This is a very common misconception. Stoics (at least in the classical sense, which is what I study) seek to classify their emotions as either positive or as passions. And through the analysis of their own opinions, using logic and the concept of aligning with nature and the common good, they seek to agree with what is correct, disagree with what is incorrect, and suspend judgment on that which is not evident. A person can only be good or bad through actions that are their own responsibility; therefore, things outside of their own responsibility (such as a Stoic's son dying) cannot make them either good or bad, but rather their reaction to the event can. The interpretation that if a Stoic suffers when experiencing the death of their own son, they are being a bad Stoic is actually completely incorrect. They will only be a bad Stoic if, from this event, they allow themselves to be carried away by the suffering that is natural to every person who has a natural affection, and start to have opinions and actions contrary to nature.
crazygringo|4 months ago
Stoicism treats the (negative) passions as necessarily grounded in false beliefs.
Whereas modern psychology treats our negative emotions as valuable messages that something is affecting our well-being and needs to be addressed.
Stoicism treats negative emotions as errors. Something to be reasoned away, i.e. suppressed. Modern psychology tells us not to reason away but rather to feel fully, to accept, to process and therefore integrate and grow.
anechouapechou|4 months ago
Stoicism doesn’t tell you to repress feelings. It tells you to examine them, to look at the beliefs behind them. If the belief is false (“this event ruins my life”), you correct it; if it’s true, you accept the feeling without letting it take over.
The Stoics called destructive emotions “passions,” but they also recognized healthy ones, like rational joy, caution, and goodwill. The goal isn’t emotional numbness, it’s clarity and alignment with reason and nature.
So, far from emotional blindness, Stoicism actually inspired the same kind of introspection that modern psychology promotes, just with a different vocabulary.
I would encourage you to read about CBT’s history and it’s influence on more modern psychology techniques. It’s likely that you are representing the Stoicism you commonly read about these days, on reddit, youtube and even on some books that take some liberties on translating it or do a bad job of it (it’s hard…). Most modern sources absolutely suck. A good translation from the original greek sources of Epictetus is very hard to come by.