Which is exactly what this article and author is doing.
Sotcism isn't about expressing emotion (cry when appropriate, then stop would be the stoic message, and don't encourage grief in others)
It isn't about red pill philosophy.
It is, as expressed in the classic texts, almost exclusively about not worrying about bad circumstances, such as being exiled, being a cripple or being the ruler of the world but being surrounded by terrible people.
It is probably applicable to every woman and man alive. We all suffer set backs, sadness, mortality and loss.
Throughout history people have tried making it into other things. Fortunately we have the classic texts and they are amazing. My favorite being Senecas letters to his brother.
Self control is not the act of not displaying or feeling one's emotions or drives. Rather it's the act of moderating one's behavior in response to those drives and emotions.
You're basically in agreement with the author.
He may have asserted something like that at some point, but the article contains no cohesive argument to that effect.
It's like trying to find a recipe for cake and finding only cookbook reviews.
But actually a lot of the time, the original sources are the absolute best. In some sense, you can use survivorship bias to your advantage. A book written in the 21st century might be so good that it will be remembered thousands of years from now (the odds are small although nonzero). A book written thousands of years ago, and remembered today, has, by definition, already passed that test.
It covers a wide array of training and topics. And you'd think you'd need an encyclopedia of references aside to understand the day and age of which it spoke. It features extensive religious and political references, yet the weird thing is a book written for royalty around 800 years ago feels oddly familiar. And in reality I found a good deal of the advice and knowledge it shared not only interesting but actually quite useful and wise. It also rather gives proof to the meaning of the tale of Damocles, without in any way intending to do such!
[1 - actual book] - http://www.mediumaevum.com/75years/mirror/index.html
[1 - wiki overview] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konungs_skuggsj%C3%A1
Jesus himself explicitly addresses this, saying: "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight." (Matthew 11:25-26)
And there are places where Jesus seems to explicitly speak to the reader (Matthew 24:15, "Let the reader understand", spoken orally to a presumably baffled group of disciples with no stenographers present), and even to readers of a far more distant future time than today (Matthew 16:28, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.")
See also Deuteronomy 31:21, "And when many troubles and afflictions have come upon them, this song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten from the lips of their descendants". God revealed to Moses that even in the far-flung future when people have strayed far from God, the required context will still be printed on every man's heart.
Stoicism as practiced in antiquity shares a lot with mindfulness and Buddhism. It's about acceptance of the now. And what you can and cannot control. It's not that you aren't allowed to feel, just that you aren't allowed to have your emotion rule your reason.
Bob died. That is sad. You can grieve. But Bob is dead. Nothing is going to change that. Killing yourself so you don't have to live in a world without Bob is not rational. Yelling at someone for asking your a question is not rational. Even if you are sad. You can't control your sadness. But you can control your actions. And your actions should be dictated by reason. Setting up a will that details what happens when you die, that is a rational response to Bob's death. Even if it's informed by sadness. Because his death could have made you realize that you don't have a plan.
But over time, that has been warped into a complete rejection of emotion.
So when we say someone is stoic, that's what we mean, that they're displaying no emotion.
And that's the notion they're arguing against.
My point is what I have found to read about stoicism is either a greatest hits of 200 CE or drawn out rhetoric about the wrongness of the dictionary definition of stoic. In other words, exactly the opposite of your line there, nothing but the shift in meaning.
No one made any mention of why it should be "lack of emotion" rather than the definition from antiquity. It just kind of happened through a multi-generational game of telephone.
I think Stoicism has an overlap with Buddhism and Existentialism in encouraging this type of grounding oneself in the present. Hence its perseverance and revival.
In fact I was going to an appointment yesterday and thinking that I should not worry in the car about what the person I’m meeting is going to ask me. I’ll deal with it when I get there. There’s a Marcus Aurelius quote among those lines: "Let not future things disturb thee, for thou wilt come to them... having with thee the same reason which now thou usest."
You're implementing a nomadic lifestyle? Care to elaborate?
There's this feeling that, your legs are your best friends, whenever something is not good enough, or good anymore, just move, don't think.
People all over the world use mistaken views of complex ideas to justify their shitty behavior. Pop science, pop psychology, pop philosophy, all of it used to justify the stupid things people do. Is it 'important' to recognize this? Sure, I guess, but that isn't going to make those lazy, stupid people any more likely to learn the subject for real. They're just going to pick up a pop version of some other concept, because they don't actually want to better themselves: they want a justification for their shittiness.
I would not consider myself an expert but I think that the original texts are perfectly fine (in a recent translation, of course) and do not really need neither transposing the examples to modern times, nor a lot of interpretation.
They were designed to work for humans, no matter what power they had (i.e. they can be useful to a slave or an emperor, and anything in between) and are pretty pragmatic without any need for elaborate conceptual frameworks.
1. There are 3 types of worries: What we have power over, what we share power over to change, and what we have zero power over. Stress goes down if we use 0 mental energy on group 3, 25% on group 2, and the rest on group 1.
2. Spend a few minutes a day to ponder the fact that one day I'll die. Am I doing everything I can to maximize my time here?
3. Don't push emotions away, but try to understand the triggers behind them. I'm rational anyways so this makes sense to me.
I think people of different beliefs and political backgrounds of course can go different ways w/ some of the teachings for sure... my therapist looked over my notes on stoicism and basically said it's CBT just under a new umbrella.
I'm a progressive, I support equality of wages (to a point) -- everyone should make enough to support a family, and have basic needs met if they put in 40 hours per week. Whether they work at Facebook or McDonald's.
I also have ADD so stoicism is just one part of the many things I focus on so I still have many things in my life 'not' in control, but I have a lot less stress because I worry less about things out of my control. I also have more joy because I realize I'm going to die, and it makes me want to enjoy my kids more cause I don't know when that day will come.
Honestly, I've felt more inspiration, love, hope, and in awe of the universe since I left the Mormon church, than I ever felt in it's grasp. I thank therapy, stoicism, crossfit, and ADD medication for that. Though I need to go back to crossfit --it's been a few months.
The article expends a lot effort repeating this claim, without once citing a source clearly promoting stoicism (with a lower-case "s") as emotional suppression.
What looks like it might fit the bill doesn't:
> Case in point: Canadian writer Jordan Peterson — a man who believes that the patriarchy is Western civilization and claims “the masculine spirit is under assault” and therefore advocates for a return to 1950s gender roles — is often cited as one such truth-telling sage whose writings have been touted as a return to the Stoics.
Despite the reference to Peterson's work (the only specific citation of an alleged "stoic" I could find in the article), there's not one shred of evidence given to support the claim that Peterson specifically advocates suppression of emotion.
I didn't bother to follow the links - maybe it's explained there. But that's not the point. If you're going to say somebody is promoting a harmful approach to life, your duty as a writer is to prove that to the reader. This article doesn't do it.
> Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of philosophy at City College of New York, refutes Vacula’s essay in a different article on the same site, arguing that Vacula’s assessment of Peterson’s writings, which contend that “white privilege is a myth,” is inherently not Stoic. ...
This really deserves an explanation but the essay does little to show the disconnect.
When 'soul searching' for whatever 'real' actually is, it's quite easy to end up in the classics of philosophy and, in one way or another, stoicism.
There is a patriarchal thread to some of this, as Stoicism could be interpreted in a "men's rights" sense of asserting dominion and gender roles. But focusing on "the way things should be" is rather a false way of going about it, since there's also a thread of mutually respecting struggle and self-mastery in the Stoic philosophers. There isn't a point in Stoicism where the status quo ever becomes OK, where you are "good enough". There is only another form of struggle to be had.
They sell me fake world. Then my fake world breaks like a shattered mirror and suddenly I am helpless, feeling pain, depressed, turning towards drugs.
Why I am so unhappy with my life? Because I am not born with exceptionally good looks, I see my girlfriend chasing guy who looks better than me but isn't as successful as me? Should I be happy about it? The girls who come for me, want resources - they fake love well. Suddenly, love disappears if I stop paying bills.
As a man with means, I can choose to take mind altering drug and numb myself down but I choose to handle psychological pain through philosophy and self realization.
I want to accept things as they are. I don't feel wronged, betrayed, I don't hold grudge towards anyone. I accepted the fact, what people are doing around me are doing whatever they want to do, whatever they feel serves their interest. This way of thinking can't be toxic.
The ones I thought I loved, cheated on me with prisoner (life destroyed but looks big and dangerous), another cheated with some banker (huge debts but exceptionally good looks)
For example, I'm sure as hell that if I were a woman, I wouldn't date Steve Jobs. He had tons of signs of a terrible person, and even when speaking in terms of my own self-interest I would have no guarantee that he wouldn't cheat on me or dump me at his earliest convenience.
If money is no problem and you've correctly narrowed your problems down to your looks (here's where you might be wrong), plastic surgery is very effective.
I am in A++ health, won't risk it for any surgery.
It has spread fairly organically because it's not a bad starting point for a philosophy of life. I was introduced to the concept through Tim Ferris' podcast. He suggested as "a good default OS for your mind". I was having some personal difficulties at the time, and it really helped.
It also tends to slot in quite well alongside mindfulness practices, which have also become popular lately.
Since I wasn't trying extra-hard to win and keep her as I had in previous relationships I think it allowed us to find the places where our interests truly overlapped and allowed us a much deeper connection. I ended up having two kids with her and we get along and work together great. She's more attractive than me and makes more money, so what I offer her is not superficial, but I don't know that she would have discovered that in me if I had been trying hard to amplify those superficial attributes.
So I think there is something to be said for pulling back a bit on pulling out the chairs and paying all the bills but not for the same reasons you seem to think so. Also, I think many women are rightly cautious about a potential mate who seems to be trying too hard.
Actually I never tried too hard because I see trying to hard as not respecting yourself enough.
Funny enough, I also found my current wife after turning stoic.
Here’s a white pill for you. Make an effort for the opposite sex, because they’re people, but still maintain no expectation that you’ll get anything in return. This is the next layer of the onion for you to peel back.
You need to deal with the issues you have, you cannot simply wish them gone. If you don’t deal with it, you will definitely carry it with you way longer then you should. It will prohibit you getting into meaningful relationships with others.
Part of mindfulness and stoicism is also accepting that your mental model doesn’t contain the whole truth of the universe, and to accept there are certain areas that you could be wrong.
Stay strong, and it’s good to read that you are working on yourself and learning.
My wife is a psychologist. She is always interested in listening to me, and I've told her whatever I think and she's ok with that.
I don't think I've some issues. There were some women who told me I am exceptionally handsome, they stay with me for sometime - then I found them cheating. Some were with me for money. And my wife so far is the only person who isn't like any of the ones I met in past, so there is some hope. But I also told her, I assume that one day you'll cheat on me too.
I don't think they've wronged me or anything. I don't hold grudge against women, it's just I realize their nature and have made peace with it. Ofc, all my conclusions come from my own observation. If you did not have such major setbacks in life, I am happy for you.
Thing is, you think I am rejected by women - so I am bitter.
But reality is far from it. I've friend's girlfriend hitting on me, provoking me to cheat with them on their boyfriends. I've married women at office coming to me to again cheat on their husbands. Then the ones I loved, cheated on me and left me. I've so many opportunities to sleep with women that I think there are no feelings involved in anything when it comes to them and they just like tingles and money.
> the world is gynocentric
Strange claim. How would anyone objectively refute that? How would you realistically prove it? It sounds along the lines of "everyone does everything to be remembered" or "your fate is written in the stars - you just can't read it."
> Stoicism, is red pill philosophy
That sounds like "Christianity is a Brazilian religion." It's true that some red pillers claim to be into it, but it's not an informative or precise way to frame it. Especially since women can be and are stoics too. (In fact, given their status in many countries I'd bet there are more "true Scotsman" stoic women than men!)
> "now opposite sex which is used to receiving nice things from me"
As long as you aren't introducing harm into their lives or refusing to view them as people that experience harm (both of which I'm assuming to be true) - I'm betting the vast majority of women would be totally fine with your stoicism. (And would prefer it to a lot of the alternatives.)
> You can use this philosophy to shield you from anything and everything
I think I get what you're going for, but to be clear for others - stoicism isn't about sticking your head in the sand. You can endure something and change it at the same time, it's about how you bear the thing before you've changed it and how you handle it when you don't succeed in changing things. Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor! Not a "sidelines" kinda dude ya know?
At the end of the day though, if you're getting something out stoicism that has improved your life then you have every right to claim and embrace that. It's not like Seneca's running around suing people for defamation and it's not like I've ever met the guy to really know what was in his head...
When I used to work for someone, I refused advance of a coworker and she got me fired. Some people can't handle that I do not acknowledge their existence, I do not make them feel important, I do not give them attention.
It might be, if it dominates your reasoning and view of the world.
It might be that what you are looking for is not the ability to refuse to open the door for a woman, but to being able to do so without a second thought.
I was around long before the internet, and I can promise you that so-called neostoicism was alive and well long before the internet was an idea, much less technically possible.
You wouldn't think ignoring all articles that start with "I learned how to masturbate..." would be a sound or rationally supportable screening method, and yet...
I have no idea what Jordan Peterson says, but the dipshit who wrote this is probably mistaken about that as well.
The author should concentrate on his strengths; writing articles on whether or not it is appropriate to wash your hands after jerking off. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/should-you-wash-your-han...
TFA quoting JBP: "patriarchy is Western civilization"
Actual JBP quote: "...the really, real radicals on the left who are opposed to the patriarchy - the patriarchy is western civilization make no mistake about it - patriarchy is just a code word for that - and governed by their neo marxist dogma and postmodern dogma they believe that it needs to be retooled right from the bottom up and that's exactly what they're doing and that makes them natural allies I would say of any other system that opposes our system"
I.e. not "western civilization exists because of patriarchy" but "when they say patriarchy they mean all of western civilization".
"First you said women didn't have a voice. Then you said men did most of the talking. Make up your mind!"
Christianity and monarchism are elements of Western civilization, and both patriarchal. Nothing has to be traced.
“Western civilisation” is a weasel concept, meaning different things to different people at different times. You have to pin it down. “Western Civilisation” naturally must include Donald Trump, Karl Marx, and Andrea Dworkin. Their ideologies do not cohere at all.
When they say the patriarchy they mean the patriarchy. When I say I’m opposed to patriarchy I mean I’m opposed to patriarchy. Oh, I’m actually opposed to “Western Civilisation”? Wtf does that even mean?
Marx And Dworkin, at least (and I think the case could be made for Trump, too) were dissenters against what they saw as dominant in their society, so even if we accept that their society must be identical to the whole scope of “Western Civilization”, the fact that they don't, along with Trump, have a single cohesive viewpoint doesn't in any way contradict the idea of Western Civilization as a coherent concept. (In fact, I don't think any of the three would disagree with the idea that patriarchy is deeply embedded in Western Civilization; Dworkin clearly saw that as a problem, Marx & Engels in passing discusses it as an effect of capitalism in the Communist Manifesto, and it seems to be one of the points on which Trump, even if a dissenter in other areas, is quite enamored with about his social milieu.)
Trump and Dworkin are key parts of Western Civilisation, and I think it's undebatable that their ideology and theory do not cohere.
For Peterson 'Western Civilisation' clearly entails a very specific account of the role of certain people in developing our notions of things like liberty, empiricism, and individualism. Others are free to invoke in their idea of 'Western Civilisation' the role of certain people in practicing slavery, genocide, and colonialism.
Not that this article gets stoicism right either.