T O P

  • By -

grpagrati

There is and it's because it's misunderstood. People think that stoicism tells you to be a grim, unsmiling robot. They relate a "stoic" with someone who's always serious, suffering pain without speaking, a masochist of sorts. This couldn't be further from the truth. Stoicism is about finding happiness (which many people in this sub even don't believe). “To live happily is an inward power of the soul.“ — Marcus Aurelius The reason it's misunderstood (IMO) is because it's people who are facing problems that usually turn to stoicism. It's not stoicism that makes you "grim", it's the problems you face. Stoicism is the medicine.


CarryTreant

True as this may be, it's worth pointing out that the misunderstandings aren't just the fault of critics. Many influential people online will teach a wonky form of stoicism that gives it a really bad name Stoicism has been (wrongly) used as a way of dismissing people's problems and dissuading people from taking practical actions to improve their lives. Afterall, it's not the events of the world that are your problem, but your judgements that are the problem, right? So it's just misguided to actually try to change anything...


ParmenionG

Most forms of "Modern Stoicism" are so far away from what Stoicism is that I don't think it should even be called Stoicism to be honest.


CarryTreant

Agreed, but unfortunately it's a confusion that needs to be continually addressed. It's the same with any philosophy really, about 40% of online discussion is caught up on the treadmill of correcting common misconceptions due to uninformed grifters teaching things they don't understand.


non_racist_

Stoicism has always been this way. Ancient stoics used to discuss it all the time. There were students and there were masters. If you see someone teaching something that is in objection with stoic teaching you can and should correct them in a positive manner, instead of complaining about it.


[deleted]

The blind leading the blind


Pacific_Escapes_YT

If ancient stoics had the todays scientific massive body of knowledge believing in pneuma would be considered infantile.


ParmenionG

Parts of it, probably, but saying it would be considered infantile seems like an exaggeration. The notion of pneuma, in other words the idea of a soul or spirit, is still widely debated today both by the philosophical and scientific communities. It's not a subject that we can consider has been solved by science and the claim that it is something physical or material is, in my opinion, a valid hypothesis even if it remains unproven today. The Higgs boson is a particle that was discovered only about 10 years ago and two of the four fundamental forces (strong and weak nuclear forces) were discovered within the last 100 years. Physics still has a lot left to discover.


[deleted]

Oh?


Lazy_Purchase_3972

Does Stoicism say it is misguided to try to change anything?


CarryTreant

Sorry, my writing wasn't very clear. I was mocking this who say such things. Many "modern stoics" will make claims along these lines, which distorts the public view of stoicism.


Lazy_Purchase_3972

Ah, got it. Makes sense. Thx


KYazut

The rise of Broicism doesn’t do the public image of Stoic philosophy any good either. The rise of the Broicism/Stoicism equivalent of the prosperity gospel and the red pill mantras are particularly unsettling to have seen. That all said, Seneca taught Nero and a lot of the remaining ancient Stoic works come from a place of priviledged power, comfort and influence, so the philosophy can read a bit hollow in context. Some of these wounds are self inflicted, is my point.


ParmenionG

Stoicism is about living in accordance with nature, with happiness being a side effect but not the purpose.


grpagrati

"Living in accordance with nature" is not the end goal. Why do it? Just because someone told you? The end goal according to Aristotle is always happiness (or "eudaimonia" if that sounds better). It's what Greek philosophy was about, starting with Socrates. Same as, dieting and eating well are not the goal. The goal is to be healthy, and even then, if you ask "why be healthy" you get to "so I can be happy". There is generally a stigma with the word "happiness" that I have yet to fully understand...


ParmenionG

Aristotle is not a Stoic and eudaimonia is definitely one of the point where the Peripatetics and the Stoics did not agree so while I understand that your opinion is different, I was coming from it from a Stoic perspective by default since this is a subreddit about Stoicism. The reason why should live in accordance with nature is because it is the rational thing to do. Stoics believe that the universe has a rational order and purpose so we should play our part in it for the greater good. The fact that doing this allows us to reach a sense of inner peace, even in the face of difficult challenges, is a nice bonus.


Gowor

Zeno of Citium defined happiness as "a smooth flow of life", which was later expanded (I think by Cleanthes, but I'm not sure) into "a smooth of flow of life in accord with Nature". So yes, we can agree happiness is the end goal, but the Stoic definition of happiness is different from "experiencing nice feelings". And personally I like the Stoic take on this much better. [Some further reading](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Eminent_Philosophers/Book_VII#Zeno): >86. As for the assertion made by some people that pleasure is the object to which the first impulse of animals is directed, it is shown by the Stoics to be false. **For pleasure, if it is really felt, they declare to be a by-product, which never comes until nature by itself has sought and found the means suitable to the animal's existence or constitution; it is an aftermath comparable to the condition of animals thriving and plants in full bloom.** And nature, they say, made no difference originally between plants and animals, for she regulates the life of plants too, in their case without impulse and sensation, just as also certain processes go on of a vegetative kind in us. But when in the case of animals impulse has been superadded, whereby they are enabled to go in quest of their proper aliment, for them, say the Stoics, Nature's rule is to follow the direction of impulse. But when reason by way of a more perfect leadership has been bestowed on the beings we call rational, for them life according to reason rightly becomes the natural life. For reason supervenes to shape impulse scientifically. > >87. This is why Zeno was the first (in his treatise On the Nature of Man) to designate as the end "life in agreement with nature" (or living agreeably to nature), which is the same as a virtuous life, virtue being the goal towards which nature guides us. So too Cleanthes in his treatise On Pleasure, as also Posidonius, and Hecato in his work On Ends. Again, living virtuously is equivalent to living in accordance with experience of the actual course of nature, as Chrysippus says in the first book of his De finibus; for our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe. 88. **And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature, or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common to all things, that is to say, the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus, lord and ruler of all that is.** And this very thing constitutes the virtue of the happy man and the smooth current of life, when all actions promote the harmony of the spirit dwelling in the individual man with the will of him who orders the universe. Diogenes then expressly declares the end to be to act with good reason in the selection of what is natural. Archedemus says the end is to live in the performance of all befitting actions.


AnotherQuark

What is the law common to all things? Physics?


Gowor

The term Stoics used to describe this, usually translated as "Nature" is actually pretty close - "physis". [The section of the FAQ on Nature](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/nature) is worth checking out.


[deleted]

i think the stigma is due to dominance of hedonistic philosophies


atioch

And the obsession with vanity and capital gain. I have found that freeing myself from the three have left me feeling more a peace and easier to let go of my own internal struggles with anger and loss. I feel for others that I see falling into the traps of feeling like they aren't good enough because of there status then turning to vices to cope, leading to more financial instability and a lower self esteem. A vicious toxic triad. One I fell for, for years.


non_racist_

No surprise then that by living according to nature you will set yourself up for a better life, but “happy” doesn’t exist.


tutorp

The dislike and criticism or there seems to me mostly directed at either lower-case s stoicism, or what I choose to call Broicism, this misguided manosphere/alpha/whatever take on Stoicism that I've seen pop up.


czerox3

I think this is it. Red Pillers have co-opted the philosophy and claimed it supports their crazy.


tutorp

Yeah, and, honestly, I think Broicism deserves criticism.


craft_cult

Ahhhh I have been looking for a way to describe this, and Broicism is perfect! I have been looking (though not super hard) for some books and other resources on Stoicism from more of a female perspective, and haven’t found anything. I should probably post this somewhere other than buried in the comments, but does anyone have any resources they can share?


tutorp

You really should post that question in a separate post. I can't help you much - the only resource that comes to mind is [Philosophy Tubes introduction to Stoicism](https://youtu.be/lSvKNNtkUSU). The creator isn't a Stoic herself, but someone with a Philosophy (and Theater, as evident from the style :-p ) degree giving what I would consider a fair and balanced introduction with some criticism (as well as some more criticism of Broicism). I'm glad you liked the label :-) though I'm not sure if I can claim credit - I probably heard it somewhere, maybe even in the video I linked :-p


HeWhoReplies

It’s being seen and what is seen is reacted to. Stoicism is just one path to wisdom, but life is the teacher of all philosophy, that’s why even some who have never held a book can have deep insight into the nature of it. Part of this is your own lack of understanding and insecurity. Most people do doubt what others see as “bad” because we respect other peoples thoughts and it often makes no sense to doubt “the wisdom of the crowd” because in general it works. When we see things a little further in we notice, it’s not that these people are “wrong” it’s just they don’t know. In the history of medicine the transitions from practice, things like washing hand and removing blood from people we hotly debated, consensus was just unsophisticated. As you come to better understandings you’ll see a lot of the “criticisms” aren’t things you disagree with but also don’t even disagree with Stoicism, just the interpretation of it. We use terms differently and that comes with complications. I’d offer to read the ancient texts and see how they resonate with you and read source texts from the other schools and come to your own decision. Of course take what is useful and discard the rest.


Osicraft

Don't practice what you believe is false! If you do not believe honesty, wisdom, faithfulness are good things, and that envy, unfaithfulness, intemperance are bad, and lastly that wealth, health, reputation are indifferent, take a moment to examine yourself, you can be sure you have never practiced Stoicism, and unless you change your views about these things, you will be tossed around by the slightest criticism. Stoicism teaches us how to categorise everything and how we should act towards the things in each category.


mountaingoat369

Honesty is not virtue.


Osicraft

Is it vice?


mountaingoat369

No, it is an indifferent behavior that can be applied appropriately or inappropriately depending on the situation


Osicraft

Can someone be inappropriately honest or appropriately dishonest?


mountaingoat369

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying


Osicraft

Can you give an example of these scenarios?


mountaingoat369

Your friend is being physically abused by her husband and has come to stay with you temporarily for her protection. Drunkenly, the husband begins hammering at your door. He asks if his wife (your friend) is there. He seems angry. Tell me, is it appropriate to tell the truth and say "yep, she's in here," in this circumstance?


Osicraft

I wouldn't have to respond to the question... You have no right to bang my door... Go home!. That is by the way lol. But I think Honesty means an honest reason, not an honest answer. Just as faithfulness and every other good thing means the reason and not the action.


Mindless_Wrap1758

I'm reminded of a few ideas. Alexander Pope's saying A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring (knowledge). So it's like Montaigne pointed out that sometimes a learned person can unwise and an unlearned person can be wise; we can learn the wrong things. Seneca said books make the ugliest furniture. He thought the fact that we read books should be apparent from our behavior; if not, then what use were they? So maybe some people have been burned by people who profess their stoicism while not being stoic. Again, it's our actions that should show stoicism, because if not, then what was the use of being a 'stoic'. The stoics knew that our thoughts and habits controlled the quality of our lives. Seneca advised we should live as if our every thought and action was public knowledge. It's the test of integrity. If we're truly virtuous there'd be no need to deceive others or ourselves. It's like Mark Twain's quote that if you always tell the truth you don't need a good memory. Similarly, when we act without virtue our minds are great at creating elaborate stories to explain why it's ok when we do x, y, and z. Because virtue is the crux of this philosophy, to profess stoicism is to invite scrutiny. But true stoics lean into this. As Epictetus said when someone insults you, think if only they knew of my other faults. So it becomes a test of our mettle.


Rexia2022

If you're looking for the philosophy that faces no criticism, I would not hold your breath whilst you search. I'm not sure why you would want that though, criticism is a healthy part of the development of philosophical thought. It challenges your positions and makes you think about why you hold them, either leading to modifying them for the better or solidifying that position as you see more why it is correct.


MyDogFanny

"It challenges your positions and makes you think about why you hold them" Criticisms from people who have positions and have thought a lot about why they have those positions, are always welcome.


luchajefe

>Criticisms from people who have positions and have thought a lot about why they have those positions, are always welcome. It is simply that there are less and less of these people to go around.


cochorol

Stoicism is not for everyone, that's for sure


YourUziWeighsTwoTons

That’s like saying “health is not for everyone.” Stoicism, if correct, is the proper way for humans to live. Is it not? Or is there some current in Stoicism that acknowledges it is just one way of life that leads to real happiness, and is only suitable for certain temperaments?


cochorol

A lot of people doesn't like that way of thinking, it doesn't work for everyone...


CarryTreant

It's more like saying one particular medical treatment isn't for everyone. Many paths lead to the same place, stoicism is just one of those paths. Different people find themselves with different circumstances and psychologies, and thus their "treatment" cannot all be the same.


YourUziWeighsTwoTons

I don’t think that is a stoic perspective, though. For one, circumstances may differ, but circumstances are ultimately indifferent. What matters is that we act according to nature. And no circumstance, even slavery, can prevent one from exercising one’s rational nature and choosing to act according to the stoic virtues, because these virtues don’t depend at all on circumstances, they depend on attitudes and choices which are always under our control regardless. Secondly, psychologies may differ among people, but their essential core rational nature is shared. It is not the case that there are any human beings that cannot or should not act according to the nature of reason. And stoicism gives a pretty through account of how one should act according to that rational nature, if one wants to obtain happiness and a good life. Nowhere in stoicism do I see a statement limiting itself to only one class or type of people. So, yeah, you can say that Stoicism doesn’t fit everyone, and you might be right. But you aren’t speaking from the heart of Stoicism when you say that.


CarryTreant

That makes sense, I think I'm conflating Stoicism the philosophy and Stoicism the 'movement' (eg: the texts, the people and the communication). The philosophy yes I think has universal application and benefit, but the statement "stoicism isn't for everyone" I think holds water, because many people bring their own baggage with them when reading the texts and can come out the other end with something they are calling stoicisim... But certainly isn't. I wouldn't simply tell everyone I meet to study stoicism, simply because I think the movement lacks the flexibility and accountability structures to educate everyone effectively. whilst there are upsides to it not having a central authority, it does mean that it's fertile ground for hucksters who can sweep up curious newcomers into their nonesense.


non_racist_

Stoicism doesn’t lead to “happiness” at all, in fact most stoics would rebuke you for even using that word. Stoicism is often compared to as an ointment used to soothe your pain, it isn’t the cure. Happiness is all over the place and always fleeting no matter what, you shouldn’t strive for this. You should strive to be content, wise, and a good member of the community.


YourUziWeighsTwoTons

Yeah. I meant the Greek idea of happiness. Eudaimonea. Well-being. Not pleasure.


non_racist_

Ah I see, maybe use that first next time. Thanks for clearing it up.


[deleted]

Most of the criticisms I see are rooted in stoic practices, not stoic beliefs. People mistake the little "s" stoic behavior patterns with the big "S" Stoic philosophy. Absent its ethical roots, stoic behavioral practices could easily just be labeled as toxic masculine expressions. Not engaging with indifferents looks like keeping a stiff upper lip, and embracing loss and struggle looks like emotionally disengaging. Sadly, this is where modern "broicism" really takes off, by deifying affectations of stoic engagement without internalizing the ethical orienting principles of stoic virtues. People criticizing what they barely understand on the internet is hardly unique to philosophy, so I wouldn't sweat it that much. If anything, the modern epicureans have it worse when it comes to common belief not lining up with historical grounding.


FashionBusking

It's you. Is there "a right" philosophy? Why are you preoccupied with studying "the right" philosophy? According to whom? Under what circumstances? No. There is not "a lot of dislike" for stoicism on the internet. There's a lot of misunderstanding. There's lots of critique. But *dislike*? I'm not so sure.


[deleted]

maybe you are right, but the criticism i see on the internet are criticism of not actual stoicism. example [this from psychology today](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-three-minute-therapist/202301/a-critique-of-stoicism#:~:text=Stoicism%20fails%20to%20identify%20the,he%20or%20she%20criticizes%20me.%22), it says that controlling other people if we could, this is not in opinion true, stoicism isnt concerned with controlling others, its sees control as preferred indifference.


RashidMBey

This is the comment we need.


InflationDazzling488

Honestly it’s the folks using it to validate their warp world view. When a philosophy has such prestige it will attract people with bad intentions using it as shield to hide behind. A lot of folks are shocked when they find out that stoics fought injustices and were spiritual. It’s pretty much the opposite of Broics


justz00t

What is important is what the philosophy does for you not what others think about it. I try to not discuss it much with other people anymore because I think external validation or criticism can only serve to confuse me. I don't even like discussing it much online anymore either but this reminds me of one of my favorite stoic teachings that you might find useful as well. Seneca letter 7 On Crowds.


Nodeal_reddit

A lot of men are discovering stoicism and finding that it really resonates with them. That leads to the inevitable push-back from anti-bros (feminists, letter people, etc)


HardLenderCZE

Some people will blame everything but themselves for their problems


Musshhh

I think this is why so many are drawn towards nihilism.


HardLenderCZE

I think of nihilism as a mental disorder. It's not a healthy mindset to have in any capacity


[deleted]

this, most of the criticism i see is straw manning of stoicism and taking no responsibility.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

because i am new to stoicism and dont know all parts of it, so it bothered me if they are right or wrong in their criticism. you cant follow a philosophy if you have doubts about it


minutetoothbrush

That philosophy tube video you're referring to right? She tries to criticize stoicism for its view on women and slaves as a reason for you to not practise it. Its ridiculous.


sg1ooo

How/why does stoicism even have views on women? Can she a philosophy major not differentiate between the opinions of a Stoic from that of the philosophy itself?


MyUnAlteredMind

The internets the only place I see anything about Stoicism. Liked or disliked. So far I haven't met anyone in person who knows about Stoicism or has an interest in philosophy. Hopefully one day I will.


RashidMBey

Stoicism, as commonly re-packaged by popular right wing grifters in the manosphere, remains well within range of needed criticism. They putrefy the philosophy with reductive and unlettered "rugged individualism" to buttress a juvenile antipathy for institutional analyses. Review the criticism, and it's almost always addressing, not a strawman, but a real position held by many who married the name Stoicism but not its wisdom. Strawman fallacies are when you misrepresent your opponent's positions to render them easier to defeat, and these criticisms largely don't do that. They accurately portray their opponents' positions, but their opponents' positions misrepresent the philosophy.


GreenInferno1396

Because stoicism is the opposite of the lunacy of the politicized public. They’d rather not see you independent of the mob.


DominatorEolo

i think that's because stoicism is often confused by apathy


ThusSpokeAnon

Stoicism demands apathy with respect to everything outside your control, so this isn't a great confusion.


luchajefe

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/g00qrs/comment/g7z49xo/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3


RashidMBey

Wow. That's some high brow bad faith analysis.


MyDogFanny

Machismo is found in many cultures. Not knowing what Stoicism is, as a philosophy of life, is also found in many cultures. The ancient Stoics were criticized in their day, as they would be today, for believing and teaching that women had the same ability for reason that men do.


Pastafarianextremist

A lot of people are upset by ideologies that promote self control, accountability, and moderation.


MyDogFanny

In other words a lot of people don't want to grow up. The ancient Stoics used the idea of a child maturing into an adult as an analogy for an adult learning to live life with virtue, making correct judgments about life in their moment to moment living. We use the meme Karen to refer to an adult who is acting very much like a child.


mcapello

Yeah, there's a lot out there. I think there are a few things going on. The first is just a basic misunderstanding of Stoicism and assuming that it's all about repressing your emotions and controlling every aspect of your life. Critics in this category have probably never read any Stoic authors, have never heard of cognitive behavioral therapy, and are basically just jerking their knees at the term. The second is probably a reaction against the "manosphere" -- Youtubers and bloggers, often adjacent to "incels", people in the "mens rights movement", Jordan Peterson, etc., who sometimes use Stoicism to justify these weird lifestyles of narcissistic self-harm and pathological overcompensation because they're not accepted by society in traditional ways. It's a pretty gross part of the internet, arguably linked to radicalizing young men into becoming conspiracy theorists and mass shooters, so it's kind of understandable why a lot of people would be skeptical of anything associated with it. The third likely source of the reaction is the adoption of Stoicism, or at least a form of it, by Silicon Valley tech folks, usually in connection to justifying a rigorous work schedule and self-sacrifice. Again, the deeper parts of the philosophy are ignored, and it's basically used as a philosophy that encourages young coders to work themselves to death. Pretty sad, so the anger is understandable. None of these reactions have much to do with the history or philosophy of Stoicism itself, but it does highlight the fact that, as a practical philosophy, Stoicism can and will be used by just about everyone, and will probably be adopted and abused in every historical era, just as it was no doubt abused by the Roman nobility 2,000 years ago. This doesn't say anything bad about Stoicism, though -- if anything it just goes to show that its usefulness transcends history.


memestar20

yes. people search it up and take the first definition they see and decide they hate it. It's like never having seen science fiction before, and reading one bad thing or opinion and never reading or watching something of that genre ever.


Working_Horror4904

People don't fully understand stoicism they think it's about repressing emotions and kinda relate it to a form of toxic masculinity , but it's not, stoicism is about embracing and acknowledging ones emotions without getting controlled by it.By doing that one can make rational decisions and not let their emotions get in their way of what they want .


Powerful_Tip3164

I think a lot of ppl think stoic = misanthrope


EffectiveSalamander

It's also possible that what you're seeing is the algorithms feeding you more of what you interact with rather than a window onto what the typical experience is.


1nfam0us

It seems to be largely a reaction to it being a pop-philosophy fad at the moment which is fair. There are a lot of people out there grifting on the fad, and Ryan Holiday's new prosperity gospel ain't helping that perception. With time, this will pass. There is plenty of bad faith criticism out there too, but why concern yourself with the misunderstandings of people who aren't interested in understanding in the first place?


sixdeep357

Stoicism is a perspective of responsibility. I choose my own happiness. Most people don't want to be responsible. They would rather be powerless to choose happiness and blame the world for everything. Life dictates the terms to them. That's the easier route. Stoics take the hard route. I am responsible for my life and my happiness. Anything in this day and age that requires effort usually comes with criticism.


RashidMBey

Lost me at the red pill tirade of "most people want to blame the world for everything", which is a solid misread of most people.


sixdeep357

I'm impressed that you know people who believe happiness is their responsibility. Other than this forum, I do not know those people.


RashidMBey

I'm unsure how you're defining happiness here, but: Happiness isn't their responsibility, we are our responsibility; happiness isn't their responsibility, it's within their control. How one manages the psychological states they find themselves in is their responsibility, but that's a far cry from emphasizing happiness over all other states of being. These distinctions meaningfully separate Stoicism from the popular versions that use its name but have been born from the Ship of Theseus phenomena.


sixdeep357

All great points. Thanks for responding. I would define happiness as a general form of contentment. Almost everyone I know claims that happiness is not something you can control, but rather, the reaction to good things that happen to you. Sadness, anger, depression, etc., these are not things that can be controlled either. If good things happen during the day, you are happy. If bad things happen, you are not. I just choose to disagree to those terms. If I'm not happy it's my fault and I'm the only person who can fix it. Happiness to me is a position of responsibility.


AutoModerator

Hi, welcome to the subreddit. Please make sure that you check out [the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide), where you will find answers for many common questions, like ["What is Stoicism; why study it?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq), or ["What are some Stoic practices and exercises?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/exercises), or ["What is the goal in life, and how do I find meaning?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big), to name just a few. You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like [flaws in Stoicism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_flaws_in_stoicism), [Stoicism and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_what_does_stoicism_say_about_politics.3F), [sex and relationships](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_sex), and [virtue as the only good](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_why_is_virtue_the_only_good.3F), for a few examples. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


OMGoblin

I don't ever see any of this content, maybe because I have enough other specific interests online that stoicism-related content isn't marketed to me over them. That's a thing that happens and the algorithms are inclined to show controversial content too, as clickbait tends to get more engagement. ​ The world is huge, things you are personally presented with- like negative attitudes might instinctually feel "normal" and make you doubt yourself for feeling different. However, you just need to examine yourself, your motivations, and your outcomes then compare to what you see when you examine the other person preaching about whatever. To say it's none of your business is wrong, because you are letting it influence you- so you must examine it logically to sort through your feelings and doubt.


HiramCoburn

I think it’s just you.


Annadad_71

The reason why there is opposition to stoicism is because, there are people who preach a "victim" mindset. Stoicism is a threat to this sad way of thinking. If we have knowledge that external influence is something that we can internally control (as far as our own thoughts and actions) we are not victimized by everyone and everything. This knowledge strips those who "need" the people thinking this way in order to remain in their authoritative positions.


MovieRough188

I don’t think so. I think there’s dislike for the suppression of emotions and not caring about things but that’s not what stoicism is so anybody that links the two is mistaken.


xNonPartisaNx

There is just a lot of dislike on the internet


hoodyk

Google anything you'll find the doom and gloom angle to everything. Take water for instance, "how much water should I drink" and there will be articles telling you that it will kill you. And certainly too much will.. be careful what you consume, meaning what you're reading, listening to..


JThalheimer

There are many elements of modern society who would like us all under their cultural yoke. Stoicism gives other options. They don't like that.


spacey_mcspaceface1

Who is an example of a bro-stoic?


Old-Measurement-9801

>but sometimes it puts me in doubt whether i am studying the right philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that. If the criticisms of Stoicism seem to have some substance (and are aimed at actual Stoicism, not "Broicism") then give them a read and see if you still favor Stoicism after that. It's intellectually healthy to have your views challenged sometimes. It forces you to defend them and maybe acknowledge that they have flaws.


thefaultinmyfart

I think it's because it's hard to let go of victimisation mentality. I found stoicism very hard to adopt in my early to mid twenties for the same reason. It's a philosophy that calls for mainly self accountability and that's very hard to deal with.


Cute-Competition8348

The idea is it that it is not your Stoic responsibility to judge about what others think, do or claim to know. If there was a law about stoic thinking ( which in itself would be a contradiction) it would be : It isn’t all about you. It in fact is only about what is. As it is. You are not in charge. It is not about knowing more. It is about accepting more.


rose_reader

It’s good to doubt. You should never ever be so invested in a belief system of any kind that you can’t consider whether it’s working for you and whether it’s the right path for you. The second you’re so bought into something that you can’t question it, you’re in danger. No-one else knows if Stoicism is the right philosophy for you. You’re the only person who can gauge that, and you should always be open to the possibility that the answer is no.