Also, sometimes people are actually victims of s something, even if small injustice. And from experience, trying to act like it is no issue never solves it.
Also, sometimes people are actually victims of s something, even if small injustice. And from experience, trying to act like it is no issue never solves it.
Being stoic is not giving up on the world altogether; it is understanding what you can control. You can control how you handle a situation if you do not view yourself as a victim. The moment you start thinking that you are a victim, you lose control of the situation.
Some people truly ARE VICTIMS - but it is rare that thinking that you have some power over the situation and there is something that you can do about it is a bad idea.
Something like this: https://butwhatfor.substack.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-facing-ad...
Thinking you are victim in those situations is using right words instead of building taboos.
The moment you admit yourself you was victim of something, you can act on it. If you don't, you end up like one of those victims that will ratilnalize their abusers behavior. There is no shortage of women who instead of admitting they are victims and admitting partner is abuser, just don't want to be those girls. And they will excuse and rationalize and keep appearances.
The idea that I was trying to get at is that you can accept that you were a victim and do something about it. We are saying the same thing - but you are saying it better, so sorry for the confusion.
Additionally, some people are victims of situations - so say, poor family background, a minority race that is looked down upon by the majority, having a chronic illness - and you can accept that is true but mentally decide that you are going to take steps to make it better, however you can.
You don't want to land in "I have no control and am a victim" when you are being victimized. That is what you are getting at too.
As a society, we don't want to create a society where anyone being abused feels like continuing to be abused is actually better than looking for help / making a change. That's not the victim's fault... that's someone choosing what they see as the best of two not attractive outcomes.
“Epictetus was telling his students there can be no such thing as being the ‘victim’ of another. You can only be ‘victim’ of yourself.”
So no, I’m not victim blaming, I’m reading the article on what it means to be stoic. Obviously you disagree with the premise. Or... does being a stoic mean you support victim blaming?
They easily turn into enablers. They end up tempted to claim injustice does not happen further gasslighting victims trying to fight.
Speaking as someone who used to think stoic attitude is superior.
Stoicism does not advocate for passivity at all. Just look at Marcus Aurelius, one of Rome’s greatest emperors.
As for what after, it would be complicated to answer. I am changing attitudes toward more activity, more willing to show up anger or other emotions when not showing them is the passivity road.
Stoicism doesn't advocate for you to be less active. Again, you're misunderstanding the base definition of stoicism. This is much of the same argument I hear about buddhism over here where people somehow think it's a religion of nihilism.
Be a victim or more angry or whatever you like, but it's not going to provide solace, meaningful help or generally better outcomes to you in any situation, plus other people will respond less effectively to it.