[peepee1982]

Similarly, the Western idea of Stoicism seems to focus mostly on controlling or even suppressing your emotions (at least on surface level), while the Stoicism you rightly call "Roman" (thanks for that, btw) is much more holistic and more of an ethical framework.

[jdw64]

Thank you for letting me know correctly.

[oliculipolicula]

Greek Stoicism (no quotes) is more positive.

  ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἀνὴρ [ἀδιάπτωτος καὶ] ἀδιάσειστος

  The good man (agathos aner, man who acts for the benefit of others) is [infallible and] unshakeable.

--Epictetus, whose name sounds "Roman", just like "Stoa" doesn't

This can be (plausibly) used to describe Sam Altman, for example

[slater]

Sam Altman is a good man...?

[oliculipolicula]

Does he not act for the benefit of shareholders (in the best possible future, at least)

Rate-limited edit: my (evasive?) answer was that Stoics were careful enough not to use the word "good", but the more subtle, one might accuse utilitarian, "agathos" in that scenario

Should I interest you in the needle's eye left for cybernetic* shareholders?

*Neither fully machine, nor fully human, nor even monolithic, but definitely no camel, bc camel, unlike horse, can survive anywhere and were once native to the USA (arguably)

[slater]

I don't know, I asked if he's a good man

[johndhi]

Who doesn't call stoicism Roman?

[josephg]

The idea that "being stoic" means to be emotionless isn't a roman idea. Its a modern one.

[smath]

I believe that is correct. Part of the problem is that similar words in different languages are actually not quite identical. “Not having emotions” is not quite the essence of stoicism: I understand it to be “avoiding highs and lows - being equipoised by recognizing what is and isn’t under our control”. A very closely related idea is proposed in the Bhagawad Gita.

[josephg]

I don’t believe that that follows. Understanding what is and isn’t under our control doesn’t remove life’s joys or life’s sorrows. Stoicism helps save you from some unnecessary suffering. But it doesn’t numb you to life. Or prevent you from grieving a loved one.

[Stefan-H]

You might need to inspect the etymology of that word and take a look at where the concept is rooted.

[josephg]

I assume you’re snipping about stoicism being Greek not Roman? I’d appreciate if you just say what you mean. I’m not your student. I’m not accepting homework assignments from a random internet commenter.

[Stefan-H]

No, my apologies, I actually mis-attributed the etymology of stoic to a group that did identify with reduced emotionality, but yes, out of Greece. That’s not how the snipe was intended.

[lelanthran]

> Who doesn't call stoicism Roman?

The Greeks?

[BigGreenJorts]

Most pop stoics focus on the Greeks :P

[moojacob]

Stoicism in Ancient Rome was COMPLETELY about controlling your emotions, though. And in Greece it was never that big of a deal. The stoics we remember today are all Roman. Marcus Aurelius, Epicurious, Seneca.

Meditations is largely Marcus Aurelius soothing himself with logical arguments.

Im not doing it full justice but the passages read like “A whole is not less than its parts, Humans are intelligent, therefore the universe is intelligent, there for my situation is a logical plan from the universe, so I should be content.” Marcus was explaining why he needed to be the perfect elite Roman citizen, using nature to logically show why he needed to embody societally cherished traits like being logical, just, fair, but also being stern, powerful and strong. Over and over again.

Now at the time, they did consider it a hard science. They were trying to figure out secrets of the universe, the absolute correct ethics, and therapy (controlling your emotions) at the same time. Each tenet relied on eachother, you couldn’t have one with the other. Today we know the science was wrong and ethics are more complicated than they could’ve imagined, but the controlling emotions side remains. So I completely disagree that modern stoic bros are bastardizing it, it just is an flawed ideology that matches well with some of our modern western traits of a “masculine” man.

[michaelchisari]

It was about controlling actions not emotions.

The stoics cried, they laughed, they expressed joy, they were by all accounts emotionally expressive.

The control was about what actions were to be taken in the face of those emotions and other considerations, not suppressing or controlling the emotions themselves.

It's not a small distinction.

[zoogeny]

> Stoicism in Ancient Rome was COMPLETELY about controlling your emotions,

This is so false it deserves comment. For example, the SEP for Stoicism [1]. You'll notice that the first entire two sections are Physical Theory and Logic. Ethics comes later and it isn't until 4.3 (after Telos and Virtue) that you get to indifference. From the intro:

"Stoic philosophy was, from Zeno onwards, conceived of as comprising three parts: physics (phusikê), logic (logikê), and ethics (êthikê)."

I think you are over-indexing on one work by one Stoic. There is much, much more to actual Stoicism than "controlling your emotions".

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

[moojacob]

I only read Meditations. So yes, if he is not representative of the philosophy I have bastardized it.

Although, I am convinced Marcus Aurelius used Stoicism as a tool to control his emotions. Meditations reminded me of cognitive behavioral therapy. Repetitive soothing phrases to induce equanimity.