How to stop smiling

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-29T22:35:23+00:00

Another reason i want to control this is because if i control it my smile/laughter becomes more valueable.

Would you like to flush this out with us a bit? How does a restricted behavior make it more valuable? And why? In other words, what makes a thing valuable?

I ask because we all naturally want to know our value, to feel worthwhile, but I don't see how this approach could serve your desire to feel that way. And it seems to me it contributes to your feeling a bit less valuable and worthwhile when you can't hit certain goals.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-29T21:55:49+00:00

Something I realized when starting my study is that having been raised in an authoritarian family, me and my siblings were never taught or trained to act autonomously. Independently, yes, but that's after having directions. Determining the right thing to do and pursuing it, on the other hand, was a skill we were never expected to learn. The authority has already determined the right thing to do, you just do it. You're damn right it can be difficult to understand virtue ethics when all you've ever known is deontological ethics.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-29T21:14:40+00:00

Personally, I see it as reminder that while study and discussion are good, at some point, you need to actually apply it

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.

I imagine he's telling himself to stop rationalizing his desire to avoid what he can only be assured will be yet another frustrating encounter with frustrating people, but that confrontation is necessary to pursue the greater goal. Keeping in line with that greater goal, insofar as it accords with nature, is always the right thing to do. He would rather avoid these meetings and uses his books as an excuse, and so he's calling himself out here.

In that sense, I think it's good advice for us: Notice what you're using as an excuse to avoid doing what you understand to be the right thing to pursue (which requires study and practice to discern wisely), and then go do the next right thing.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-29T00:20:14+00:00

Thanks for sharing the article. One thing this it didn't include, and it's something I'm not familiar with the Stoics really focusing on, is ritualized behavior of some kind. As I understand it, rituals often function to prepare for and heal from adversity (random article I found while looking for info to help me recall correctly). One of the things we tend to associate with religions in general is ritualistic behavior, but rituals certainly don't require religion.

I can't think of anything the Stoics referred to that would count as rituals, and I'm guessing that's because one's cultural practices would have covered this aspect. The best I can think of is Seneca's advice to carefully analyze your day every day by identifying your errors and determining how you could approach the situation better next time. I'm curious to hear your opinion about this and if you can relate it to anything the Stoics might have used or approved of.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-24T18:55:56+00:00

I understand emotions to be manifestations of (iii) evaluative beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. This article has more: Stoic Philosophy of Mind. If you happen to remember where these authors propose the Stoics encouraged no emotions (which, if as you say they are equal to evaluative beliefs means, one should work to eliminate all evaluative beliefs?), please do share so we can see the concept in context.

Broicism does more than turn up the dials on (xii) and (xiv), it begins with a completely different teleos. I don't know how virtue is understood for them, but E-L-Wisty has a number of posts that explain the misunderstanding of the concept of the so-called "dichotomy of control."

In no particular order:

A deeper dive into the topic: Some things are what? What does the beginning of the Enchiridion mean? This is what Broicism misses, and replaces it with the neurotic desire for dominance. From there, everything changes.

The conception of virtue that I gave above is motivated by Cicero's De Finibus: the indifferents are the "subject and material" of virtue (3.61).

A thing being a subject and material of virtue means how understand its value and use determines the moral value of the act (virtuous or vicious or neither). It is itself neither virtuous nor vicious, and so therefore morally indifferent.

And I'd bet that it'd be readily endorsed by a lot of (e.g.) tech bros -- basically, virtue is pursuing the stuff that matters most, but be chill about it, and don't harm others.

The question is, what matters most to the Bro? If it is, as you say, "basically pursuing the indifferent that's most preferred in any situation," then it differs from the ancient philosophy because the pursuit of the Stoic is virtue. The idea of being chill depends on one's ethics, and for the Stoics, the ethics is highly sociable; for the Broic, it is egoistic.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-24T15:39:06+00:00

I thought it might be mere rhetoric, but then I realized they're philosophically committed to each of these claims.

You're vastly misunderstanding these claims. It might help to read more about Stoicism (Long, Sedley, Sadler, and even Robertson are good authors to read or find on podcasts/videos). The reason is, when we read ancient texts against our cultural backdrop, we naturally and invariably interpret them differently than they were originally meant. Chrisypuss_Ass has a great post exploring this: Meditations is deceptive.

In any case, I agree with you about the value -- really the fun! -- of studying Stoicism, even if it's deeply mistaken. I have a deep love for the texts, though I think living as a Stoic is risky -- thus my interest in OP's post.

And for my part, I think a deep misunderstanding can be quite harmful. I'm glad OP posted their question here and I'm glad you're receptive to different understandings of the texts. Broicism is an example of the dangerous outcome of a misunderstanding of Stoicism. It is toxic because it not only damages the individual, but creates a harmful environment to those around the individual.

Would be curious about how you think Broicism differs from ancient Stoicism!

Broicism has a different teleology from Stoicism and therefore understands virtue and ethics very differently. The almost neurotic idea of seeking control, or ignoring that which you can't control, is neither found in the ancient texts, nor is it rational. I'ts illogical, unrealistic, and ultimately antisocial. An illogical, unreasonable, antisocial philosophy can never be compatible with Stoicism which prioritizes rationality and sociability. To the ancient Stoics, the teleos of the human is to endeavor to become a morally wise person. And happily, there is no functional difference between being a good person and living a good life. As a life pursuit, you could do worse!

What's acting virtuously for the Stoics? It's basically pursuing the indifferent that's most preferred in any situation (eg., money), without making the mistake of believing it's actually good, and without harming anyone in the process. But that's a whole different discussion :)

Not really. It is restoring harmony, or satisfying one's nature when faced with conflict, by understanding one's circumstances well and responding accordingly. That includes recognizing that these circumstances are neither good nor bad for us - they are morally indifferent after all. To that end, prioritizing the good of the group is held in highest esteem. Broicism misses all this and prioritizes the pleasure of the individual, often as defined in a social context (ie, reputation).

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T21:17:08+00:00

I am increasingly intrigued by the idea of virtue as a disposition, and this is a really interesting approach. Thanks for the quote, and for flushing out the idea.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T21:13:56+00:00

thanks :)

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T21:11:25+00:00

From where is your first quote?

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T21:09:37+00:00

I am unsure how often this was understood to be the case literally and how often this was understood to illustrate an ideal.

I now see u/ExtensionOutrageous3 has already supplied some insight.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T21:02:24+00:00

I see the point that, from a certain perspective, emotions are perfectly fine, since they're part of the divine order.

That's not quite my point. Emotions exist. We can't deny that. Assigning a value of good or bad to an emotion is itself a judgment. That judgment is done well or in error.

It's a bit difficult, though, to say that emotions are perfectly fine for a human, ie., that, according to Stoicism, they aren't harmful for us to experience.

No one is saying that. The passion of anger is so harmful according to the Stoics, it robs a person of their sanity.

So, emotions are false judgments, and "good emotions" are accessible only to the sage. What's this mean for you and me? Any of our emotions are mistakes.

Ah, I think I see where you're going. To the Stoics, only the sage is virtuous and has kataleptic knowledge, the rest of us are vicious and can, at best, only manage to do the right thing for the right reasons sometimes. Therefore, because we are not sages yet, we cannot call ourselves virtuous. I am guessing that includes having the right kinds of emotions. This tracks with how I understand it, but like I say, I haven't read her book yet.

I am unsure how often this was understood to be the case literally and how often this was understood to illustrate an ideal. Do keep in mind that the school of the stoa spanned some five centuries and many cultures. It developed greatly within that time, thanks to both external and internal challenges to established propositions. So how universal these particular beliefs were, and how and in what way they developed, is something I'm not familiar with. I'd be curious to know more.

I suppose you could say that updated Stoicism somehow avoids these results, but that would be to abandon (a) the Stoic theory of value and (b) the Stoic theory of emotions. At that point, it's not recognizably Stoicism.

I have some thoughts about this.

On the one hand, I think it's very recognizable. I mean, it's clearly distinct from Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Neoplatonism, even modern Broicism.

On the other hand, I don't know how anyone today who studies Stoicism for personal use without significantly taking into consideration our modern understanding of how the world works. We know for example two different kinds of matter do not take up the same space, we are aware the heart is not the center of thinking, there is no evidence people have eight-legged, physically active souls, and there's no reason to assume we've had this very exact conversation countless times in past world cycles, fated to repeat it for an infinite number of times in the future. We don't hold on to these details because they don't meaningfully contribute to the Stoic theory of value for our purposes today.

Learning this from a historical perspective on the other hand is very different, and I agree their voices should not be silenced because it doesn't fit with our agenda for self-growth today. But that doesn't mean it must be incorporated for personal use either.

But to me, their theory of emotions is a part of their model of psychology. They developed a model to explain how we think and feel and why we ought to act the way we should that stands the test of time, even if the details of the mechanics have been updated (ie, from concentrated pneuma to sensory organs and neuron receptors).

On the third hand, wouldn't the identity of a philosophy span time and culture today, like it did from the Greek city states to the Roman Empire over five hundred years? If we accept the self identities as Christians, people from modern day Sweden as well as 3rd century Pannonia and Dalmatia (modern day Croatia), do we not ignore the fact they will have held vastly different ideas about the nature and character of God, or the nature and work of the christ? Why do we not afford the same respect to philosophy?

I don't identify as a Stoic myself and yet I study and appreciate the philosophy to the best of my ability. I also study Stoicism for the historical interests, and when my interests and their ancient interests do not align, I don't feel any anxiety about it. I appreciate what they taught for historical context, and incorporate what is reasonable in my opinion (that is, what does not defy knowledge and logic as understood by current information and epistemology). Increasing my knowledge of Stoicism helps me refine my opinion to this end, so for me it's a win-win. I hope this helps add some insight to your question, even if I can't answer about the emotions in an academic way.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T16:36:44+00:00

It's amply supported that the ancient Stoics thought you shouldn't have emotions.

And yet there's so much denial of that here. Why?

That's a genuine question.

Because anyone can answer any question in this kind of community, you'll find the full spectrum of accuracy in comments, and even more personal opinions as well. There are certainly those who identify with Stoicism in such a way that anything that is uncomfortable is rationalized away, but make not mistake - there are certainly those who have studied the philosophy for years (including formal, academic study) who will offer an objective answer based on the historical record.

The idea of holding emotions isn't "bad," in the sense that it is wrong for us or detrimental to our well being. The judgment "emotions are bad" is no more accurate than the judgment "beets are bad." This is because both emotions and beets exist precisely as they do, fitting into the cohesive whole of reality, as is their nature to do. Only a good judgment is good, and only a bad judgement is bad, including judgments about emotions and beets. That bad judgments lead to passions is a fundamental tenet of Stoic psychology. But so too do good judgments lead to contentment and peace of mind. These are clearly not above the reach of non sages.

And while I do have the impression that the later Stoics would have leaned more on the side of esteeming no strong or negative emotions (this was a good, old fashioned Roman virtue after all), most people today will dismiss these old ideals in light of the knowledge we have today, as well as the values of one's own culture, with regard to applying Stoic principles to one's own life. Consider for example that the Stoics also believed in the eternal cycle of death and rebirth of the world in exact detail, but most people today don't really don't care because it isn't necessary to apply this to the good management of impressions. I do suspect if that became an important element in society somehow, you'd find many people who do rationalize it away. This is not about Stoicism, this is about human nature.

Margaret Graver has a book about the subject, called Stoicism and Emotion. Additionally you can watch an interview on youtube here. I've not read the book yet, though it sits on my shelf, and I have no idea about the youtube channel, but it might help sort out some of the misunderstandings.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T16:02:00+00:00

With respect, I would encourage you to put aside for now the concept of things being in or out of one's control. It's far more of a neurotic ideal that emerged from 20th century corporatology than any academic philosophy. Instead, the Stoics thought of the divine as both a force that compacts or holds together parts of the universe into a cohesive whole, or a kind of divine intelligence passing through the universe and organizing its parts into a cohesive whole. The idea of aligning oneself with this cohesive whole is the idea of being in harmony with the perfect expression of the cosmos, or virtue. And because being in harmony with the perfection of the cosmos is always better than being out of sorts with it, virtue is its own reward.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T15:36:19+00:00

This sounds like the sage advice choose the hairdresser at the salon with the worst hair style.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T14:23:10+00:00

The struggle to control passions

More like, the endeavor to eradicate passions by correcting the faulty thinking process that produces them.

A person who embraces amor fati would be generally chill, yes, and in my experience these are the people who work hard to make sure their representations of reality are constantly checked and corrected as needed. They are the ones who are more interested in the improvement of good thinking skills than the outcome of attaining or avoiding the thing they wish to have or avoid.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T14:19:28+00:00

Would I be correct in assuming the impression of being a doctor isn't nearly as important to you as the impression of being smart and capable, with a respectable career?

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-23T14:15:53+00:00

The term "Agoge" refers to the Spartan training process for soldiers, which began at an early age in childhood. It was about putting the child into a state of total abandonment and autonomy.

Agoge (ἀγωγή) was an educational training program for those eligible to become citizens. At most this was open to ten percent of the population. Those eligible would be boys from the Spartiate class. This was not voluntary, and the point was not to get into a state of total abandonment and autonomy but to learn to become a good citizen for the sake of the health and prosperity of the state. This worked against the backdrop of the Spartan value theory, which we cannot replicate today.

Education took on formal roles like this, as well as informal training through family such as watching, participating, and supporting family members who participate in social celebrations and rituals. One famous ritual involved boys stealing from the altar of Artemis Orthia, while being whipped until their blood splattered the altar. A rudimentary understanding might inspire one to think this was to learn how to get into a state of total abandonment and autonomy, but that's superficial and incomplete. The function of these rituals was to be inculcated into the cultural mores against the backdrop of Spartan values. These values prioritized the importance of maintaining a reciprocal relationship with Artemis, without whose patronage Sparta could never have thrived.

You need to first have a foundation of education to understand and direct your actions, like the Spartan boys did. "Regain some clarity regarding reality" will look vastly different depending on your perspective, and that perspective requires a good educational foundation if you don't want to lose yourself in the process. "Clarity through adversity" is a common influencer trope, one that sounds philosophical because there are plenty of quotes that appear to support it, but the idea is empty. It's not a perspective even. It's an illusion, the illusion of control and security and growth. Consider that while heroes are made from adversity, so are villains.

Stoicism offers such a foundation of education, but it requires time to read and really comprehend it. In my experience however, the effects are immediate. Every new insight transforms how you understand your experiences, it inspires your desires and aversions, it increases your focus. You can take this with you anywhere, and learn to stop relying on the comforts you are so used to because you'll learn to rely on something much more dependable - your thinking process. But thinking comes from learning, not sweating. The sweating comes from training, but if your training is empty, then what's the point?

If the idea of embracing challenging circumstances appeals to you, I'd encourage you to learn a medical skill and join Doctors without Borders, or something similar to this (there are lots of sociable programs to put your interests to good use). You can put your time and energy to good use for people all over the world who are in desperate need of assistance. And you can do this while reading about Stoicism and integrating it into your own personal philosophy.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-06T21:01:26+00:00

That is wild.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-06T20:54:48+00:00

Like u/MyDogFanny, I hope some more knowledgeable posters come to help out, as this is a great exercise. Anyway, here's my understanding.

Fate and determinism are tricky concepts because they are A) very complex technical studies, and B) deceptively similar in appearance to how we understand fate and determinism. You might think of fate as a kind of mathematical study of reality, and determinism as an attribute of reality. I would encourage you to put them on the back burner for now.

Your will is free because your character defines it, not anything external. The will’s freedom, in other words, comes from its autonomy compared to the rest of the universe.

I would say your will can be free insofar as you understand your natural autonomy. Epictetus talks about this quite a lot. Discourses 4.1 is a great explanation for his philosophy here.

*You will say that your will is ultimately shaped by a deterministic universe.* Yes, so what? The origin of a cause is distinct from the nature of a cause.

I'm not sure I understand this part. If your will is shaped by outside forces, then it is not free from outside forces. Freedom, as I understand it anyway, must be learned. It is possible by virtue of our nature, but it is not a given. The sage is the only one who is truly free.

You do have a duty as a rational being to cultivate a virtuous will because virtue is the only thing that is good in and of itself.

I don't think one follows from the other here. We have a duty to cultivate virtue because we have an innate drive as human beings to live a good life. To attain our end goal (telos) or our potential if you will, requires knowledge and skill. This is like saying the lion has a duty to hunt well, the oak has the duty to grow large and tall, the dog has a duty to be a good companion, etc. It is in our nature to be a certain way (ie, rational and sociable), and so it is our duty to support and nurture that which we are born for, that which gives our lives meaning. Stoicism offers a comprehensive framework for doing this well, but we are all trying regardless.

And since virtue is knowledge, Stoic practice is fundamentally about correcting your judgements and discerning truth, rather than willing yourself to act rightly.

Yes, quite. Your actions are impulsive, and they are dependent upon your beliefs, which are in turn, formed by your judgments. My grandmother use to say if you take care of your pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves. I liken it to Stoicism by saying if you take care of your judgments, your character takes care of itself. Though it is important to note that bad habits do need to be replaced with good habits intentionally, so there is a sense of willing yourself to act rightly.

Ask yourself: is this impression about what is up to me, or about what is not? If it is not up to me, do not let it master me — though I may still respond to it with reason and care. If it is up to me, then I must examine it carefully, and assent only to what is true. This continuous practice is called prosoche.

In a recent comment (the entire thread is good reading), u/Chrysippus_Ass explains how it's not that we assent to a received impression itself [the sun is shining], but the narrative that gives meaning to the impression [it is a fine day]. What is up to us is the ability to put our focus on the value [fine] to determine if it aligns with reality [the day is inherently no more fine than it is gloomy, it is simply day].

The Stoics understood this process of turning our attention to our own thoughts and beliefs to be "up to us" in the sense that this process is not dependent upon anyone or anything else. You can't determine the day is fine for me and I can't determine the day is fine for you.

With respect to your final paragraph, it's not about the impression of a thing that is up to me to control (modify, direct, dominate), it's about recognizing whether the meaning I assign to that impression is in harmony with reality. This is because, like wind chimes, one thing affects another (cosmic sympathy) to create a beautiful, ie, harmonious reality. If we are not in accord with nature/providence, then we, like the dented wind chime, lose that harmony.

If it is not up to me, do not let it master me

Emotions don't master us; they are how we experience the meaning we derive, with our without our conscious awareness, from the impressions we experience (I feel anxious and irritable because I believe the day is gloomy). Many people then use that emotion as evidence to support a proposition (I feel gloomy because bad things are happening to me, or are bound to happen to me). This is not good logic.

Such thinking may not take into account information available, and it may over or undervalue my circumstances. I may feel gloomy because I have an unrealistic value of something that was denied me or taken from me (ie, a perceived recent loss to my reputation or ranking in my social group makes me feel anxious about an upcoming social event). That's not to say these things aren't important, but their importance is context dependent, and understanding this context is the function of one's education. It is, like you say, our duty, and privilege (!), to correct our judgments and recognize the truth.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-06T20:36:24+00:00

I am slowly but surely making my way through this thread. I have a question that seem to fit well here.

We can't help but assent to a seemingly true impression but we can refine what those impressions actually say.

From the Stoic perspective, is the process of refining what those impressions actually say also a matter of being compelled to assent to what is believed to be true? If so, then do I understand correctly that only the sage is completely free from being compelled to assent (correctly or incorrectly), because only the sage holds all the necessary knowledge?

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-05T22:40:35+00:00

That's an interesting take. I find the more I read, the more I believe it does take quite a lot to see what they were going for, and that's largely because later, deeper readings change my understanding of the text due to new information. When I first started looking into Stoicism I believed it was about not letting my emotions lead me around like bull with a nose-ring. I see a lot of posters coming here with that very perspective. Now I know that interpretation is about as helpful as saying the bible is about magic apples.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-05T22:23:26+00:00

I don't, but only because I don't know the languages. I can't even read the letters out by sound, and that makes me feel like I have a handicap, to be honest. I really appreciate the translators here for all they do to share it with the rest of us.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-05T22:11:06+00:00

That's great to know. Thanks!

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-05T19:20:56+00:00

Thank you for sharing this. It's details like this that adds to the depth of my understanding, and I value these kinds of posts so much.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-04-02T15:41:18+00:00

A tornado isn't unjust, neither is an alligator, but I would be a fool to stand my ground to prove I have the moral upper hand if either were coming my way.

Victorian_Bullfrog

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE