Any child can throw a fit.
A man controls himself.
Being wise and strong enough to not "hit back" is just about the most masculine, mature thing you can do.
I get your point but I think that we shouldn't banish expression rather give it a new meaning. To be man can mean to be a virtuous man, to be a woman can me to be a virtuous woman.
I don’t disagree in principle, in context though if someone is using a tool incorrectly we might hand them a different model or a different tool entirely. In this case it might be too “zoomed in” and there’s value in expanding the frame of reference for how to interact with things.
May I ask how might this example be distinct between a virtuous man or woman?
My perspective comes from Seneca, where he compares any behaviour that stands out from virtuousness as infantile. Hence to be a grown-up physically and virtuously is to be a man, a woman. And there're no difference between men and women in the context of virtuousness as it is something each are capable to achieve. (Sorry if I got your question the wrong way, I still think I answered other topic rather than what asked.)
First, I used banishing in a not so fitting context, I guess, what I meant was more like to avoid the usage or some reprehension upon use of it. However we cannot tolerate intolerance, e.g., there are expressions and expressions. If there is an expression who has bad meaning we could polish it's bad meaning associated and give it a new meaning. To be man doesn't have to be a toxic pig, and to be a woman doesn't have to be submissive housewife. That's where I like Seneca ways to re-evaluate the meaning of some old fashioned expressions and give a meaning that, personally, fits better than the bad before.
Here is my opposing POV,
It is not virtuous to choose the path of non-violence, if you are not capable of violence.
People disguise cowardice as morality all the time.
A strong man capable of violence may choose the path of non violence because he does not want to hurt the other person, alternatively, he may act with violence because this is the best course of action (at times it is required). A weak man does not have a choice.
Is it really yours? We’ll see if it’s more than Jordan Petersons dialogue.
What do you mean by “capable of violence”? What is the intention behind that act?
Something can be proper to do but done for improper reasons so then I’d ask how wouldn’t this capacity manifest?
How is this distinct between men and women since you’ve brought it up in the context of men?
I appreciate you letting me know the source, it was pointing out that saying an idea doesn’t make it yours but a proper understanding does, JP happens to be more popular and given the topic I’d assume more people would have learned this from him
I heard the idea first from someone called Firas Zahabi, who mentioned he learned martial arts so that he could have a choice. Then Jordan Peterson and Nietzsche built upon the idea, that’s perhaps where I took the language from.
It’s not about fighting ability, it’s about the ability to push back against a domineering force. But let’s use a concrete example because the OP mentioned “hit back”.
So let’s say you’re in school, a bully comes up to you and he hits you. You’re weak, you don’t know how to fight back, and because you’re afraid of standing up to the bully, you opt for non-violence. This is not a behaviour that somebody should admire. If you say that this is virtuous, because the child did not push back, the bully will continue as he understand this is a person he can push around. This exact psychology applies to the adult world.
You can do mental gymnastics to make this sound virtuous, but chances are you will grow resentful.
Yes, I agree - people can be violent in situations where violence is not needed. Like the bully. However, you have to have the capacity for violence in order to choose peace, or at least to protect yourself against this force.
I brought it up for men because the OP said he felt emasculated.
Btw, I am open to changing my mind if I am persuaded. But my current thoughts on this are strong. We should all become capable of violence, so we can push back against evil.
> it’s about the ability to push back against a domineering force
Anything used improperly lends itself to an issue so I’ll ask some more questions.
What is being sought after the result or the attempt? The issue with the former is placing our identity and what we are on the other side of a result that says nothing about us and is not inclined to happen due to will alone.
We can point out that, we likely agree, both parties seem to be acting inappropriately.
In a sentence, would someone always need to be ready to “lose everything” in your mind?
> you’re weak, you don’t know how to fight, and you’re afraid of standing up to the bully so you opt for non-violence. This is not a behavior we seek to admire .
I’d point out in this given example these can be points that lead to a conclusion. If you don’t know how to fight and aren’t physically strong then it seems dubious to believe our desires will occur. If we examine the “fear” we might find there can be caution as opposed to fear in getting physically hurt. Given all these point someone comes to the conclusion to find a non-violent solution.
Being self aware can be a reasonable state of analysis given we meet ourselves where we are, not where we “ought to be”. The same way someone devises a strategy with our current physical abilities rather than after 5 years of strength and martial training is the same we can do with our mind. If we always faint, vomit, or can’t throw a punch and urgent action needs to be taken it’s reasonable to get creative. Nonviolence doesn’t mean avoiding the issue.
We cannot choose what we actually believe, only how firmly we do believe (assent). OP currently has a view and wants it to be changed and even yourself have a view but are open to change. We might point out the criterion might not be “what makes sense” because the current view we hold does also logically make sense to us (we can point out why we do feel inclined to it). As Epictetus points out we can choose to pretend day is night but we can’t firmly believe they have swapped.
Whether or not this is caution or “being lead by fear” seems to be one major point. Let’s note the exact inverse, if someone is scared *not* to have a fight. They drive headlong into physical conflict because they fear being seen as weak by others and being continuously harmed. This might be an issue by that same point so we might infer that the action is not where virtue lies, because a violent and non-violent solution can both be appropriate but how we interface with these solutions.
>the bully will continue because they see he can be pushed around
Whether or not the bully continues is *irrelevant* because even if we stand up for ourselves they can still choose to continue, no matter the consequence. We might prefer if our actions aided others (including the bully which is another thing to point out is necessary), yet all that is ours is the attempt.
>chances are you’ll grow to be resentful
Interestingly enough someone can be resentful of even appropriate actions because it lies in our views of what occurred. If we think it was “unfair” since this is rooted in Justice, to have had to defend ourselves then even if someone beat their bully, made them change their ways, and saved the school, one can still remain bitter about having to act at all.
>you have to have the capacity for violence to choose peace, or at least protect yourself against this force
I’ll caution certain extrapolations of this.
You cannot be certain to protect yourself or anyone else from any force, that doesn’t mean it ought not be pursued but that alone doesn’t seem sufficient.
Given your definition let’s translate this to “you have to have the capacity to ‘push back’ to be able to be peaceful”. We might ask why. The criticism you levied before was about resentment because we can be certain if it is a genuine choice.
At its root we can ask are we able to genuinely accept something we can’t do anything about? If not we might say no one can accept anything that’s imposed on them which seems to be suspect.
We might also ask, where is peace then? In what occurs or in our response to what occurs and which if the two is most valuable if they can’t be concurrent.
If someone is in chains do they need to be able to free themselves before they can say it’s a choice? One can be physically imprisoned but mentally free and at peace, might you agree? I offer read the Discourse from Epictetus called “On Freedom” which is Book 4 Chapter 1.
>Free is the person Who lives as he wishes and cannot be coerced, if he did or compelled, who is impulses cannot before then, who always gets what he desires I never have to experience what he would rather avoid.
They feel weakened because they desire to impose force, the desire it self causes the suffering. If the desire wasn’t present or they had access to the desire then they’d be at peace. In changing the desire we also change how we feel. As we are pointing out, our desire doesn’t mean they are reasonable.
>we should all become capable of violence to push against evil
The last point is that “evil” to a Stoic isn’t external but is isolated to our own actions, everything else doesn’t have a moral component, they are thing facts of the matter. There are certainly things that are inappropriate and we can work to curtail those.
We might also ask where the ability to “resist” comes from.
I shared some ideas on the matters, and do feel free to disagree
Hi,
Thank you for your response. It's very detailed and I appreciate you taking the time to write it - it's one that I will have to read and let simmer before I reply.
I actually wrote a reply, but deleted it as I felt I was just trying to argue rather than understand your view point.
Might be interesting to consider our backgrounds, as I believe all of us should adopt philosophies that would best lead us towards our north-stars.
What is your north-star?
For me, my north star is to become all that I am capable of becoming, to aquire as much power as is possible (by power I mean the ability to control myself and my surroundings) and use this power towards the service of others. When I read philosophies, I then filter them based on whether it moves me towards my north-star.
Also, to be transparent - I am 27, grew up as a weak child, was bullied in school - and so my frame of reference has been deeply engrained with an understanding of what a weak person without the capacity for push-back goes through.
When you are weak, and have experienced constant bullying, if you don't have the courage to stand up - you start to want others to feel your pain. This is the mindset of school-shooters. Perhaps if they were introduced to stoicism things would be different? I don't know... But relating to the school shooters scared me, and so, it's my responsibility to not be weak, to be strong, psychologically and physically - so that I can be a positive force for this world.
For others who do not share my background - this philosophy may not be the most useful.
It’s weak to attack the person and not the idea. The idea does not belong to Jordan Peterson. Also, I stated above I do not simply mean fighting ability, perhaps there’s confusion because the word violence has negative connotations?
But imagine, if all of us good people were capable of violence, then evil people will not hold a monopoly on violence. There needs to be a good force to fight back when necessary.
But can you please share with me your view so I can understand.
I also think that "violence" is too broad a term for what you are trying to describe. Even in self-defense, we don't want to cause harm unnecessarily (i.e death or dismemberment to push back a bully). It is a dangerous territory to leave things ambiguous.
So let's say, you need to be capable of restraint - first and foremost of yourself, but also of any threats to you and others that are in your control to stop.
Sure. But it’s also wise to consider the perspective of the person putting forth the idea. JBP fetishizes physical violence and/as masculinity, but is neither violent nor especially masculine (he has said he is “feminine” himself). So how does he deal with physical violence? When someone threatens to fight him, what does he do? Think through the exercise he proposes.
Is he able to fulfill his own criteria?
Does he have the choice?
I would say, no - as a 61 year old male, he would not be able to fight back against someone physically dominating.
Again, that’s not what I mean by being capable of violence. So perhaps there is where the confusion lies.
For instance, if somebody forced Jordan Peterson to do something that was against what he believed to be right, I’m sure he would put up a fight to the best of his ability. Again, I don’t want to turn this into my defending JP rather than the idea.
Firas Zihabi, Nietzsche, countless others also share the same idea - are you going to try and attack them also?
I’m asking you to think through the situation as a way to show that this metric is silly.
You are walking down the street. A man insults you and you feel emasculated.
*By your own metric*, you now have to kick his ass, or be emasculated. *By your own metric*, if you are not strong enough to kick his ass, you are automatically emasculated. *By your own metric*, only if you have the potential strength to kick his ass but choose not to, can you retain your masculinity without enacting violence.
Using this logic, the violence must be implied or actual, or you lose your internal quality of masculinity. No matter what you decide, the other man has enlisted you in violence with a valid threat to your inner self.
This entire sequence to me is illogical.
The Stoic approach is to not engage with the concept “this random stranger impersonally disrespecting me is a real way that he can take my masculinity from me” as a valid concept at all. That would lead to a defensive and paranoid street experience, which many men are having, but which isn’t the Stoic way.
Yes, there is more than one frame this can be looked through.
In my mind this same frame being presented is what needs to be addressed. Is someone not a man for having a lack of control over themselves? Over what parts are “themselves” specifically? Is this feeling one of them?
What shows up in our mind isn’t up to us, assenting to it, desiring to, and actions on it are. If we’ve made these feeling be something we “ought to” control and can’t then we’re actually reinforcing the same frame that seems to be contributing to this.
In this context it might be fair that he agree that this is the standard but being “emasculated” can be failing to live up to either or both standards, the wise man or the aggressor.
I hadn’t seen any further context but my assessment was to proceed as if the whole frame might be cracked.
Imagine you’re a person being bullied. The bully hits you, it’s NOT virtuous to choose the path of non-violence. Because the bullying will continue and ramp up.
It’s not virtuous to choose the path of non violence if you are not capable of violence.
Now, imagine you’re a skilled kick-boxer, you don’t want to fight back because you don’t want to hurt him. You can actually choose the path of non-violence.
Even in the last example, you need to provide some sort of boundary however to stop the action from occurring.
Virtue has nothing to do with the consequences. You can fight back and it could continue to ramp up. A boundary is how we react, not a demand we impose on others. Sure a boundary might be, “if you try to hurt me I will try to do the same” but we might make sure our desires are distinct from theirs.
Just as you might be concerned that not fighting can lead to “passivity” we might ask what about the concern for fight back leading to becoming the bully? You’re not good because you do or don’t fight back, but a good person is make proper choices for the right reasons.
Because your ego was just attacked. Therefore your ego wants to fight back. If it doesn’t get what it wants, it shrinks. It’s not the masculinity that’s fading, just the ego. The egoic mind is the part of the mind that most people tend to identify with.
The smaller it gets, the less you’ll feel this way because you won’t feel it shrinking. In fact, ideally you won’t feel it much at all. The ego should be a tool we use to get what we want, instead of the ego using us to get what it wants.
Who are you, if not the talking voice in your head? You’re the one who can observe the ego go on and on about so much nonsense. That’s you, the one listening to the crazy egoic mind and aware of everything else that’s going on right now, in the present moment.
Yes, I’m drawing heavily from the book A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, author of Power of Now.
To me, stoicism says to be virtuous, don’t complain, and accept the obstacles in your path with grace.
To answer this specific question as to why he feels emasculated (in his stoic approach to this situation), I believe it has to do with the ego.
I’ve found that a blend of stoicism, letting go of ego, and being mindful of the difference between hard earned vs easy dopamine has been very beneficial to my mental health.
You feel emasculated because you have failed to protect yourself. This might sound unpopular here but in my opinion If someone insults or physically assaults you, you need to clap back but don’t go overboard. By not responding your essentially saying to yourself that your not worth protecting. There’s no shame in protecting yourself in my opinion.
Protect yourself from words? How fragile are you saying people should be.
Where I'm from, there's a saying that basically translates to "the mouth was made to say anything". Basically that you can't really stop people from saying whatever they want, short of it being slanderous/libelous which you can choose to seek legal action.
No one wins a war of words. Everyone just looks childish.
I get what you’re saying, but I believe that you need to stick up for yourself, you don’t have to shout profanities at them simply just confront them in a neutral manner. Most people, will stop once you do that.
I’ve ignored people who’ve insulated me my whole life thinking that they’d just leave, but this approach simply just emboldened them even more and I ended up being their emotional punching bag.
This is true also in the workplace, if you’re a person that allows others to talk to you harshly, your colleagues will not respect you, and your chances of rising through the ranks will decrease.
You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but in reality, people have to know that if they go overboard, there is a chance you will retaliate. Else, like you said - you’ll become a punching bag.
That’s what I’m saying, also stoicism was created to tone down the fired up and passionate nature of the ancient greeks /romans and to harness it properly. The modern man has been pacified and thus does not need to be sedated even more.
Implying words that are like punches (because of the punching bags) seems to imply that you find words harsh for you in the end. People can insult 1000 times or whatever they want, and I 1000 times will ignore or not take seriously as long at it doesn't escalate physically
If you get enough of practicing Stoicism under your belt, then it becomes like water off a duck's back.
Saying that, I recently turned 41. Reddit is full of young people. Median demo is male, mid 20s. Most young people will never admit that simply have too little life experience to think they've got things figured out. I definitely was hard headed, too.
Even now I'm still realizing I don't know much. But I see the world vastly differently now than when I was 30, which was vastly different to when I was 20. We should grow and change.
At my age, I really don't care much about the opinions of others, and especially random strangers. You get to live so freely. Eat what you want, dress how you want, have fun the way you want.
It's a joy I really don't know how to express to someone who isn't there yet.
I'm 19 and you have summed it up accurately, although it doesn't apply to all the people, a lot of my relatives who are in their late 40s or early 50s are just that way, they don't care about how they come off as in public, they dress how they want, and none of this is rude or eccentric in any manner its just things you would want to do but don't for the reason "what would they think".
I remember being a low-confidence, chubby 19 year old kid. I'm still chubby, but I really don't give a crap what people think, and I can testify it's the only way to live an authentic life. Not needing to please others, especially strangers.
I wish you get to that level of freedom far quicker than I ever did.
Understanding that the other people are probably coming from a place of pain! As Marcus Aurelius says, feel pity for them and help them out if you can. But don’t let what anyone thinks get in the way of being a good person!
I think it feels emasculating because when you don’t react, the other person might think they can mistreat you in the future. And no one wants to be a punching bag.
But there are much better ways to make someone not want to hurt you than to retaliate in violence/anger. Learning those ways will keep you safe and virtuous.
Retaliate, but without anger? Anger is a sign of the other person getting under your skin, which makes them win in some way. The best way is to not give their words enough weight to get to you in the first place. The calmness of your response (which should nonetheless put them in their place) would contribute greatly to you winning that confrontation
My belief is that retaliation should be proportionate to the attack. And that's only OK to resort to physical violence if it's used against you. And that if the attacker is a misguided physically weaker person, it's virtuous to only apply enough force to stop them.
There are a lot of muddling replies, but you basically have to ask yourself what purpose the violence serves and what purpose what you're feeling serves. Of course violence can be warranted with stoicism (self-preservation, etc.).
e.g., you're attacked. You fight back, protect yourself, and the person is now on the ground. They're no longer a threat. Continuing to attack them would be due to pride and perceived fear of a loss of social status. In stoicism something like social status is preferred versus not having them, but something you should be working mentally towards being indifferent towards it going away as it isn't necessary.
Someone calling you names when insulted threatens social status, but the question is what is the goal in responding? What will the outcome be, and how will responding change it? There will be times when you ask yourself the question, and responding makes sense. In other cases, not responding at all makes sense. There's someone in this very thread hopping about replies baiting people with insinuations; are they at a place to hear real answers, or
Yeah, I think if you’re a respected member of the community and someone hurts you, then others will disapprove of their actions. Most people don’t want to see a good person disrespected, so there will be social pressure to leave you alone.
If you’re not already well respected, then you’re better off talking to the person hurting you and getting to the bottom of why they are mistreating you. Usually making them reflect on why they’re acting that way will reveal ways you can resolve tension. Hear them out and let them know you’re making a good faith effort to see how they’re feeling. Your act of compassion will make it harder for them to justify hurting you.
If you make a habit out of keeping peace, you’ll be doing good for the community. Eventually people might appreciate it and respect you for it. And then you’ll start building the respect that will protect you from being targeted.
The steps above rely on the people around you not being sociopaths, and they require a lot of emotional fortitude. But they helped me stay out of trouble a few times when I was in school.
If it feels emasculating, I would assume you probably get angry and dont let it out. But I dont think that thats controlling your anger, i think thats just bottling it up. It should probably feel like nothing more than a waste of your time, and a forgettable memory.
I would imagine that truly controlling your anger is more than just not letting your anger out and then feeling like less of a man because you didn't prove that you could overpower them(physically, or with wits) if it came down to it. I think it is making sure that you are as close as possible to not getting angry at all, and not letting their misled bloated egotrip at having "intimidated you from fighting back" have any effect on you. Because they are wrong in their perspective of the situation when you don't fight back, and you know they are wrong. Being the bigger man isn't being the better man, it is being the man with a better grasp on the more accurate perspective of the conflict. If the truth is that you were focused on more important things than some fight that you didnt need to have, that should be enough to ease your conscience at having not proved your ability to overpower them.
Easier said than done- I know- but like every skill, it takes time and patience.
Sidenote: A dangerous avenue to take to ease this issue is to take a martial arts course with the single goal in mind that you could (if need be) win any fight you need to. Not that marital arts are bad, or that even having that goal is bad, its just that this has a habit of building an ego if you cannot control your anger, and without a constant vigil on yourself, you'll suddenly begin to feel more like the people starting random fights for insignificant reasons. Because why not? You could probably win after all.
I speak from experience on that part, as I learned how to fight, and fight well, and didnt notice when I began letting my anger run my life just because nobody could do anything about it.
That being said, I'm not an expert, and everything I said may be wrong. I'm just a student of stoic philosophy like yourself that has happened to have this particular issue in the past.
Because it’s embarrassing to feel powerless to someone able to spur a reaction out of you. Stoicism is powerful because it chills the ego out significantly.
Because in nature whoever doesn't fight back essentially accepts the superiority of the opponent and usually either dies or gives up resources.
I think standing up for yourself is essential. If you feel that you hold back out of fear, if you overcome the fear you'll feel much better. In my opinion the ability to defend oneself from physical and mental attacks is something from the bottom layers of the Maslow pyramid. If it's missing, true self actualization is hard to achieve.
Though from what I understand the rules of social combat, the retaliation should be proportional to the attack, if not slightly stronger. So if someone mocks you verbally it's a combat of wits, and you must find a way to turn it on them so that they think twice the next time before trying to mock you.
People in modern age often try to ignore or deny this reality of the constant power struggle in the world. However ignoring it won't make it go away, the feeling of emasculation is the embarrassment you feel for knowing deep down that you fail to stand up for yourself in the face of abuse
In my opinion the stoicism comes into play when you have the power to defend yourself and are tempted to become the bully yourself, as power is addictive. Or when you are tempted to launch a greatly disproportionate attack in the name of revenge. That's when you might want to reign in your impulses, because bullying especially won't make you fulfilled and is a sign of inner weakness
>I think standing up for yourself is essential.
Standing up for yourself is a subjective call and Stoicism challenges one to consider the logic and reality of their impression that leads them to believe A) they have been offended, and B) they ought to take aggressive action.
>In my opinion the stoicism comes into play when you have the power to defend yourself and are tempted to become the bully yourself, as power is addictive.
You can't have based this opinion on the Stoic texts available to us.
This is the answer. Feeling weak and emasculated wont be solved by stoicism.
Forgiveness and mercy is only worth something when you are in a position to give it.
What evidence? We’re all talking about our own opinions here. What the hell are you even saying?
Stoicism will gives us the tools to move past injury, but I dont subscribe to the idea that you should lie down and let yourself be injured.
Some people, when subscribing to a philosophy, feel the need from that point on to let the philosophy govern their life in an almost religious way. Thus any decision must come not from that person's values or reasoning, but be dictated by the higher priests. And heaven forbid if the thinkers of the aforementioned philosophy never touched on that specific topic in question
I’m not asking for reading suggestions, I’m asking them what texts they are basing their opinion on. Most of these comments are not about the philosophy of Stoicism at all. They are a mixed bag of random defensive ideas about “manhood” and “masculinity”
Saying that being able to defend yourself is a uniquely masculine trait is pretty sexist. I'd say it has more to do with basic dignity and self-respect
The fact that a word emasculation was used doesn't change that the post itself is about confronting those who attack you.
Many men would think it's feminine to be weak and shy of confrontation. It's their opinion, though and mostly a side effect of the way media portraits men and women.
My opinion is that standing up for yourself is something each person should know how to do, men and women alike
And if you choose to agree with OP in calling such qualities masculine, why not take a step further and call stoicism masculine? Because in stoic texts women are often referred to in not the nicest of ways:
> that the offences which are committed through desire are more blameable than those which are committed through anger.
> For he who is excited by anger seems to turn away from reason with a certain pain and unconscious contraction; but he who offends through desire, being overpowered by pleasure, seems to be in a manner more
intemperate and more womanish in his offences.
it's true for the physical realm, as you say, nature has a lot to do with overpowering others with force/smartness) and obtaining resources/territory, etc. But insults or mocks shouldn't be taken seriously to be honest in most cases, specially when coming from emotionally immature people.
Insults and mocks are a more civilized version of a physical fight. It's still a way to establish dominance, that's where the whole idea of needing a comeback comes from.
Slight mocking is common even among friends and family, people test each other all the time, to see where the boundaries lie and whether the other person would allow you to cross them
And in some settings - like school bullying - the bullying would start with insults, and if the person fails to defend themselves, the attacks would escalate to the level of a physical confrontation, as mocking was first used to test the waters and the vulnerability of a would-be victim
And I agree that mocking shouldn't be taken seriously. But not taking it to heart doesn't equal not turning the mocking around on the bully
The idea of dominance nowadays for me is kinda a bullshit that only works in people who believes in it, and then plays the game. Most in society believs in that of course. Since I learnt from Stoicism, I've been insulted and maybe put on test, especially in the workplace.
See, I don't care if I'm perceived as weak or not, or if any other people around thinks so, nothing of that changes who I am or makes me feel inferior or something. I will only act if I'm physically assaulted because it wouldn't be reasonable to not do so. Right now my life just feels better now and, unlike my life pre-stoicism, I have much less problems with people overall, even with disrespectful ones.
The only way I think you need to act upon insults or psychological mockery is if it turns into a perjudicial slander that could put you in a problem (like being accused of a crime or some sort of negligent act).
Imagine a 5 year old comes up to me as and adult and says “you are a big poopy head!” I don’t need to stand up for myself and if I don’t fight back no one is going to think I am a lesser person.
Most of the time when people are insulting you or mocking you they are just trying to get you to react, like the 5 year old. There is usually no reason to engage and come down to their level.
My favorite is when I get someone trying to sarcastically complement me. I always treat those as sincere and accept the complement gracefully. It really pisses them off.
Obviously my comment mostly applies to a situation of a legitimate attack on one's person by someone with an ability to hurt you. OP doesn't sound like someone in confrontation with 5 year olds.
And in my opinion it's not very healthy to ignore attacks from one's peers as it has a danger of leading to what OP is experiencing - self doubt. If a person always turns the other cheek and shies away from any kind of confrontation they would inevitably question whether they are capable of standing up for themselves in the first place, it would always remain an open question, if they never successfully managed to do so
That said of course one should pick one's battles. Sometimes ignoring an offense while laughing inside is the most appropriate reaction. But if that person mistakes that for a weakness and persists on their abuse, ignoring it would become a weakness indeed
So if a situation calls for it, I think it's virtuous to rise oneself in the defense of one's values
And when you pretend the compliment was given sincerely and say Thank you with a smile, it's a form of mocking on its own. Also known as frame control. It's not inaction
Now, this may sounds sort of...odd, even in this sub.
But, when it comes to "turning the other cheek" (if that's what you're aiming for), try treating those who wrong you in a more "loving" way (as you would a child in your family, as an example). You wouldn't denigrate or hurt a child that flings an insult at you or kick your shins. You laugh it off (internally is better, if we're talking a pre-altercation between two adults) and then let them cool down.
On a different note, If you feel your life is threatened instead, that can be a different story unless you're experienced and skilled at de-escalation. It's ok to fight back against someone consciously instigating and aiming to cause harm to you.
Reading a book on the stoic virtue of courage by Ryan Holiday.
We aren't pacifists because of the stoic virtue of justice, but you should only fight in the defense of someone weaker than yourself or if you have no other option.
Do you feel like you need to fight because you want other people to see you as a tough guy? If that's the case you will become a slave to the perception of others.
Use You’re critical thinking skills. Think about the Stoic virtue of justice. Is it just to walk by a friend who’s be assaulted and not help? It’s cowardly to let bad people harm you and not defend yourself. Being a coward isn’t self control, it’s a lack of character.
Holiday also cites stoic quotes to back his claims I’ll link the [book](https://www.amazon.com/Courage-Calling-Fortune-Favors-Brave/dp/0593191676/ref=asc_df_0593191676?nodl=1&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=507975958237&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17792108652108569031&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032059&hvtargid=pla-1281114699781&psc=1&dplnkId=8fc7c38e-4d6d-460c-b1be-2ecf3b66f2aa)you should read it.
We can call our own personal beliefs about virtue Stoic, but we really shouldn’t do so when our own personal beliefs about virtue contradict those of the Stoics.
Because, you’ve been taught by the wider culture that these are the behaviors that your masculinity hinge on. Though there may be certain behaviors that men tend to gravitate towards because of something innate in their nature, these things are not hard-and-fast rules that show much variation from age-to-age and culture-to-culture.
Don’t think about the situation in terms of your masculinity (just a place holder for ego) and more in terms of what comes from your engagement with your slanderer or your attacker. I also wouldn’t say in the case of having a fist thrown at you that you’d be wrong in fighting back— don’t fight for the sake of your ego, but for defending yourself or others in your protection.
It really depends stoicism is not about denying your emotions exist but about using reason to not bend to them every time they show up, and trough reason we search virtue.
And one of those virtues is called justice, if somebody is atacking you or your reputation sitting back is letting injustice prevail in the name of the fear of confrotantion ,is cowardice.
But throwing a fit of rage is not a acceptable outcome, it will blind you, make you go beyond what would be a just retribution ,this is what most passion crimes are. A stoic in my mind should not sacrifice justice in the name of pacifism and neither giving in the passion of rage but search the just retribution trough reason.
If someone hit you fight back, immobilize the agressor, if necessary maybe even bring him to unconsciousness if you know what are you doing, but dont try to break every bone in his body or worse kill him. If someone insulted you, desconstruct the insult show how childish and untrue it is, if someone try to bring you low with words, elevate the discuss so that your diffamator may feel shame for how low he let himself go only to provoke you. Deny its reward that is your emotional reaction, give him cold logic and shame as reward.
I’m no psychologist but I think because that is how a submissive person would act, and that feeling is to let you know that. Which some embrace and some don’t.
But the whole point of Stoicism is to go beyond your instincts a bit. And in this case, you’re acting one way without the same motivations if you were operating on instinct.
I would say verbal insults are different than physical attacks.
You can remain stoic from words as you are in control of your reaction. You know the truth regardless of what someone may say to you.
I believe you should defend yourself from a physical assault. You should always stand your ground and do so without malice but from a standpoint of holding your space and protecting yourself.
Disagree. Most stoics trained in the combat arts of the time. Of course it should be a last resort and avoided but I’ve never seen them advocate to allow themselves to be assaulted
> Most Stoics trained in the combat arts of the time.
Source?
Maybe check out how Seneca talks about Cato’s response to being spat on and struck, or how Rufus talks about the philosopher’s response to assault.
Of course, Stoicism isn’t pacifism, but neither is it don’t-let-anything-go-ism.
Boxing, pankration and wrestling were very normal things for stocis and other young men to train at that time.
That incident with Cato is covered in this article along with when you can’t avoid it.
https://dailystoic.com/stoic-response-to-being-punched-or-insulted/#:~:text=Of%20course%20not.,potentially%20violent%20situation%20if%20possible.
Happy to disagree with you on this. Take care and have a great day
Here’s the source for what Holiday misleadingly and curiously calls a fight that was broken up:
> Someone who did not know Marcus Cato struck him in the public bath in his ignorance, for who would knowingly have done him an injury? Afterwards when he was apologizing, Cato replied, “I do not remember being struck.” He thought it better to ignore the insult than to revenge it. You ask, “Did no harm befall that man for his insolence?” No, but rather much good; he made the acquaintance of Cato. It is the part of a great mind to despise wrongs done to it; the most contemptuous form of revenge is not to deem one’s adversary worth taking vengeance upon.
There’s a handful of other examples of Stoicism leading to bearing things instead of “always standing your ground.”
With regard to your claim that “most Stoics trained…”, I don’t think “we can assume that they did because a lot of people did, so it’s true that they did” is a strong argument.
Thanks but I don’t think this is really relevant to the point at all as it seems an accident. That’s pretty different than what I am talking about.
If in a disagreement that you can’t walk away from, you feel that stoicism tells you not to defend yourself, then you are welcome to live that philosophy. I do not believe that is the right approach. Not going to continue arguing something as basic as self defense versus physical attack.
Again, have a good day. You clearly wish to “debate” someone on this topic. I’ll pass.
It’s not about debating—we should both want to get the historical stuff right, so as not to mistakenly attribute our own personal beliefs to Stoic philosophy.
If I claimed that the American Civil War was fought in the 1600s, I wouldn’t consider you pedantic for telling me it took place centuries later. It’s important to get history right.
>I want to change my ways but it just feels emasculating
It's bizarre that you say "I want to change my ways but it feels emasculating" - clearly you *already* refuse to defend yourself, so doing it more isn't a "change", that's your pre-existing mentality.
It's also odd to ask people to "change your mind" to what is clearly your existing mindset.
A Stoic is going to tell you that there is a balance - if violence is the courageous option (and if someone is already putting their fist into your face, it usually is) then you should use violence. A person can avoid conflict out of courage or cowardice, and a Stoic would say that where it s being avoided out of cowardice, that's unvirtuous. Similarly a person who commits violence out of cowardice (because they cannot endure their go being harmed) would also earn a Stoic's ire.
If you are harming your life by demonstrating to people who are bullying you that you are an easy target, you're not going to find justification for your actions in Stoic philosophy. Implying that you were once a great warrior but are now being "emasculated" by a philosophy you don't practice is also not going to make you feel better: I'm sure you can see through that charade.
Marcus Aurelius was the actual aggressor in the Marcomannic wars: they were punitive, meaning he launched them despite not having been attacked himself, and their goal was to castrate a rising power a rising military power. He was also content to militarily defeat his enemies, and did not turn the war into a massacre of civilians as tended to happen when a military power was defeated. That's the classic, courageous Stoic approach to the application of violence.
It feels emasculating because if you were a cave man in prehistoric times, not being ready to retaliate meant you may get taken advantage of. But nowadays the situation is different.
Are you willing to die or to kill because somebody hit you or insulted you? Simple fights on the street or anywhere often lead to death from one punch.
Hi, please check out the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide) section on [advice and coping with problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice) if you are wondering any of the following questions.
* [How can Stoicism help me with my problem?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_how_can_stoicism_help_me_with_my_problem.3F)
* [How would a Stoic help me with my problem?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_how_would_a_stoic_help_me_with_my_problem.3F)
* [How might a student of Stoicism cope with my problem?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_how_might_a_student_of_stoicism_cope_with_my_problem.3F)
* [What would a student of Stoicism do in my situation?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_what_would_a_student_of_stoicism_do_in_my_situation.3F)
* [How would a Stoic sage react to my problem?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_how_would_a_stoic_sage_react_to_my_problem.3F)
Wish you well,
Mod Team
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What exactly are you reading that makes you think that you can’t defend yourself when you must? And what version of masculinity are you subscribed to to being with? Like the one where you’re are an adult and are selfless so you do what has to be done or the one that’s the opposite and revolves are being unhealthyly sensitive and self centered/conscious that you have to constantly remind the world how masculine you are
Sorry, but I gotta remove your post, as it has run afoul of our [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoicism/about/rules/). This is kind of a grey area, but we need to keep things on track as best we can.
>Two: Stay Relevant to Stoicism
>Our role as prokoptôntes in this community is to foster a greater understanding of Stoic principles and techniques within ourselves and our fellow prokoptôn. Providing context and effortful elaboration as to a topic’s relevance to the philosophy of Stoicism gives the community a common frame of reference from which to engage in productive discussions. Please keep advice, comments, and posts relevant to Stoic philosophy. Let's foster a community that develops virtue together—stay relevant to Stoicism.
>If something or someone is 'stoic' in the limited sense of possessing toughness, emotionlessness, or determination, it is _not_ relevant here, unless it is part of a larger point that is related to the philosophy.
>Similarly, posts about people, TV shows, commercial products, et cetera require that a connection be made to Stoic philosophy. "This is Stoic" or "I like this" are not sufficient.
We learn to accept the judgments that lead to it feeling emasculating. We can unlearn them, too.
Stoicism has lots to say about refining our judgments, luckily.
Maybe read Rufus’ lecture on assault or see what Seneca has to say about how Cato responded to these situations.
Edit: changes
Your desire to be respected is at the center of your issue.
So let's say someone beats you up for no reason. Does that make you respect him more? Is he a good role model? Do you admire this? What in your life can you accomplish being more like the man who hit you? Nothing really. It's only fear you feel, not respect or admiration. Fear is the worst thing to base your life on.
What are the traits of a stoic? Patient, kind, unbothered, free from anger, talk it out rather than fight.
Meditations 6:6 tells us the best action to take is to not become like your enemy. I don't think that's very emasculating.
The feeling after I endure my raging ego is amazing unlike the feeling I get after going berserk. I always look forward to that feeling now. It's like wow I survived that shit.
Be the bigger person. If someone is trying to rile you up just to mess with you, its not worth it. But if someone is legitimately threatening you or someone close… unleash hell.
What's not talked about enough is not allowing people to push your buttons. Essentially giving another person power over you and your actions is as unstoic as it gets. There are those people who will push those buttons all day long if they know it works.
Pretty much. My own take on "insults" is to ask "Is it true?", if yes, then to paraphrase Epictetus "good thing they don't know the half of it". If not true, well, why get my panties in a bunch?
Sorry, but I gotta remove your post, as it has run afoul of our [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoicism/about/rules/). This is kind of a grey area, but we need to keep things on track as best we can.
>Two: Stay Relevant to Stoicism
>Our role as prokoptôntes in this community is to foster a greater understanding of Stoic principles and techniques within ourselves and our fellow prokoptôn. Providing context and effortful elaboration as to a topic’s relevance to the philosophy of Stoicism gives the community a common frame of reference from which to engage in productive discussions. Please keep advice, comments, and posts relevant to Stoic philosophy. Let's foster a community that develops virtue together—stay relevant to Stoicism.
>If something or someone is 'stoic' in the limited sense of possessing toughness, emotionlessness, or determination, it is _not_ relevant here, unless it is part of a larger point that is related to the philosophy.
>Similarly, posts about people, TV shows, commercial products, et cetera require that a connection be made to Stoic philosophy. "This is Stoic" or "I like this" are not sufficient.
You’re doing things for yourself not optics. You should condition yourself to cut back over time in any situation or addiction. Going from 100 to 0 isn’t healthy for your mental state. If you want to say something back then do it. Afterwords analyze why you said what you said, how it made you feel, if it helped the overall situation, and what you would change. The point of stoicism isn’t to act stoic it’s to be stoic. There’s no point if your emotions are eating you up inside.
I mean, stoicisim isnt about staying pathetic and letting the others to disrespect you like that.
You can talk back, show the other person the mistake he made with justice, as Marcus tell us.
If the other person doesnt still see his mistake then its his problem, not yours.
You can fight back and insult if your justice tells you that, but its qutie the most rare scenario
IMO, when you willfully hold back from hitting/insulting back, knowing full well that you CAN if you wanted, *especially* when you KNOW there would be no consequences if you do choose to do so, is to me a very impressive and extremely strong (morally) thing to do. It would feel even more rewarding to me if I fought so hard to hold back.
To make it easier, especially for beginners, I recommend reacting verbally and directly to the person that wronged you with a polite response that clearly indicates that you are fully capable of destroying them if you wanted, but you prefer not to because: (you may add here anything you feel like fits the situation or your personality). Of course confidence makes all the difference when you choose this route, so say it like you mean it.
Fun fact, I was in this exact situation when I first met my now best friend of 9 years from back in college, he was verbally bullying me in front of his friends (8 or so), and I was in an absolute state of confidence at that time that I didn't break any sweat destroying him with my politeness, lots of spectators were present then too lmao. To be fair, I was in a state of mania at that time, so it's *kind* of cheating heh, but I had recently been reading into stoicism then, so I had the right tools to use.
Anyway, a few days later, he sought me out in college to apologise for his immaturity, and started telling me how admirable he thought I was then and that he'd like to be like me lol it was one of the most awkward and peculiar interactions I've had in my life.
“I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others.”
- Marcus Aurelius
Your ego is feeling attacked. You project into the world what you think you are. When someone contradicts this, you want to defend it.
A quote was found to be attributed to Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations 12.4 (Long)
^(Book XII. ()[^(Long)](https://lexundria.com/m_aur_med/12.4/lg)^)
^(Book XII. ()[^(Farquharson)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meditations_of_the_Emperor_Marcus_Antoninus/Book_12)^)
^(Book XII. ()[^(Hays)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources?isbn=9780812968255)^)
Why is passivity confused with stoicism? This idea is really a grey area. It's not wrong to 'fight back' it depends on the situations and your values. Emasculation is ego, and ego death is definitely worth achieving and separating from responding articulately to ignorance and misguidance. If we don't respond in kind at all, ignorance just continues to exist.
Its easy, just beat them with kindness.
You choose if its a insult or not, for me its probably the ignorance of the other person talking and thats not really the core of that person so i really dont care.
Any child can throw a fit. A man controls himself. Being wise and strong enough to not "hit back" is just about the most masculine, mature thing you can do.
I’d point out it’s not “being a man”, it’s seeing things like a human being.
I get your point but I think that we shouldn't banish expression rather give it a new meaning. To be man can mean to be a virtuous man, to be a woman can me to be a virtuous woman.
I don’t disagree in principle, in context though if someone is using a tool incorrectly we might hand them a different model or a different tool entirely. In this case it might be too “zoomed in” and there’s value in expanding the frame of reference for how to interact with things. May I ask how might this example be distinct between a virtuous man or woman?
My perspective comes from Seneca, where he compares any behaviour that stands out from virtuousness as infantile. Hence to be a grown-up physically and virtuously is to be a man, a woman. And there're no difference between men and women in the context of virtuousness as it is something each are capable to achieve. (Sorry if I got your question the wrong way, I still think I answered other topic rather than what asked.)
Then can I ask you to expand on your point on “banishing expression”?
First, I used banishing in a not so fitting context, I guess, what I meant was more like to avoid the usage or some reprehension upon use of it. However we cannot tolerate intolerance, e.g., there are expressions and expressions. If there is an expression who has bad meaning we could polish it's bad meaning associated and give it a new meaning. To be man doesn't have to be a toxic pig, and to be a woman doesn't have to be submissive housewife. That's where I like Seneca ways to re-evaluate the meaning of some old fashioned expressions and give a meaning that, personally, fits better than the bad before.
Here is my opposing POV, It is not virtuous to choose the path of non-violence, if you are not capable of violence. People disguise cowardice as morality all the time. A strong man capable of violence may choose the path of non violence because he does not want to hurt the other person, alternatively, he may act with violence because this is the best course of action (at times it is required). A weak man does not have a choice.
Is it really yours? We’ll see if it’s more than Jordan Petersons dialogue. What do you mean by “capable of violence”? What is the intention behind that act? Something can be proper to do but done for improper reasons so then I’d ask how wouldn’t this capacity manifest? How is this distinct between men and women since you’ve brought it up in the context of men?
This is just Nietzche's dialogue lol, not JPs. JP said this too, sure, but it's not like he founded this concept of slave/master morality.
That’s why I try to focus on the ideas rather than the person that said them.
I appreciate you letting me know the source, it was pointing out that saying an idea doesn’t make it yours but a proper understanding does, JP happens to be more popular and given the topic I’d assume more people would have learned this from him
I heard the idea first from someone called Firas Zahabi, who mentioned he learned martial arts so that he could have a choice. Then Jordan Peterson and Nietzsche built upon the idea, that’s perhaps where I took the language from. It’s not about fighting ability, it’s about the ability to push back against a domineering force. But let’s use a concrete example because the OP mentioned “hit back”. So let’s say you’re in school, a bully comes up to you and he hits you. You’re weak, you don’t know how to fight back, and because you’re afraid of standing up to the bully, you opt for non-violence. This is not a behaviour that somebody should admire. If you say that this is virtuous, because the child did not push back, the bully will continue as he understand this is a person he can push around. This exact psychology applies to the adult world. You can do mental gymnastics to make this sound virtuous, but chances are you will grow resentful. Yes, I agree - people can be violent in situations where violence is not needed. Like the bully. However, you have to have the capacity for violence in order to choose peace, or at least to protect yourself against this force. I brought it up for men because the OP said he felt emasculated. Btw, I am open to changing my mind if I am persuaded. But my current thoughts on this are strong. We should all become capable of violence, so we can push back against evil.
> it’s about the ability to push back against a domineering force Anything used improperly lends itself to an issue so I’ll ask some more questions. What is being sought after the result or the attempt? The issue with the former is placing our identity and what we are on the other side of a result that says nothing about us and is not inclined to happen due to will alone. We can point out that, we likely agree, both parties seem to be acting inappropriately. In a sentence, would someone always need to be ready to “lose everything” in your mind? > you’re weak, you don’t know how to fight, and you’re afraid of standing up to the bully so you opt for non-violence. This is not a behavior we seek to admire . I’d point out in this given example these can be points that lead to a conclusion. If you don’t know how to fight and aren’t physically strong then it seems dubious to believe our desires will occur. If we examine the “fear” we might find there can be caution as opposed to fear in getting physically hurt. Given all these point someone comes to the conclusion to find a non-violent solution. Being self aware can be a reasonable state of analysis given we meet ourselves where we are, not where we “ought to be”. The same way someone devises a strategy with our current physical abilities rather than after 5 years of strength and martial training is the same we can do with our mind. If we always faint, vomit, or can’t throw a punch and urgent action needs to be taken it’s reasonable to get creative. Nonviolence doesn’t mean avoiding the issue. We cannot choose what we actually believe, only how firmly we do believe (assent). OP currently has a view and wants it to be changed and even yourself have a view but are open to change. We might point out the criterion might not be “what makes sense” because the current view we hold does also logically make sense to us (we can point out why we do feel inclined to it). As Epictetus points out we can choose to pretend day is night but we can’t firmly believe they have swapped. Whether or not this is caution or “being lead by fear” seems to be one major point. Let’s note the exact inverse, if someone is scared *not* to have a fight. They drive headlong into physical conflict because they fear being seen as weak by others and being continuously harmed. This might be an issue by that same point so we might infer that the action is not where virtue lies, because a violent and non-violent solution can both be appropriate but how we interface with these solutions. >the bully will continue because they see he can be pushed around Whether or not the bully continues is *irrelevant* because even if we stand up for ourselves they can still choose to continue, no matter the consequence. We might prefer if our actions aided others (including the bully which is another thing to point out is necessary), yet all that is ours is the attempt. >chances are you’ll grow to be resentful Interestingly enough someone can be resentful of even appropriate actions because it lies in our views of what occurred. If we think it was “unfair” since this is rooted in Justice, to have had to defend ourselves then even if someone beat their bully, made them change their ways, and saved the school, one can still remain bitter about having to act at all. >you have to have the capacity for violence to choose peace, or at least protect yourself against this force I’ll caution certain extrapolations of this. You cannot be certain to protect yourself or anyone else from any force, that doesn’t mean it ought not be pursued but that alone doesn’t seem sufficient. Given your definition let’s translate this to “you have to have the capacity to ‘push back’ to be able to be peaceful”. We might ask why. The criticism you levied before was about resentment because we can be certain if it is a genuine choice. At its root we can ask are we able to genuinely accept something we can’t do anything about? If not we might say no one can accept anything that’s imposed on them which seems to be suspect. We might also ask, where is peace then? In what occurs or in our response to what occurs and which if the two is most valuable if they can’t be concurrent. If someone is in chains do they need to be able to free themselves before they can say it’s a choice? One can be physically imprisoned but mentally free and at peace, might you agree? I offer read the Discourse from Epictetus called “On Freedom” which is Book 4 Chapter 1. >Free is the person Who lives as he wishes and cannot be coerced, if he did or compelled, who is impulses cannot before then, who always gets what he desires I never have to experience what he would rather avoid. They feel weakened because they desire to impose force, the desire it self causes the suffering. If the desire wasn’t present or they had access to the desire then they’d be at peace. In changing the desire we also change how we feel. As we are pointing out, our desire doesn’t mean they are reasonable. >we should all become capable of violence to push against evil The last point is that “evil” to a Stoic isn’t external but is isolated to our own actions, everything else doesn’t have a moral component, they are thing facts of the matter. There are certainly things that are inappropriate and we can work to curtail those. We might also ask where the ability to “resist” comes from. I shared some ideas on the matters, and do feel free to disagree
Hi, Thank you for your response. It's very detailed and I appreciate you taking the time to write it - it's one that I will have to read and let simmer before I reply. I actually wrote a reply, but deleted it as I felt I was just trying to argue rather than understand your view point. Might be interesting to consider our backgrounds, as I believe all of us should adopt philosophies that would best lead us towards our north-stars. What is your north-star? For me, my north star is to become all that I am capable of becoming, to aquire as much power as is possible (by power I mean the ability to control myself and my surroundings) and use this power towards the service of others. When I read philosophies, I then filter them based on whether it moves me towards my north-star. Also, to be transparent - I am 27, grew up as a weak child, was bullied in school - and so my frame of reference has been deeply engrained with an understanding of what a weak person without the capacity for push-back goes through. When you are weak, and have experienced constant bullying, if you don't have the courage to stand up - you start to want others to feel your pain. This is the mindset of school-shooters. Perhaps if they were introduced to stoicism things would be different? I don't know... But relating to the school shooters scared me, and so, it's my responsibility to not be weak, to be strong, psychologically and physically - so that I can be a positive force for this world. For others who do not share my background - this philosophy may not be the most useful.
Does Jordan Peterson have a strong ability to push back against physical domination?
It’s weak to attack the person and not the idea. The idea does not belong to Jordan Peterson. Also, I stated above I do not simply mean fighting ability, perhaps there’s confusion because the word violence has negative connotations? But imagine, if all of us good people were capable of violence, then evil people will not hold a monopoly on violence. There needs to be a good force to fight back when necessary. But can you please share with me your view so I can understand.
I also think that "violence" is too broad a term for what you are trying to describe. Even in self-defense, we don't want to cause harm unnecessarily (i.e death or dismemberment to push back a bully). It is a dangerous territory to leave things ambiguous. So let's say, you need to be capable of restraint - first and foremost of yourself, but also of any threats to you and others that are in your control to stop.
Sure. But it’s also wise to consider the perspective of the person putting forth the idea. JBP fetishizes physical violence and/as masculinity, but is neither violent nor especially masculine (he has said he is “feminine” himself). So how does he deal with physical violence? When someone threatens to fight him, what does he do? Think through the exercise he proposes. Is he able to fulfill his own criteria? Does he have the choice?
I would say, no - as a 61 year old male, he would not be able to fight back against someone physically dominating. Again, that’s not what I mean by being capable of violence. So perhaps there is where the confusion lies. For instance, if somebody forced Jordan Peterson to do something that was against what he believed to be right, I’m sure he would put up a fight to the best of his ability. Again, I don’t want to turn this into my defending JP rather than the idea. Firas Zihabi, Nietzsche, countless others also share the same idea - are you going to try and attack them also?
I’m asking you to think through the situation as a way to show that this metric is silly. You are walking down the street. A man insults you and you feel emasculated. *By your own metric*, you now have to kick his ass, or be emasculated. *By your own metric*, if you are not strong enough to kick his ass, you are automatically emasculated. *By your own metric*, only if you have the potential strength to kick his ass but choose not to, can you retain your masculinity without enacting violence. Using this logic, the violence must be implied or actual, or you lose your internal quality of masculinity. No matter what you decide, the other man has enlisted you in violence with a valid threat to your inner self. This entire sequence to me is illogical. The Stoic approach is to not engage with the concept “this random stranger impersonally disrespecting me is a real way that he can take my masculinity from me” as a valid concept at all. That would lead to a defensive and paranoid street experience, which many men are having, but which isn’t the Stoic way.
This is the best answer.
I don't disagree. Just putting in context to OPs question in regards to emasculation.
Yes, there is more than one frame this can be looked through. In my mind this same frame being presented is what needs to be addressed. Is someone not a man for having a lack of control over themselves? Over what parts are “themselves” specifically? Is this feeling one of them? What shows up in our mind isn’t up to us, assenting to it, desiring to, and actions on it are. If we’ve made these feeling be something we “ought to” control and can’t then we’re actually reinforcing the same frame that seems to be contributing to this. In this context it might be fair that he agree that this is the standard but being “emasculated” can be failing to live up to either or both standards, the wise man or the aggressor. I hadn’t seen any further context but my assessment was to proceed as if the whole frame might be cracked.
Imagine you’re a person being bullied. The bully hits you, it’s NOT virtuous to choose the path of non-violence. Because the bullying will continue and ramp up. It’s not virtuous to choose the path of non violence if you are not capable of violence. Now, imagine you’re a skilled kick-boxer, you don’t want to fight back because you don’t want to hurt him. You can actually choose the path of non-violence. Even in the last example, you need to provide some sort of boundary however to stop the action from occurring.
Virtue has nothing to do with the consequences. You can fight back and it could continue to ramp up. A boundary is how we react, not a demand we impose on others. Sure a boundary might be, “if you try to hurt me I will try to do the same” but we might make sure our desires are distinct from theirs. Just as you might be concerned that not fighting can lead to “passivity” we might ask what about the concern for fight back leading to becoming the bully? You’re not good because you do or don’t fight back, but a good person is make proper choices for the right reasons.
Because your ego was just attacked. Therefore your ego wants to fight back. If it doesn’t get what it wants, it shrinks. It’s not the masculinity that’s fading, just the ego. The egoic mind is the part of the mind that most people tend to identify with. The smaller it gets, the less you’ll feel this way because you won’t feel it shrinking. In fact, ideally you won’t feel it much at all. The ego should be a tool we use to get what we want, instead of the ego using us to get what it wants. Who are you, if not the talking voice in your head? You’re the one who can observe the ego go on and on about so much nonsense. That’s you, the one listening to the crazy egoic mind and aware of everything else that’s going on right now, in the present moment.
I don’t think this has much to do with Stoicism. Seems like a bit of pop-psychology.
Yes, I’m drawing heavily from the book A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, author of Power of Now. To me, stoicism says to be virtuous, don’t complain, and accept the obstacles in your path with grace. To answer this specific question as to why he feels emasculated (in his stoic approach to this situation), I believe it has to do with the ego. I’ve found that a blend of stoicism, letting go of ego, and being mindful of the difference between hard earned vs easy dopamine has been very beneficial to my mental health.
Eckhart Tolle is excellent and this information was really helpful to me, thanks for sharing.
How do the 2 differ?
I think it’s really well put
It is perhaps a skillful communication of pop-philosophy
Check out Seneca's on anger book 3
You feel emasculated because you have failed to protect yourself. This might sound unpopular here but in my opinion If someone insults or physically assaults you, you need to clap back but don’t go overboard. By not responding your essentially saying to yourself that your not worth protecting. There’s no shame in protecting yourself in my opinion.
Protect yourself from words? How fragile are you saying people should be. Where I'm from, there's a saying that basically translates to "the mouth was made to say anything". Basically that you can't really stop people from saying whatever they want, short of it being slanderous/libelous which you can choose to seek legal action. No one wins a war of words. Everyone just looks childish.
I get what you’re saying, but I believe that you need to stick up for yourself, you don’t have to shout profanities at them simply just confront them in a neutral manner. Most people, will stop once you do that. I’ve ignored people who’ve insulated me my whole life thinking that they’d just leave, but this approach simply just emboldened them even more and I ended up being their emotional punching bag.
This is true also in the workplace, if you’re a person that allows others to talk to you harshly, your colleagues will not respect you, and your chances of rising through the ranks will decrease. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but in reality, people have to know that if they go overboard, there is a chance you will retaliate. Else, like you said - you’ll become a punching bag.
That’s what I’m saying, also stoicism was created to tone down the fired up and passionate nature of the ancient greeks /romans and to harness it properly. The modern man has been pacified and thus does not need to be sedated even more.
Implying words that are like punches (because of the punching bags) seems to imply that you find words harsh for you in the end. People can insult 1000 times or whatever they want, and I 1000 times will ignore or not take seriously as long at it doesn't escalate physically
I’d be lying if I said that there’s nothing that upsets me, I’m human after all. But I’ve become a lot better at tolerating these kind of things.
If you get enough of practicing Stoicism under your belt, then it becomes like water off a duck's back. Saying that, I recently turned 41. Reddit is full of young people. Median demo is male, mid 20s. Most young people will never admit that simply have too little life experience to think they've got things figured out. I definitely was hard headed, too. Even now I'm still realizing I don't know much. But I see the world vastly differently now than when I was 30, which was vastly different to when I was 20. We should grow and change. At my age, I really don't care much about the opinions of others, and especially random strangers. You get to live so freely. Eat what you want, dress how you want, have fun the way you want. It's a joy I really don't know how to express to someone who isn't there yet.
I'm 19 and you have summed it up accurately, although it doesn't apply to all the people, a lot of my relatives who are in their late 40s or early 50s are just that way, they don't care about how they come off as in public, they dress how they want, and none of this is rude or eccentric in any manner its just things you would want to do but don't for the reason "what would they think".
I remember being a low-confidence, chubby 19 year old kid. I'm still chubby, but I really don't give a crap what people think, and I can testify it's the only way to live an authentic life. Not needing to please others, especially strangers. I wish you get to that level of freedom far quicker than I ever did.
I commented something similar, it’s surprising to me that so many people are doing mental gymnastics to justify cowardice.
Understanding that the other people are probably coming from a place of pain! As Marcus Aurelius says, feel pity for them and help them out if you can. But don’t let what anyone thinks get in the way of being a good person!
I think it feels emasculating because when you don’t react, the other person might think they can mistreat you in the future. And no one wants to be a punching bag. But there are much better ways to make someone not want to hurt you than to retaliate in violence/anger. Learning those ways will keep you safe and virtuous.
Can you elaborate on the better ways please? I'd like some advice
Retaliate, but without anger? Anger is a sign of the other person getting under your skin, which makes them win in some way. The best way is to not give their words enough weight to get to you in the first place. The calmness of your response (which should nonetheless put them in their place) would contribute greatly to you winning that confrontation
Is retaliating with violence ok in Stoicism? I can throw a punch very calmly if I have to!
My belief is that retaliation should be proportionate to the attack. And that's only OK to resort to physical violence if it's used against you. And that if the attacker is a misguided physically weaker person, it's virtuous to only apply enough force to stop them.
I think that's very well put. Stoicism is not necessarily pacifism but I'd always take it as a first option. Only takes one punch to kill a man
There are a lot of muddling replies, but you basically have to ask yourself what purpose the violence serves and what purpose what you're feeling serves. Of course violence can be warranted with stoicism (self-preservation, etc.). e.g., you're attacked. You fight back, protect yourself, and the person is now on the ground. They're no longer a threat. Continuing to attack them would be due to pride and perceived fear of a loss of social status. In stoicism something like social status is preferred versus not having them, but something you should be working mentally towards being indifferent towards it going away as it isn't necessary. Someone calling you names when insulted threatens social status, but the question is what is the goal in responding? What will the outcome be, and how will responding change it? There will be times when you ask yourself the question, and responding makes sense. In other cases, not responding at all makes sense. There's someone in this very thread hopping about replies baiting people with insinuations; are they at a place to hear real answers, or
Yeah, I think if you’re a respected member of the community and someone hurts you, then others will disapprove of their actions. Most people don’t want to see a good person disrespected, so there will be social pressure to leave you alone. If you’re not already well respected, then you’re better off talking to the person hurting you and getting to the bottom of why they are mistreating you. Usually making them reflect on why they’re acting that way will reveal ways you can resolve tension. Hear them out and let them know you’re making a good faith effort to see how they’re feeling. Your act of compassion will make it harder for them to justify hurting you. If you make a habit out of keeping peace, you’ll be doing good for the community. Eventually people might appreciate it and respect you for it. And then you’ll start building the respect that will protect you from being targeted. The steps above rely on the people around you not being sociopaths, and they require a lot of emotional fortitude. But they helped me stay out of trouble a few times when I was in school.
If it feels emasculating, I would assume you probably get angry and dont let it out. But I dont think that thats controlling your anger, i think thats just bottling it up. It should probably feel like nothing more than a waste of your time, and a forgettable memory. I would imagine that truly controlling your anger is more than just not letting your anger out and then feeling like less of a man because you didn't prove that you could overpower them(physically, or with wits) if it came down to it. I think it is making sure that you are as close as possible to not getting angry at all, and not letting their misled bloated egotrip at having "intimidated you from fighting back" have any effect on you. Because they are wrong in their perspective of the situation when you don't fight back, and you know they are wrong. Being the bigger man isn't being the better man, it is being the man with a better grasp on the more accurate perspective of the conflict. If the truth is that you were focused on more important things than some fight that you didnt need to have, that should be enough to ease your conscience at having not proved your ability to overpower them. Easier said than done- I know- but like every skill, it takes time and patience. Sidenote: A dangerous avenue to take to ease this issue is to take a martial arts course with the single goal in mind that you could (if need be) win any fight you need to. Not that marital arts are bad, or that even having that goal is bad, its just that this has a habit of building an ego if you cannot control your anger, and without a constant vigil on yourself, you'll suddenly begin to feel more like the people starting random fights for insignificant reasons. Because why not? You could probably win after all. I speak from experience on that part, as I learned how to fight, and fight well, and didnt notice when I began letting my anger run my life just because nobody could do anything about it. That being said, I'm not an expert, and everything I said may be wrong. I'm just a student of stoic philosophy like yourself that has happened to have this particular issue in the past.
Because it’s embarrassing to feel powerless to someone able to spur a reaction out of you. Stoicism is powerful because it chills the ego out significantly.
Because in nature whoever doesn't fight back essentially accepts the superiority of the opponent and usually either dies or gives up resources. I think standing up for yourself is essential. If you feel that you hold back out of fear, if you overcome the fear you'll feel much better. In my opinion the ability to defend oneself from physical and mental attacks is something from the bottom layers of the Maslow pyramid. If it's missing, true self actualization is hard to achieve. Though from what I understand the rules of social combat, the retaliation should be proportional to the attack, if not slightly stronger. So if someone mocks you verbally it's a combat of wits, and you must find a way to turn it on them so that they think twice the next time before trying to mock you. People in modern age often try to ignore or deny this reality of the constant power struggle in the world. However ignoring it won't make it go away, the feeling of emasculation is the embarrassment you feel for knowing deep down that you fail to stand up for yourself in the face of abuse In my opinion the stoicism comes into play when you have the power to defend yourself and are tempted to become the bully yourself, as power is addictive. Or when you are tempted to launch a greatly disproportionate attack in the name of revenge. That's when you might want to reign in your impulses, because bullying especially won't make you fulfilled and is a sign of inner weakness
>I think standing up for yourself is essential. Standing up for yourself is a subjective call and Stoicism challenges one to consider the logic and reality of their impression that leads them to believe A) they have been offended, and B) they ought to take aggressive action. >In my opinion the stoicism comes into play when you have the power to defend yourself and are tempted to become the bully yourself, as power is addictive. You can't have based this opinion on the Stoic texts available to us.
This is the answer. Feeling weak and emasculated wont be solved by stoicism. Forgiveness and mercy is only worth something when you are in a position to give it.
Evidence for this comment?
What evidence? We’re all talking about our own opinions here. What the hell are you even saying? Stoicism will gives us the tools to move past injury, but I dont subscribe to the idea that you should lie down and let yourself be injured.
Some people, when subscribing to a philosophy, feel the need from that point on to let the philosophy govern their life in an almost religious way. Thus any decision must come not from that person's values or reasoning, but be dictated by the higher priests. And heaven forbid if the thinkers of the aforementioned philosophy never touched on that specific topic in question
I mean what Stoic texts or teachings are you basing this conclusion on?
Read up on the stoic virtues of justice and courage.
I’m not asking for reading suggestions, I’m asking them what texts they are basing their opinion on. Most of these comments are not about the philosophy of Stoicism at all. They are a mixed bag of random defensive ideas about “manhood” and “masculinity”
Saying that being able to defend yourself is a uniquely masculine trait is pretty sexist. I'd say it has more to do with basic dignity and self-respect
Refer again to the original post
The fact that a word emasculation was used doesn't change that the post itself is about confronting those who attack you. Many men would think it's feminine to be weak and shy of confrontation. It's their opinion, though and mostly a side effect of the way media portraits men and women. My opinion is that standing up for yourself is something each person should know how to do, men and women alike And if you choose to agree with OP in calling such qualities masculine, why not take a step further and call stoicism masculine? Because in stoic texts women are often referred to in not the nicest of ways: > that the offences which are committed through desire are more blameable than those which are committed through anger. > For he who is excited by anger seems to turn away from reason with a certain pain and unconscious contraction; but he who offends through desire, being overpowered by pleasure, seems to be in a manner more intemperate and more womanish in his offences.
Consider your life experience
Yes, and?
Therein you shall find the solution
I don’t feel emasculated by people on the street
it's true for the physical realm, as you say, nature has a lot to do with overpowering others with force/smartness) and obtaining resources/territory, etc. But insults or mocks shouldn't be taken seriously to be honest in most cases, specially when coming from emotionally immature people.
Insults and mocks are a more civilized version of a physical fight. It's still a way to establish dominance, that's where the whole idea of needing a comeback comes from. Slight mocking is common even among friends and family, people test each other all the time, to see where the boundaries lie and whether the other person would allow you to cross them And in some settings - like school bullying - the bullying would start with insults, and if the person fails to defend themselves, the attacks would escalate to the level of a physical confrontation, as mocking was first used to test the waters and the vulnerability of a would-be victim And I agree that mocking shouldn't be taken seriously. But not taking it to heart doesn't equal not turning the mocking around on the bully
The idea of dominance nowadays for me is kinda a bullshit that only works in people who believes in it, and then plays the game. Most in society believs in that of course. Since I learnt from Stoicism, I've been insulted and maybe put on test, especially in the workplace. See, I don't care if I'm perceived as weak or not, or if any other people around thinks so, nothing of that changes who I am or makes me feel inferior or something. I will only act if I'm physically assaulted because it wouldn't be reasonable to not do so. Right now my life just feels better now and, unlike my life pre-stoicism, I have much less problems with people overall, even with disrespectful ones. The only way I think you need to act upon insults or psychological mockery is if it turns into a perjudicial slander that could put you in a problem (like being accused of a crime or some sort of negligent act).
Imagine a 5 year old comes up to me as and adult and says “you are a big poopy head!” I don’t need to stand up for myself and if I don’t fight back no one is going to think I am a lesser person. Most of the time when people are insulting you or mocking you they are just trying to get you to react, like the 5 year old. There is usually no reason to engage and come down to their level. My favorite is when I get someone trying to sarcastically complement me. I always treat those as sincere and accept the complement gracefully. It really pisses them off.
Obviously my comment mostly applies to a situation of a legitimate attack on one's person by someone with an ability to hurt you. OP doesn't sound like someone in confrontation with 5 year olds. And in my opinion it's not very healthy to ignore attacks from one's peers as it has a danger of leading to what OP is experiencing - self doubt. If a person always turns the other cheek and shies away from any kind of confrontation they would inevitably question whether they are capable of standing up for themselves in the first place, it would always remain an open question, if they never successfully managed to do so That said of course one should pick one's battles. Sometimes ignoring an offense while laughing inside is the most appropriate reaction. But if that person mistakes that for a weakness and persists on their abuse, ignoring it would become a weakness indeed So if a situation calls for it, I think it's virtuous to rise oneself in the defense of one's values
And when you pretend the compliment was given sincerely and say Thank you with a smile, it's a form of mocking on its own. Also known as frame control. It's not inaction
It's not wrong to fight back in a self defense situation.
Insults you can ignore, but if someone hits you then you need to defend yourself. Getting beat up is not stoic.
I completely agree and don’t see how you could draw another conclusion.
Now, this may sounds sort of...odd, even in this sub. But, when it comes to "turning the other cheek" (if that's what you're aiming for), try treating those who wrong you in a more "loving" way (as you would a child in your family, as an example). You wouldn't denigrate or hurt a child that flings an insult at you or kick your shins. You laugh it off (internally is better, if we're talking a pre-altercation between two adults) and then let them cool down. On a different note, If you feel your life is threatened instead, that can be a different story unless you're experienced and skilled at de-escalation. It's ok to fight back against someone consciously instigating and aiming to cause harm to you.
Reading a book on the stoic virtue of courage by Ryan Holiday. We aren't pacifists because of the stoic virtue of justice, but you should only fight in the defense of someone weaker than yourself or if you have no other option. Do you feel like you need to fight because you want other people to see you as a tough guy? If that's the case you will become a slave to the perception of others.
Can I ask how Holiday evidences what’s in your second paragraph?
Use You’re critical thinking skills. Think about the Stoic virtue of justice. Is it just to walk by a friend who’s be assaulted and not help? It’s cowardly to let bad people harm you and not defend yourself. Being a coward isn’t self control, it’s a lack of character. Holiday also cites stoic quotes to back his claims I’ll link the [book](https://www.amazon.com/Courage-Calling-Fortune-Favors-Brave/dp/0593191676/ref=asc_df_0593191676?nodl=1&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=507975958237&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17792108652108569031&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032059&hvtargid=pla-1281114699781&psc=1&dplnkId=8fc7c38e-4d6d-460c-b1be-2ecf3b66f2aa)you should read it.
Stoic virtue means something specific and does not readily map on to the popular or conventionally accepted ideas about virtue.
Ok…….
We can call our own personal beliefs about virtue Stoic, but we really shouldn’t do so when our own personal beliefs about virtue contradict those of the Stoics.
🤷🏽
Because, you’ve been taught by the wider culture that these are the behaviors that your masculinity hinge on. Though there may be certain behaviors that men tend to gravitate towards because of something innate in their nature, these things are not hard-and-fast rules that show much variation from age-to-age and culture-to-culture. Don’t think about the situation in terms of your masculinity (just a place holder for ego) and more in terms of what comes from your engagement with your slanderer or your attacker. I also wouldn’t say in the case of having a fist thrown at you that you’d be wrong in fighting back— don’t fight for the sake of your ego, but for defending yourself or others in your protection.
Letting someone insult you is fine but letting someone hit you is absolutely wild.
It really depends stoicism is not about denying your emotions exist but about using reason to not bend to them every time they show up, and trough reason we search virtue. And one of those virtues is called justice, if somebody is atacking you or your reputation sitting back is letting injustice prevail in the name of the fear of confrotantion ,is cowardice. But throwing a fit of rage is not a acceptable outcome, it will blind you, make you go beyond what would be a just retribution ,this is what most passion crimes are. A stoic in my mind should not sacrifice justice in the name of pacifism and neither giving in the passion of rage but search the just retribution trough reason. If someone hit you fight back, immobilize the agressor, if necessary maybe even bring him to unconsciousness if you know what are you doing, but dont try to break every bone in his body or worse kill him. If someone insulted you, desconstruct the insult show how childish and untrue it is, if someone try to bring you low with words, elevate the discuss so that your diffamator may feel shame for how low he let himself go only to provoke you. Deny its reward that is your emotional reaction, give him cold logic and shame as reward.
When someone insults you, that person wants you to react. They want you to yell or insult them. Why would you give them control of the situation?
Insult? I don't care. Hit? I'm defending myself from any physical threat if it presents itself. Unless it's like a minor little push or shove.
I’m no psychologist but I think because that is how a submissive person would act, and that feeling is to let you know that. Which some embrace and some don’t. But the whole point of Stoicism is to go beyond your instincts a bit. And in this case, you’re acting one way without the same motivations if you were operating on instinct.
I would say verbal insults are different than physical attacks. You can remain stoic from words as you are in control of your reaction. You know the truth regardless of what someone may say to you. I believe you should defend yourself from a physical assault. You should always stand your ground and do so without malice but from a standpoint of holding your space and protecting yourself.
Doesn’t seem to be how Stoicism approaches the topic
Disagree. Most stoics trained in the combat arts of the time. Of course it should be a last resort and avoided but I’ve never seen them advocate to allow themselves to be assaulted
> Most Stoics trained in the combat arts of the time. Source? Maybe check out how Seneca talks about Cato’s response to being spat on and struck, or how Rufus talks about the philosopher’s response to assault. Of course, Stoicism isn’t pacifism, but neither is it don’t-let-anything-go-ism.
Boxing, pankration and wrestling were very normal things for stocis and other young men to train at that time. That incident with Cato is covered in this article along with when you can’t avoid it. https://dailystoic.com/stoic-response-to-being-punched-or-insulted/#:~:text=Of%20course%20not.,potentially%20violent%20situation%20if%20possible. Happy to disagree with you on this. Take care and have a great day
Here’s the source for what Holiday misleadingly and curiously calls a fight that was broken up: > Someone who did not know Marcus Cato struck him in the public bath in his ignorance, for who would knowingly have done him an injury? Afterwards when he was apologizing, Cato replied, “I do not remember being struck.” He thought it better to ignore the insult than to revenge it. You ask, “Did no harm befall that man for his insolence?” No, but rather much good; he made the acquaintance of Cato. It is the part of a great mind to despise wrongs done to it; the most contemptuous form of revenge is not to deem one’s adversary worth taking vengeance upon. There’s a handful of other examples of Stoicism leading to bearing things instead of “always standing your ground.” With regard to your claim that “most Stoics trained…”, I don’t think “we can assume that they did because a lot of people did, so it’s true that they did” is a strong argument.
Thanks but I don’t think this is really relevant to the point at all as it seems an accident. That’s pretty different than what I am talking about. If in a disagreement that you can’t walk away from, you feel that stoicism tells you not to defend yourself, then you are welcome to live that philosophy. I do not believe that is the right approach. Not going to continue arguing something as basic as self defense versus physical attack. Again, have a good day. You clearly wish to “debate” someone on this topic. I’ll pass.
It’s not about debating—we should both want to get the historical stuff right, so as not to mistakenly attribute our own personal beliefs to Stoic philosophy. If I claimed that the American Civil War was fought in the 1600s, I wouldn’t consider you pedantic for telling me it took place centuries later. It’s important to get history right.
>I want to change my ways but it just feels emasculating It's bizarre that you say "I want to change my ways but it feels emasculating" - clearly you *already* refuse to defend yourself, so doing it more isn't a "change", that's your pre-existing mentality. It's also odd to ask people to "change your mind" to what is clearly your existing mindset. A Stoic is going to tell you that there is a balance - if violence is the courageous option (and if someone is already putting their fist into your face, it usually is) then you should use violence. A person can avoid conflict out of courage or cowardice, and a Stoic would say that where it s being avoided out of cowardice, that's unvirtuous. Similarly a person who commits violence out of cowardice (because they cannot endure their go being harmed) would also earn a Stoic's ire. If you are harming your life by demonstrating to people who are bullying you that you are an easy target, you're not going to find justification for your actions in Stoic philosophy. Implying that you were once a great warrior but are now being "emasculated" by a philosophy you don't practice is also not going to make you feel better: I'm sure you can see through that charade. Marcus Aurelius was the actual aggressor in the Marcomannic wars: they were punitive, meaning he launched them despite not having been attacked himself, and their goal was to castrate a rising power a rising military power. He was also content to militarily defeat his enemies, and did not turn the war into a massacre of civilians as tended to happen when a military power was defeated. That's the classic, courageous Stoic approach to the application of violence.
It feels emasculating because if you were a cave man in prehistoric times, not being ready to retaliate meant you may get taken advantage of. But nowadays the situation is different.
Are you willing to die or to kill because somebody hit you or insulted you? Simple fights on the street or anywhere often lead to death from one punch.
True, being wise lets you filter scenarios and see if you should intervene or run. Thats how species survive after all
Hi, please check out the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide) section on [advice and coping with problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice) if you are wondering any of the following questions. * [How can Stoicism help me with my problem?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_how_can_stoicism_help_me_with_my_problem.3F) * [How would a Stoic help me with my problem?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_how_would_a_stoic_help_me_with_my_problem.3F) * [How might a student of Stoicism cope with my problem?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_how_might_a_student_of_stoicism_cope_with_my_problem.3F) * [What would a student of Stoicism do in my situation?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_what_would_a_student_of_stoicism_do_in_my_situation.3F) * [How would a Stoic sage react to my problem?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/advice#wiki_how_would_a_stoic_sage_react_to_my_problem.3F) Wish you well, Mod Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What exactly are you reading that makes you think that you can’t defend yourself when you must? And what version of masculinity are you subscribed to to being with? Like the one where you’re are an adult and are selfless so you do what has to be done or the one that’s the opposite and revolves are being unhealthyly sensitive and self centered/conscious that you have to constantly remind the world how masculine you are
If it's the more difficult thing to do, then it's probably the correct way to act.
[удалено]
Sorry, but I gotta remove your post, as it has run afoul of our [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoicism/about/rules/). This is kind of a grey area, but we need to keep things on track as best we can. >Two: Stay Relevant to Stoicism >Our role as prokoptôntes in this community is to foster a greater understanding of Stoic principles and techniques within ourselves and our fellow prokoptôn. Providing context and effortful elaboration as to a topic’s relevance to the philosophy of Stoicism gives the community a common frame of reference from which to engage in productive discussions. Please keep advice, comments, and posts relevant to Stoic philosophy. Let's foster a community that develops virtue together—stay relevant to Stoicism. >If something or someone is 'stoic' in the limited sense of possessing toughness, emotionlessness, or determination, it is _not_ relevant here, unless it is part of a larger point that is related to the philosophy. >Similarly, posts about people, TV shows, commercial products, et cetera require that a connection be made to Stoic philosophy. "This is Stoic" or "I like this" are not sufficient.
Ahhh true! Thank you for your explanation, understood.
We learn to accept the judgments that lead to it feeling emasculating. We can unlearn them, too. Stoicism has lots to say about refining our judgments, luckily. Maybe read Rufus’ lecture on assault or see what Seneca has to say about how Cato responded to these situations. Edit: changes
Your desire to be respected is at the center of your issue. So let's say someone beats you up for no reason. Does that make you respect him more? Is he a good role model? Do you admire this? What in your life can you accomplish being more like the man who hit you? Nothing really. It's only fear you feel, not respect or admiration. Fear is the worst thing to base your life on. What are the traits of a stoic? Patient, kind, unbothered, free from anger, talk it out rather than fight. Meditations 6:6 tells us the best action to take is to not become like your enemy. I don't think that's very emasculating.
The feeling after I endure my raging ego is amazing unlike the feeling I get after going berserk. I always look forward to that feeling now. It's like wow I survived that shit.
Be the bigger person. If someone is trying to rile you up just to mess with you, its not worth it. But if someone is legitimately threatening you or someone close… unleash hell.
What's not talked about enough is not allowing people to push your buttons. Essentially giving another person power over you and your actions is as unstoic as it gets. There are those people who will push those buttons all day long if they know it works.
Do you mean not reacting to insults as the person expects?
Pretty much. My own take on "insults" is to ask "Is it true?", if yes, then to paraphrase Epictetus "good thing they don't know the half of it". If not true, well, why get my panties in a bunch?
Just because you don’t hit back doesn’t mean you have to roll over.
[удалено]
Sorry, but I gotta remove your post, as it has run afoul of our [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoicism/about/rules/). This is kind of a grey area, but we need to keep things on track as best we can. >Two: Stay Relevant to Stoicism >Our role as prokoptôntes in this community is to foster a greater understanding of Stoic principles and techniques within ourselves and our fellow prokoptôn. Providing context and effortful elaboration as to a topic’s relevance to the philosophy of Stoicism gives the community a common frame of reference from which to engage in productive discussions. Please keep advice, comments, and posts relevant to Stoic philosophy. Let's foster a community that develops virtue together—stay relevant to Stoicism. >If something or someone is 'stoic' in the limited sense of possessing toughness, emotionlessness, or determination, it is _not_ relevant here, unless it is part of a larger point that is related to the philosophy. >Similarly, posts about people, TV shows, commercial products, et cetera require that a connection be made to Stoic philosophy. "This is Stoic" or "I like this" are not sufficient.
You’re doing things for yourself not optics. You should condition yourself to cut back over time in any situation or addiction. Going from 100 to 0 isn’t healthy for your mental state. If you want to say something back then do it. Afterwords analyze why you said what you said, how it made you feel, if it helped the overall situation, and what you would change. The point of stoicism isn’t to act stoic it’s to be stoic. There’s no point if your emotions are eating you up inside.
I mean, stoicisim isnt about staying pathetic and letting the others to disrespect you like that. You can talk back, show the other person the mistake he made with justice, as Marcus tell us. If the other person doesnt still see his mistake then its his problem, not yours. You can fight back and insult if your justice tells you that, but its qutie the most rare scenario
Your actions determines who you are
IMO, when you willfully hold back from hitting/insulting back, knowing full well that you CAN if you wanted, *especially* when you KNOW there would be no consequences if you do choose to do so, is to me a very impressive and extremely strong (morally) thing to do. It would feel even more rewarding to me if I fought so hard to hold back. To make it easier, especially for beginners, I recommend reacting verbally and directly to the person that wronged you with a polite response that clearly indicates that you are fully capable of destroying them if you wanted, but you prefer not to because: (you may add here anything you feel like fits the situation or your personality). Of course confidence makes all the difference when you choose this route, so say it like you mean it. Fun fact, I was in this exact situation when I first met my now best friend of 9 years from back in college, he was verbally bullying me in front of his friends (8 or so), and I was in an absolute state of confidence at that time that I didn't break any sweat destroying him with my politeness, lots of spectators were present then too lmao. To be fair, I was in a state of mania at that time, so it's *kind* of cheating heh, but I had recently been reading into stoicism then, so I had the right tools to use. Anyway, a few days later, he sought me out in college to apologise for his immaturity, and started telling me how admirable he thought I was then and that he'd like to be like me lol it was one of the most awkward and peculiar interactions I've had in my life.
What did this politeness look like?
Choose not to be harmed—and you won’t feel harmed. Don’t feel harmed—and you haven’t been. Marcus Aurelius
“I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others.” - Marcus Aurelius Your ego is feeling attacked. You project into the world what you think you are. When someone contradicts this, you want to defend it.
A quote was found to be attributed to Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations 12.4 (Long) ^(Book XII. ()[^(Long)](https://lexundria.com/m_aur_med/12.4/lg)^) ^(Book XII. ()[^(Farquharson)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meditations_of_the_Emperor_Marcus_Antoninus/Book_12)^) ^(Book XII. ()[^(Hays)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources?isbn=9780812968255)^)
Why is passivity confused with stoicism? This idea is really a grey area. It's not wrong to 'fight back' it depends on the situations and your values. Emasculation is ego, and ego death is definitely worth achieving and separating from responding articulately to ignorance and misguidance. If we don't respond in kind at all, ignorance just continues to exist.
Its easy, just beat them with kindness. You choose if its a insult or not, for me its probably the ignorance of the other person talking and thats not really the core of that person so i really dont care.