4 ms·

Note that stoicism is NOT rejecting and ignoring your feelings. If you feel bad about something, that too is a fact that you have to accept and deal with in the

by Kenji 10y ago

Note that stoicism is NOT rejecting and ignoring your feelings. If you feel bad about something, that too is a fact that you have to accept and deal with in the best way possible. Stoicism is about keeping your head up in the face of adversity, and not about becoming a hardened robot capable of taking any punishment. I think a lot of people on HN might get this wrong.

Nokinside 10y ago
This is the modern Buddhist and psychology influenced interpretation of stoicism and apatheia. Personally I don't see much evidence that this really was the case in the golden era of Stoicsm. Freedom from all passions was not the same as removal of emotion, but it was very close to it. > not about becoming a hardened robot capable of taking any punishment. This was exactly what Stoics of the old saw as ideal and this view was propagated in stories. Epicetus was a cripple and according to Origen his leg was broken by his master. >Epictetus' master one day was twisting his slave's leg to help the time pass. Epictetus said calmly, "If you go on doing that, you will break my leg." The twisting went on and the leg broke. Epictetus observed mildly, "Didn't I tell you that you would break my leg?" The story of Gaius Mucius Scaevola was also propagated by stoics. Mucius kept his hand over the fire without indicating any pain while it burned.
- Kenji 10y ago
  >This is the modern Buddhist and psychology influenced interpretation of stoicism and apatheia. No, it is not. Read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. The man certainly argued for a certain inner brilliance that does not come from emotionlessness. He'd argue for you to be the even-tempered guy but full of fortitude and pouring your entire being into what you are standing for and doing, but without getting consumed by it. Stoicism is not the rejection of emotion, it is the rejection of uncontrolled desire. That's a huge difference.

by Kenji 10y ago

Nokinside 10y ago

This is the modern Buddhist and psychology influenced interpretation of stoicism and apatheia. Personally I don't see much evidence that this really was the case in the golden era of Stoicsm. Freedom from all passions was not the same as removal of emotion, but it was very close to it. > not about becoming a hardened robot capable of taking any punishment. This was exactly what Stoics of the old saw as ideal and this view was propagated in stories. Epicetus was a cripple and according to Origen his leg was broken by his master. >Epictetus' master one day was twisting his slave's leg to help the time pass. Epictetus said calmly, "If you go on doing that, you will break my leg." The twisting went on and the leg broke. Epictetus observed mildly, "Didn't I tell you that you would break my leg?" The story of Gaius Mucius Scaevola was also propagated by stoics. Mucius kept his hand over the fire without indicating any pain while it burned.

Kenji 10y ago
>This is the modern Buddhist and psychology influenced interpretation of stoicism and apatheia. No, it is not. Read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. The man certainly argued for a certain inner brilliance that does not come from emotionlessness. He'd argue for you to be the even-tempered guy but full of fortitude and pouring your entire being into what you are standing for and doing, but without getting consumed by it. Stoicism is not the rejection of emotion, it is the rejection of uncontrolled desire. That's a huge difference.