Bartolomeo Scala, Dialogue of Consolation §19:
One must think differently about grief, to be sure, differently from the Stoics, who call themselves manly men because they don’t want to be seen to feel pain, if they are – as I said above – understood correctly. While they produce a resplendent speech ornamented with magnificent words, they seem to abandon and forget about nature and the matter at hand. For that reason, Dionysius of Heraclea argued against them in the most excellent way. He had been a student of Zeno, and had drunk deep of the learning of the Stoics, but finally when his kidneys were racked with pain, he said that everything he learned in the Stoa was a lie, while his fellow student Cleanthes stood nearby and called Zeno back from hell with this line: Do you hear this under the earth, Amphiaraus?
Aliter profecto, aliter quam Stoici, qui etiam propterea quod dolere videri nolunt se appellant masculos, aliter, inquam, de dolore, si recte, ut supra dixi, interpretantur, sentiendum est. Afferunt enim praeclaram duntaxat quandam magnificisque ornatam verbis orationem, rem autem ipsam ac naturam deserere obliviscique videntur. Quapropter et Dionysius ille Heracleotes optime illos arguit. Cum enim fuisset Zenonis discipulus Stoicorumque disciplinam imbibisset, tandem vero renum vexaretur doloribus, falsa illa esse omnino quae in porticu didicisset asserebat, astante etiam atque acclamante condiscipulo eius Cleanthe Zenonemque ipsum tragico versu ab inferis excitante: ‘Audisne haec sub terra, Amphiaraè abdite?”
“tandem vero renum vexaretur doloribus, falsa illa esse omnino quae in porticu didicisset asserebat”
And how. Stoicism really does seem to me to be “rich bitch problems”. Oh no, you’re a multi millionaire in a cash poor economy with hoards of slaves, freedmen, women, and social-strivers willing to do (almost) anything you want. Not shit you can think your way out of most problems.
I think this, as much as the fading of Christianity (which I guess subsumed a lot of stoic elements), explains the rise of stoicism amongst techbros.
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius would disagree!
Would you like to expand as to why you titled the post that way?
It had the unique property of sounding catchy while simultaneously being true.
Yeah, it did catch me. How is the title true though? There’s no explanation in the post, at least nothing that I found directly. I’d love to hear that.
Except you literally don’t know what Stoicism is. You’re referencing stoicism the adjective, not Stoicism the philosophy. You really should take this post down, you’re woefully uninformed and lack credibility. Stoicism is the basis for modern psychotherapy (you may not know what that means, it’s ok). Stoic groups on facebook are laughing at this fallacious garbage. Do yourself a favor and research before you post.