Stoicism versus stoicism
I am not new to stoicism. I am new to Stoicism.
Say what?
We are all pretty familiar with the generally-accepted definition of stoicism: stiff-upper lip, bottle up those emotions, show no pain. Someone is acting stoically when a person endures pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining. It’s generally seen as a good thing today. And it is also seen as an admirable masculine trait. Be a good stand-up man and hide all that emotional shit.
In fact, to date, most of my coaching clients have been men. Maybe they see the word stoic in my business name (Stoic Solutions Coaching) and assume that I will promote the stifling of pesky feelings. Maybe they assume that I have created a “safe space” for the bottling of emotions.
And if that’s what they do expect, they get a bit of a rude awakening.
See, stoicism isn’t the same thing as Stoicism. Capital-S Stoicism is an ancient philosophy, developed by a merchant-trader named Zeno of Citium around 300 BC. (NB - not an exhaustive history of Stoicism is included here.) He was shipwrecked and ended up in Athens - where he learned about Socrates and got caught up with the Cynics. He ended up finding his own brand of philosophy which had the fundamental goal of achieving happiness (Greeks use eudaimonia - happiness is a poor translation, but it’ll do here) by living according to Nature.
Zeno’s philosophy (which came to be known as Stoicism after the Greek stoa where he philosophised - stoa means porch) was popularised later by Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius - the Big Three.
The Big Three saw a life of practiced philosophy as a way to ensure a good life. The main take-aways from their practice of Stoicism were, paraphrased for today:
Concern yourself only with what is in your control.
Accept life as it happens.
Today is what matters. All we have is the present.
Live according to the virtues (the four traditional Stoic virtues are wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation).
You’ll notice that there is nothing on list that says bottle up emotions. That’s because Stoicism isn’t about stifling emotions. Instead it is about using those emotions to make better choices to lead a better life.
Let’s take anger as an example. Some jerk cuts you off in traffic. You spill your coffee on your pants as you swerve away. The dude in the car behind you honks and gives you the finger. You. Are. Pissed. You swear and spit and feel all the indignation in the world. Fuck you, life! Fuck you, jerk!
And then what?
Acting like a lowercase-s stoic would be to internalise all of the shit. Maybe give a finger back. But really just bottle it all up. And then nothing. You just stew in the injustices that life has thrown at you.
Hooray?
Acting like a capital-S Stoic would be to acknowledge that something really shitty just happened. And you are angry. Of course you are - jerks surround you. But those jerks can’t get under your skin. They can’t even (h/t to Honest Mediation).
The difference between a stoic and a Stoic response is how to use that anger to better yourself. Cast the anger under the light of virtues; doing so takes the shitty thing that happened, that was completely out of your control, and learn from it.
What on earth can you learn from being cut off by an asshole?
Wisdom? Be more aware of those cars around you. Justice? Jerk dude could get a ticket for dangerous driving. Courage? Choosing not to fight can take oodles of courage. And moderation? You didn’t honk back or chase that son of a bitch.
Take a moment to check yourself - are you being stoic or Stoic? Emotions are not unvirtuous, they help us live more virtuously.
What’s your take on stoicism versus Stoicism?
