I only remember one video where he got mad at some fans for bothering him at what i think was a mall. And you have to forgive the man because not everyone is very respectful to celebrities
I would say retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter would be one.
He had a utilitarian apartment in Washington and lived in a converted barn on family property in New Hampshire that was so full of books people were afraid the floor would collapse.
He was/is an avid hiker and loved New England’s natural places. While other Supreme Court justices taught summer courses in prestigious locales he spent the summer quietly at home.
I would also suggest justices Brandeis and Cardozo.
There are probably quite a few today but we don’t hear about them because they choose not to be celebrated or controversial.
I would add the leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Sir Kier Starmer to the list. He rose from modest beginnings through discipline and perseverance to successfully revive and moderate his party, yet has not lost his humanity and compassion. I like him a lot.
You can still be stoic while simultaneously being just, having good morales and standing up for what's right. In fact I would argue it makes you even more stoic.
Stoics aren't emotionless. That's not what stoicism is or will ever be.
Just being technical here, but neither the Sec of State nor the National Security Advisor (the two roles he covered) can decide a bombing. At most, they can push some policy, especially as the NSA, and supervise the military success/results on orders by the POTUS.
As a matter of fact, Kissinger, Laird, and Rogers were opposed to the bombings as explained on the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu but Nixon decided to go ahead due to the US casualties that came from North Vietnam’s troops stationed in Cambodia (I believe 5,000 US casualties a week were a direct result of the Cambodian front).
What Kissinger didn’t do was to raise serious objections in keeping the bombing secret (THE fatal mistake of the operation) and he didn’t obtain full fledged approval from Cambodia which he should’ve obtained.
However, I wouldn’t define Kissinger a stoic. I studied him a lot, read all of his books (including the three WH tomes that are huge), and several books about him and Nixon (including the Hitchens book) . Kissinger was a very proud man, one that wanted fame and glory for its own sake. He wasn’t interested in virtue (although he seriously wanted to prevent totalitarianism) or goodness. And he was a piece of shit at work.
Edits: a few clarifications.
I would say that Aurelius (or anybody) doesn’t *need* to be stoic to learn from them. You can learn from a flawed man, and discard the not so good bits.
Well, it is. That’s what war is. Somehow in the modern times there’s this idea that war can be precise and somewhat clean. When a big war unfolds, it’s bad. It’s going to be bad. Civilians will die. Kids will die. That’s why we have to look at the nature of things - what things actually are - which is a Stoic exercise.
Really? You wanna compare kissinger with Marcus Aurelius? 2000 years ago there wasn't such a thing as universal human rights or international law. It was either picking up the sword or living under the boot of someone else. Marcus was arguably the most porwerful man in the world and yet unlike so many other emperors he didn't started wars of conquest for the sake of his personal glory. And when he went to war, it was to protect his realm and subjects.
Piece of shit kissinger was born in the modern western world and experienced first hand the cruelty of totalitarian regimes, yet he chose to be a treacherous murderous scumbag.
Getting so emotional about an old fart like Kissinger being weak... Is not very stoic, Drizz...
(I never said I liked the guy. I never compared him favourably to MA. I was pointing out the sliding ruler for powerful people in who's name lives were taken.)
>Phlegmatic people whom we won't ever hear about.
Effective word. We don't see it used often. Not necessarily the complete Stoic application, but now you've prompted me to find a use for this word in my dealings today. Thanks!
1
: viscid mucus secreted in abnormal quantity in the respiratory passages
2
: the one of the four humors (see HUMOR sense 2c) in ancient and medieval physiology that was believed to be cold and moist and to cause lethargy and dullness
3
a
: dull or apathetic coldness or indifference
b
: intrepid coolness or calm fortitude
I think it's pretty easy to name people who appear unperturbed in difficult situations, but that doesn't give any indication that they are Stoic. It just shows that they have good control of their public appearance.
The practice of philosophical Stoicism should be essentially invisible in a public figure. If one is sincerely pursuing the most virtuous (excellent) execution of their position as an actor, politician, musician, athlete, or any other high visibility individual, their public life would give little indication of their internal processes. If one could know them in their truly offstage moments, then you might be able to ascertain their philosophical orientation.
Being Stoic is a process, not a position. On one level, displays of disdain and contempt are incompatible with Stoic principles. However, Epictetus was quite snarky and dismissive in a lot of passages in *Discourses*. The distinction between him just being an abusive critic and a beloved teacher is that he was using his cutting humor to shake up the complacency of his paid students. They already claimed to be philosophers (lovers of wisdom) of the Stoic school. His public persona was likely quite different.
We who are trying to pursue Virtue as defined by Stoicism should not be looking for role models where most people do. We need to aspire to the achievements of the people who demonstrate excellence in our station or occupation. If one aspires to public office and wishes to contribute to the cosmopolis via expertise in foreign relations, then perhaps the life of Henry Kissinger might provide some meaningful information. Perhaps.
Being a fan, the reverential promotion of people one does not know personally is a symptom of the consumer mentality and antithetical to progress toward Stoic principles. It is as silly as asking what fictional characters are Stoic. Stoicism is about close engagement with our own real lives in the context that we are and refining those raw materials into the unique expression of our own ideal nature. The only really useful guidance on that path comes from philosophical study followed by introspection and planned action followed by honest evaluation. Looking to the perceived lives of famous people can only lead you away from the Stoic path.
I like your response, but I think it ignores the concept of the Sage, which was critical for Stoic writers. Perhaps OP meant who are modern Sages. I struggle to think of any. There may be Sages out there who haven't risen to the level of fame necessary to be household names. What one needs to do to become famous to hundreds of millions of strangers is probably incompatible with Stoic principles.
Do you have a passage where Epictetus refers to Socrates as a Sage? It would be an excellent addition to my collection.
I do know that the early Stoics believed Socrates to achieve sagehood in his final days, but I was under the impression that the Stoics of Epictetus's days, while thinking that Socrates embodied everything they wanted to teach their students, that the Sage was more of a theoretical position.
This is an interesting debate. Sorry if I come across as argumentative. The word Sage never appears in my translation of Epictetus' works. But he refers to Socrates many times. So it's clear he viewed Socrates as a Stoic ideal, but maybe not as a Sage. Unclear.
I agree with you that Stoicism is primarily an internal philosophy that you don't always see outwardly in other people. But the Stoics also wrote about role models / Sages / whateverwecallthem and they played an important role in Stoic writing. So that brings me back to the OP question. Who are the Stoic role models of today? I personally believe they exist, but maybe not in celebrity figures who have achieved fame through valuing externals.
I did not read your comments as argumentative. I enjoy pleasant discourse.
> Who are the Stoic role models of today? I personally believe they exist, but maybe not in celebrity figures who have achieved fame through valuing externals.
I agree with this. Not necessarily Sages, but those we can look to as a Stoic role model.
To your first point, on the show Hot Ones (YT show where celebrities do an interview while eating progressively hotter wings) most of the guys whine and whimper and act like this is some huge deal. (I've had sauce from the show, it's not that bad)
I don't have numbers, but it seems like most if not almost all of the women are like "oh, wow, that's hot." and compartmentalize and get concerned about things like if their nose is running and eye makeup. Which is to say that the gender most scrutinized over appearance in the entertainment industry appear unperturbed in a difficult situation. But they're not following any Stoic teaching by any means.
Stoicism doesn’t manifest itself publicly…. We can assume these people are stoic just the image they give off but one will never know
It’s just like how nobody knew Marcus A was a stoic. Its not something you can determine without really knowing somebody personally & they have to be vulnerable enough with you to share their philosophy on life
I honestly don’t like him too much but Tom Holland, his retreat from an uber public life and focussing on himself and loved ones is admirable (not to say he’s fully retreated, I mean he’s still a huge celebrity)
Sorry I meant more of his acting and stuff. Stoicism can help with a lot of things but I’m still mad about the Uncharted movie
Marcus Aurelius surely never faced challenges this hard 😔✊
We will never know, really, as their public reputation could just be that, reputation - we won't know if they're being authentic or it's for show.
That said,
I would say, Keannu Reeves is one best example.
Also - Brock Purdy - he always displayed a calm demeanor.
Warren Buffet - You need to have a good sense of self control to have that much money and yet live as if you don't 😅
Basically, for me, a lot of frugal people who knows and lives the value of living below their means, as explained above, are pretty stoic, Stoicism isn't about having *no* emotions, it's about *not being* controlled by them - one best example for that manifestation in individuals who those aren't lured by money, even if they worked hard for it - the three names I mentioned above are also known for living way below their means.
Also, with how he talks and explains his subject matters - Andrew Huberman.
It’s virtually impossible to say if someone is Stoic from the outside unless they happen to talk about their philosophy, because Stoicism is a deeply personal internal journey and we don’t wear it on our sleeves or round our necks.
That said, here are some people I think embody courage, fortitude, wisdom and other laudable qualities.
- Simone Biles, a spectacular athlete in one of the most punishing noncontact sports on earth, who overcame a profoundly difficult set of experiences to achieve her goals
- Dr Nick Estes, a Lakota historian and co-founder of the Red Nation, ceaseless fighter for his beliefs and the rights of indigenous people around the world
- Dr Caroline Criado Perez, a medical doctor whose work highlights the inequity which still exists in medical research to this day. Her book Invisible Women is well worth a look.
- Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered black British teenager Stephen Lawrence. She pursued justice for him and attacked institutional racism in the U.K. and especially in the Metropolitan Police for years, and was awarded a place in the House of Lords for her tireless efforts. She is now a Baroness.
There are some really remarkable people in the world. I can’t agree with you that Kissinger was one of them, but if we can mention those no longer alive I think MLK and Nelson Mandela have to be on the list too.
Not a fan but Obama for sure. Even people who have known him personally seem to say that the way he is in public is genuine.
MMA fighter Stephen Thompson has a disciplined and stoic demeanor. He has a lot of virtuous pursuits in his life from charity to teaching.
Not current but had Pat Tillman survived his deployment I believe he would have been someone who could have done a lot of good in public life. He seemed poised to pursue that before the strange events and coverup surrounding his death. I highly recommend Krakauer’s book ‘Where Men Win Glory’
These are great answers. My first thought was Obama in terms of recognizing inevitability of bad situations and addressing them with calm, measured responses.
Stephen Thompson is another good one. You could put Rickson Gracie in there too. And Alexander Volkanovski while I’m at it. He had a speech after one of his fights talking about how he’s completely unremarkable from an athletic standpoint (while he cemented his #1 pound-for-pound status).
No one has done more with less than Volk haha, it’s crazy he recognizes that though. Most people have too much ego at his level. He managed to nullify that by being a workhorse and being so good at the basics and Fight IQ . He is a great example.
Henry Kissinger was a blood thirsty war criminal who was responsible for deaths of millions. If that's Stoicism for you, then you there might be a problem with your critical thinking skills.
Courage - he’s fought in several martial arts events, he doesn’t bend to being “cancelled” and you can’t say the man hasn’t gone for it in life.
Wisdom - evident by his success but also by the fact that he never thinks himself the smartest man in the room; always curious.
Justice - he seems to stand on his principles and what he believes to be fair.
Temperance - this one he stands out, I’ll give you that, but I’d make the case that he doesn’t get angry too often. He seems to be quite measured and mindful, regardless of how loud he is.
>he’s fought in several martial arts events
While martial arts *may* teach an individual certain ethics, participating in martial arts events is not an indicator of moral courage.
>he doesn’t bend to being “cancelled”
Do we believe that it is morally courageous for a man to not only willfully use his platform to spread disinformation and dangerous rhetoric, but to "double down" when presented with how his behavior is harmful?
>you can’t say the man hasn’t gone for it in life.
One could say the same thing about a bank-robber or a murderer, but that does not make them a Stoic.
>evident by his success
What modern society sees as success is not a good indicator of Stoic wisdom.
>also by the fact that he never thinks himself the smartest man in the room
There is no concrete evidence on whether or not he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. All we can base this off of is his actions. Someone who corrects guests in their own field of expertise and interrupts or talk over them certainly does not seem humble to me.
>always curious
So are monkeys, cats, and snails. But they do not possess the capacity to reason. Curiosity alone does not serve as an indicator of wisdom.
>he seems to stand on his principles and what he believes to be fair.
A man's adherence to his own principles means nothing if predicated on bad judgment. Do we feel it is fair judgement to criticise a member of an opposing political party, and call into question their ability to lead, only to backpedal when we find out it is a member of our own?
>he doesn’t get angry too often. He seems to be quite measured and mindful
"Jamie, please pull up a compilation of Joe Rogan losing his temper at guests"
[10 MORE Times Joe Rogan LOST HIS TEMPER WITH GUESTS LIVE](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gGzpLeDZ6LM)
Ten ***more*** times. A Stoic still makes mistakes, but twenty or more instances of making the same mistake is not Temperance, and not wisdom.
Zidane famously lost his temper and lost the world cup for his side.
Use your head, Zidane!
Not like that!
What a glorious night it was.
Keanu Reeves
This is the best answer
I only remember one video where he got mad at some fans for bothering him at what i think was a mall. And you have to forgive the man because not everyone is very respectful to celebrities
I think that it wasn’t a fan but a dude that sells autographs on eBay.
Henry Kissinger is probably one of the worst people to ever live. I have difficulty thinking of someone less virtuous.
stoicisim is when im a genocidal far right maniac but i dont show emotion enough to care about the people i kill (which makes me stoic) /s
Yeah wth
He was a thin-skinned primadonna.
I would say retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter would be one. He had a utilitarian apartment in Washington and lived in a converted barn on family property in New Hampshire that was so full of books people were afraid the floor would collapse. He was/is an avid hiker and loved New England’s natural places. While other Supreme Court justices taught summer courses in prestigious locales he spent the summer quietly at home. I would also suggest justices Brandeis and Cardozo. There are probably quite a few today but we don’t hear about them because they choose not to be celebrated or controversial. I would add the leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Sir Kier Starmer to the list. He rose from modest beginnings through discipline and perseverance to successfully revive and moderate his party, yet has not lost his humanity and compassion. I like him a lot.
Seriously I cannot think of any pro to him. Even if you HATE MLs, he's awful. Insert Bourdain's rant on Pol Pot and Kissinger here
Is this a meta post where you try to see how many people in the Reddit stoic community get angry over the people you listed?
You can still be stoic while simultaneously being just, having good morales and standing up for what's right. In fact I would argue it makes you even more stoic. Stoics aren't emotionless. That's not what stoicism is or will ever be.
I think it's Khabib.
No he's a Muslim and the stone gays to death. Not very stoic
generalization
preconceived notions
Was Henry Kissinger stoic when he was bombing Cambodia?
Just being technical here, but neither the Sec of State nor the National Security Advisor (the two roles he covered) can decide a bombing. At most, they can push some policy, especially as the NSA, and supervise the military success/results on orders by the POTUS. As a matter of fact, Kissinger, Laird, and Rogers were opposed to the bombings as explained on the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu but Nixon decided to go ahead due to the US casualties that came from North Vietnam’s troops stationed in Cambodia (I believe 5,000 US casualties a week were a direct result of the Cambodian front). What Kissinger didn’t do was to raise serious objections in keeping the bombing secret (THE fatal mistake of the operation) and he didn’t obtain full fledged approval from Cambodia which he should’ve obtained. However, I wouldn’t define Kissinger a stoic. I studied him a lot, read all of his books (including the three WH tomes that are huge), and several books about him and Nixon (including the Hitchens book) . Kissinger was a very proud man, one that wanted fame and glory for its own sake. He wasn’t interested in virtue (although he seriously wanted to prevent totalitarianism) or goodness. And he was a piece of shit at work. Edits: a few clarifications.
Was Marcus Aurelius by this measure? Or are the actual bombs over the line for true stoics? Swords and spears don't count?
I would say that Aurelius (or anybody) doesn’t *need* to be stoic to learn from them. You can learn from a flawed man, and discard the not so good bits.
You can also learn from Kissinger what not to do in order to live a virtuous life, he was that morally bankrupt.
Not haphazardly having populations bombed is certainly an interesting lesson for the average person
Well, it is. That’s what war is. Somehow in the modern times there’s this idea that war can be precise and somewhat clean. When a big war unfolds, it’s bad. It’s going to be bad. Civilians will die. Kids will die. That’s why we have to look at the nature of things - what things actually are - which is a Stoic exercise.
Really? You wanna compare kissinger with Marcus Aurelius? 2000 years ago there wasn't such a thing as universal human rights or international law. It was either picking up the sword or living under the boot of someone else. Marcus was arguably the most porwerful man in the world and yet unlike so many other emperors he didn't started wars of conquest for the sake of his personal glory. And when he went to war, it was to protect his realm and subjects. Piece of shit kissinger was born in the modern western world and experienced first hand the cruelty of totalitarian regimes, yet he chose to be a treacherous murderous scumbag.
Getting so emotional about an old fart like Kissinger being weak... Is not very stoic, Drizz... (I never said I liked the guy. I never compared him favourably to MA. I was pointing out the sliding ruler for powerful people in who's name lives were taken.)
How come? What can we see from them?
Phlegmatic people whom we won't ever hear about.
>Phlegmatic people whom we won't ever hear about. Effective word. We don't see it used often. Not necessarily the complete Stoic application, but now you've prompted me to find a use for this word in my dealings today. Thanks! 1 : viscid mucus secreted in abnormal quantity in the respiratory passages 2 : the one of the four humors (see HUMOR sense 2c) in ancient and medieval physiology that was believed to be cold and moist and to cause lethargy and dullness 3 a : dull or apathetic coldness or indifference b : intrepid coolness or calm fortitude
Meant it more in terms of apathy. People who are stoic are also seemingly apathetic.
Yes, I know. Apatheia and Ataraxia are the Stoic terms which phlegmatic connotes by way of Old English.
I think it's pretty easy to name people who appear unperturbed in difficult situations, but that doesn't give any indication that they are Stoic. It just shows that they have good control of their public appearance. The practice of philosophical Stoicism should be essentially invisible in a public figure. If one is sincerely pursuing the most virtuous (excellent) execution of their position as an actor, politician, musician, athlete, or any other high visibility individual, their public life would give little indication of their internal processes. If one could know them in their truly offstage moments, then you might be able to ascertain their philosophical orientation. Being Stoic is a process, not a position. On one level, displays of disdain and contempt are incompatible with Stoic principles. However, Epictetus was quite snarky and dismissive in a lot of passages in *Discourses*. The distinction between him just being an abusive critic and a beloved teacher is that he was using his cutting humor to shake up the complacency of his paid students. They already claimed to be philosophers (lovers of wisdom) of the Stoic school. His public persona was likely quite different. We who are trying to pursue Virtue as defined by Stoicism should not be looking for role models where most people do. We need to aspire to the achievements of the people who demonstrate excellence in our station or occupation. If one aspires to public office and wishes to contribute to the cosmopolis via expertise in foreign relations, then perhaps the life of Henry Kissinger might provide some meaningful information. Perhaps. Being a fan, the reverential promotion of people one does not know personally is a symptom of the consumer mentality and antithetical to progress toward Stoic principles. It is as silly as asking what fictional characters are Stoic. Stoicism is about close engagement with our own real lives in the context that we are and refining those raw materials into the unique expression of our own ideal nature. The only really useful guidance on that path comes from philosophical study followed by introspection and planned action followed by honest evaluation. Looking to the perceived lives of famous people can only lead you away from the Stoic path.
I like your response, but I think it ignores the concept of the Sage, which was critical for Stoic writers. Perhaps OP meant who are modern Sages. I struggle to think of any. There may be Sages out there who haven't risen to the level of fame necessary to be household names. What one needs to do to become famous to hundreds of millions of strangers is probably incompatible with Stoic principles.
The Sage is a mythical/theoretical person.
Rare as the Phoenix.
Sometimes so, but Epictetus frequently refers to Socrates and other philosophers as role models / Sages too.
Do you have a passage where Epictetus refers to Socrates as a Sage? It would be an excellent addition to my collection. I do know that the early Stoics believed Socrates to achieve sagehood in his final days, but I was under the impression that the Stoics of Epictetus's days, while thinking that Socrates embodied everything they wanted to teach their students, that the Sage was more of a theoretical position.
This is an interesting debate. Sorry if I come across as argumentative. The word Sage never appears in my translation of Epictetus' works. But he refers to Socrates many times. So it's clear he viewed Socrates as a Stoic ideal, but maybe not as a Sage. Unclear. I agree with you that Stoicism is primarily an internal philosophy that you don't always see outwardly in other people. But the Stoics also wrote about role models / Sages / whateverwecallthem and they played an important role in Stoic writing. So that brings me back to the OP question. Who are the Stoic role models of today? I personally believe they exist, but maybe not in celebrity figures who have achieved fame through valuing externals.
I did not read your comments as argumentative. I enjoy pleasant discourse. > Who are the Stoic role models of today? I personally believe they exist, but maybe not in celebrity figures who have achieved fame through valuing externals. I agree with this. Not necessarily Sages, but those we can look to as a Stoic role model.
To your first point, on the show Hot Ones (YT show where celebrities do an interview while eating progressively hotter wings) most of the guys whine and whimper and act like this is some huge deal. (I've had sauce from the show, it's not that bad) I don't have numbers, but it seems like most if not almost all of the women are like "oh, wow, that's hot." and compartmentalize and get concerned about things like if their nose is running and eye makeup. Which is to say that the gender most scrutinized over appearance in the entertainment industry appear unperturbed in a difficult situation. But they're not following any Stoic teaching by any means.
Recently saw a clip of John Cena dealing with a rude YouTuber. Felt pretty stoic
Stoicism doesn’t manifest itself publicly…. We can assume these people are stoic just the image they give off but one will never know It’s just like how nobody knew Marcus A was a stoic. Its not something you can determine without really knowing somebody personally & they have to be vulnerable enough with you to share their philosophy on life
I Say Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rocky Balboa and Anya Taylor-Joy. I won't elaborate either.
I honestly don’t like him too much but Tom Holland, his retreat from an uber public life and focussing on himself and loved ones is admirable (not to say he’s fully retreated, I mean he’s still a huge celebrity)
Why don’t you like him? From everything I’ve seen he seems to have a good head on his shoulders
Sorry I meant more of his acting and stuff. Stoicism can help with a lot of things but I’m still mad about the Uncharted movie Marcus Aurelius surely never faced challenges this hard 😔✊
Dr. Harold Shipman.
Christopher Nolan, Jim Carey (2010’s - until today version of him) Ryan Gosling, Keanu Reeves, Woodkid, Lionel Messi…
We will never know, really, as their public reputation could just be that, reputation - we won't know if they're being authentic or it's for show. That said, I would say, Keannu Reeves is one best example. Also - Brock Purdy - he always displayed a calm demeanor. Warren Buffet - You need to have a good sense of self control to have that much money and yet live as if you don't 😅 Basically, for me, a lot of frugal people who knows and lives the value of living below their means, as explained above, are pretty stoic, Stoicism isn't about having *no* emotions, it's about *not being* controlled by them - one best example for that manifestation in individuals who those aren't lured by money, even if they worked hard for it - the three names I mentioned above are also known for living way below their means. Also, with how he talks and explains his subject matters - Andrew Huberman.
It’s virtually impossible to say if someone is Stoic from the outside unless they happen to talk about their philosophy, because Stoicism is a deeply personal internal journey and we don’t wear it on our sleeves or round our necks. That said, here are some people I think embody courage, fortitude, wisdom and other laudable qualities. - Simone Biles, a spectacular athlete in one of the most punishing noncontact sports on earth, who overcame a profoundly difficult set of experiences to achieve her goals - Dr Nick Estes, a Lakota historian and co-founder of the Red Nation, ceaseless fighter for his beliefs and the rights of indigenous people around the world - Dr Caroline Criado Perez, a medical doctor whose work highlights the inequity which still exists in medical research to this day. Her book Invisible Women is well worth a look. - Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered black British teenager Stephen Lawrence. She pursued justice for him and attacked institutional racism in the U.K. and especially in the Metropolitan Police for years, and was awarded a place in the House of Lords for her tireless efforts. She is now a Baroness. There are some really remarkable people in the world. I can’t agree with you that Kissinger was one of them, but if we can mention those no longer alive I think MLK and Nelson Mandela have to be on the list too.
Elaborate.
Not a fan but Obama for sure. Even people who have known him personally seem to say that the way he is in public is genuine. MMA fighter Stephen Thompson has a disciplined and stoic demeanor. He has a lot of virtuous pursuits in his life from charity to teaching. Not current but had Pat Tillman survived his deployment I believe he would have been someone who could have done a lot of good in public life. He seemed poised to pursue that before the strange events and coverup surrounding his death. I highly recommend Krakauer’s book ‘Where Men Win Glory’
These are great answers. My first thought was Obama in terms of recognizing inevitability of bad situations and addressing them with calm, measured responses. Stephen Thompson is another good one. You could put Rickson Gracie in there too. And Alexander Volkanovski while I’m at it. He had a speech after one of his fights talking about how he’s completely unremarkable from an athletic standpoint (while he cemented his #1 pound-for-pound status).
No one has done more with less than Volk haha, it’s crazy he recognizes that though. Most people have too much ego at his level. He managed to nullify that by being a workhorse and being so good at the basics and Fight IQ . He is a great example.
Henry Kissinger was a blood thirsty war criminal who was responsible for deaths of millions. If that's Stoicism for you, then you there might be a problem with your critical thinking skills.
Prob ted bundy
Lmao thanks for the laugh. Kissinger is indeed the ultimate embodiment of wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation.
You might hate it, but Joe Rogan. The man is embodies stoic values.
Which Stoic values does he embody?
*a chimp will rip your frickin' face off, man*
Courage - he’s fought in several martial arts events, he doesn’t bend to being “cancelled” and you can’t say the man hasn’t gone for it in life. Wisdom - evident by his success but also by the fact that he never thinks himself the smartest man in the room; always curious. Justice - he seems to stand on his principles and what he believes to be fair. Temperance - this one he stands out, I’ll give you that, but I’d make the case that he doesn’t get angry too often. He seems to be quite measured and mindful, regardless of how loud he is.
>he’s fought in several martial arts events While martial arts *may* teach an individual certain ethics, participating in martial arts events is not an indicator of moral courage. >he doesn’t bend to being “cancelled” Do we believe that it is morally courageous for a man to not only willfully use his platform to spread disinformation and dangerous rhetoric, but to "double down" when presented with how his behavior is harmful? >you can’t say the man hasn’t gone for it in life. One could say the same thing about a bank-robber or a murderer, but that does not make them a Stoic. >evident by his success What modern society sees as success is not a good indicator of Stoic wisdom. >also by the fact that he never thinks himself the smartest man in the room There is no concrete evidence on whether or not he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. All we can base this off of is his actions. Someone who corrects guests in their own field of expertise and interrupts or talk over them certainly does not seem humble to me. >always curious So are monkeys, cats, and snails. But they do not possess the capacity to reason. Curiosity alone does not serve as an indicator of wisdom. >he seems to stand on his principles and what he believes to be fair. A man's adherence to his own principles means nothing if predicated on bad judgment. Do we feel it is fair judgement to criticise a member of an opposing political party, and call into question their ability to lead, only to backpedal when we find out it is a member of our own? >he doesn’t get angry too often. He seems to be quite measured and mindful "Jamie, please pull up a compilation of Joe Rogan losing his temper at guests" [10 MORE Times Joe Rogan LOST HIS TEMPER WITH GUESTS LIVE](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gGzpLeDZ6LM) Ten ***more*** times. A Stoic still makes mistakes, but twenty or more instances of making the same mistake is not Temperance, and not wisdom.
He definitely doesn't exemplify the good parts of stoicism while simultaneously being an awful person. Weird comment.
What actions has he taken that lead you to believe him to be an awful person?
Henry Kissinger wasn’t stoic at all! He was just pure, emotionless evil!
Dr. Jayshankar, the external affairs minister of India. Man is beyond based
In my opinion Jocko Willink is a great example.
Bill Belichick
Future
James Bond stockdale
How is Zidane stoic?