Stoicism or Broicism? A Look Into The Philosophy's Criticisms and Its Recent Appeal to Men.

What is Stoicism?

Stoicism in simple words is the endurance of pain or hardship without complaint. The philosophy urges us to live a life of virtue, stay present, let go of the things we cannot control, cultivate inner strength and deal with hardships in life rationally rather than emotionally. It was founded by Zeno of Citium, and later popularized by philosophers like Seneca, Epictetus and the great Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius.

Though Stoicism has been well known in the philosophy world for a really long time, it gained huge popularity among the general population only in the last decade, especially through Ryan Holiday's books and YouTube videos. It makes sense why Stoicism happens to be the one to gain such popularity and be loved by the average man compared to other branches of philosophy. Stoicism seems simple, doesn't require a lot of reading to understand it, and is rooted in rational ideas that are generally easy for most people to grasp. It is not esoteric like eastern philosophy, or like concepts of interconnectedness and non duality that require specific lived experiences or in depth study to be able to understand it. Stoic philosophy is relatable and the common man can easily apply it to one's life once he understands the basic principles. I myself discovered Stoicism through the internet and for the last 2-3 years, I've applied it to my life a great deal. So far, I love it and it makes sense to me. But even with how much it has helped me and how much I agree with it, I do not subscribe to it 100%, which brings us to...

Recent criticisms and my thoughts on it.

As is the case with anything on the internet, with its increase in popularity, Stoicism has also gained some negative attention. Some of the criticisms are actually quite valid, and provide us with a more nuanced perspective. Some others, complete misinterpretations of the original idea.

Let's look at the four main criticisms that I see brought up consistently:

1. Stoicism makes you indifferent to the world around you.

I feel like this is the most popular misinterpretation of the philosophy, which is ironic as one of the core virtues of Stoicism is justice.

Marcus Aurelius says in meditations,

"You can also commit injustice by doing nothing."

This quote alone strongly condemns the neutrality and indifference that some claim stoicism is promoting. But indeed, there are other quotes that might seem to suggest so.

"Indifference to external events, and a commitment to justice in your own acts."

Without context and a deep understanding about what the philosophy is rooted in, one might think that Aurelius is urging fellow stoics to ignore external events and focus on one's own self. Here, an indifference to external events does not mean that you do not care about the major events that occur in the world. You are instead being urged to let go of the need to control what cannot be controlled, and redirect your energy to the only thing you can actually control; your actions. You are allowed to care about the injustice that surrounds you, but it is simply ill advised to waste your time on the side of the issue you can do absolutely nothing about. Let me break it down further using an example: You desire for the world to be at peace. But then, a war begins. Realistically, at the given moment, you cannot directly do anything to stop the war. So, instead of being upset about what you cannot change, you focus on what you can do as a citizen of the world. You make donations to those affected by the war, you start a peace initiative, you educate yourself on the issue and spread more information on the topic as these are all things you can realistically do to create an impact. What Stoicism teaches is to not turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, but try to eradicate injustice through our actions instead of getting emotionally paralyzed about unjust events outside our control.

2. Extreme pragmatism is problematic.

Stoicism markets itself as an idea rooted in reason and rationality, which is what makes it so appealing and largely helpful, as a lot of our suffering is rooted in irrational thinking. That being said, too much of anything can be bad. Pragmatism needs to be followed with nuance. Those who lack nuance and struggle with black and white thinking perceive Stoicism very differently than how it was intended to be perceived. The most important value in Stoicism is the ability to be realistic and distinguish between what you can and cannot control. The main idea is that you can control your actions but not external events. In psychology, it's called having an internal locus of control, which is considered mostly beneficial with some exceptions. What stoicism does is help you develop an internal locus of control. But those that lack nuance, often perceive the stoic idea of relinquishing the need to control the external as relinquishing all control. They end up with the belief that everything is outside their control and that it's unrealistic to put in the effort to make things happen in their lives. This is again, ironic because Stoicism is a philosophy that is all about accountability, responsibility and having courage. But I've noticed many people on the internet use the philosophy as just another excuse to avoid responsibility for their lives. And naturally, they end up with the same defeatist mentality they were meant to escape.

3. Stoicism minimizes suffering.

   Stoicism accepts that life is suffering and teaches us ways to reduce unnecessary suffering in the same way Buddhism does. It accepts suffering to be a part of life and even as a catalyst for growth, but suggests our own resistance, fear and irrationality is what makes suffering even more difficult to bear. It does not critique suffering itself but the torture we put ourselves through to escape from it, even though logically we know that there is no escape as it always surrounds us. The early stoics faced profound suffering. Epictetus was born a slave and remained a slave for a major part of his life. Seneca was chronically ill and lived in exile for 8 years. Marcus Aurelius lost majority of his children and lived through the plague. The Stoicism we know today was shaped by the suffering of these figures.

4. Stoicism teaches us that feelings = bad.

This is another huge misinterpretation that is very popular online. I do understand why, because the version of Stoicism that is popular online is very different from the real thing. Stoicism has never been about eliminating emotions, although on the surface level, it might seem so. We are human and it is impossible to rid ourselves of emotions as long as we are alive. Stoicism recognizes this and only advises us to not be consumed by them. As a stoic, you are allowed to have feelings. You just don't let those feelings influence your actions. You make the conscious decision to do what needs to be done despite your feelings.

Stoicism is not the elimination of emotion. It's the domestication of them. - Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Why stoicism appeals so much to the machismo types.

As I mentioned in the previous section, Stoicism is often misinterpreted as a philosophy of suppressing emotions despite it not being the case. This is because most people who discuss or follow Stoicism online, lack nuance and a deep understanding of it. When taken at face value, it can indeed seem like the philosophy is pushing for the eradication of emotions, while it's actually calling for the eradication of the irrationality that surrounds negative emotions. Becoming invulnerable is not the goal. Once again, we are going to experience negative emotions as long as we are alive. The only ones who don't experience emotions, are the dead. Invulnerability is not only a useless pursuit, it's also impossible to achieve.

And this is exactly why Stoicism has attracted such a massive male audience. This is not supposed to be a bad thing, as Stoicism is not limited to a specific gender. But the misinterpreted version of it does cater to a certain kind of problematic ideology— toxic masculinity.  According to the ideals of toxic masculinity, a real man must never cry or show vulnerability. Having emotions is seen as weak, or worse, feminine. I do agree that Stoicism promotes traditional values, (obviously, as it's an ancient philosophy) but it does not inherently promotes toxic masculinity. It actually teaches us quite the opposite.

“Keep this thought handy when you feel a fit of rage coming on – it isn’t manly to be enraged. Rather, gentleness and civility are more human, and therefore manlier. A real man doesn’t give way to anger and discontent, and such a person has strength, courage, and endurance – unlike the angry and complaining. The nearer a man comes to a calm mind, the closer he is to strength.” – Marcus Aurelius.

Stoicism was supposed to prove especially beneficial to men, but now it is being tainted, as more and more misguided young men promote the alpha male version of it. I think Stoicism being very straightforward and simple to understand is what has played a huge part in its misunderstanding. Because it is simple and doesn't require intense reading like other branches of philosophy, people read a couple Stoic quotes on Instagram, come up with their own understanding of it and begin spreading their personal, superficial version of it through their content. In fact, the internet's version of Stoicism is so different from the original idea that there is a distinction created between upper-case S Stoicism and lower-case s stoicism. A deeper explanation on this: https://youtube.com/shorts/tDXpOMhK9SA?si=yitdQKHBeG6o1keE

I think Stoicism had possibility of being a really good influence on these exact types of men because it cultivates real strength, rather than the unrealistic "tough guy" attitude that is rooted in insecurity and weakness. Real strength is not the denial of the existence of human emotions, becoming apathetic or too cool to care. Real strength is accepting that there are going to be times that will bring you to your knees, being open to the experience, and making a conscious choice to take the right action despite your emotional state. It's the same as how fitness is not about showing up to the gym and acting like it doesn't hurt to lift an extra 10 kilos. You accept that it hurts, you are open to experiencing the discomfort, and you don't quit and go home when it hurts. You instead decide to gradually get better at lifting the 10 extra kilos by sticking with it through the pain.

Final thoughts.

Even though a majority of this post is me defending Stoicism, I do not fully agree with it. I don't think it's a perfect philosophy and I do not believe in following it to the core. I also believe that you do not need to agree with anything entirely. I think it's actually good not to, because that means you leave room for interpretation rather than fusing your identity with an ideology and losing your individualism in the process.

I personally find Stoicism to be too deterministic and pragmatic in nature. It also seems to push for a certain level of asceticism. I don't disagree with these views entirely, but I do believe that following Stoicism to the very core can kill the magic and whimsy in life. I believe life is about being intense and passionate, at least for me. I think that is what makes our life so exciting, the idea that anything can happen. If we completely close ourselves off in the name of accepting reality, I think our lives would get really boring. I do agree that there is a certain risk that comes with hoping or desiring, but I don't think the solution is to abnegate. I think the solution should be to accept the fleeting nature of all things, not become too delusional and be prepared to deal with possible disappointment. I believe this takes far more courage than abnegation.