Remix.run Logo
Aurornis 4 hours ago

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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

andsoitis 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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

raffael_de 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

HPsquared 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

DebtDeflation 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>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 an hour ago | parent [-]

What's the difference between Epicureanism and Hedonism?

laserlight an hour ago | parent [-]

Epicureanism is sustainable hedonism.

iamnothere 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sustainable and importantly ethical.

b00ty4breakfast 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

Isamu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

jvanderbot 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

baseballdork an hour ago | parent [-]

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?

jvanderbot 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

oooyay 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

komali2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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 an hour ago | parent [-]

> 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.

throw4847285 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?"

svat an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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

throw4847285 5 minutes ago | parent [-]

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.

willmarch 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

recursive 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

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

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
raffael_de 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

poulpy123 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 ?

parpfish 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
6stringmerc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

tsunamifury 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

everdrive 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a rude and inaccurate summary of Aurelius.

NoGravitas 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's reductive, but not totally inaccurate. The Stoics hated the Epicureans, because the Epicureans preached withdrawal from politics and the quest for political (military) honors, whereas the Stoics made those one of the defining principles of the virtuous life. Stoicism was adapted to imperialism in a way Epicureanism was not. Same way Pauline/proto-orthodox Christianity won out over the diversity of early Christianity --- it was usable by the Roman Empire.

tsunamifury 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe you should consider being more stoic about it.

Stoicism is a technology of control — inward control so the outward system can function. It’s the same structure as algorithmic behavior modification, as corporate “resilience” doctrine, as military discipline, as American hustle culture.

Maybe see the cup for what the cup is, not what you wish it to be for yourself to cope with reality.

Furthermore it is not “rude” to criticize something. And Aurelius would certainly call you out on that with a laugh.

everdrive 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>Furthermore it is not “rude” to criticize something.

I think it's rude to criticize someone if the criticism is not made in good faith. The fact that Aurelius was part of the Roman Empire does not mean that he practiced stoicism explicitly so that he could justify military actions. It's reductive at the very least.