14 ms·

Whats wrong with stoicism. Feelings are fleeting in general didn't lead me to positive places. I think we should put a high value on people that can handle th

Whats wrong with stoicism. Feelings are fleeting in general didn't lead me to positive places. I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems.

Ancalagon 7y ago
Its fine to be stoic and self-reliant, the problem is that occasionally even a stoic man needs to voice concerns, and he is then looked down upon by his peers for doing so. This is why having an unbiased, third-party therapist to just listen can be so healthy.
- sabarn01 7y ago
  This is true but I think that is what close friends are for. Everyone needs support I just think the goal to be not to let your feelings master you.
  - Ancalagon 7y ago
    That's true too, but even then its hard to know sometimes who your close friends are, and what they will think of you for relieving that kind of information to them. Sometimes, the stoic man doesn't have a close friend. You can reply with "well they should get more/better friends", but therein I think lies the catch-22. Reveal your inner self, and maybe you'll get a close friend, or maybe you won't have any friends.
    - meshenna 7y ago
      Solitude is preferable to fake relationships.
      - kd3 7y ago
        Wisely spoken
honkycat 7y ago
No man is an island. And it is hard to know if you ARE "handling your own problems" when you do not seek other people's input. "Handling your own problems" a lot of the time means "making other people responsible for my emotional well being." I do love stoicism though and I think meditation and stoicism are excellent paths to understanding yourself and managing your internal state.
- joeyrideout 7y ago
  I generally take "[h]andling your own problems" to mean taking responsibility for your own problems. I'm seeing a lot of agreement in this thread, though. Healthy, deep relationships with family and close friends are important to keep you grounded, and therapy can help everyone. Many seemingly desirable positions of status that men and women strive for involve incredible amounts of stress, and people naturally have differing levels of stress tolerance, so at some point self-knowledge becomes very valuable. Having good people around you is a great way to build that self-knowledge.
- thrower123 7y ago
  Are you going to work? Are you reasonably content? Then you are handling your problems. Some people really seem to want men to be very emotional and assume something is wrong if they don't appear to be showing strong emotions. Often, they're just fine, and there's no there there. If you keep picking at them, you'll probably generate some emotions, however.
  - indigochill 7y ago
    I'm not sure the point is expression per se, or always being emotional, but rather being okay with introspecting on emotions when they do come up and more to the point, what's causing them. I'd compare it to a tooth abscess. It's not like it's so painful you need to scream. It's just kind of there, occasionally causing problems. But if it goes untreated long enough, the bacteria in it can kill you. There are some parallels there with loneliness, which a lot of men suffer from. So I'd say this is more the realization that "Oh, this pain is because of this source. I'm gonna go deal with that source." The process of dealing might involve making your emotions known (such as when breaking up). Of course, if you're legitimately not in any kind of pain, then great. But most people are, in one form or another.
nostromo 7y ago
I agree. I find that the healthiest people in my life don't seem to be the types prone to endless rumination. I think this is where meditation (and stoicism) deviates from some types of psychotherapy and most support groups. Meditation teaches you to look at feelings dispassionately, which helps you lessen their power. This is very different than treating each emotion as if it is "correct" and in need of resolution via lots of introspection.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  If the healthier people have by definition less emotional suffering, then of course they're going to complain less.
  - tachyonbeam 7y ago
    I second this. We all have unique brains, and it seems to me that some people are naturally less prone to anxiety than others. I know plenty of people who seem to have naturally low anxiety, and as far as I can tell, they never needed to have some profound realization to become like this, they were likely born this way, they have lucky genetics. Anxiety means your brain has more of a tendency to worry about potential threats. Possibly because your amygdala are more easily activated. It may just be that, back when we lived in the savannah, being easily aroused by potential threats, and being overly careful, was in many ways beneficial for survival. However, we live in a time of relative safety, and it seems that being someone who worries a lot about potential threats is not generally a useful trait. I'm not saying that there's nothing you can do to manage anxiety, that is obviously false, but I'm saying there's a strong genetic component, and that judging people who appear more anxious and telling them just suck it up shows a fundamental lack of self-awareness and understanding of how the human brain works.
    - lanstin 7y ago
      I agree: one's goal has to be to create a fulfilling life (whatever that means to one) with the nervous system you actually have. Wishing things away rarely works with mental/emotional realities. There's many ways to manage the reality of your specific self; e.g., I'm pretty anxious, so I start every day I can with a nice relaxing bath, during which I am free of anxiety. However, I don't try to make myself be free of anxiety when I have to speak up in some tense situation; then I use mindfulness techniques to just be aware and persist despite it all. Sometimes I do things to change my internal self, sometimes I just treat it like a person that needs certain random things to be at top performance. It depends.
floren 7y ago
Seneca said in his third letter to Lucilius, "Ponder for a long time whether you shall admit a given person to your friendship; but when you have decided to admit him, welcome him with all your heart and soul. Speak as boldly with him as with yourself." I have one friend with whom I'll speak this boldly--some men have no-one. (I also think more women are in this position than society may assume)
- weberc2 7y ago
  I find that the extent to which men (and to a lesser extent, women) have this support varies between secular and religious (or at least Christian) communities. Christianity (as I’ve experienced it, anyway) promotes sharing feelings—for example, many churches have some notion of small groups or community groups in which (among many other things) people share things they struggle with and are supported and prayed for by others.
abootstrapper 7y ago
Stoicism as a personal philosophy or cultural norm? For the former, I’d say nothing. But for the later I think it’s unfortunate. There are many ways to live a life and many philosophies. Stoicism may work for you, but maybe the next guy needs a good cry without getting harassed for it.
mindv0rtex 7y ago
Stoicism is not about suppressing feelings though, it is about realizing that the ones you have are inconsequential and should not control you. But while you are trying to rein them in, the solution is not to simply bear them in silence. If you have someone who can help you on the path to equanimity, you should feel free to share feelings with them.
dang 7y ago
I've participated in some of this work and agree that having feeling-sharing be the top line item is misleading. Feelings are involved, but the core of it is to face what one has been avoiding, in order to become stronger and grow. There's plenty of room for stoicism in that. The way to overcome pain is to acknowledge and include it instead of denying it. The difference is huge, and most of us need help to get there—personally contactful help, not idea help. I found it pretty liberating to be able to get such help from other men, in a group no less. The point is not to become a gushy feeling-sharer or a sensitive new-age male. It is to no longer be governed by unconscious feelings and the wounds of early experience. The organizations that practice this work are not super clear about that distinction, which I suspect limits their appeal to many men. I went because of a friend I respect, who in turn went because of a friend he respects. Had either of us only read an article like this, I doubt we'd have been interested. Its subtle ironizing, which approaches belittling ("chastened menfolk", "There, there"), would have turned me off. The photos would have turned me off too, and I've sat in a lot of workshops (though usually with few men and many women). Edit: an interesting thing to me was the gap between practice and theory. Even though there were parts of the theory behind that work which I didn't necessarily find appealing, I met quite a few men there who struck me as having a kind of integrated masculinity (maybe not the best phrase, but it's hard to find words for these qualities). They seemed strong and open at the same time. I found myself admiring them and wanting to be more like that myself. None of this had much to do with expressing feelings or being emotional; I would use the word presence instead. They maybe even seemed a bit less emotional than most men I meet—more able to take in what is happening without being reactive. So I would say the theory doesn't work as well as the practice. You barely ever get that! usually it's the other way around.
- ryanwaggoner 7y ago
  Very well said.
- hondo77 7y ago
  Ironizing?
  - dang 7y ago
domnomnom 7y ago
Yep. I fear there may be a narrative being pushed here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adamsea 7y ago
Stoicism is different from denial. I think denial is more what the article is about, since it talks about the higher suicide rate of men, etc.
- seph-reed 7y ago
  IMO, not being suicidal is far more being in denial than the other way around. Or, in the very least, thinking that life is some gift. It totally could be, but not like this.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > IMO, not being suicidal is far more being in denial than the other way around. Or, in the very least, thinking that life is some gift. It totally could be, but not like this. It's not a gift compared to what? Nonexistence?
lacampbell 7y ago
Sharing your feelings doesn't really mean breaking down crying when anything remotely bad happens to you in life. It can just be talking frankly and openly about challenges you face in your life. Is that at odds with being stoic?
- scroy 7y ago
  Not at all. I'd say the motivation for talking things through lies on a spectrum between brainstorming and bitching, and people have a need for both, just be aware of which one you're doing. A complaint can be stoic.
woodruffw 7y ago
Stoicism requires apprehension, not repression, of one's feelings. "Handling their own problems" is precisely what these men appear to be attempting.
- ryanwaggoner 7y ago
  Stoicism is tragically misunderstood by most people.
BeetleB 7y ago
>I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems. Try as I might, I have no idea what this has to do with feelings. Are you making an assumption that people who acknowledge or express their feelings are not handling problems? And of course, as others have pointed out, stoicism doesn't suggest not pondering over feelings.
- thanatropism 7y ago
  There's a subtle line between repressing and ruminating. This may be colored by my experience of mental illness, but generally I've learned/grown more from pondering and sorting out feelings in the past rather than right now. It's easy to fall into a trap of "worshipping your pain" (or your hypomanic euphoria for that matter). OTOH I'm very appreciative of the dispassionate attitude encouraged by stoicism and meditation, etc. -- but that kind of wisdom is acquired with work, like building muscle. "You should lift heavy things!" is both an interesting aspirational model and dangerous advice if it isn't culturally obvious that you can get hurt lifting heavy things while not in shape. (Edit: stoicism/meditation etc. are more or less like "second-order repression": as you acknowledge your fingertips or your breath, you acknowledge that you have feelings in order to theoretically understand them (locus of control/illusion of self). The danger is that letting go of first-order repression, you can let yourself have feelings about your feelings -- feeling good about feeling miserable would be the common type.)
  - selestify 7y ago
    Why not have feelings about your feelings?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- sabarn01 7y ago
  It has nothing to do with feelings and that is my point. Dwelling on any feeling no matter how serious will every make your life better. I like to think of my self as happy Sisyphus enjoying pushing the rock up the hill. Thinking about the futility of the effort is by definition futile.
seph-reed 7y ago
> people that can handle their own problems I grew up west coast, spent a lot of time with people who I could "share my problems" with. It taught me to be pathetic when I'm down, to really reach for it. I don't like who I was when that was an effective means of attention. I really wish the response would have been "You're having a hard time coping with the harshness of reality and acting immature, do your best to get it together soon."
marble-drink 7y ago
Indeed. For me, being stoic is the only way. Crying about problems does nothing so why do anything at all? We all have the power to choose to be the best person we can be given our circumstances. That is what I try to do every day. For me, men who need to share their feelings are weak. This is what women do. But we can't all be women. Men need to learn to enjoy their advantages: superior strength, speed, and resilience, but accept that problems won't just go away if you cry about them. Either solve the problem or accept it and don't give it another precious moment's thought.
- marble-drink 7y ago
  Predictably downvoted. Apparently I'm not allowed to express how I feel.
  - masonic 7y ago
    You managed to insult many of both genders in a two-sentence span.
    - marble-drink 7y ago
      That's their fault, not mine. Read the drivel from celebrities on your carefully filtered twitter feed if you don't ever want to be offended.
      - dang 7y ago
        Can you please not post like this to HN? We're trying for something a bit more thoughtful than the usual internet assaults. I'm sure you can make your substantive points more thoughtfully.
        marble-drink 7y ago
        It's not an assault. I am sharing my philosophy. It's what keeps me happy and why I don't need to go to support groups. But I guess that's just not welcome here.
johnisgood 7y ago
In my opinion, this is a great book on stoicism: https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/1522632735 https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/1522...

Whats wrong with stoicism. Feelings are fleeting in general didn't lead me to positive places. I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems.

Ancalagon 7y ago

Its fine to be stoic and self-reliant, the problem is that occasionally even a stoic man needs to voice concerns, and he is then looked down upon by his peers for doing so. This is why having an unbiased, third-party therapist to just listen can be so healthy.

sabarn01 7y ago
This is true but I think that is what close friends are for. Everyone needs support I just think the goal to be not to let your feelings master you.
- Ancalagon 7y ago
  That's true too, but even then its hard to know sometimes who your close friends are, and what they will think of you for relieving that kind of information to them. Sometimes, the stoic man doesn't have a close friend. You can reply with "well they should get more/better friends", but therein I think lies the catch-22. Reveal your inner self, and maybe you'll get a close friend, or maybe you won't have any friends.
  - meshenna 7y ago
    Solitude is preferable to fake relationships.
    - kd3 7y ago
      Wisely spoken

honkycat 7y ago

No man is an island. And it is hard to know if you ARE "handling your own problems" when you do not seek other people's input. "Handling your own problems" a lot of the time means "making other people responsible for my emotional well being." I do love stoicism though and I think meditation and stoicism are excellent paths to understanding yourself and managing your internal state.

joeyrideout 7y ago
I generally take "[h]andling your own problems" to mean taking responsibility for your own problems. I'm seeing a lot of agreement in this thread, though. Healthy, deep relationships with family and close friends are important to keep you grounded, and therapy can help everyone. Many seemingly desirable positions of status that men and women strive for involve incredible amounts of stress, and people naturally have differing levels of stress tolerance, so at some point self-knowledge becomes very valuable. Having good people around you is a great way to build that self-knowledge.
thrower123 7y ago
Are you going to work? Are you reasonably content? Then you are handling your problems. Some people really seem to want men to be very emotional and assume something is wrong if they don't appear to be showing strong emotions. Often, they're just fine, and there's no there there. If you keep picking at them, you'll probably generate some emotions, however.
- indigochill 7y ago
  I'm not sure the point is expression per se, or always being emotional, but rather being okay with introspecting on emotions when they do come up and more to the point, what's causing them. I'd compare it to a tooth abscess. It's not like it's so painful you need to scream. It's just kind of there, occasionally causing problems. But if it goes untreated long enough, the bacteria in it can kill you. There are some parallels there with loneliness, which a lot of men suffer from. So I'd say this is more the realization that "Oh, this pain is because of this source. I'm gonna go deal with that source." The process of dealing might involve making your emotions known (such as when breaking up). Of course, if you're legitimately not in any kind of pain, then great. But most people are, in one form or another.

nostromo 7y ago

I agree. I find that the healthiest people in my life don't seem to be the types prone to endless rumination. I think this is where meditation (and stoicism) deviates from some types of psychotherapy and most support groups. Meditation teaches you to look at feelings dispassionately, which helps you lessen their power. This is very different than treating each emotion as if it is "correct" and in need of resolution via lots of introspection.

whatshisface 7y ago
If the healthier people have by definition less emotional suffering, then of course they're going to complain less.
- tachyonbeam 7y ago
  I second this. We all have unique brains, and it seems to me that some people are naturally less prone to anxiety than others. I know plenty of people who seem to have naturally low anxiety, and as far as I can tell, they never needed to have some profound realization to become like this, they were likely born this way, they have lucky genetics. Anxiety means your brain has more of a tendency to worry about potential threats. Possibly because your amygdala are more easily activated. It may just be that, back when we lived in the savannah, being easily aroused by potential threats, and being overly careful, was in many ways beneficial for survival. However, we live in a time of relative safety, and it seems that being someone who worries a lot about potential threats is not generally a useful trait. I'm not saying that there's nothing you can do to manage anxiety, that is obviously false, but I'm saying there's a strong genetic component, and that judging people who appear more anxious and telling them just suck it up shows a fundamental lack of self-awareness and understanding of how the human brain works.
  - lanstin 7y ago
    I agree: one's goal has to be to create a fulfilling life (whatever that means to one) with the nervous system you actually have. Wishing things away rarely works with mental/emotional realities. There's many ways to manage the reality of your specific self; e.g., I'm pretty anxious, so I start every day I can with a nice relaxing bath, during which I am free of anxiety. However, I don't try to make myself be free of anxiety when I have to speak up in some tense situation; then I use mindfulness techniques to just be aware and persist despite it all. Sometimes I do things to change my internal self, sometimes I just treat it like a person that needs certain random things to be at top performance. It depends.

floren 7y ago

Seneca said in his third letter to Lucilius, "Ponder for a long time whether you shall admit a given person to your friendship; but when you have decided to admit him, welcome him with all your heart and soul. Speak as boldly with him as with yourself." I have one friend with whom I'll speak this boldly--some men have no-one. (I also think more women are in this position than society may assume)

weberc2 7y ago
I find that the extent to which men (and to a lesser extent, women) have this support varies between secular and religious (or at least Christian) communities. Christianity (as I’ve experienced it, anyway) promotes sharing feelings—for example, many churches have some notion of small groups or community groups in which (among many other things) people share things they struggle with and are supported and prayed for by others.

abootstrapper 7y ago

Stoicism as a personal philosophy or cultural norm? For the former, I’d say nothing. But for the later I think it’s unfortunate. There are many ways to live a life and many philosophies. Stoicism may work for you, but maybe the next guy needs a good cry without getting harassed for it.

mindv0rtex 7y ago

Stoicism is not about suppressing feelings though, it is about realizing that the ones you have are inconsequential and should not control you. But while you are trying to rein them in, the solution is not to simply bear them in silence. If you have someone who can help you on the path to equanimity, you should feel free to share feelings with them.

dang 7y ago

I've participated in some of this work and agree that having feeling-sharing be the top line item is misleading. Feelings are involved, but the core of it is to face what one has been avoiding, in order to become stronger and grow. There's plenty of room for stoicism in that. The way to overcome pain is to acknowledge and include it instead of denying it. The difference is huge, and most of us need help to get there—personally contactful help, not idea help. I found it pretty liberating to be able to get such help from other men, in a group no less. The point is not to become a gushy feeling-sharer or a sensitive new-age male. It is to no longer be governed by unconscious feelings and the wounds of early experience. The organizations that practice this work are not super clear about that distinction, which I suspect limits their appeal to many men. I went because of a friend I respect, who in turn went because of a friend he respects. Had either of us only read an article like this, I doubt we'd have been interested. Its subtle ironizing, which approaches belittling ("chastened menfolk", "There, there"), would have turned me off. The photos would have turned me off too, and I've sat in a lot of workshops (though usually with few men and many women). Edit: an interesting thing to me was the gap between practice and theory. Even though there were parts of the theory behind that work which I didn't necessarily find appealing, I met quite a few men there who struck me as having a kind of integrated masculinity (maybe not the best phrase, but it's hard to find words for these qualities). They seemed strong and open at the same time. I found myself admiring them and wanting to be more like that myself. None of this had much to do with expressing feelings or being emotional; I would use the word presence instead. They maybe even seemed a bit less emotional than most men I meet—more able to take in what is happening without being reactive. So I would say the theory doesn't work as well as the practice. You barely ever get that! usually it's the other way around.

ryanwaggoner 7y ago
Very well said.
hondo77 7y ago
Ironizing?
- dang 7y ago

domnomnom 7y ago

Yep. I fear there may be a narrative being pushed here.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

adamsea 7y ago

Stoicism is different from denial. I think denial is more what the article is about, since it talks about the higher suicide rate of men, etc.

seph-reed 7y ago
IMO, not being suicidal is far more being in denial than the other way around. Or, in the very least, thinking that life is some gift. It totally could be, but not like this.
- vageli 7y ago
  > IMO, not being suicidal is far more being in denial than the other way around. Or, in the very least, thinking that life is some gift. It totally could be, but not like this. It's not a gift compared to what? Nonexistence?

lacampbell 7y ago

Sharing your feelings doesn't really mean breaking down crying when anything remotely bad happens to you in life. It can just be talking frankly and openly about challenges you face in your life. Is that at odds with being stoic?

scroy 7y ago
Not at all. I'd say the motivation for talking things through lies on a spectrum between brainstorming and bitching, and people have a need for both, just be aware of which one you're doing. A complaint can be stoic.

woodruffw 7y ago

Stoicism requires apprehension, not repression, of one's feelings. "Handling their own problems" is precisely what these men appear to be attempting.

ryanwaggoner 7y ago
Stoicism is tragically misunderstood by most people.

BeetleB 7y ago

>I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems. Try as I might, I have no idea what this has to do with feelings. Are you making an assumption that people who acknowledge or express their feelings are not handling problems? And of course, as others have pointed out, stoicism doesn't suggest not pondering over feelings.

thanatropism 7y ago
There's a subtle line between repressing and ruminating. This may be colored by my experience of mental illness, but generally I've learned/grown more from pondering and sorting out feelings in the past rather than right now. It's easy to fall into a trap of "worshipping your pain" (or your hypomanic euphoria for that matter). OTOH I'm very appreciative of the dispassionate attitude encouraged by stoicism and meditation, etc. -- but that kind of wisdom is acquired with work, like building muscle. "You should lift heavy things!" is both an interesting aspirational model and dangerous advice if it isn't culturally obvious that you can get hurt lifting heavy things while not in shape. (Edit: stoicism/meditation etc. are more or less like "second-order repression": as you acknowledge your fingertips or your breath, you acknowledge that you have feelings in order to theoretically understand them (locus of control/illusion of self). The danger is that letting go of first-order repression, you can let yourself have feelings about your feelings -- feeling good about feeling miserable would be the common type.)
- selestify 7y ago
  Why not have feelings about your feelings?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
sabarn01 7y ago
It has nothing to do with feelings and that is my point. Dwelling on any feeling no matter how serious will every make your life better. I like to think of my self as happy Sisyphus enjoying pushing the rock up the hill. Thinking about the futility of the effort is by definition futile.

seph-reed 7y ago

> people that can handle their own problems I grew up west coast, spent a lot of time with people who I could "share my problems" with. It taught me to be pathetic when I'm down, to really reach for it. I don't like who I was when that was an effective means of attention. I really wish the response would have been "You're having a hard time coping with the harshness of reality and acting immature, do your best to get it together soon."

marble-drink 7y ago

Indeed. For me, being stoic is the only way. Crying about problems does nothing so why do anything at all? We all have the power to choose to be the best person we can be given our circumstances. That is what I try to do every day. For me, men who need to share their feelings are weak. This is what women do. But we can't all be women. Men need to learn to enjoy their advantages: superior strength, speed, and resilience, but accept that problems won't just go away if you cry about them. Either solve the problem or accept it and don't give it another precious moment's thought.

marble-drink 7y ago
Predictably downvoted. Apparently I'm not allowed to express how I feel.
- masonic 7y ago
  You managed to insult many of both genders in a two-sentence span.
  - marble-drink 7y ago
    That's their fault, not mine. Read the drivel from celebrities on your carefully filtered twitter feed if you don't ever want to be offended.
    - dang 7y ago
      Can you please not post like this to HN? We're trying for something a bit more thoughtful than the usual internet assaults. I'm sure you can make your substantive points more thoughtfully.
      - marble-drink 7y ago
        It's not an assault. I am sharing my philosophy. It's what keeps me happy and why I don't need to go to support groups. But I guess that's just not welcome here.

johnisgood 7y ago

In my opinion, this is a great book on stoicism: https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/1522632735 https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/1522...