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

Perhaps I didn't define definition well enough, I should've mentioned that was the goal.

But anyhow, now you know what I meant.

Yes, but you interpreted Google's definition falsely.

And that's why I said that Google's definition is incomplete.

The definition is the end result

Not necessarily.

From what you said, googles definition is the end result

Yes.

But it's incomplete because the person who's in the process of achieving Stoicism's goal, is considered a Stoic, and therefore a part of Stoicism, too.

The definition isn't always the end result, and certainly not in this case.

If you’re in the process of becoming a Stoic, you aren’t a stoic

Not yet

That doesn’t make sense

I didn't say that. I said that the person who is in the process of achieving Stoicism's goal is considered a Stoic.