> In other words, Stoic philosophy doesn’t declare that a person should suppress emotions like grief, joy, pity or even shame, but rather that they should exami

> In other words, Stoic philosophy doesn’t declare that a person should suppress emotions like grief, joy, pity or even shame, but rather that they should examine their origins. “You try to understand where they come from,” says Nancy Sherman, author of Stoic Warriors: The Ancient Philosophy Behind the Military Mind and philosophy professor at Georgetown University. 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. Later on: > 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.