nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is stoicism a good way to live?

completedit

A lot is made about stoicism and it has a sense of nobility about it. Standing up and dusting yourself down no matter what. Facing things as they are and just embracing them. However, when you change stoicism to "stiff upper lip" it becomes a little less dignified. I associate it with a passivity and a lack of emotion when what makes us human is our very emotions. I think with all things in life, everything in equal measure. Stoicism is suitable in some scenarios and in response to some events but is found wanting in others.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kintarō Hattori

To quote:

According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to eudaimonia (happiness, or blessedness) is found in accepting the moment as it presents itself, by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or by the fear of pain, by using one's mind to understand the world and to do one's part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly.

Sounds alright to me.

suicide_circus

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Sounds alright to me.

Me also. It is however very much out of fashion currently.

Mad_maxx

its a tremendous trait to aspire to , one that is becoming both rare and worse vilified

Thelonious Monk

Yes it's great, we should aspire to live this way. Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, the Godfather of Stoicism, is a good book to have in your collection.

begbysback

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbgpjcf-i8I

I see sheep

It's class. :cool:

chrissb8

Stoicism for me harmful when you convince yourself that any overtures of emotion in light of moments which warrant or need it is a weakness. That you are letting yourself be a slave to the moment and "getting carried away" or in colloquial terms "being dramatic" or "moany" in some circumstances.

I think a mixture of being Stoic within the right contexts is a brilliant thing but to deny a moment within yourself, feeling it that is, is a terrible thing and detrimental mentally in the long run. No one source should be drawn from to strongly anyway, it takes a mixture to find a balance. That means being able to cry when you need to for example.

[Deleted User]

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

To quote:

Sounds alright to me.

It's awfully Communist

[Deleted User]

It didn't really work out too well for Cato.

[Deleted User]

I think anything taken to extremes is negative. I've looked into the area of stoicism, and I've found a wide range of habits and philosophy that I've adapted to my lifestyle, and it's helped a lot.

I think people want a manual to life that they can follow exactly, and it'll just be perfect. Stoicism isn't that.. considering the world we live in, and the manner of the lives we lead. Still, it's definitely worth a few hours research, and some serious consideration.

Pasteur.

Ward J. Littell wrote: »

It didn't really work out too well for Cato.

Who's he

pavb2

Cato was Burt Kwouk, most famous for the Pink Panther films

Church on Tuesday

It's an essential trait to have and there's a lot to be said for it.

Of course, it mostly falls under the disgusting misnomer label of Toxic Masculinity these days.

Smee_Again

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Of course, it mostly falls under the disgusting misnomer label of Toxic Masculinity these days.

Not sure I'd agree with that, equating stoicism with masculinity and expecting men to be stoic would fall under toxic masculinity but a man being stoic is not necessarily an example of toxic masculinity.

Pasteur.

Smee_Again wrote: »

Not sure I'd agree with that, equating stoicism with masculinity and expecting men to be stoic would fall under toxic masculinity but a man being stoic is not necessarily an example of toxic masculinity.

They seem unrelated to me

Church on Tuesday

Smee_Again wrote: »

Not sure I'd agree with that, equating stoicism with masculinity and expecting men to be stoic would fall under toxic masculinity but a man being stoic is not necessarily an example of toxic masculinity.

Of course not, that's my point, it's seen by some as a negative trait regardless.

Smee_Again

Pasteur. wrote: »

They seem unrelated to me

Stoicism and masculinity? Yes, I agree which is why equating the 2 is an example of toxic masculinity.

Stoicism itself is not however.

CountNjord

Been practicing Stoicism for the last 10 year's because I was as bit of a lefty, liberal, cuck and over sensitive.

So in 2010 being a liberal because I was looking up to these narcissistic spiritual loons who were walking contradictions, it nearly sucked the soul out of me.

So I started researching Marcus Aurelius and stoicism, it brought me away from the woke crowd and freak's.
So I began a journey, it's much easier to be Stoic while you're a single independent guy or woman.

Anyhow I really hated liberals, SJWs and the woke crowd, because they're a shower of knobs.
Lacked loyalty, had no problems sleeping around behind partners backs, and justifying bad behaviour.

I knew I didn't fit in with liberals and SJWs, so a few friends of mine who were non liberal bohemians suggested that Stoicism might be for me.

It took a while to get an empathetic balance and drop the sensitivity and outrage over what the SJWs and liberals tried to instill in the group mentality.

I'm thankful for these people who introduced me to Stoicism and get away from the dirty liberal lefty types.

I'm no longer motivated by politics or sociology, I just see the good in situations, and anything that's potentially dangerous or has the possibility of stress and anxiety I steer clear of it.

Keeping all the ducks in a row, don't say stupid things and think about the thought, action and ramifications if it goes against me.
So always think three layer's of possibilities.

I do hope my post doesn't trigger anyone,it's not my intention.

El_Duderino 09

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

It's an essential trait to have and there's a lot to be said for it.

Of course, it mostly falls under the disgusting misnomer label of Toxic Masculinity these days.

The conflation of stoicism with “stiff upper lip”, “man/nut/buck-up, and generally suppressing emotions, (which you’ve just demonstrated) is very much a negative trait and not a path to successfully dealing with the ups and downs of life.

Stoicism isn’t about denying or suppressing emotions, it’s about acknowledging them and dealing with them so you control how you feel and behave rather than emotions controlling you.

Feel free to conflate it with negative traits associated with men’s behaviour if you want, but I don’t think it’s a sensible thing to do.

Rasputin11

Pasteur. wrote: »

Who's he

Think he was a pal of OJ Simpson back in the mid 90s.

Dr. Colossus

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes it's great, we should aspire to live this way. Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, the Godfather of Stoicism, is a good book to have in your collection.

It's easy to be stoic when you command 30 legions.

Smee_Again

CountNjord wrote: »

Been practicing Stoicism for the last 10 year's because I was as bit of a lefty, liberal, cuck and over sensitive.

So in 2010 being a liberal because I was looking up to these narcissistic spiritual loons who were walking contradictions, it nearly sucked the soul out of me.

So I started researching Marcus Aurelius and stoicism, it brought me away from the woke crowd and freak's.
So I began a journey, it's much easier to be Stoic while you're a single independent guy or woman.

Anyhow I really hated liberals, SJWs and the woke crowd, because they're a shower of knobs.
Lacked loyalty, had no problems sleeping around behind partners backs, and justifying bad behaviour.

I knew I didn't fit in with liberals and SJWs, so a few friends of mine who were non liberal bohemians suggested that Stoicism might be for me.

It took a while to get an empathetic balance and drop the sensitivity and outrage over what the SJWs and liberals tried to instill in the group mentality.

I'm thankful for these people who introduced me to Stoicism and get away from the dirty liberal lefty types.

I'm no longer motivated by politics or sociology, I just see the good in situations, and anything that's potentially dangerous or has the possibility of stress and anxiety I steer clear of it.

Keeping all the ducks in a row, don't say stupid things and think about the thought, action and ramifications if it goes against me.
So always think three layer's of possibilities.

I do hope my post doesn't trigger anyone,it's not my intention.

I don’t think it’s working for you.

McGinniesta

Only if you are stoic by nature.

No harm in expressing pleasure or pain though if that's how you are.

CountNjord

Smee_Again wrote: »

I don’t think it’s working for you.

Well obviously you're unable to quantify the difference between the past and present, nice try and I'm glad you got some validation from your response.

A few more thanks wouldn't go astray sweetheart...

Gregor Samsa

Of course there's virtues in stoicism, but too much of anything isn't good for you.

However, you can see the appeal of strict, fundamentalist stoicism to the incel crowd. The world is against them, there's mysterious, nefarious forces at work that are keeping them down, holding them back from their rightful successes. It's never their fault, and they can't deal with it. So they turn inward and claim to be drawing from a reservoir of self-reliance, when really they just haven't developed the emotional maturity to deal with life. But, sad and all as it is, maybe it's better than the alternatives for them.

RobertKK

I live by 'things always sort themselves out eventually' which is being stoic in a way.
We can work to make things in life a little easier on ourselves, and understanding oneself, we all have the ability to change and make things better or worse for ourselves and others around us and stoicism in these situations come from an understanding rather than an inner coldness.

I remember as a teenage one night thinking in bed as I tried to get asleep that one day my parents would be dead, I did shed a tear that night at the time.
When the time came and they did die, I was desperately sad but I was not able to cry, I felt relief for them as they had been unwell, it was not being stoic but might have appeared that way.
I was brought up being told that whether one is alive or dead, life goes on. Some think they alone can do some job, but if they die they get replaced and its how it has been for always.

It is ok to be emotional and not stoic, but everyone needs to move on at some stage as life is not waiting for any of us and that is where some stoicism is needed when it comes to decisions in life.
One has to dust themselves down and move on as best as one can.

[Deleted User]

I don't know enough about stoicism to make a fair comment. I strongly believe though in feeling our emotions rather than suppressing them and carrying on as if all is well. Our emotions aren't to be feared. If we have sadness inside then look at it, explore it, don't pretend it's not there. Think of all the ways we dismiss our feelings and experiences, little phrases like "it will be grand" "anyway" etc.

I also believe in our ability to thrive and overcome. We do have a choice. X and Y happened to you and it was awful but it doesn't have to define you. Work through the trauma and live your life. So many people are enslaved by old wounds and narratives.

It is possible to acknowledge our feelings and hurts, understand them and move on. Keeping yourself stuck in your pain, while seductive for some, is, for want of a better word, masochistic.

El_Duderino 09

CountNjord wrote: »

Well obviously you're unable to quantify the difference between the past and present, nice try and I'm glad you got some validation from your response.

A few more thanks wouldn't go astray sweetheart...

I can’t help thinking that’s not a very stoical response. Your clearly not over the left, the leftys, the cucks, the woke, the disloyal, narcissists, the promiscuous the knobs, the dirty liberal leftys, the SJWs etc. You’re couching it as though you’re over all this stuff but in reality it was just a statement of how cross you are with the left. Stoicism is probably not about passive aggression.

Church on Tuesday

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The conflation of stoicism with “stiff upper lip”, “man/nut/buck-up, and generally suppressing emotions, (which you’ve just demonstrated) is very much a negative trait and not a path to successfully dealing with the ups and downs of life.

Stoicism isn’t about denying or suppressing emotions, it’s about acknowledging them and dealing with them so you control how you feel and behave rather than emotions controlling you.

Feel free to conflate it with negative traits associated with men’s behaviour if you want, but I don’t think it’s a sensible thing to do.

I literally said nothing of the sort.

You must be wearing your shades indoors again, take them off and read my post again.

[Deleted User]

I'm a big believer in just getting on with things if you've no way of changing a situation. Sometimes you have to walk through, not around, situations and just play the hand being dealt.

I also believe there's nothing wrong with having feelings or sometimes struggling to cope if you're overwhelmed. There's no inherent superiority in a stiff upper lip, neither is there any in allowing yourself to indulge in negative emotions.

Most people experience both paths at different points in their lives, it's only human.