erica on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

erica pfp

i'm going to fail at putting this into words but i want to have this discussion: i have noticed that most popular philosophy focuses on detachment (stoicism, buddhism/taoism, rationality and abstract reasoning, etc) most of philosophy was generated in a time where women weren't allowed to contribute to the larger collective knowledge or participate in any educational system so my discussion/q is: if most philosophy originates from men, who historically view attachment (and therefor, emotion) as largely negative, what would philosophy be like if people more accepting of and in touch with their emotions contributed to the field of philosophy? is stoicism really a philosophy that can help you feel better, when most current research indicates that connection and community are the biggest predictors of life satisfaction? (my little research did show me that female philosophers focus on relationality, embodiment, care ethics, less abstract/universal philosophies, situated knowledge vs absolute knowledge, etc)

19 replies

6 recasts

86 reactions

maurelian pfp

I think I'm being sub-casted and that's OK. :) I also think you're on to something, and I'm going to sit with it.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

erica pfp

not subcasted hahaha it was the exact juxtaposition i needed to put some ideas together that have been swirling around in my mind ever since an ex of mine tried to push stoicism and detachment philosophies on me! seeing "SHE should learn stoicism" in response to a display of emotion that i deeply relate to (the desire to *feel* loved by those you love) was that "oh shit, is this why these philosophies feel wrong for me?" would love to hear your thoughts as someone who knows way more about philosophy than i do after you've marinated!

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

erica pfp

a tidbit you may find interesting actually: i practice ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy) and somatic therapy. ACT, in terms of accepting yourself fully and acknowledging you can only control your own emotions and actions, is very similar to stoicism but they diverge in how you commit to and then express yourself. the theory is that emotions must be felt, processed, and expressed to truly be moved out of the body. otherwise, if they aren't fully released, they grow and fester and build up to an eventual outburst (mania, depression, anger issues, etc)

2 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

maurelian pfp

Creating this as a forking reply; re the video I commented on: it's obviously not the case that the boy is stoic, he's just the way he is, and he's naturally not that emotional/affection needing. It's probably more stoic to be highly emotional and have mastered your feelings such that they do not overflow into your actions unless that would be helpful to you for them to do so. Hugs to the little girl, I'm sorry she's having a hard day, and I'm sorry her mom thinks its funny to post her anguish.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

maurelian pfp

Oh, ACT sound very interesting! And yes, I agree it is very similar in the sense of accepting what you can't control, and focusing on what you can. My interpretation is that that is the true core of it. Then it sounds like there are more feminine and masculine ways of getting to that point, and that the originators of stoicism being male were able to use that path more effectively. I've often read, and am fairly convinced, that Stoicism is much like cognitive behavioural therapy, which sounds different from ACT not in the sense that either of them encourages you to disregard your emotions, but CBT encourages you to logically refute negative thoughts. ie. "Is this thought helpful to me..." or "I'm feeling bad about myself, why... oh, because of X... well here are some arguments against X...".

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction