like the dude from Drive to get another layer to the equation.

[6stringmerc]

As an actual prisoner in solitary confinement, the principles of stoic acceptance helped me a lot. Control is a powerful myth. It is stunning once it is taken away.

>Stoicism is, as much as anything, a philosophy of gratitude – and a gratitude, moreover, rugged enough to endure anything.

[parpfish]

this thread seems to be filled with a lot of folks that have read and understood actual stoicism but are unaware of the fact that a "pop stoicism" exists out in the world.

this leads to a lot of people talking past each other.

[Isamu]

People invoke Marcus Aurelius but are not really engaged in the classical study of Greek stoicism, they read into it what they want to see. It’s a lazy justification for what you already want. Any “epiphany” that comes from that is self serving, cloaked in moralistic terms.

[throw4847285]

This is one of those rare cases where I believe young men would benefit from reading more Nietzsche.

"Do you want to live 'according to nature'? O you noble Stoics, what a verbal swindle! Imagine a being like nature - extravagant without limit, indifferent without limit, without purposes and consideration, without pity and justice, simultaneously fruitful, desolate, and unknown - imagine this indifference itself as a power - how could you live in accordance with this indifference? Living - isn't that precisely a will to be something different from what this nature is? Isn't living appraising, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different?"

[willmarch]

This just shows that Nietzsche did not understand stoicism on any deep level

[bigbadfeline]

Nietzsche never cared about understanding of anything, he had an agenda, a mission to fulfill. His arguments are always shallow and shifty - the quote provided by throw4847285 is a good illustration of it.

With that said, my words aren't an endorsement of Stoicism, nor am I against it - I know little about it because I don't think it addresses my specific needs.

[recursive]

If that's true, then what hope does anyone else have?

[svat]

This is quoted (and addressed) near the beginning of the article (paragraphs 3 to 6), for what it's worth.

[throw4847285]

Well that's what I get for commenting before reading the article. A nasty habit.

Well now that I've read that part of the article, I can say that it's a pretty lame retort.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Sounds Socratic rather than taking a position

[poulpy123]

What ? You don't want to read a book by a total rando about how stoicism will transform you into an alpha male in 30 days and with a gen ai cover of a Greek warrior from 300 ?

[eudamoniac]

Right, they're barely related ideologies. If someone took up "Christianity" based on popular Reddit conception of what it is, getting their information via YouTube or whatever, it's going to be something very distant from Christianity. It's unfortunate they have seized the public understanding of the term.

[timeattack]

While I agree with your whole take, there is one point that triggered me.

What most¹ people don't get when they say "just learn to deal with your emotions" is that some of us "feel" emotions way more strongly than others. For me personally emotions are pain, far more stronger than actual physical pain is. Both unpleasant ones and pleasant ones. While I've learned to "deal" with it as I grew older, it's not a walk in a park, cost me solid chunk of my mental energy and that's what I need to do every fucking day.

Most people would say "but hey, that's what makes life worth living!". Not for me, I would rather prefer not to feel anything at all than to be subjected to a constant never-ending roller-coaster I can't get off² from. If walking past sick stray animal would maybe cause you³ a slight discomfort, for me would be excruciating feeling in my chest which I can either suppress (and live with the choice for the rest of my life) or drop whatever I was doing to try to help (and to subject myself to more pain in the process). There is no win for me here.

And yes, I've tried many-many things under the Sun, the truth is that I was just born this way. And I'm not alone like that. So telling to "just deal" with emotions is not helpful.

___

¹⁾ I'm not saying you don't, just bear with me for a moment.

²⁾ In both senses.

³⁾ Not you specifically.