Political power. Once you're able to label anything you dislike as "triggering", "non-inclusive", "toxic", "unsafe", etc. then you can squash any opposition by emotionally overreacting. Cry bullying in a nutshell.
This has been insanely effective. Everyone was walking on eggshells around these passive aggressive cry bullies up until just recently. People are starting to see through the BS and the power dynamic is shifting.
Toxic dudebros use stoicism as a cloak to excuse their assholery.
One aspect of stoicism that they ignore is that, at its core, stoicism is about being patient, forgiving, and kind. They throw that in the trash and only implement the "IDGAF" bits like Christians who recite chapter and verse the parts about hating on gay people while ignoring the parts above and below those that say not to do other things that they do every day. edit: another aspect they ignore is malleability.
A practicing stoic should immediately shift their views on something regardless of their previous position when presented with compelling arguments-- without resentment or attachment. If a stoic was taught and grew up believing "A" and then an expert presents evidence that "B" is correct, said stoic should purge "A" from their minds regardless of external pressure-- even if it means looking like a hypocrite, a fool, someone who has wasted their time/effort, or if it deviates them from the local norm.
YouTube stoics... don't do that.
More words on stoicism were written by its inventors about attachment than any other topic.
Many (most of the most popular) pop-stoics are poster children for the vain, wealth-obsessed (cryptobro connection), cigar smoking, lambo driving (renting to show off), hyper-attached Andrew Tate archetype.
Stoicism:
>The measure of possession is to every man the body, as the foot is of the shoe. If then you stand on this rule , you will maintain the measure: but if you pass beyond it, you must then of necessity be hurried as it were down a precipice. As also in the matter of the shoe, if you go beyond the foot, the shoe is gilded, then of a purple colour, then embroidered: for there is no limit to that which has once passed the true measure.
Pop-stocism: All those ripped dudes with abs who fuck bitches and drive lambos? THEY'RE STOICS! Ignore SOCIETY when they tell you STOICSM is TOXIC.
Every time a stoic ridicules a man for crying I want to attach my boot to their face.
also: a stoic doesn't care if someone points out the irrefutable and easily demonstrable fact that their philosophy is associated with bad actors, nor does he or she resent that. They accept it.
That’s largely just the brand of Buddhism that’s gotten the most bandwidth in the west. Historically some variants were exceptionally violent. Feudal Japan had entire sects of Buddhist warrior-monks they accepted and even celebrated violence. A modern example of followers of Buddhism engaged in violent conflict is myanmar’s 969.
That is the exception not the norm though. Non violence is one of the strongest tenets of Buddhism.
Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching.
— Kakacūpama Sutta, Majjhima-Nikāya 28 at MN i 128-29
So it is quite hard for the red pill movement to co opt Buddhism and thank goodness for that.
If the individual accepts the “Western” brand of Buddhism which is non-violent, they are absolutely correct in their statement. Buddhism, historically or actively in other sects do not impact how a Western individual practices their form of Buddhism.
If we can accept the sects of Christianity and they have different viewpoints, etc. without the whataboutism, we need to do the same and stop this with “Western” Buddhism, as well.
passion is spending an inordinate amount of your time practicing something because you love it rather than strictly to get a J.O.B.
Think of it this way, you can quietly defend your children. That you're not screaming does not make you love them less, you can be no less adamant on the defense without being loud.
To me, empathy is required to be a good stoic. Empathy helps guide ethical decision making. Just because we’re not overwhelmed by it and show it outwardly, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Similar, though less essential, with other emotions. Stoicism is not the eradication of feeling. That would be denying our basic humanity and contrary to stoic principles. Instead, it is the mastery of it. Keep logic in control. Think Spock.
When I began practicing Centering Prayer / Hesychasm, I was indeed surprised to learn that I could take control of my thoughts in a very real way, and thereby control my emotions as well.
Since we spend all day, every day, immersed in our own thoughts, it is not easy to realize what types of thoughts are abnormal, or unwanted, or uncontrolled, until we start quantifying that and comparing them to other people's experiences. Myself, suffering C-PTSD and a lot of ruminating, recurring negative thoughts, of course they hold me back, and I do not want them.
So contemplation is a good opportunity to take control of thoughts, or more precisely, to let go of that which is unwanted, to just let them float down the stream while I observe and direct. To center my thoughts on Christ and contemplate His essence, this is the core of existence. Once I complete a session, my emotions are calmed, anger is quelled, and I also find that the associated physiological symptoms are improved commensurately. My PCP, for example, pressured me so hard to go on statins, that I practiced some intensive Centering Prayer for a few months while eating organic, home-cooked meals. I monitored my blood pressure, and I was able to demonstrate concrete and dramatic improvement over a few months' time.
I have a question- why does Stoicism get this much attention in the digital space, as compared to other schools?
I found Epicureanism, Existentialism (esp. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus NOT Sartre), and the writing of Montaigne to be much more relevant in this day and age.
Why is Stoicism disproportionately famous?
Is it because of Aurelius's Meditations? Writings of a Roman Emperor that every average Joe can confidently think that they understand? Any other reasons?
In a world that has gone so far in the direction of hedonism, the opposite message is a centring force that helps people find balance in their lives. As one of my coworkers used to say “always choose the middle way”. I’m honestly more surprised that people aren’t talking enthusiastically about asceticism to be honest.
Every person like me (white collar middle/upper-middle class) is extemely aware of their health, regulates choice of food severely, lives a disciplined life. Every poor person I know works two shifts or has a secondary occupation to make ends meet, and is one medical emergency away from bankruptcy.
Now, I have known few uber-rich who live in hedonistic ways, but the number is extremely small. All of us are living an extremely self-regulated lives.
Where are all the hedonistic people I keep hearing about? I am seriously asking.
i'm not being hyperbolic when i say that i genuinely don't know a single person in real life whose life isn't entirely governed by the search for instant pleasure/gratification.
Remember than hedonism is not necessarily about all of those rich pleasures. It’s a philosophy. And you are most likely surrounded by people like yourself, so you probably can’t see it. I see plenty of regular people who are driven by feeling good almost entirely
every average joe can absolutely understand and take value from marcus aurelius, as well as epictetus and seneca. none of it is specific to being an emperor or even being a roman.
I have read Meditations as a teenager and later in life when I was smarter, more mature, and responsible, and with some background in Philosophy, the book hit completely differently.
I recognized many of my early interpretation as lacking depth or true understanding.
And I see so many people not much different from their YA self. Not all people grow significantly.
This leads me to believe that many people have an understanding of Meditations that is lacking.
I've thought about this and read/listened to some insightful philosophers and classicists consider this very question. The most convincing rationale I've heard comes from the most eloquent, the most learned, most excellent Nathan Dufour Oglesby (https://www.youtube.com/c/NATHANOLOGY)
He summarizes classical Stoicism in his catchy tune "Be a Stoic": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuLvsB7UmE
He also spoke recently about classical Stoicism's cosmic paradigm of a living universe: https://www.facebook.com/reel/335961102098589
It's this last point that provides the basis, I think, for Stoicism's sort of renaissance. I say sort of because, as with the Bible, today's constituents often focus on only certain pieces of Stoicism. But it is rooted in this idea that just as various cells all function towards the same purpose of supporting our bodies, so all creatures are part of an interconnected, living universe. This conception leads to the idea that everyone, every station of living being just as with every cell in our body, is in service to a grander scheme. And once more this grander scheme can be used to excuse all sorts of unhelpful acts - so long as they are in pursuit of a greater good.
I myself prefer Epicureanism (there's a catchy tune for that, too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrit65ZSeM).
Unlike Epicureanism - true atheists - Stoicism had its own theological system, a cosmology bound up in the belief in a cosmic force, a fire they called numa/Dios/physos. Modern Stoicism focuses on 2 of 3 categories within Stoicism - ethics and logic. The third field is Physics, under which is included a theological and teleological system that provides a universal context entirely foreign to the teachings espoused by so many today. Here's a podcast I just stumbled upon that does a good job of detailing the critical role the divine force plays in the universe: https://traditionalstoicism.com/the-religious-nature-of-stoi...
Lastly, the interviews in this podcast with Donald Robertson (Stoic) and John Vervaeke (Neo-Platonist) are really, really illuminating and Vervaeke's in particular addresses your precise question: why is stoicism going viral?
https://www.greecepodcast.com/when-a-philosopher-ruled-the-w...https://www.greecepodcast.com/why-platonism-stoicism-are-goi...
I've been wanting a device that would notify me when it detects that I am getting emotional. Particularly if my heart starts pounding and my voice is raised. I was hopeful that Amazon's Halo would be that device, but it's voice analysis was not always on and you had to go look at it after the fact.
It could be considered a fact that you can be experiencing some emotion. Our scientific ability to read brain's inner functioning isn't quite there to measure it objectively, but I find that plausible. Measuring changes in your heart rate, face flushing, breathing and on are definitely objective facts.
More to the point, our potential ability one day to objectively say "this person is experiencing loneliness" doesn't strengthen the importance of the feeling, so whether they're "facts" or not isn't really relevant.
I'd try this instead:
Feelings are just feelings, and don't have to be anything more than that. Observe them in yourself, but choose what you do about them.
