causticus: trees (Default)
I've been around a few people who have claimed to be practicing "Stoicism" let's just say I wasn't very impressed; to put it rather lightly. Back when I still had Facebook I poked around in a few groups that were ostensibly devoted to Stoic practice. There I noticed a lot of virtue-signalling and plenty of parroting of currently-fashionable ideologies (various regressive-progressive liberal and SJW talking points), of course under the guise of being "stoic." What a hoot.

Problem #1 is that so-called "Modern Stoicism" is rather wishy-washy on the topic of metaphysics. It's most popular promoters, which are life coaches of the typical contemporary character, tend to avoid the fact that the classical/traditional Stoics of Hellenistic antiquity nearly all subscribed to a spiritual worldview of one sort or another. The Moderns however are just fine with letting their students cling into whatever nihilistic and relativistic modern and postmodern views they wish. Enforcing spiritual discipline among students is, ya know, bad for business and stuff. Who wants to chase away customers when there's so much $$$ to be made?? On a more grounded note, it's quite possible that many of these "teachers" are themselves ignorant of traditional spiritual doctrines. So even if they aren't necessarily money-grubbing opportunists, they are still a shining example of the blind leading the blind.

The bitter truth is that most modern, secular, educated people (this comprises the vast majority of those who identify as stoics today) here in the West now base their morality solely on utilitarian presuppositions and believe in one or another "humanist" doctrines which place no principle higher than that of the individual human ego. In absence of a higher or divine principle, human existence is little more than a battle of egocentric wills and this battle can only be framed realistically though the lens of Machiavellian game theory analysis. So we have people **using** stoic methodology for the purpose of **appearing** more virtuous (what they envision virtue to be) than the next guy. There's no Good in and of itself. What's passed off as "stoic" virtues is little more than mere utility. The purpose of the whole endeavor is to use a "stoic" toolkit to prove one's ego as **appearing** to be more pure/clean or advanced/evolved than other egos. Of course I don't think most modern stoic practitioners see their own use of stoicism as being anything like those attributes. But if/when they sit down and ponder the ultimate purpose for their study of this knowledge then they may in fact come to a similar conclusion as to what I laid out above. The long and short of it is that without a consistent Physics* (metaphysical weltanschauung), Stoicism is nothing more than a methodology without a clearly-defined end goal.

*remember that classical/traditional Stoicism consists of three parts: Physics, Logic/Rhetoric and Ethics. Most modern practitioners tend to omit the first two parts and are thus practicing a massively-incomplete system.
causticus: trees (Default)
A post from Reddit I found to be quite interesting:
Can a person who has gained their full nature and happiness through stoic philosophy exist in modern western culture that has beliefs in unregulated catharsis, constant hedonistic forms of media and a strong belief in that external values dictate happiness?

The ideal stoic would most likely if they are a honest person be problematic to their social circles. When a group is angry or sad it is often seen as apathy or even hostility when a person within that group is calm and collected.

Let’s say person gets sick and they ask a ideal stoic “Why me?” and the ideal stoic responses with “Why not you, you haven’t been born special or superior to others who had just as much chance at getting sick as you, nothing wrong or out of the ordinary happened here.” In my opinion two reactions will happen, they will thank the ideal stoic for the logical and calming advice or they will see this as apathy and be offended that they aren’t illogically taking their minor and inconsequential problems as major ones.

“A good man is not prostrated at the loss of children nor fortune. Neither is death terrible to him; and therefore lamentations over the dead should not be practised.” - Plato’s Republic

Not a work of a stoic, however, better yet a message coming one of three of the most valuable philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) this message is not anti caring about children or to be suicidal much rather a virtuous person would want life for everyone to choose, however, this simply shows that there is a different level of reality and reason with a person who is a ideal stoic, because of this misunderstanding of the ideal stoic I argue that he/she would most likely be seen as apathetic or psychopathic.

I would like to see any problems with my reasoning.


My response:

A person who enacts Stoicism into their daily conduct and rhythms is a walking refutation of people who very easily give in to an emotion-driven mob mentality. Without even uttering a single word, such a person is a reminder of what the emotionally-incontinent person is not. And thus, projection onto the former from the latter person is a very likely reaction to occur. Especially in this current mini-era of hyper-partisanship, shrill ideological tribalism and crazy moral panics, the mere refusal to join in whatever chorus of howls is taking place at the moment immediately elicits suspicions of the stoic non-participant being "the enemy" or whatever other out-group designation the mob might assign to the person refusing to get with their program. Human herd behavior is quite primal and dangerous, and getting caught in the stampede can be deadly.

To answer your question: I do believe YES, they can certainly exist in today's culture, but they must tread carefully and be very selective about whom they interact with. Though this is true really of any era or cultural environment.
Page generated Feb. 11th, 2026 12:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios