Yes to this! Stoicism can kill the "rhizomatic" nature of human passion. Discipline is valuable, but its true place is after you've zoomed out, reflected, and chosen a direction. That’s when you zoom in, and discipline becomes essential for execution. But if discipline causes you to dismiss anything that seems "useless," you risk losing the very curiosity and spontaneity needed to zoom out and discover what’s next.
I wonder why so many young men have taken to stoicism in modern society? I rarely go a full conversation with my peers without a Marcus Aurelius (or Ryan Holiday lol) reference…
I’m curious why it’s been such a cult hit / what is it about this framework that’s resonating so resoundingly right now?
Is it reflective of modern masculine ideals? to be unwavering, rational, unaffected? Serving as a convenient defense against life’s inevitable drama ?
I write a lot about meaning-making, belief, myth—and Stoicism comes up again and again as a kind of “solve” for the god-shaped hole in so many of my male peers. There’s something sterile about it. It’s clean & tidy but falls flat.
I find your question more interesting than the (possible) answer! Maybe it’s a reflection of our society to some extent. I find most young people increasingly boring and sterile. They’re irreligious and lack discipline. Stoicism creates an attractive framework that helps you fix certain symptoms.
I will admit I was sitting on the edge of the man bandwagon (man-wagon?) for a little while. I read the books, followed the posts, and journaled through it. But, then I became bored of it.
There is a time and place for the philosophy—to be like a statue in a sea of chaos. But at the same time, there’s a natural place to be alive and present in that chaos. That’s where stoicism falls short.
From one angle, I believe there may be an invisible thread to a productive-seeking culture. Not necessarily productive with things but productive with thought.
Stoicism says a lot of the same things other wisdom traditions teach, just stripped of all the esoterica, symbolism, shamanism, magic, etc. which makes it far more accessible to people growing up in modern atheistic culture. Life is far too cushy/convenient , but men thrive when they have something to struggle for. Men are desperate to be told to sack up and sacrifice for the greater good, but right now it isn’t super clear what’s worth fighting for and what the “greater good” is. Without this, men become spiritually idle. Surface level stoicism is extremely accessible, digestible, memeable, it only requires first-order thinking to feel like you’re enacting a profound life philosophy. It invigorates men by reminding them they must suffer for a cause. It scratches that ancient itch by replacing religious work with modern work. It’s rite of passage without going into the mountains with the elders and doing peyote. Stoicism frames driving your air conditioned car from your air conditioned house to your air conditioned office as noble suffering if you do it with the right mentality. Not necessarily wrong, but extremely attractive given the alternatives in modern culture.
“it only requires first-order thinking to feel like you’re enacting a profound life philosophy” haha yes. Back to the God-shaped hole. Do you think stoicism is sufficient in accomplishing this cause for most young men or is incomplete as an overarching philosophy and eventually falls short?
When it comes to any system of thought that has survived the centuries, if you fully buy in and commit to it in earnest and have the right teachers and community, then yes absolutely it is a great pursuit for young men (or anyone really). But if done with any less gumption than that, you’ll wind up blind to all the hole-shaped gods out there trying to help you.
I have to admit, initially I felt a bit of a sting. But really, philosophies should be rather seen as context-dependent. None of them have all the answers, and we should use them as they suit us.
It’s perfectly fine to use Stoicism in times of hardship, but in abundance we might turn to the Epicureans. Perhaps to the Existentialists to find meaning (or rid ourselves from the need of one). So on and so forth.
Marcus Aurelius many dozens of times offers a direct pathway to enlightenment, in no way falling short of other transcendent teachings like buddhism, daosim, christianity et.al.
But if such a teaching were so easy to convey and grasp, we would not have this discussion. And you would not favor distracting mysticism over something "boring" like living life in its purest form, not driven animalistically, but instead aiming for the highest - as tought by the stoics.
Marcus Aurelius makes references to gods every now and then but from a practical perspective; there’s nothing profoundly mystical or religious about his teachings. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t critical or amazing. In our profane world, Stoicism may come across as religious enough.
Nah, that's not what I mean. He teaches alignment with the self and existence. That is the essence of transcendence from the human vantage point. That is much more profound than some anthropomorphized or other imagery of the divine.
I mean, what else should one bind back to (=reliquere) if not to that which is (=yhvh)?
There’s nothing sacred, divine, or religious about that & you’re merely reinforcing my view. I’m glad you enjoy Stoicism (really) and you don’t have to agree with me.
Then maybe your understanding of the sacred, divine and religious might be due to be questioned, otherwise you stand in your own way of experiencing something great because of limited mental constructs.
I'm not a StoBro but rather eclectic and have studied it first hand, not just via reading others' descriptions, no, via experience, observation and contemplation. All the great wisdom teachers corroborated what I found, so there might be something to it.
I’m a huge admirer of Economy of Truth, it's exceptional. Which is exactly why this piece feels like such a letdown.
This article reads as a confused pastiche of borrowed insights. This entire "critique" says nothing of substance. Like Nietzsche at his most reckless, you’re eager to tear down without offering anything coherent in return. Stoicism presents a practical, time-tested toolkit for facing adversity, cultivating self-mastery, and living with integrity. What does your alternative offer aside from recycled provocations and borrowed insights from fascist mystics?
To lean so heavily on Julius Evola, a thinker steeped in esoteric fascism and anti-modernist mythologizing, is to undermine the argument before it begins. Citing him without critical distance casts immediate doubt on your intellectual seriousness. Invoking a man who openly flirted with Nazism (and wrote for SS publications - the paramilitary organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party) in order to denounce a philosopher-king like Marcus Aurelius is not only intellectually suspect but a complete inversion of wisdom and integrity. If the true test of a philosophy is in how it’s lived, then it’s clear which tradition stands the test of time.
I know you’ve read the Stoics closely, which makes it all the more baffling that this piece reads like a teenager trying to be edgy on Instagram. Stoicism is not a retreat from transcendence, but a path to it through reason and virtue. Its emphasis on rational self-mastery is not a denial of heroism, it's heroism stripped of the theatrical ego. The Stoic doesn’t roar into the void with a sword raised high, demanding to feel something; he steps into life’s chaos with an unshakable calm.
The accusation that Stoicism is “boring,” “sterile,” and “soulless” says more about the emotional fragility of the critic than the philosophy being criticized. Must a worldview constantly entertain you, intoxicate you, flatter your sense of mysticism to be valid? Philosophy isn’t Riesling and rapture, but hard-won clarity. It’s the strength to say no to whims and illusions when every neuron inside you screams otherwise.
And the caricature of Stoicism as life-denying? Marcus Aurelius, a man who ruled an empire and buried multiple children, found space to speak of nature’s beauty, the miracle of dawn, and the nobility of human brotherhood (read Meditations 3.2). Epictetus, born a slave, taught the liberation of the soul through reason and dignity. Seneca, immersed in the politics and dangers of imperial Rome, wrote of generosity, friendship, and joy.
Dismissing Stoicism as “life-denying” because it doesn’t cheerlead your desire to get drunk with friends isn’t a philosophical insight, it’s just rationalized indulgence. It’s not that Stoicism suppresses joy; it’s that it refuses to let pleasure become your master. It tells you to taste joy without being devoured by it. If that kind of inner strength seems unappealing, perhaps the problem isn’t with the philosophy, but with the weakness it reveals in the one rejecting it.
Stop hiding behind the words of other thinkers every time you write too. Stringing together quotes from more original minds isn’t analysis, it’s camouflage. Quoting Evola, Camus, Lao Tzu, and Eliade in rapid succession doesn’t make your point deeper; it just makes it harder to find. At some point, you have to step out from behind the curtain and say something of your own; clearly and coherently, without leaning on borrowed authority like a crutch.
Since you seem oddly comfortable aligning yourself with neo-fascist and Nazi-adjacent thinkers, allow me to contrast that by sharing one of my favorite passages on Marcus Aurelius, a man who embodied true philosophical integrity:
"Lord Acton, the great English Philosopher and Historian, once said: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that's generally true. The difficulty with that generalization is Marcus Aurelius. Marcus Aurelius was an absolute ruler who, as the ruler of the Roman Empire, had absolute power over the life and death of everyone in the known world. Almost all of the Roman emperors lived scandalous lives and disgraced themselves. They were much more concerned with indulging their sensual appetites, satisfying their passions, and flying into rages. Marcus Aurelius is the standing exception and the exception to Lord Acton's generalization. In Marcus' case, power didn't corrupt. Absolute power did not corrupt absolutely. Instead, absolute power allowed us to see what the man underneath the body is really like. It allowed us to find out what Marcus Aurelius' soul was like. Imagine a man for whom all the restraints of law, custom, and political order are taken away. He could have whatever he wanted. If a man behaves well under those circumstances, you know something about the soul underneath because no external constraints make him act as he does. Marcus Aurelius is the one example of an absolute ruler who behaved himself in such a way as to not disgrace himself." - Dr. Michael Sugrue
I disagree. Economy of Truth contains plenty of compelling ideas. Your 2024 book salvages some of the best ones, so unless that also “lacks substance,” it’s hard to take your disavowal seriously.
I saw your footnotes, which is the only reason I’m not calling you an Evola apologist. I can see you’re engaging with his ideas rather than endorsing them wholesale. But let’s be honest: the footnote soft-pedals Evola’s ties to fascism (before you updated it) and Nazism, especially his connections with Hitler. That’s not a minor omission, it’s a whitewash.
And let’s not pretend idleness, procrastination, and vague “play” are unexamined virtues. Call it “intellectual vagabonding” if you like, but most of what passes for that today is just distraction with a better press agent.
"Be careful, however, lest this reading of many authors and books of every sort may tend to make you discursive and unsteady. You must linger among a limited number of master-thinkers, and digest their works, if you would derive ideas which shall win firm hold in your mind. Everywhere means nowhere."
Don’t mistake your preference for a philosophical critique. What you’re really arguing for isn’t a better philosophy, it’s less friction against your habits.
I don’t enjoy how you’re twisting and playing with my words and claiming I wrote things I didn’t. I’m a fan of Stoicism and I emphasized that very clearly in my essay. I’m way more critical to Evola than I am to Stoics, as it should be. I quote: “Stoicism undeniably provides a marvelous moral constitution” & “Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus are some of the greatest philosophers of all time. There’s little room for debate!” & “I despise fascism; but to genuinely despise it and be able to fight against it, you first need to understand where it’s coming from and—most importantly—why it functions like a moral vacuum in modern society.” Evola lived in a very different period compared to ours. I’ve already scrutinized him. Yet what you’re doing is called REVERSE BIGOTEERING: don’t judge people THEN based on today’s context. It’s easy not to be a fascist if you haven’t experienced two world wars. For someone who claims to love Stoicism so much, you’re very emotional about this subject and your arguments aren’t kind, rational, and written in good faith.
Yes to this! Stoicism can kill the "rhizomatic" nature of human passion. Discipline is valuable, but its true place is after you've zoomed out, reflected, and chosen a direction. That’s when you zoom in, and discipline becomes essential for execution. But if discipline causes you to dismiss anything that seems "useless," you risk losing the very curiosity and spontaneity needed to zoom out and discover what’s next.
Totally agree…I’ve barely noticed the Stoics talking about curiosity from a practical perspective, let alone in a divine sense.
I wonder why so many young men have taken to stoicism in modern society? I rarely go a full conversation with my peers without a Marcus Aurelius (or Ryan Holiday lol) reference…
I’m curious why it’s been such a cult hit / what is it about this framework that’s resonating so resoundingly right now?
Is it reflective of modern masculine ideals? to be unwavering, rational, unaffected? Serving as a convenient defense against life’s inevitable drama ?
I write a lot about meaning-making, belief, myth—and Stoicism comes up again and again as a kind of “solve” for the god-shaped hole in so many of my male peers. There’s something sterile about it. It’s clean & tidy but falls flat.
I find your question more interesting than the (possible) answer! Maybe it’s a reflection of our society to some extent. I find most young people increasingly boring and sterile. They’re irreligious and lack discipline. Stoicism creates an attractive framework that helps you fix certain symptoms.
Haha this made me laugh. Thank you for your honesty & agreed!
I will admit I was sitting on the edge of the man bandwagon (man-wagon?) for a little while. I read the books, followed the posts, and journaled through it. But, then I became bored of it.
There is a time and place for the philosophy—to be like a statue in a sea of chaos. But at the same time, there’s a natural place to be alive and present in that chaos. That’s where stoicism falls short.
From one angle, I believe there may be an invisible thread to a productive-seeking culture. Not necessarily productive with things but productive with thought.
“Productive with thought” yes yes yes
Stoicism says a lot of the same things other wisdom traditions teach, just stripped of all the esoterica, symbolism, shamanism, magic, etc. which makes it far more accessible to people growing up in modern atheistic culture. Life is far too cushy/convenient , but men thrive when they have something to struggle for. Men are desperate to be told to sack up and sacrifice for the greater good, but right now it isn’t super clear what’s worth fighting for and what the “greater good” is. Without this, men become spiritually idle. Surface level stoicism is extremely accessible, digestible, memeable, it only requires first-order thinking to feel like you’re enacting a profound life philosophy. It invigorates men by reminding them they must suffer for a cause. It scratches that ancient itch by replacing religious work with modern work. It’s rite of passage without going into the mountains with the elders and doing peyote. Stoicism frames driving your air conditioned car from your air conditioned house to your air conditioned office as noble suffering if you do it with the right mentality. Not necessarily wrong, but extremely attractive given the alternatives in modern culture.
“it only requires first-order thinking to feel like you’re enacting a profound life philosophy” haha yes. Back to the God-shaped hole. Do you think stoicism is sufficient in accomplishing this cause for most young men or is incomplete as an overarching philosophy and eventually falls short?
When it comes to any system of thought that has survived the centuries, if you fully buy in and commit to it in earnest and have the right teachers and community, then yes absolutely it is a great pursuit for young men (or anyone really). But if done with any less gumption than that, you’ll wind up blind to all the hole-shaped gods out there trying to help you.
hole-shaped gods 🤝
I have to admit, initially I felt a bit of a sting. But really, philosophies should be rather seen as context-dependent. None of them have all the answers, and we should use them as they suit us.
It’s perfectly fine to use Stoicism in times of hardship, but in abundance we might turn to the Epicureans. Perhaps to the Existentialists to find meaning (or rid ourselves from the need of one). So on and so forth.
exactly my message 🙏🏻
I wish you wrote more about the “aristocratic” angle you mention!
I get you, but you don't get it.
And it is no wonder and no offense.
Marcus Aurelius many dozens of times offers a direct pathway to enlightenment, in no way falling short of other transcendent teachings like buddhism, daosim, christianity et.al.
But if such a teaching were so easy to convey and grasp, we would not have this discussion. And you would not favor distracting mysticism over something "boring" like living life in its purest form, not driven animalistically, but instead aiming for the highest - as tought by the stoics.
Marcus Aurelius makes references to gods every now and then but from a practical perspective; there’s nothing profoundly mystical or religious about his teachings. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t critical or amazing. In our profane world, Stoicism may come across as religious enough.
Nah, that's not what I mean. He teaches alignment with the self and existence. That is the essence of transcendence from the human vantage point. That is much more profound than some anthropomorphized or other imagery of the divine.
I mean, what else should one bind back to (=reliquere) if not to that which is (=yhvh)?
There’s nothing sacred, divine, or religious about that & you’re merely reinforcing my view. I’m glad you enjoy Stoicism (really) and you don’t have to agree with me.
Then maybe your understanding of the sacred, divine and religious might be due to be questioned, otherwise you stand in your own way of experiencing something great because of limited mental constructs.
I'm not a StoBro but rather eclectic and have studied it first hand, not just via reading others' descriptions, no, via experience, observation and contemplation. All the great wisdom teachers corroborated what I found, so there might be something to it.
I’m a huge admirer of Economy of Truth, it's exceptional. Which is exactly why this piece feels like such a letdown.
This article reads as a confused pastiche of borrowed insights. This entire "critique" says nothing of substance. Like Nietzsche at his most reckless, you’re eager to tear down without offering anything coherent in return. Stoicism presents a practical, time-tested toolkit for facing adversity, cultivating self-mastery, and living with integrity. What does your alternative offer aside from recycled provocations and borrowed insights from fascist mystics?
To lean so heavily on Julius Evola, a thinker steeped in esoteric fascism and anti-modernist mythologizing, is to undermine the argument before it begins. Citing him without critical distance casts immediate doubt on your intellectual seriousness. Invoking a man who openly flirted with Nazism (and wrote for SS publications - the paramilitary organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party) in order to denounce a philosopher-king like Marcus Aurelius is not only intellectually suspect but a complete inversion of wisdom and integrity. If the true test of a philosophy is in how it’s lived, then it’s clear which tradition stands the test of time.
I know you’ve read the Stoics closely, which makes it all the more baffling that this piece reads like a teenager trying to be edgy on Instagram. Stoicism is not a retreat from transcendence, but a path to it through reason and virtue. Its emphasis on rational self-mastery is not a denial of heroism, it's heroism stripped of the theatrical ego. The Stoic doesn’t roar into the void with a sword raised high, demanding to feel something; he steps into life’s chaos with an unshakable calm.
The accusation that Stoicism is “boring,” “sterile,” and “soulless” says more about the emotional fragility of the critic than the philosophy being criticized. Must a worldview constantly entertain you, intoxicate you, flatter your sense of mysticism to be valid? Philosophy isn’t Riesling and rapture, but hard-won clarity. It’s the strength to say no to whims and illusions when every neuron inside you screams otherwise.
And the caricature of Stoicism as life-denying? Marcus Aurelius, a man who ruled an empire and buried multiple children, found space to speak of nature’s beauty, the miracle of dawn, and the nobility of human brotherhood (read Meditations 3.2). Epictetus, born a slave, taught the liberation of the soul through reason and dignity. Seneca, immersed in the politics and dangers of imperial Rome, wrote of generosity, friendship, and joy.
Dismissing Stoicism as “life-denying” because it doesn’t cheerlead your desire to get drunk with friends isn’t a philosophical insight, it’s just rationalized indulgence. It’s not that Stoicism suppresses joy; it’s that it refuses to let pleasure become your master. It tells you to taste joy without being devoured by it. If that kind of inner strength seems unappealing, perhaps the problem isn’t with the philosophy, but with the weakness it reveals in the one rejecting it.
Stop hiding behind the words of other thinkers every time you write too. Stringing together quotes from more original minds isn’t analysis, it’s camouflage. Quoting Evola, Camus, Lao Tzu, and Eliade in rapid succession doesn’t make your point deeper; it just makes it harder to find. At some point, you have to step out from behind the curtain and say something of your own; clearly and coherently, without leaning on borrowed authority like a crutch.
Since you seem oddly comfortable aligning yourself with neo-fascist and Nazi-adjacent thinkers, allow me to contrast that by sharing one of my favorite passages on Marcus Aurelius, a man who embodied true philosophical integrity:
"Lord Acton, the great English Philosopher and Historian, once said: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that's generally true. The difficulty with that generalization is Marcus Aurelius. Marcus Aurelius was an absolute ruler who, as the ruler of the Roman Empire, had absolute power over the life and death of everyone in the known world. Almost all of the Roman emperors lived scandalous lives and disgraced themselves. They were much more concerned with indulging their sensual appetites, satisfying their passions, and flying into rages. Marcus Aurelius is the standing exception and the exception to Lord Acton's generalization. In Marcus' case, power didn't corrupt. Absolute power did not corrupt absolutely. Instead, absolute power allowed us to see what the man underneath the body is really like. It allowed us to find out what Marcus Aurelius' soul was like. Imagine a man for whom all the restraints of law, custom, and political order are taken away. He could have whatever he wanted. If a man behaves well under those circumstances, you know something about the soul underneath because no external constraints make him act as he does. Marcus Aurelius is the one example of an absolute ruler who behaved himself in such a way as to not disgrace himself." - Dr. Michael Sugrue
Funny enough, Economy of Truth is something I wrote in my early 20s and truly has no substance; read my footnotes to grasp my take on Evola
I disagree. Economy of Truth contains plenty of compelling ideas. Your 2024 book salvages some of the best ones, so unless that also “lacks substance,” it’s hard to take your disavowal seriously.
I saw your footnotes, which is the only reason I’m not calling you an Evola apologist. I can see you’re engaging with his ideas rather than endorsing them wholesale. But let’s be honest: the footnote soft-pedals Evola’s ties to fascism (before you updated it) and Nazism, especially his connections with Hitler. That’s not a minor omission, it’s a whitewash.
And let’s not pretend idleness, procrastination, and vague “play” are unexamined virtues. Call it “intellectual vagabonding” if you like, but most of what passes for that today is just distraction with a better press agent.
"Be careful, however, lest this reading of many authors and books of every sort may tend to make you discursive and unsteady. You must linger among a limited number of master-thinkers, and digest their works, if you would derive ideas which shall win firm hold in your mind. Everywhere means nowhere."
Don’t mistake your preference for a philosophical critique. What you’re really arguing for isn’t a better philosophy, it’s less friction against your habits.
I don’t enjoy how you’re twisting and playing with my words and claiming I wrote things I didn’t. I’m a fan of Stoicism and I emphasized that very clearly in my essay. I’m way more critical to Evola than I am to Stoics, as it should be. I quote: “Stoicism undeniably provides a marvelous moral constitution” & “Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus are some of the greatest philosophers of all time. There’s little room for debate!” & “I despise fascism; but to genuinely despise it and be able to fight against it, you first need to understand where it’s coming from and—most importantly—why it functions like a moral vacuum in modern society.” Evola lived in a very different period compared to ours. I’ve already scrutinized him. Yet what you’re doing is called REVERSE BIGOTEERING: don’t judge people THEN based on today’s context. It’s easy not to be a fascist if you haven’t experienced two world wars. For someone who claims to love Stoicism so much, you’re very emotional about this subject and your arguments aren’t kind, rational, and written in good faith.