I don’t feel this is a fair critique of stoicism, specifically because stoicism does not promote social disengagement, but rather promotes understanding that yo

I don’t feel this is a fair critique of stoicism, specifically because stoicism does not promote social disengagement, but rather promotes understanding that you can choose your reactions to the results of engaging, whether positive or negative. If anything, stoicism fails in a very specific way for some people merely because it’s context is often misunderstood. Stoicism was born in an era when strong, even violent passions were assumed and perceived as valid and unavoidable. In this context, stoicism is revolutionary. In the modern context, where uncontrolled passions are perceived as borderline mental instability and total self control is expected, stoicism can accidentally be misapplied to the detriment of some practitioners. Epictetus touches on this but does not go into detail when he speaks about observing and being pleased by your good and correct internal reactions to things, positive or negative. Modern Inculturated humans are sort of an odd creature. We have an animal component, the biological human with its own needs, desires, emotions, and drives. We also have a memetic component, the psychological construct that is comprised of culture, knowledge, ethics, and ideas. Part of the process of inculturation is that the memetic component is put in charge of the animal component. This is what you are taught when you parents tech you to “control yourself” and things like “self discipline”. If you think a little, even the terminology of these lessons implies two separate entities. This process of inculturation succeeds in different people to different degrees. In most people, their emotional/ animal component remains mostly in charge, with their memetic component taking a back seat but supervisory role , often making justifications or excuses for the behaviour and choices of the animal component. In extreme cases, inculturation mostly fails, and the person has very low impulse control and will usually struggle to integrate into society in a positive way. On the other hand, with other extreme cases, the animal component is mostly or even completely dominated by the memetic component. These people are typically very decision driven and tend to measure their well being by metrics of achievement rather than joy. The danger in this is that memetic -dominant people may not adequately engage with their animal component. If one’s natural self is ignored or even forgotten, it only receives negative feedback. It is castigated and denied when it acts out. Like a dog kept on a chain whose main socialization is beatings, it’s not likely to become a very pleasant animal. Since it is responsible for the control of your movement, mood, and impulses, this is not a desirable condition. IMO If you think you are highly memeticly dominant, you should make an effort to engage positively with your animal side. It can be helpful to think of them as your pet dog. You wouldn’t keep your dog locked in a cage, never talk to them or pet them, never take them on walks, never reward them, so why would you not treat yourself at least as well? When you look in the mirror, acknowledge them. Speak to them. Praise them when they help you, counsel them when they hinder you. Engage with them as you would your beloved pet. Take them for a walks, make time do things that bring you joy even when it isn’t “part of the plan”. Like a dog, physical things are the goal. IMHO, Don’t use media or passive activity for this. It needs to be physical activity like going somewhere, actively interacting with other people, exercise, in-person play, or other physical activity to get the full benefit. Stoicism balanced with a deep awareness of self is a winning combination for me at least.