Stoicism

[Somewhere_]

Stoicism was a philosophy formed by Zeno in Ancient Greece. It teaches to endure pain without complaint or emotion as well as staying calm despite being happy, sad, mad. Luxuries aren't important, etc.

Is it ever good to be a Stoic? Why/why not? Is stoicism good to live a happy life? If everyone was a Stoic, how would life be different?

I think there is a time to be more stoic than others such as dealing with anger and pain. However, it is a good idea to revisit the emotions to deal with them later. I also believe we should not be stoic when we are happy- because it is good for us.

 

[Sir Codin]

It seems like a very sound philosophy to me. Enduring pain without complaint will help you laugh off a diamond-encrusted kick to the balls (what it feels like whenever you come across a shiny Ratatta).

Curbing emotions is important too because emotion fogs logic and sound reasoning, which is how authoritarian feel-good laws get passed.

 

[Spiff]

Zeno may have materialized the concept of stoicism, but its essence had been practiced at least since Buddha's teachings of dharma. It seems to me like stoicism just predicated a more defined and logical interpretation of the practice than Buddhism, which is sorta more open-ended and meditation orientated. Either way its a major component in my life, and something I'm always trying to attain. But it's hard man.

I think one of the most touching examples that lead me to the practice was the Teacher of Patience, which was one of the previous lives of Buddha during his rebirths. The story tells of the teacher meditating in the forest before he is approached by a king who inquires about the holy man's practice. He tells the king that he practices the doctrine of patience and the ascetic lifestyle, and the king decides to "expose" the teacher by torturing him. Even after cutting off the man's limbs, the man forgives him and feels only compassion for the violent king. It's sort of a silly tale really, but I take a lot from it.

I'm not well read on stoicism but I don't really think it's an emotionless practice as much as it is a practice of compassion. All it takes is a step back and you can really see the muck of emotions which truly taint our actions; you get to really see how judgmental, destructive and selfish we all are. But just imagine that you could care about everyone so much that you tore down this monument. Imagine a soldier helping the injured enemy during war, or a grieving mother forgiving her daughter's killer. I think this empathy lies within us all.

I mean, when I'm dying I'm not gonna wish I spent more time being angry, even if the anger was justifiable. It's just kinda a waste of my time yafeelme.

 

[Kanzler]

Stoicism doesn't mean no emotion, it simply advocates learning about the world and making decisions through reason, as well as using self-control to overcome destructive emotion. Stoicism is really similar to Buddhism, as Spiff mentioned, in its emphasis on self-control and freedom from emotion. Also, apparently, some Stoics took the position that "virtue is sufficient for happiness", which again is a good lesson to learn.

 

[twocows]

There's a difference between preventing your emotions from running wild and trying to eliminate all emotion whatsoever. The former is healthy, the latter is not.

The way Kanzler describes it, it seems like a reasonable practice. However, going any further than that (especially the part about "enduring without complaint or emotion") worries me. If something bad's happening, you should challenge it; understand your limits, sure, but do what you can to make things a bit better.

One of the biggest problems I have with what I understand of Taoism (which is admittedly very little and may be a complete misinterpretation on my part) is that it encourages detachment and following the flow of the world. Following the flow is the right thing to do a lot of the time, but sometimes the flow goes over a waterfall and going with it is a bad idea. Being too detached from your surroundings and not trying to change the bad things in the world just lets the bad stuff continue to dominate. It's because we have people working toward the betterment of mankind that we've come so far to begin with.

Anyway, back on topic, being able to control your emotions so they don't overwhelm your decision-making is something everyone should work toward mastering. It's one of the unique characteristics of our species that has brought us to where we are. But killing your emotions completely takes it too far. Emotion is also a part of what makes us human and to deny it is to deny our humanity.

 

[The Void]

I think it's an amazing Western parallel to Buddhist philosophy. It goes well with altruism.

 

[maccrash]

I'm a very emotional person so I feel like stoicism is Not For Me. even just the concept of shrugging off pain without showing any emotion is foreign to me, and I don't really like that quality in other people -- it feels lifeless.

 

[Kanzler]

The problem with stoics is they don't have an understanding of why emotions exist. So, let's pose that question: why do emotions exist? Looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, were emotions harmful to an organism, then the human race, over thousands of years, would have evolved to feel fewer emotions. Yet humans remain the most emotional creature on the planet (to our knowledge). Therefore, it stands to reason that emotions have allowed the human species to thrive in some way.

Emotions are what drive us to act, to make both the greatest and most horrible achievements in human history, from the lightbulb to the atom bomb. Take away emotions, and humans become little more than statues.

And if you need further convincing, look at Ned Stark. He lived as a stoic and died by the orders of the most emotional person in Westeros: Joffrey Baratheon.

Oh, and spoiler alert (and if that's a spoiler, then you need to watch GoT NOW).

I don't think it's fair to say that emotions have allowed the human species to thrive, due to some kind of evolutionary benefit. Just because emotions exist does not necessitate that they have been adaptive. Personally, I believe that emotions don't have significant adaptive or maladaptive value, which is a valid possibility considering emotions' continued existence. If there's no adaptive pressure to get rid of something, then it stands to reason that the trait is either adaptive or neutral. We shouldn't ignore the other possibility. We also shouldn't assume that persistent existence -> adaptive value. That doesn't seem reasonable. For example, our pinky toes exist. But I wouldn't consider that they have allowed the human species to thrive in any significant way, especially since Dr. Anne Holly Johnson, an instructor in orthopaedic surgery at Harvard claims that the absence of the pinky toe does not hinder us from doing everything we want to.

I actually don't believe that emotions exist with any kind of purpose. They're just reactions that are based in some kind of cognitive function. For example, anger and excitement probably involve adrenaline. Sadness and other emotions probably involve high or low levels of some other hormone or neurotransmitter. However, this is something that is common to most vertebrates, if not most mammals. Humans express and perceive emotions due to our intelligence, but the biological underpinning of emotions isn't unique to us at all. So I don't think humans are the most emotional creature on the planet so much that we are the most intelligent and able to communicate in the most complex or abstract manner.

Also, Ned Stark wasn't a stoic inasmuch as he was a person who operated with a strict worldview considering honour, which unfortunately, most others in Westeros don't ascribe to. He wasn't particularly emotional, but his downfall was not due to his lack of emotion but his unwillingness to betray those he believed were the rightful authorities. Also because he was captured and beheaded by force. If the most powerful man in Westeros has you in his grasp, emotional or not, you're screwed.

 

[an illegible mess.]

i feel like stoicism is only for those people who claim to be edgy by hating everything and appearing like nothing matters but in reality it only makes them look like an ignorant asshole who doesn't care for anyone around them. tbh, not a good quality to have and can make you lose potential friendships and relationships in a heartbeat. at least that's what it sounds like to me.

idk why the whole idea of "suppressing emotions" is such a good thing?? i don't know if i'm interpreting this correctly but by bottling up your emotions, especially negative emotions such as pain, sadness, anger, etc. makes you a ticking time bomb. it's unhealthy imo. you need a way to vent at some point, you can't just contain emotion and put it away somewhere. it'll come back around more violently than before.

idk though. i guess if you want to appear strong by containing your emotions, be my guest. if it works for you, great, but i only think it's a temporary relief for certain things.

 

[Her]

i feel like stoicism is only for those people who claim to be edgy by hating everything and appearing like nothing matters but in reality it only makes them look like an ignorant asshole who doesn't care for anyone around them. tbh, not a good quality to have and can make you lose potential friendships and relationships in a heartbeat. at least that's what it sounds like to me.

idk why the whole idea of "suppressing emotions" is such a good thing?? i don't know if i'm interpreting this correctly but by bottling up your emotions, especially negative emotions such as pain, sadness, anger, etc. makes you a ticking time bomb. it's unhealthy imo. you need a way to vent at some point, you can't just contain emotion and put it away somewhere. it'll come back around more violently than before.

idk though. i guess if you want to appear strong by containing your emotions, be my guest. if it works for you, great, but i only think it's a temporary relief for certain things.

I think you're mistaking Stoicism for like... practicing the way of the Vulcans. I have a rather limited understanding of the subject, but Stoics aren't about suppressing emotion as much as understanding when to apply it.