Message from @moira
Discord ID: 686333533408723072
Because > Stoicism doesn't require facing the pain by yourself.
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.
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.
So a person who is not displaying their emotions, yet can't completely endure pain, is a Stoic, but hasn't achieved Stoicism's goal.
How are they a Stoic if they haven’t yet learned to endure pain without showing emotion(the definition of stoicism)
For example, the goal of Christianity is to reconcile man to God. The person who isn't reconciled to God, but follows the Christian beliefs, values and scripts, is a Christian who hasn't achieved their goal.
Which is partial, which makes them a Stoic, which relates to the example above.
I've got to go, but we can continue this conversation later.