The Stoics were right – emotional control is good for the soul
psyche.co
psyche.co
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.
It is interesting though that Stoicism has this problem but Buddhism doesn't, even though they have similar ideals and concepts.
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.
So it is quite hard for the red pill movement to co opt Buddhism and thank goodness for that.
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.
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.
Lamenting is a-ok: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...
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.
Attached assholes do care, though.
They care A LOT.
Ergo, since you can't be controlled through arousal (in the literal sense), you're written off as problematic/toxic/phobic.
Passion, on the other hand, I understand.
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.
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.
being loud is not passion.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.