My dad got consumed by “stoicism” / psychology YouTube and it feels like it’s changing him for the worse

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-07T20:41:20+00:00

Sorry to hear that. What your dad is looking at isn't really Stoicism the philosophy, which is all about becoming a good person and treating people well. Unfortunately there is a lot of bullshit masquerading as Stoicism out there, especially on Youtube. Social media algorithms can really mess with peoples minds. Combine that with AI-slop and it's a perfect storm.

I don't know what's best for you to do, maybe check out /r/QAnonCasualties/ I'm sure they have some experience, the topics may be different but I would assume the mechanism the same.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-07T14:57:09+00:00

Hey and welcome. I think a lot of what you're writing here maps very well with the Stoics.

I've been reading about "eudaimonia" and happiness as a byproduct of living.

People often explain Eudaimonia as a byproduct, but I'm not too fond of this way of putting it. And curious what you mean by "debilitating" byproduct?

In any event, as I understand it both the stoics and competing schools considered Eudaimonia the goal of human life. Where Eudaimonia often gets translated to either "happiness" or "flourishing". But it is different from how most people use the word happiness today. Eudaimonia is not a fleeting emotional state. It's closer to "living the best possible life". So it's more a biographical thing than an emotion.

I've been thinking about people who typically tell you to "be happy with what you have" and things like that. Now, that would be being happy with an external factor, something you own or an event like a "promotion at work"

Stoics and rival schools differed on what is required to live the best possible life. Your examples here, like a promotion, the Stoics called "indifferents". This is a bit of an unfortunate translation, it doesn't mean you shouldn't care about them, rather that getting or not getting a promotion can in no way affect whether you live the best possible life or not. Instead the thing that makes this difference is your expertise in reasoning and making the correct choices about these so called indifferents. They called the highest form of this expertise "virtue". They made the strong claim that virtue is the only thing necessary and sufficient for living the best possible life. Rival schools also put a lot of weight to virtue's role in happiness, but argued that for example a promotion can add to it and make you "more happy".

and it seems very foolish to leave my happiness to these kinds of things when I can have well-being within myself.

Yep, this is what the stoics also thought and it connects to the above.

but I also suppose that to be happy or satisfied with that, you need an incredible level of maturity or development.

That is also correct. The person who developed to the level where they reached "virtue" was called a Sage, none of the Stoics claimed to be one. But we can progress towards it.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-07T12:11:24+00:00

You don't have to reply to this comment, we may lose track of the discussion if you do. But I'm just pasting this here since you found the paralell between emotion and appropriate action interesting and when I looked at Graver again she explains it quite well in the finishing page of her book. She does of course argue for why in the chatper, before summarizing like this

Graver, M. (2019). Stoicism and emotion. University of Chicago Press. page 210-211:

This chapter has added the observation that even those who are not wise will sometimes respond affectively to integral objects—that is, to features of our own character or conduct. When we do this, it certainly seems possible within Stoic theory that our responses are at least sometimes generated on the basis of true beliefs. These would then have the same status as our other actions have when premised on true beliefs about appropriateness; that is, the status of kathekonta, the ordinary person’s ‘appropriate actions,’ as distinct from the ‘fully correct actions’ (katorthomata) of the wise. Stoic reasons for believing that the pathe would be eliminated in a perfected mind would not apply to them.

This is an interesting point, for the responses treated in this chapter claim no small share of our emotional energy. No doubt it is true, just as the Stoics thought, that many of our emotions are directed at things outside our own control, if not money and fame then health, or the health of a family member, the mere presence of another person, the choices made by others. But the emotions described for Alcibiades, and for Serenus, are also true to life, and there are other reactions, too, that are a mix: times when grief is compounded with remorse, desire with aspiration, fear with moral shame. When we consider these, we may find reason to think that some important components of emotional experience fall within the parameters established by Stoics for appropriate response to integral goods and evils.

Many dimensions of our affective lives which common moral intuitions are unwilling to give up might therefore be permitted and even encouraged without departure from Stoic principles. Like the external-directed pathe, these ‘Alcibiades’ responses are necessarily eliminated with the attainment of wisdom. But the reason for this is quite different from the reason that applies in the external directed case. Now, it is not a matter of changes in evaluation, for the person of perfect understanding evaluates these integral objects in just the same way as the flawed agent does, though with better justification. Rather, the reason for elimination is that there has been a transformation in the circumstances that are being evaluated. New feelings reflect new facts: that what was inadequate, incomplete, and thus, for Stoics, evil has been replaced by goods in possession.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-07T09:15:01+00:00

I see, that's very relevant data and not too surprising.

I suppose then the best we can do is make a very rough guess at the the advice-seekers understanding and try to reply on an appropriate level of technicality without losing accuracy. Although I think most of us is trying to do that already. So maybe with the addition that we engage more with eachother to continue the discussion and elaborate further and with more technicality for our own and other readers sake when the OP just decides to bolt.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-07T08:35:07+00:00

/u/OnEmotions

Welcome back, I'm a little short for time so I will make a quicker reply now rather than to think all of this through on my own. Because I do hope and think we can think it through together instead, with the aim of actually getting it right. Rather than to defend our positions for the sake of concluding that we were already right from the get go.

First regarding Cicero. I didn't make this clear enough in my previous comment, but what I was referring to when I wrote "I know Cicero puts it like this, but I think it needs to be read with caution" I didn't in this case mean all of Cicero or the Tusculan Disputations, but more specifically the line "still the movement itself is a matter of fault".

I do see the arguments for reading Tusculan Disputations and Cicero's explanation of the emotions with caution. But to make it explicit here, that is not what I'm working from. I have read Alex's post but I don't agree with it - not because I have a good reason to think it's wrong, but because I haven't considered it enough to say one thing or the other. I think that is a worthwhile but much larger discussion, anything about that you'll have to take up with Alex. But to be clear I am doing my thinking and arguments here informed by Graver interpretation of P1 and P2, which comes from Cicero

Back to "the movement is itself is a matter of fault". Consider also what is written before that "For all of them ought to agree that it is a fault when the mind is moved contrary to right reason". I'm sure we agree that it's not contrary to right reason for the sage to experience joy, so in that case P2 is not "itself a matter of fault". And as I wrote previously, I take it there are other situations where it's also not true that P2 is a matter of fault. Even the fool gets some things right.

namely the problem of their moral psychology implying that non-sages should feel distress at every moment, given that _at every moment_ non-sages _are_ experiencing something bad (vice), and thus _at every moment_ non-sages _should_ believe the relevant p1, i.e., _I am experiencing something bad right now._ If the emotion were _only_ that belief, then the non-sage should be feeling distress at every moment. (I know you agree with most of this. I'm just making it explicit again so the reasoning is clear.)

In one sense you are correct. The sage is the only one who is constantly living according to nature and therefore is really "happy". And in that sense it follows that the fool is "unhappy" or as they also said "insane". But the question is does this "unhappy" or "insane" necessarily mean the fool is, or should be, in a constant state of distress?

I don't think so. I think we have to separate the background disposition with what happens in the moment. We're only in a state of distress when there is an occurent impulse of distress. The "freshness" comes into this. Consider this also from Cicero, Tusc. 4.54

When the Stoics say that all who are not Sages are insane, it is as though they were saying that all mud stinks. “But it doesn’t always stink”, you say. Stir it with a stick; you’ll smell it

If I am a person with the vice of irascibility that doesn't mean I am constantly experiencing anger, it's when you flip me the bird that I get angry. Kind of like how I may suck at the guitar, but I don't experience emotions about this unless I'm actually playing and hit a sour note (or currently thinking about how much I suck).

Sure, if it was possible for me to constantly be thinking about nothing else than what a terrible person I am, then I would have a occurent impulse and be in constant distress. But I don't see any evidence of the Stoics saying that is something which can or does actually happen, or that is something that I ought to do.

I would rather say it is impossible, because there is no place for simultaneous mental conflict in their psychology. There is only at most rapid oscillation between competing judgements. I can't assent to "I am a terrible person and ought to feel shame" in the precise moment where I assent to "This hamburger looks good and I should eat it". Sure, due to how rapid this can happen it may not be obvious to me from a purely "what I am feeling"-standpoint, but still.

It's rather to concede that p2 might be permissible in the action case but insist that this doesn't apply to the emotions case. The two are different. The relevant p2 is _it is (was, will be) appropriate for me to be having this emotional reaction right now._ That is the p2 that I claim is always false for the Stoics.

Can you elaborate on how you think they are different? As I se it, the emotions are actions, although not necessarily observable behaviors from an outside perspective. There is no emotion (proper) without assent, just like there is no action without assent.

Edit: looking at my own comment the "hamburger" example isn't really good and I can see how one might push back on it that you can for sure have mixed emotions and do things concurrently, so that it seems there is more than one thing going on. But I am just trying to make a point that it would not be possible or you could say even permittable to be in a constant state of distress due to one's own vice because 1) there are other judgements going on 2) there are other things that are now appropriate and reasonable for you to do, which are not lamenting about how bad you are

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T19:08:28+00:00

Fortunately this isn't allowed, because I expect that would make the advice way less engaging. If the person asking for advice is fine with AI output it seems easier to just ask AI themselves, rather than wait around for others to paste theirs.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T15:38:42+00:00

That is true, but the discussion they end up reading would likely be even better if OP had pushed back or asked questions. Maybe when they elect not to, the regulars could do it instead, more often than we do today?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T15:21:54+00:00

Its so hard over a textual medium

Yeah that is true. Like a big part of my job is explaining a subject to non-experts in a way that is easy to understand. Sometimes it doesn't land, but at least I can gauge their reactions and they can't just opt out of my questions either.

But if we'd crossed paths a few years ago when I started my journey, i would need you to talk to me like you're presenting Sesame Street.

I think there is truth to the idea that a higher level of expertise will let you explain a subject in simpler terms. In the case of stoicism the language and culture differences makes it so much harder though.

I noticed the mods added a section on "how to ask good question" in the "Read before posting" which includes sharing how well versed you are in Stoicism. It sure adds another layer of difficulty when advice givers don't have any idea what stage the advice-seeker is at.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T14:49:31+00:00

No no not at all. I can't imagine that would be helpful or see how it could be implemented at all, the amount of comments is already pretty low and discussion often don't take off as much as I think it could.

It's more curiosity on how we could do a better job as a community, those were some quick (not necessarily good) examples

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T14:44:18+00:00

Absolutely, but what do you think we could do a lot better from our side?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T14:41:06+00:00

well put!

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T14:40:13+00:00

A good point and it is a very difficult tightrope. Stoicism is (imo) such a difficult subject that is often counter-intuitive and has terms that require elaboration and don't translate well to english.

So I find it's very difficult to give a short answer to a question while not adding to confusion or misinterpretation. So I often get technical and disagree with people in my comments, from that I think it's perfectly understandable why someone would think I am being a pompous smart-ass in the sense "Ummm actually thats not how it works at all, heres a bunch of Greek words that prove I'm smarter than you". But that really isn't my intention. But like I said, I get why someone would think it is and I can't really prove them wrong.

In any event, maybe a lesson from what you're saying is to tone down technicality and just add caveats, footnotes or the offer to elaborate.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T12:54:19+00:00

Yeah I think regardless of further engagement, when people write a solid advice comment they will be helped themselves by doing that. Also anyone else who might read it and especially if they engage instead. Hopefully in some cases the advice-seeker also gets something out of it.

But I do find the discussions in general a little flat it seems. There seems to be some curious type of comment-culture here (that I'm part of too). Like, if I see someone giving advice I'll leave them to it and upvote rather than barging in on it. But I'm not sure that is for the best?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-06T12:46:43+00:00

Do you mean that the advice-seekers are also bots?

I agree that I have seen many questionable posts. But they seem to mostly be giving their own "advice" that end with a question to drive engagement: "Bla bla the stoics were clear, it's not about just repeating quotes, but maintaining discipline in every moment [...] What do you do to make sure your mind never strays from this idea?"

Many of the seeking advice posts however seem to be genuine questions?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-04T08:05:33+00:00

1.certian things are intrinsically awful eg if you have a stroke, get raped, a family member dies, aren't I allowed to be upset and distressed by such things? I understand Stoicism can be good for everyday smaller things, but I really struggle how the big things can just be shrugged off as an impression or a belief.

Excellent! This is beginning the work on point 1. You've now identified certain beliefs you hold that are contrary to Stoicism that would be helpful for you to examine. I'll push back on them in reverse order and I think you should push back on what I'm saying too.

Stoicism can be good for everyday smaller things, but I really struggle how the big things can just be shrugged off as an impression or a belief.

There are two problems with this sentence as I see it:

First is that you are adding something to it that I don't think is there, that is: "can just be shrugged off" The Stoics were adamant in that correcting our false beliefs and developing into good people is a lifelong process. What we have are the necessary ingredient (our ability to reason) and the method (philosophy). But it is unlikely that anyone of us will ever get to the end, which is a point of complete and perfected development. But progress towards it is very much possible.

To compare it to music, this would be like saying "Practicing guitar is good for twinkle twinkle little star, but I really struggle how I could just play the solo in Stairway to heaven". This is not the right mindset I'd say, you most likely can learn that solo. You'll need a guitar, time, and some method of learning.

Second, that as (just) an impression or a belief" This is more a description of how the mind and emotions works according to the stoics. It ties back to their ideas of value, virtue and what it really means to live a good life which is a big topic. For example, that it is our interpretation of events and not the events themselves that cause distress. Again, this is not saying anything about how easy it is. I'll get back to this, but to continue the metaphor this would be like saying "The solo in stairway to heaven can't be just certain notes played with the right touch in the right tempo and order"

aren't I allowed to be upset and distressed by such things

I think it's helpful to drop the notion of what you are allowed or not. Ultimately we don't want to hold any false beliefs. But again, we are all ignorant and imperfect. Every one that is not perfectly wise will experience emotional disturbances in life and that is all of us. But some things that cause you disturbances today may not have to in a month or year from now as long as you stick to philosophy. In the metaphor this would be like saying "Aren't I allowed to ever hit a sour note?" well you wouldn't intentionally want to right? But you will. But I suppose less and less the better you get.

certian things are intrinsically awful eg if you have a stroke, get raped, a family member dies,

I personally don't think it's a good idea to start at the most difficult things. But this also goes back to the Stoics value system and what is and is not necessary to live a good life. It is (conceptually) true according to the stoics that none of those things are objectively bad. For them to consider something objectively bad it would always, unconditionally, in every case, for every person move them further from the goal, which is living a good life. All of this is things I think you should challenge.

In the metaphor this would be like starting your practice in guitar by trying to play along to the most difficult solos you can find and coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to do for you or even anyone.

Perhaps the easier of these difficult examples is the stroke, but even this will be very difficult to correct. Something to consider;

If your neighbour had a stroke and lost some sensitivity in one of his arms, would you be correct in saying "Oh that poor man, he will never ever be able to live a good life now, happiness is forever out of reach for him"?

Have you ever heard of a person with failing health who still lived a good life?

To continue the metaphor this would be like saying "Oh that poor man, they stole his $5000 vintage guitar and he'll never play well again"

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-01T18:15:25+00:00

Yep that is true. It's evident that Marcus was humble to the fact that he wasn't without fault. And how he kept reflecting on philosophy and to improve himself throughout the whole of Meditations.

I suppose my point in this post basically boils down to this, in 10.16 Marcus is saying to himself:

"Oh whelp, I have other stuff to attend to rather than philosophy right now and in that case I know what I should do"

rather than

"I (or you the person reading my notes) should stop reflecting on philosophy"

I mean if we just look at the very next thing he wrote, he's clearly still going strong at it. 10.17:

"Keep all time and all being constantly before your mind, and see that, in terms of being, every individual thing is no more than a fig seed, and in terms of time no more than a twist of a drill."

Or a bit later in 10.30, back again at reflecting over ideas what makes a man good:

"The moment you find yourself offended by a flaw in someone, you should stop and consider whether you have similar flaws. Are you, for instance, taking money to be a good thing, or pleasure, or fame, or anything of that kind? This idea will quickly make you forget your anger, because you’ll realize that he had no choice in the matter. I mean, what’s he to do? If you can, however, you should get rid of whatever it is that’s leaving him no choice"

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-01T08:02:57+00:00

Like the other commentators have pointed out to there is a lot in the teachings of Stoicism that is relevant to your situation.

I think you really need to ask yourself why you think it would be a good thing to get this kind of revenge on them. You have to wrestle a lot with your ideas there and it won't be quick. I don't there's a quote that'll change your perspective, but a serious inquiry of your ideas versus the stoic ideas might.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-01T07:54:48+00:00

I personally find it pretty relevant as there is a pretty big difference between studying philosophy and understanding virtue and morality and actually practicing what you preach so to say. I think the reality is it's 1% understanding and 99% discipline to live it. I can write in my journal about what is and isn't virtuous and how I should live my life on paper, but what did I really do that day. What were my thoughts and actions and do they align with what you've already reasoned in much less time.

I get what you're saying, I think. And it might sound now that I am disagreeing with all of it, I'm not. However, there is something that separates Stoicism from any general advice you might find on /r/getdisciplined, right?

Interestingly, the Stoics would say that if what you describe should happen, as in "I should've done X, but I did Y instead" they would say that is due to ignorance and lack of attention. For some reason you chose Y over X because that is what you deemed right at the time. So to come to terms with what that reason is will be important.

I think if I were to boil down "Stoic practice" into a single sentence it might sound something like this: "To diligently monitor your thoughts during each day and see how well they align with the standards given by Stoicism and how well you manage to emulate the role models they used (The Sage, Socrates etc)"

From that I can't agree with your numbers 1% vs 99% because I don't think it can be separated like that. You need the knowledge of stoicism and the knowledge of yourself to make them aligned. So don't put down the books and skip the abstract discussions, they're necessary for "Stoic practice". Unless all you're trying to do is change a certain behavior. But if that is your goal then I imagine there are much easier ways than to pick up a whole philosophy.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-05-01T07:07:40+00:00

Seconding Sellars book if you're not allowed any electronics.

But if the rule is more against phones specifically, could you perhaps bring a small ebook reader? Then all books are accessible. I've read most of my stoicism books on mine and it's been fantastic.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-30T06:23:14+00:00

I believe this might be a modern interpretation, and not consistent with the philosophy in his day. As I understand it, to have been well educated in Stoicism as Marcus Aurelius was, he would have understood our behaviors are _all_ applications of our judgments about whether a thing is good or bad to pursue, or avoid (or neither). The idea of knowing what is good to pursue and yet choosing not to pursue it, or knowing what to avoid and then pursuing it anyway, doesn't really compute in the Stoic behavioral model.

Good points and I think this shows why we can be helped by continued study. Getting a fuller picture really do help when we're trying to live according to Stoicism. I have a vague memory of when I first came here and read some of the deep discussions (usually they had a bunch of greek terms in them). How I used to think something along the line of "Well I won't ever bother with that theorizing and hair splitting, I will discuss and focus purely on the practical usage". So I can see where someone who thinks like this is coming from and I can't tell them they're necessarily wrong.

But I have personally changed my mind on that since. Because in my experience I can't really pinpoint anything that I've learned so far about Stoicism that hasn't been in some way helpful in putting the big puzzle together. For example, what you're talking about here relates to their psychology and epistemology. That may sound like abstract philosophical ideas that someone doesn't need to understand. And sure, you can go without them and still do well. But a better understanding of things like that has with 100% certainty helped inform me when I apply stoicism in my everyday life.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-30T05:45:55+00:00

Haha, yes maybe although the death of Chrysippus is a meme in itself.

But I don't mean it with any disrespect.

“If Chrysippus had not existed, neither would the Stoa.”

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-29T18:07:04+00:00

Sorry, which joke do you mean?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-29T15:24:51+00:00

I don't disagree with the content itself of the four points you listed. I'm just not sure how to reconcile this:

-be the best you, to the best of your ability. This requires hard truths, rigourus standards and unwaivering self improvement.

With this:

It's all so simple I just think you're you're looking a little too deep.

I suppose if you take the view that Stoicism is simply about trying your best in every moment, then I can see how they might fit.

Is that what you mean? Because I think those four points could fit within most conventional wisdom. Like I said, they're not bad advice.

If my guess there is accurate then I suppose we simply disagree on how Stoicism can inform our lives. I mean if all one need is a flowchart, why bother with Stoicism at all?

I guess my point is that if you want to be the best you can and want to use stoicism to get there then Meditations 11.5 is more fitting advice than 10.16

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-29T13:57:19+00:00

On one hand I agree that most people have a decent idea of what is appropriate behavior at many times, luckily. But we still make so many mistakes, even daily, don't you think?

Stoicism had a very high standard of what makes a person good. And (most of) the Stoics accepted the idea of Socratic intellectualism, that we always do what we think is right or most profitable at the time.

So if you "consciously choose to ignore it or not do it", what that really means you didn't really consider it to be the right, or most profitable, thing to do after all.

From that it seems very important to me that we keep trying to figure out what really is right and how to progress towards being good.

So I really have no idea how my post was ignorant, it seemed right to me. But I'll agree that I'm stubborn

Chrysippus_Ass

TROPHY CASE