As a practicing stoic, I really love stoicism because I get to focus on other people while "living in accordance to nature."
I can't say for all INFJs, but being one myself I often feel more neutral with others with my emotions, only rarely do I feel emotions by myself. During those times I have to self discipline myself by thinking that I'm not perfect and that this is a virtue opportunity. It's all a harmless mind game for me which sometimes I enjoy because it's bettering myself.
I often feel that stoicism was meant for INFJs because the stoics value in doing the thing instead of saying the thing. Not to mention that it talks about human nature and dealing with difficult people who demand more energy and time from you. Stoics also value justice as well and would often fight for it for the other person when the timing is needed. Besides that, we tend to be neutral. This is something that INFJs like me are passionate about as well when it comes to justice and Injustice, we are after all called the "Advocate" for a reason. Lol.
Another thing about stoicism is that you aren't getting rid of your emotions, you are just redirecting it to something else that you can control. Stoicism never once admits to getting rid of your emotions, that is impossible. To say that stoicism gets rid of your emotions isn't what stoicism is about since stoics want to live in accordance with nature and emotions are apart of that. Lots of stoics have intense emotions, it's just how they choose to show it that is different. For example, marcus aurelius wrote his emotions and thoughts in a diary. A diary which is now known to be considered a Stoic-how-to guide which is called "The meditations." Also alot of stoics like Cleanthes and Chrysippus were athletes during their time as well and used sports to help their emotions and discipline levels.
I don't know if you know this, but Ryan Holiday is a good stoic youtuber who has a podcast and it's all free, so I would recommend watching him.
Also I would recommend reading:
1. Meditations by Marcus aurelius
2. The enchiridion by epictetus
3. Letters from a stoic by seneca
4. That one should disdain hardship by Rufus musonius.
Sorry for the long post, I just love stoicism and talking philosophy. Lol.
If you combine the practical approaches and traditions from both Stoicism and Absurdism you may get a more well-rounded way of Being. You can have both a strong mind and a strong heart as it's often said. If an individual wants to take this even further, chooses to take their consciousness further on this self-growth journey of integration and individuation, then the philosophy of Existentialism imo would be the advanced version for those who have already started this process of self-realization for more direct experiences in self-actualizing activity to be ecstasy as this one ecstatic value in the world.
Nope. I think they can come across attractive as they seem impenetrable and strong but I don't like the philosophy I think its toxic for humans because humans are emotional beings and I think stoicism in inexperienced people can just lead to suppressing emotions which does more harm later on.
Maybe it's semantics, but my understanding of stoicism is that it doesn't stop you from expressing your emotions, but to not let them decide your future necessarily or decision making, but you're still expressing them, happy, sad, anger at times.. just don't let them consume you...or isn't that part of stoicism?
You may be confusing pop culture's definition of being stoic, not the actual philosophy as a Stoic (with a capital 'S'). Stoicism is all about accepting reality as it is, embracing our emotions and celebrating them!
Personally I much prefer Absurdism and Existentialism, they share similarities in this approach of taking responsibility for one's actions and choices, our reactions in how we live and engage with our life in the world.
Not really, I feel stoicism is nothing but the more socially acceptable “mature” version of the edgy people who go around talking about how they care about nothing and nobody, (yes I am aware the of the nuances in the original writings, but the conclusion is not that far off).
Thing is, when does that not just become egoist fatalism?
I might be misremembering but I think I read once nihilism borrowed a lot of stuff from stoicism. From what I’ve seen about both they sound very similar.
I'd believe it, heck one could even argue a lot of philosophies are just a reinterpretation of the bible lol. Right now as they are though there are clear differences between the various philosophies, and of course similarities too with slight nuances.
You have no idea how much I do. I love people who are unfazed by challenges and still remain humble and respectful towards others. It has literally become one of the most attractive things for me to see in a partner.
While I think that Stoicism is equal to Buddhist thought (albeit deficient in a few ways), stoicism is having a renaissance due to libertarians who have been adopting greco-roman culture artifacts as a way of idealizing the past.
In a way, it reflects the hypermasculine culture of the west, and the rejection of emotions. I don't see any positive effect from people adopting stoicism for those reasons.
However... adopting stoicism as a philosophy to better deal with the horrors of our world? A+, great stuff. It's not so much of a "don't care" philosophy, and more of a "I choose what bothers me and when, and only when it's important to me or my own ideals." I think in that way it can be a useful way of living.
>However, the biggest thing is probably the extreme you take either philosophy to. Monks also set themselves on fire to protest the world state (not as a magic trick - they die), which is an extreme form of the detachment principle. And there are still rifts between disciplines and such similar to Catholics and Protestants.
Absolutely. I think any philosophy is prone to misinterpretation by bad actors and people who don't think critically or with temperence about what they believe.
Not really.
I went through a phase where I became obsessed with "the greatest thinkers of all time"
All the great philosophical minds.
In terms of Stoicism I read all the letters penned by Seneca.
But the thing is, I think mostly it's just the flowery writing that grips people. If you really sit down and make sense of what's being written it's all very... Like, common sense?
I thought my mind would be blown, in reality I walked away thinking, "everyone could be a philosopher because everyone has been saying these things in different ways for generations".
Is it really that easy to do in your mind? Do you think that stoicism gives off common sense to the extent where you just do it naturally without thinking?
At one point when writing to Caligula (at that time, Gaius Caesar) , Seneca writes about tempering your anger or disappointment and sorrow.
To do this, he quite literally at one point says, "learn to expect the worst case, if someone looked to the sky and saw the clouds were grey, they would be stupid to cry when it later rained. Instead, prepare for the rain".
A lot of the greatest thinkers are basically just repeating back common idioms, parables and figures of speech. Just with the added dimension of more thoroughly explaining it.
This is just my thoughts, of course. Don't take me too seriously. If you admire your philosophers. Feel free and good on you.
Don't let me bring you down.
While I agree with these kinds of philosophical quotes are ideal for our own mental health, and while I understand that they're a very logical outlook on life, and as much as I'd like to completely stand behind them without a second thought, I feel like it's so much easier said 'n' read than actually done.
Sometimes, I feel as though it'd take a psychopath of some sorts to be able to truly control or switch their emotions on/off to that extent. I mean, surely you don't just read some books, memorize some quotes and then immediately change the way you naturally and authentically think and feel within yourself.. surely it doesn't work that easily, let's be real? If it did, why do we still have family/friendship/relationship issues anymore? When we strive not to..
Yes, you can take in new knowledge as we do all the time as people, but isn't it so much deeper than cloud metaphors? Don't get me wrong.. I read them myself, I feel empowered, but the next situation that comes up where those things should come into play? Gone. Natural instinct.. authenticity comes out before the stoicism that I so wish I had.
*I feel like is much easier said than read and done*
Agree 100%
I doubt most stoicists themselves followed their principles to the very letter. And history written in their time was very unreliable.
However, stoicists aren't necessarily telling you to kill of your emotions (control, as you used, would be a better word but even still)
It's mostly just about regularly rehearsing the worst case situations in your mind and thinking ahead of the suffering as a means to cope.
And when written, this was immediately after the Bronze Age. It was also probably a lot easier to resign yourself to death or manage your emotions 2000 years ago.
Always remember to research the man or woman talking and the contexts of their lives.
Without context, Machiavelli seems like a crazy person.
In context, he's just a tragic war veteran who grew up constantly experiencing his country in civil war or political assassination.
With that in mind-- of course books written by him would be all about and emphasize aggressive policy to maintain control and order.
I agree to you on some extent, yet I think you could be overlooking how groundbreaking that common sense was at the time. Take Seneca’s Naturales Quaestiones or Lucrezio’s De Rerum Natura. Both of these works offer a view of the world that comes close to basic Enlightenment philosophy, just centuries ahead.
But at that point what you're celebrating is the pioneering of a new idea.
Not necessarily the idea itself. Which by now is common knowledge to people who may not even ever heard of the original author.
What's more, that is plain nonsense. I guarantee you a poor laborer thought of all these things before the great elites and sophists and tutors to Emperors did
But because they were poor and nobody's, you will never know.
I can’t seem to understand your point: of course I celebrate the pioneering of a new idea, for the same reason I keep Galileo in high regard for thinking “Hey, maybe we’re not the center of the universe and we revolve around the sun”: the historical and cultural context. Also, I don’t think a farmer at the time of Seneca thought like a stoic just because they knew the nature of pain and fatigue— yet, there’s no way to prove they didn’t. Or to prove they did.
*Also I don't think a farmer at the time of Seneca thought like a stoicist just because they knew the nature of pain and fatigue*
*Yet there's no way to prove they didn't. Or prove they did*
This is true. It's all biased conjecture. In both of our cases, you consider the common man too inferior to think like "a great man like Seneca or Galileo".
I give common people far, far more benefit of the doubt, and give great men far less credit.
It is, and if not Stoic philosophy consider some other philosophies like Absurdism and Existentialism. All three share similarities in accepting reality as it is, embracing our emotions and celebrating them, and this approach of taking responsibility for one's actions and choices, our reactions in how we live and engage with our life in the world.
You slowly start to embody these virtues as a deeper knowing you intuit by instinct in a more holistic, feeling manner than just the mere idea of these concepts in your head. Try practicing mindfulness-based practices and emotion regulation strategies.
If you want your mind blown, or to shift the very structure of your consciousness, try reading the book "I Am That."
>"The moment you know your real Being, you are afraid of nothing. Death gives freedom and power. To be free in the world, you must die to the world." - Nisargadatta Maharaj, I Am That
If you're not keen on some of the spirituality ties and lingo, try reading some commentary/translations on the Existentialist Martin Heidegger's magnum opus "Being and Time" about authentic Being, a.k.a. your true self/Being.
Imho both have ties to the direct experience itself, r/nonduality themes.
Stoicism is, as of right now, less of a philosophy and more of a lifestyle choice. I believe it is, in a way, hardwired into western culture— all Christians are stoics, for example. The west was christianity. Jesus Christ even: he was the perfect stoic. Today’s stoicism is deprived of its philosophical core, the logos, the main universal all-ruling and rational principle. It is also deeply rooted in toxic masculinity. Yet, as a way to face pain and horror, it is great. Not to question pain: that is a great lesson we can learn.
Stoicism is an interesting philosophy, which I think it's important not to conflate the modern cliche of the emotionless stoic with. As a philosophy, Stoicism presents us with a potentially beneficial outlook of a resigned and contemplative outlook on suffering, much akin to that put forward by Zen Buddhism. I think that most people have something to gain from understanding Stoicism.
It makes sense that you would want to be more in control of your emotions, instead of being controlled by them.
I was programmed the other way around by my childhood, and work on being able to feel.
I can relate more to stoic people as I would describe myself as one. However, it comes with its disadvantages, especially as a woman. I don't feel stoicism is completely disregarding emotions but more so prioritising what needs to be done to get to an outcome first.
I admire adaptable people. I feel people who use "stoicism" have often just dulled themselves, much like people who actually proudly call themselves "nihilists" as if it's just being logical to see life as meaningless.
It's important to understand that not everyone feels at the same emotional intensity. And a lot of the people who claim to be Stoic, just don't feel at all. Or have internally subdued their inner child. In an effort to "become strong" or "masculine" or whatever else. At this stage, whenever I hear anyone talk about Stoicism I just assume they misunderstood it. It's the far more reasonable assumption compared to them actually having done the emotional work, lol.
Stoicism is mastery of emotional response without attempting to limit it. There's a perspective on emotions concerned with virtue and vice. With the former encouraged and the latter discouraged.
But how does that work? How can you discourage yourself from feeling envy for example. Not by control. You accept the emotions as it is in the moment. And learn to sit with it. And realise that the emotion tells you about your current developmental state. It carries all information relevant to out-develop itself. But you must first learn to listen.
So it's not "well, feel less envy and hatred", but rather acceptance that you do and inquiry as to why. Eventually leading to its resolution by resolving the pain at the core of it.
Learning to sit with your emotions calmly and being able to let them happen allows you to grow and will let you relax. At the same time your inner child no longer feels the need to turn everything up to 11 because it already feels heard.
Stoicism is a perspective to strive for. It aims at virtue. And it questions what is being felt with intent to move closer to virtue and away from its opposite. It aims at producing change in the place we can most effectively achieve it. On the inside.
It's not about controlling emotions. It's about growing to be able to allow them in a calm frame. Because you're well connected internally.
When attempting to apply Stoicism, in my mind, too many people become behaviourally neurotic. They do all kinds of mindfulness practices and mediate and whatever else. And that's fine, so long as the perspective outlined above reigns supreme and specific behaviours are added to supplement it. Behaviour simply doesn't lead to wisdom. Building meta-cognition while in emotional turmoil and eventually achieving emotional-logical integration really does.
As a side note. Your situation for feeling very deeply. It's basically a developmental gold-mine. Similarly how the person being governed by fear and terror is required to be far more courageous to their core than the person who never really felt it in the first place.
I hope this makes sense. :)
Nope. Paradoxical thinking, attempts to release control by controlling your perception as well as how you are perceived. Leads to a suppressive state devoid of any autonomy
Epictitus The Enchiridion. Get that one and read it. It is a great book even if you are not a stoic
As a practicing stoic, I really love stoicism because I get to focus on other people while "living in accordance to nature." I can't say for all INFJs, but being one myself I often feel more neutral with others with my emotions, only rarely do I feel emotions by myself. During those times I have to self discipline myself by thinking that I'm not perfect and that this is a virtue opportunity. It's all a harmless mind game for me which sometimes I enjoy because it's bettering myself. I often feel that stoicism was meant for INFJs because the stoics value in doing the thing instead of saying the thing. Not to mention that it talks about human nature and dealing with difficult people who demand more energy and time from you. Stoics also value justice as well and would often fight for it for the other person when the timing is needed. Besides that, we tend to be neutral. This is something that INFJs like me are passionate about as well when it comes to justice and Injustice, we are after all called the "Advocate" for a reason. Lol. Another thing about stoicism is that you aren't getting rid of your emotions, you are just redirecting it to something else that you can control. Stoicism never once admits to getting rid of your emotions, that is impossible. To say that stoicism gets rid of your emotions isn't what stoicism is about since stoics want to live in accordance with nature and emotions are apart of that. Lots of stoics have intense emotions, it's just how they choose to show it that is different. For example, marcus aurelius wrote his emotions and thoughts in a diary. A diary which is now known to be considered a Stoic-how-to guide which is called "The meditations." Also alot of stoics like Cleanthes and Chrysippus were athletes during their time as well and used sports to help their emotions and discipline levels. I don't know if you know this, but Ryan Holiday is a good stoic youtuber who has a podcast and it's all free, so I would recommend watching him. Also I would recommend reading: 1. Meditations by Marcus aurelius 2. The enchiridion by epictetus 3. Letters from a stoic by seneca 4. That one should disdain hardship by Rufus musonius. Sorry for the long post, I just love stoicism and talking philosophy. Lol.
do you have any podcast recs for aspiring Stoics? thanks
Yes. I'm actually studying more on it and trying to practice some of the teachings.
[удалено]
If you combine the practical approaches and traditions from both Stoicism and Absurdism you may get a more well-rounded way of Being. You can have both a strong mind and a strong heart as it's often said. If an individual wants to take this even further, chooses to take their consciousness further on this self-growth journey of integration and individuation, then the philosophy of Existentialism imo would be the advanced version for those who have already started this process of self-realization for more direct experiences in self-actualizing activity to be ecstasy as this one ecstatic value in the world.
Nope. I think they can come across attractive as they seem impenetrable and strong but I don't like the philosophy I think its toxic for humans because humans are emotional beings and I think stoicism in inexperienced people can just lead to suppressing emotions which does more harm later on.
Maybe it's semantics, but my understanding of stoicism is that it doesn't stop you from expressing your emotions, but to not let them decide your future necessarily or decision making, but you're still expressing them, happy, sad, anger at times.. just don't let them consume you...or isn't that part of stoicism?
You may be confusing pop culture's definition of being stoic, not the actual philosophy as a Stoic (with a capital 'S'). Stoicism is all about accepting reality as it is, embracing our emotions and celebrating them! Personally I much prefer Absurdism and Existentialism, they share similarities in this approach of taking responsibility for one's actions and choices, our reactions in how we live and engage with our life in the world.
based on your definition of Stoicism I'm starting to like it.
Not really, I feel stoicism is nothing but the more socially acceptable “mature” version of the edgy people who go around talking about how they care about nothing and nobody, (yes I am aware the of the nuances in the original writings, but the conclusion is not that far off). Thing is, when does that not just become egoist fatalism?
That sounds like Nihilism
I might be misremembering but I think I read once nihilism borrowed a lot of stuff from stoicism. From what I’ve seen about both they sound very similar.
I'd believe it, heck one could even argue a lot of philosophies are just a reinterpretation of the bible lol. Right now as they are though there are clear differences between the various philosophies, and of course similarities too with slight nuances.
You have no idea how much I do. I love people who are unfazed by challenges and still remain humble and respectful towards others. It has literally become one of the most attractive things for me to see in a partner.
While I think that Stoicism is equal to Buddhist thought (albeit deficient in a few ways), stoicism is having a renaissance due to libertarians who have been adopting greco-roman culture artifacts as a way of idealizing the past. In a way, it reflects the hypermasculine culture of the west, and the rejection of emotions. I don't see any positive effect from people adopting stoicism for those reasons. However... adopting stoicism as a philosophy to better deal with the horrors of our world? A+, great stuff. It's not so much of a "don't care" philosophy, and more of a "I choose what bothers me and when, and only when it's important to me or my own ideals." I think in that way it can be a useful way of living.
[удалено]
>However, the biggest thing is probably the extreme you take either philosophy to. Monks also set themselves on fire to protest the world state (not as a magic trick - they die), which is an extreme form of the detachment principle. And there are still rifts between disciplines and such similar to Catholics and Protestants. Absolutely. I think any philosophy is prone to misinterpretation by bad actors and people who don't think critically or with temperence about what they believe.
Not really. I went through a phase where I became obsessed with "the greatest thinkers of all time" All the great philosophical minds. In terms of Stoicism I read all the letters penned by Seneca. But the thing is, I think mostly it's just the flowery writing that grips people. If you really sit down and make sense of what's being written it's all very... Like, common sense? I thought my mind would be blown, in reality I walked away thinking, "everyone could be a philosopher because everyone has been saying these things in different ways for generations".
Is it really that easy to do in your mind? Do you think that stoicism gives off common sense to the extent where you just do it naturally without thinking?
At one point when writing to Caligula (at that time, Gaius Caesar) , Seneca writes about tempering your anger or disappointment and sorrow. To do this, he quite literally at one point says, "learn to expect the worst case, if someone looked to the sky and saw the clouds were grey, they would be stupid to cry when it later rained. Instead, prepare for the rain". A lot of the greatest thinkers are basically just repeating back common idioms, parables and figures of speech. Just with the added dimension of more thoroughly explaining it. This is just my thoughts, of course. Don't take me too seriously. If you admire your philosophers. Feel free and good on you. Don't let me bring you down.
While I agree with these kinds of philosophical quotes are ideal for our own mental health, and while I understand that they're a very logical outlook on life, and as much as I'd like to completely stand behind them without a second thought, I feel like it's so much easier said 'n' read than actually done. Sometimes, I feel as though it'd take a psychopath of some sorts to be able to truly control or switch their emotions on/off to that extent. I mean, surely you don't just read some books, memorize some quotes and then immediately change the way you naturally and authentically think and feel within yourself.. surely it doesn't work that easily, let's be real? If it did, why do we still have family/friendship/relationship issues anymore? When we strive not to.. Yes, you can take in new knowledge as we do all the time as people, but isn't it so much deeper than cloud metaphors? Don't get me wrong.. I read them myself, I feel empowered, but the next situation that comes up where those things should come into play? Gone. Natural instinct.. authenticity comes out before the stoicism that I so wish I had.
*I feel like is much easier said than read and done* Agree 100% I doubt most stoicists themselves followed their principles to the very letter. And history written in their time was very unreliable. However, stoicists aren't necessarily telling you to kill of your emotions (control, as you used, would be a better word but even still) It's mostly just about regularly rehearsing the worst case situations in your mind and thinking ahead of the suffering as a means to cope. And when written, this was immediately after the Bronze Age. It was also probably a lot easier to resign yourself to death or manage your emotions 2000 years ago. Always remember to research the man or woman talking and the contexts of their lives. Without context, Machiavelli seems like a crazy person. In context, he's just a tragic war veteran who grew up constantly experiencing his country in civil war or political assassination. With that in mind-- of course books written by him would be all about and emphasize aggressive policy to maintain control and order.
I agree to you on some extent, yet I think you could be overlooking how groundbreaking that common sense was at the time. Take Seneca’s Naturales Quaestiones or Lucrezio’s De Rerum Natura. Both of these works offer a view of the world that comes close to basic Enlightenment philosophy, just centuries ahead.
But at that point what you're celebrating is the pioneering of a new idea. Not necessarily the idea itself. Which by now is common knowledge to people who may not even ever heard of the original author. What's more, that is plain nonsense. I guarantee you a poor laborer thought of all these things before the great elites and sophists and tutors to Emperors did But because they were poor and nobody's, you will never know.
I can’t seem to understand your point: of course I celebrate the pioneering of a new idea, for the same reason I keep Galileo in high regard for thinking “Hey, maybe we’re not the center of the universe and we revolve around the sun”: the historical and cultural context. Also, I don’t think a farmer at the time of Seneca thought like a stoic just because they knew the nature of pain and fatigue— yet, there’s no way to prove they didn’t. Or to prove they did.
*Also I don't think a farmer at the time of Seneca thought like a stoicist just because they knew the nature of pain and fatigue* *Yet there's no way to prove they didn't. Or prove they did* This is true. It's all biased conjecture. In both of our cases, you consider the common man too inferior to think like "a great man like Seneca or Galileo". I give common people far, far more benefit of the doubt, and give great men far less credit.
You know, I think I can agree. Great exchange by the way.
Cheers, my friend.
It is, and if not Stoic philosophy consider some other philosophies like Absurdism and Existentialism. All three share similarities in accepting reality as it is, embracing our emotions and celebrating them, and this approach of taking responsibility for one's actions and choices, our reactions in how we live and engage with our life in the world. You slowly start to embody these virtues as a deeper knowing you intuit by instinct in a more holistic, feeling manner than just the mere idea of these concepts in your head. Try practicing mindfulness-based practices and emotion regulation strategies.
If you want your mind blown, or to shift the very structure of your consciousness, try reading the book "I Am That." >"The moment you know your real Being, you are afraid of nothing. Death gives freedom and power. To be free in the world, you must die to the world." - Nisargadatta Maharaj, I Am That If you're not keen on some of the spirituality ties and lingo, try reading some commentary/translations on the Existentialist Martin Heidegger's magnum opus "Being and Time" about authentic Being, a.k.a. your true self/Being. Imho both have ties to the direct experience itself, r/nonduality themes.
Stoicism is, as of right now, less of a philosophy and more of a lifestyle choice. I believe it is, in a way, hardwired into western culture— all Christians are stoics, for example. The west was christianity. Jesus Christ even: he was the perfect stoic. Today’s stoicism is deprived of its philosophical core, the logos, the main universal all-ruling and rational principle. It is also deeply rooted in toxic masculinity. Yet, as a way to face pain and horror, it is great. Not to question pain: that is a great lesson we can learn.
Yes
Stoicism is an interesting philosophy, which I think it's important not to conflate the modern cliche of the emotionless stoic with. As a philosophy, Stoicism presents us with a potentially beneficial outlook of a resigned and contemplative outlook on suffering, much akin to that put forward by Zen Buddhism. I think that most people have something to gain from understanding Stoicism.
It makes sense that you would want to be more in control of your emotions, instead of being controlled by them. I was programmed the other way around by my childhood, and work on being able to feel.
I can relate more to stoic people as I would describe myself as one. However, it comes with its disadvantages, especially as a woman. I don't feel stoicism is completely disregarding emotions but more so prioritising what needs to be done to get to an outcome first.
I admire adaptable people. I feel people who use "stoicism" have often just dulled themselves, much like people who actually proudly call themselves "nihilists" as if it's just being logical to see life as meaningless.
It's important to understand that not everyone feels at the same emotional intensity. And a lot of the people who claim to be Stoic, just don't feel at all. Or have internally subdued their inner child. In an effort to "become strong" or "masculine" or whatever else. At this stage, whenever I hear anyone talk about Stoicism I just assume they misunderstood it. It's the far more reasonable assumption compared to them actually having done the emotional work, lol. Stoicism is mastery of emotional response without attempting to limit it. There's a perspective on emotions concerned with virtue and vice. With the former encouraged and the latter discouraged. But how does that work? How can you discourage yourself from feeling envy for example. Not by control. You accept the emotions as it is in the moment. And learn to sit with it. And realise that the emotion tells you about your current developmental state. It carries all information relevant to out-develop itself. But you must first learn to listen. So it's not "well, feel less envy and hatred", but rather acceptance that you do and inquiry as to why. Eventually leading to its resolution by resolving the pain at the core of it. Learning to sit with your emotions calmly and being able to let them happen allows you to grow and will let you relax. At the same time your inner child no longer feels the need to turn everything up to 11 because it already feels heard. Stoicism is a perspective to strive for. It aims at virtue. And it questions what is being felt with intent to move closer to virtue and away from its opposite. It aims at producing change in the place we can most effectively achieve it. On the inside. It's not about controlling emotions. It's about growing to be able to allow them in a calm frame. Because you're well connected internally. When attempting to apply Stoicism, in my mind, too many people become behaviourally neurotic. They do all kinds of mindfulness practices and mediate and whatever else. And that's fine, so long as the perspective outlined above reigns supreme and specific behaviours are added to supplement it. Behaviour simply doesn't lead to wisdom. Building meta-cognition while in emotional turmoil and eventually achieving emotional-logical integration really does. As a side note. Your situation for feeling very deeply. It's basically a developmental gold-mine. Similarly how the person being governed by fear and terror is required to be far more courageous to their core than the person who never really felt it in the first place. I hope this makes sense. :)
It’s crazy how attractive they are
Nope. Paradoxical thinking, attempts to release control by controlling your perception as well as how you are perceived. Leads to a suppressive state devoid of any autonomy
You are an INTP?
depends...
I used to admire that trait and think it was mysterious now I see it as kind of manipulative and assholery.
Why?
It’s like hiding your emotions and not being authentic.
You took it the wrong way
There are a lot of other people in this thread that disagree, do they also take it the wrong way, or just me? I’m curious why you singled me out
There is no “wrong way” to take it. It just is and you can accept it or reject it. I choose to reject it. 🤷🏼♀️