The other pole is that you cannot control your reactions, but you can try to control the world. This is much easier to fit into a consumerist framework.
On a purely human level though, you should go find some veterans with PTSD and tell them they're just not working hard enough at being stoic.
I can't control what you say, but I can control my reaction to you. That's what stoicism is.
In each case you should look at which one is easier to control and go for that. Why do you need a universal philosophy? Some things are self control, but some things are circumstances that you can navigate or avoid too.
it's anchoring two points and providing a terrtain for analyzing consumer capitalism.
With this frame in hand we can then ask questions like yours, "are there domains within which it is easier or more enjoyable or has higher personal or collective benefit, to work on the world rather than self?"
The answer is certainly yes; agency is real, and we can work to maximize it.
A convenient way to extend the "model" might be to tack on the "serenity prayer."
Is it your take that every person in therapy for PTSD so wasting their time?
It's proactive introspection. Stoicism can provide freedom because you can be master of yourself.
Not to say that epigenetic effects aren't real.
The idea that stoicism even aims to eliminate all negative emotions, or that it blames all of them on the person experiencing them, isn’t really what I’ve found.
To be psychologically healthy, we need to listen to our emotions and process them in a healthy way.
The answer is not to shut down our emotions, or to blindly give in to them, but rather to understand where they're coming from and process them accordingly.
Much of mental trauma is about acknowledging it, and learning to live with it. There is no cure for PTSD, even Ketamine is short acting, not a long term solution, and indeed Ketamine simply helps you sit with the suffering in a different light.
I think what the parent is saying is this:
Say you (hyperhello) have PTSD from a fire incident in which your face is completely disfigured. You associated this pain (emotional and physical) with the various people who yelled "FIRE" during the escape. Do you, hyperhello, truly have control over this negative reaction when someone yells "FIRE!" in your face?
It doesn't mean there isn't good in the writings, it's good to take the positive from things, with the hope that it doesn't let in any of the negative unintended.
That part stands out to me though as where it's perspective might not be for the many, but the few.
But there are treatments. Last I read exposure therapy and EMDR were the two main ones. I don't think I'd be a big fan of exposure until the reactions have been significantly reduced, but everyone is different. EMDR didn't do much for me, but Internal Family Systems did. CBT is also great for some people.
I do think it’s remarkable that there’s much salvageable at all in it, given the age of the work (though a fair amount of ancient philosophy remains relevant, or at least functions as good reading and exercises along the lines of koans for developing philosophical ways of thinking, an awful lot is effectively obsolete and only of historical interest) and that it came from one of the most powerful people on the planet. It’s not often you get something with much enduring value at all from someone who also happens to be at or near the pinnacle of human hierarchies of their day.
Though, in fairness, he’s mostly repackaging stuff he learned from others, it’s not exactly original thinking in the same way as the chain of works from Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, say.
Still, it’d be like, I dunno, Franklin Roosevelt penning a philosophically-inclined self-help book that was still widely read and referenced beyond the year 3,000 and in languages that didn’t exist when it was written. Pretty distinctive, very few works at all in that class, and almost none from the perspective of someone that highly placed politically, despite a strong bias in general toward works from the rich and powerful being created at all, and surviving. I’d say the only way it’s likely to permanently fade is if/when “western culture”, to perhaps include near-east and Maghreb Muslim culture, fades (there’s so much overlap of the parts people like, with forms of thinking from the East, that I expect it’d have trouble co-existing with them in the same body of thought, as an actively-read item of interest)
Stoicism treats the (negative) passions as necessarily grounded in false beliefs.
Whereas modern psychology treats our negative emotions as valuable messages that something is affecting our well-being and needs to be addressed.
Stoicism treats negative emotions as errors. Something to be reasoned away, i.e. suppressed. Modern psychology tells us not to reason away but rather to feel fully, to accept, to process and therefore integrate and grow.
Stoicism doesn’t tell you to repress feelings. It tells you to examine them, to look at the beliefs behind them. If the belief is false (“this event ruins my life”), you correct it; if it’s true, you accept the feeling without letting it take over.
The Stoics called destructive emotions “passions,” but they also recognized healthy ones, like rational joy, caution, and goodwill. The goal isn’t emotional numbness, it’s clarity and alignment with reason and nature.
So, far from emotional blindness, Stoicism actually inspired the same kind of introspection that modern psychology promotes, just with a different vocabulary.
I would encourage you to read about CBT’s history and it’s influence on more modern psychology techniques. It’s likely that you are representing the Stoicism you commonly read about these days, on reddit, youtube and even on some books that take some liberties on translating it or do a bad job of it (it’s hard…). Most modern sources absolutely suck. A good translation from the original greek sources of Epictetus is very hard to come by.
What I'm talking about is traditional psychodynamic therapy that is about integration and growth. Not about changing behavioral patterns merely on the surface via cognitive reframing. When you actually allow yourself to integrate and process your emotions, the kind of mental work that stoicism and CBT focus on becomes unnecessary for most people. (CBT techniques can be helpful as a kind as urgent emergency measures, but not as a long-term solution.)
I know you seem to think I've gotten my ideas from Reddit. I can assure you, I've studied this stuff extensively both from the psychology and therapeutic sides of the literature. I've even written, critiquing Seneca's On Anger. I'm not operating from some pop understanding here. What disappoints me is the modern popularity of stoicism within certain circles today, because it actually contains some very harmful ideas.
But when you write:
> they seek to agree with what is correct, disagree with what is incorrect
That's the repression part -- the "disagree with what is incorrect". Emotions are not correct or incorrect, they simply are. They are valuable and need to be processed and integrated. If you don't, if you simply conclude that a passion is "incorrect", that is repression. So no, it's not "categorically false".
I hope the discussion has been helpful, whether to you or others here. I've seen stoic philosophy do harm to people, which is why I want people to be aware of how it does not align with current thought on psychological health.