I don’t get it. Women play cricket too.
maybe you are referring to a different post.
maybe you are referring to a different post.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Inspirational/Mindfulness Stuff and More
- Thread starter waiting
- Start date
"Stoic" is often applied to doomed tailend resistance in cricket. Google it and see. It might also apply to a job you don't like, and are underpaid in, and maybe not recognised for, but you perform the job to a high standard each day according to your sense of what is right. Maybe nobody else knows you're suffering in the job. Stoicism is a positive character trait. Nothing to do with being macho. You read it wrong again.
Feminists still hate it. They'd rather men gush with emotion and confess our innermost feelings.
Sure, but all that has little to with Stoicism. Please don't hijack this thread which is about mindfulness, inspiration and positive ways of thinking with your political agenda.
PS You’re doing my head in by turning every thread into a battlefield. And yes, I’ve been less than stoic about it. Could you, you know, stop?
Lee's view of feminism means he has trouble understanding what you say Mr Ant, everything is black and white and, hey, let's use the opportunity to hang s*** on feminists while we're at it.
Lee, you turned it into a battlefield, no-one else here was making the associations you were. You can peddle your little agendas if you like but don't play ignorant while you are doing so, it was obvious when you started talking about toxic masculinity that you wanted to somehow hijack the thread towards whatever you're pissed off about today.
Ok, back to what this thread was actually discussing. If I recall correctly it was about the contribution of mindfullness and certain attides to Richmond's success. The oft heard mantra that Dimma refers to, that we concentrate on what we can control, does fit Stoicism so it is a legitimate point in the context of this discussion.
DS
Lee, you turned it into a battlefield, no-one else here was making the associations you were. You can peddle your little agendas if you like but don't play ignorant while you are doing so, it was obvious when you started talking about toxic masculinity that you wanted to somehow hijack the thread towards whatever you're pissed off about today.
Ok, back to what this thread was actually discussing. If I recall correctly it was about the contribution of mindfullness and certain attides to Richmond's success. The oft heard mantra that Dimma refers to, that we concentrate on what we can control, does fit Stoicism so it is a legitimate point in the context of this discussion.
DS
Assuming what Lee is trying to do by posting that being stoic is associated with toxic masculinity and then jumping all over him I don’t think is stoic at all. The vitriol that starts getting directed at him (even though sometimes i agree with the disagreement) is what triggers me.
ive reread the thread and I thought he was just making the point that bottling up your emotions can lead to poor outcomes. I think this is a useful discussion still. With most things you can tip a positive behaviour of focusing what you can control (including what you post) into a negative one by Misinterpreting control as not needing to deal with the emotions. Being mindful would being aware of what other posters’ posts do to you emotionally. In any of my bad relationship outcomes it was always me or the other party assuming what the other was thinking And then acting on that assumption vs seeking to understand first.
I think the response of folks like aarts and short to missing out on grand finals is amazing. When you compare it to what happened to kickett and the bitterness he still has decades later it’s pretty amazing as you can definitely go down the anger road, the give up road or the well I’ll get better and take my next chance road.
id Ask we try and understand each other at least on this thread vs judging each other But also stay on topic.
ive reread the thread and I thought he was just making the point that bottling up your emotions can lead to poor outcomes. I think this is a useful discussion still. With most things you can tip a positive behaviour of focusing what you can control (including what you post) into a negative one by Misinterpreting control as not needing to deal with the emotions. Being mindful would being aware of what other posters’ posts do to you emotionally. In any of my bad relationship outcomes it was always me or the other party assuming what the other was thinking And then acting on that assumption vs seeking to understand first.
I think the response of folks like aarts and short to missing out on grand finals is amazing. When you compare it to what happened to kickett and the bitterness he still has decades later it’s pretty amazing as you can definitely go down the anger road, the give up road or the well I’ll get better and take my next chance road.
id Ask we try and understand each other at least on this thread vs judging each other But also stay on topic.
The four Stoic virtues are justice, wisdom, moderation and courage.
We can't control how Lee chooses to think and we shouldn't lose any sleep over that, but justice and courage dictate that we should speak up if we disagree.
Introducing your own pet political issues into the mindfulness thread is wrong and a good Stoic should challenge that.
Fair enough angry - if you walk past something you accept it. I get that and hits the courage part. But I would still say it’s wiser to ask questions than to assume someone else’s thoughts.
if you are trying to persuade, belittling someone isn’t helpful. i Think the objective should be to have someone step back and think about it and see if they change their own mind. So I guess I’m trying to persuade folks to just Chill out a bit and assert their views in a respectful way. it would be wiser.
So I think the question to Lee is what was your purpose in raising that being stoic and toxic male behaviour are linked? Is it like a few others suggest and you are trying to inject a side issue, is it what I think about not dealing with emotions and the semantic definition of stoic or something else or all of the above?
if you are trying to persuade, belittling someone isn’t helpful. i Think the objective should be to have someone step back and think about it and see if they change their own mind. So I guess I’m trying to persuade folks to just Chill out a bit and assert their views in a respectful way. it would be wiser.
So I think the question to Lee is what was your purpose in raising that being stoic and toxic male behaviour are linked? Is it like a few others suggest and you are trying to inject a side issue, is it what I think about not dealing with emotions and the semantic definition of stoic or something else or all of the above?
Some beautiful Stoic ideas there RoarEmotion, appreciate your point of view and efforts.
Lee doesn't talk about "dealing with emotions" though - he has a one dimensional view of Stoicism which means toughing it out, playing through pain, trying even if you don't win. He explicitly said it's feminists who want to force men to show emotions, so I think you are conflating ideas from other posts with his.
Stoics would probably say it's less important whether you "show" emotions or not, but what is important is that you feel and understand your emotions, and don't let those emotions control you or affect you negatively.
The difference between the common or garden definition of "stoic" and Stoicism is not semantics either. One is a shorthand description of a certain behaviour or attitude, and the other is a philosophy. You can use either depending on context, but use the correct one for the context. Don't conflate them.
Stoicism is definitely an ancient Greek (?) philosophy.
From what I remember, it is about accepting the world for what it is and acting accordingly, without desire for anything or being prompted by anything other than virtue. Everything other than virtue is incidental, not necessarily good or bad, although if it helps promote virtue then it is a good thing, and if it undermines virtue it is a bad thing. Virtue makes you happy, no matter what the circumstance that you find yourself in, and a person who is in that space is said to be stoic. Happy in tragedy, happy in pain, happy being a Tigers fan between 1983 and 2017 etc. etc.
I studied it briefly at Uni, but didn't really study it as much as the hot looking lecturer delivering that unit (what a babe), so can't give a lot of insight. But I never even came close to getting anywhere in that pursuit, so lucky for me I was stoic.
From what I remember, it is about accepting the world for what it is and acting accordingly, without desire for anything or being prompted by anything other than virtue. Everything other than virtue is incidental, not necessarily good or bad, although if it helps promote virtue then it is a good thing, and if it undermines virtue it is a bad thing. Virtue makes you happy, no matter what the circumstance that you find yourself in, and a person who is in that space is said to be stoic. Happy in tragedy, happy in pain, happy being a Tigers fan between 1983 and 2017 etc. etc.
I studied it briefly at Uni, but didn't really study it as much as the hot looking lecturer delivering that unit (what a babe), so can't give a lot of insight. But I never even came close to getting anywhere in that pursuit, so lucky for me I was stoic.
Hot Stoic lecturer? There you go, women can be Stoics too!
Started by the Greeks, but then taken up by some of the Romans as well. The most famous Roman Stoic was the emperor Marcus Aurelius - I really recommend his Meditations which were his notes to himself, his journal, not written for an audience. You can just read bits and pieces of it whenever you feel like it. Free PDF version here:
@RoarEmotion you might like this one
This one is a little bit longer/harder
Anyway, you might say AngryAnt, you don't seem like a good Stoic. Truth is I'm not, but I'm trying.
I got 30/300 pages in for a bit of Marcus life history and stoic overview.
my key Learning was philosophy was seen as a very active thing to guide behaviours / ethics (and not religion) as opposed to an intellectual pursuit.
Yes, good take-away. One thing Aurelius wrote was "Stop talking about what it is to be a good man, and just be one."
Like I said you don't have to read it cover to cover... You can dip in and out of the different books. I don't think they are organised by theme or anything.
If Stoicism is about accepting the world for what it is, what is their view on agency?
Just asking as I am a little familiar with Stoicism but not particularly well read on this, and the notions of justice and virtue certainly give some indication that one's actions have an impact, which makes the idea that you take the world as it is a bit more nuanced.
DS
Just asking as I am a little familiar with Stoicism but not particularly well read on this, and the notions of justice and virtue certainly give some indication that one's actions have an impact, which makes the idea that you take the world as it is a bit more nuanced.
DS
Stoicism says change yourself and the world for the better but focus on what you can influence.
