Not necessarily

Pain isn't necessary.

pain is what connects us to other people, when people are in pain they grow closer

It's just that you know what to do when you're in such a situation, instead of whining about it and being the virgin man of inaction, you know how to "get thru it"

it is inhuman to just "not feel pain"

Why connect through pain when you can connect eith other people through many other virtues that don't even harm you?

@Sentient23 True, perhaps I didn't put it right, but personally if I know how to deal with pain, after so many times that I've been in such situations, I'm sort of numb to it. Not entirely, of course, but the more you deal with it, the less it affects you.

Yeah I'd agree with that

when you feel pain you can help relate to other people in your same circumstance

That's unnecessary.

Not necessarily a good thing since you can’t connect to people

If you need a connection with one or more people, then connect through other virtues.

The point of stoicism is that you won't really need that "emotional comfort" when you get in such a situation

From a Christian standpoint, you most likely won’t get into heaven if you can’t connect to people

How are you going to enjoy life with others if you don’t understand basic sympathy

1. I never said that connection with people is entirely excluded, you can connect with them on other levels
2. that is just entirely false. This would mean psychopaths are doomed to eternal torture just by virtue of being what they are, which they didn't choose

Connection can be made through other virtues as well, not just pain. And having sympathy is normal for a Stoic, since he's been there. He can actually give advice to the person currently in pain, because he's become an expert in dealing with pain.

I never said psychopaths can’t go to heaven

You said that by virtue of being unable to "connect with people", they won't be able to get to heaven

Just that they’re less likely because they can’t understand emotions

Psychopaths fit this criteria

Well, they can "reason themselves into it"

> From a Christian standpoint, you most likely won’t get into heaven if you can’t connect to people
@moira

I suppose that psychopaths make an exception, since, as ofvo said, they didn't choose to be psychotic, and most of them can't connect to people.

Some basic principles of Christianity are love, empathy and peace

Salvation is not reached thru love empathy and peace lol

So if they're more likely to go to hell instead of heaven, because of something that they didn't choose, then God is kind of a jerk, which I refuse to accept.

How do you reach salvation then

This sounds like /religion/

By becoming born again

Which is thru a baptism, and repentance

But that's besides the point, I don't see how any of this is relevant to your misunderstanding of stoicism

@Maksim Religion and philosophy are not mutually exclusive.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not.

When are they mutually exclussive?

How can a psychopath repent for sins they dont even know are wrong

And yeah that was drawn offtopic

phows a stoic going to respond to their kid if he suffers a breakup

or their pets death

The kid should be ready to face that pain. @moira

Theology and Philosophy are mutually exclusive

Because it'll make it stronger.

@Maksim Not always.

*it*

You're confusing epistomology with emotions. They can know that what they did was wrong, without feeling an "emotional" connection with it

@Koninos not what i asked

how is a stoic going to help him deal

What did you ask?

Kh

@Sentient23 That’s off topic from the original discussion

Well, through facing the pain.

Wow

Very helpful to an undeveloped teen going through his first heavy emotional blow

Dear, you either face the pain or let the pain consume you.

Not really

The way the teen will face the pain is irrelevant to the current topic, but I must ask, what do you suggest the parent does?

you can face the pain while still displaying it

Displaying it is not necessary.

and release of emotion also helps

Yeah okay, these are ways to face the pain, but again you're assuming that stoicism is about bottling up the pain.

Why did he date her anyway. Wait until marriage, and let me as the father pick which Aryan it's going to be

No

But if you want to talk about the displaying of emotions, I'll let you know that not showing your feelings, builds you a stronger image. And with a stronger image, you become more confident.

He dated her because he liked her and thought she was a good fit for him

Displaying it can hold you back from facing it.

How is this different from bottling it up

Not displaying it can actually help some people. It depends on the individual, however.

You’re less likely to overcome pain if you face it by yourself

Stoicism doesn't require facing the pain by yourself.

Especially when it is involved in parenting, as I mentioned earlier.

But that what i said

How do you expect to face pain with someone else if you don’t show it

Showing it is not a necessity for facing pain lol

What's the inference point there?

Its not

> You’re less likely to overcome pain if you face it by yourself
@moira

You said it was
> How do you expect to face pain with someone else if you don’t show it

Individualism is not required in Stoicism.

Because > Stoicism doesn't require facing the pain by yourself.

@Koninos Also that goes against the definition of stoicism

What you found in Google isn't a correct or complete definition.

Not all definitions in Google are correct.

And yet again, many Stoics have found the display of pain in the attempt of the individual to face the pain, unnecessary.

But that depends on the person.

And here I come, saying that it should be involved in parenting, so more people get to face pain without displaying it.

Because the display of pain can hold you back from facing it.

When you look in the mirror and see pain, you become sad. When you look in the mirror and see strength, you become happy.

Stoicism is a path to happiness.

> Stoicism. It's the philosophy of the endurance of pain, in whatever form it comes, without the display of emotions. Personally, I view Stoicism as a very good way to become tougher, and I have implemented it into my lifestyle. The tougher you are, the more ready you are to face hardships. However, the very lack of display of emotions comes with certain disadvantages. The display of emotions can help you achieve many things, among them being the manipulation of others, which is immoral, yet very useful. Personally I display my emotions only when I have to or want to, to achieve a specific goal. While in situations of pain or hardship and out of context, I do not display my emotions.
@Koninos

Your definition then.

Goes against what you just said

Later on, before you hopped in the debate, I made clear that the lack of display of pain is a consequence of facing the pain.

> And yet again, many Stoics have found the display of pain in the attempt of the individual to face the pain, unnecessary.
That justifies the invalidity of Google's definition.

And I also listed the advantages of the absence of display of pain.

The first sentence in your definition of stoicism is it’s the endurance of pain without the display of emotions

So if you display emotions when facing pain, according to what you said, you’re not a stoic

That's the goal of Stoicism, which is not mutually exclusive from it's definition.

No, you're not a Stoic if you display emotions when facing pain. @moira

If you do, then you're in the process of being a Stoic.

What you said isn’t any different from googles definition