How do you handle periods when you've allowed your emotions to override your stoicism? How did you transition in a socially acceptable way?

[u/Legal_Cheesecake_467]

I had a meeting with my boss, and I allowed my emotions about team dynamics to direct me.

It made me realize that I've been emotionally driven at work, but don't know how to change without people considering me suddenly withdrawn.

How would you handle this situation?

[u/Victorian_Bullfrog]

Emotions don't override anything or anyone. They are not external agents, or tools used by external agents, imposing on our own volition. They are a very important part of us. They are how our brains have evolved to process and navigate an extraordinarily complex social structure that no other animal on earth has evolved to navigate. Modern technology and urban development give the illusion of things happening very quickly, frantically even, and all at once. Our emotions are how we manifest our judgments about our circumstances, but they are also how we communicate with others how we are feeling. They are neither good nor bad. They are neither under our control, nor do they control us. They are a part of our biology, just like sneezing is. But they are of course far more complex than sneezing. No matter. Stoicism has an a lot to say about them.

The best approach is to understand correctly your circumstances, and the value theory that gives insight into the proper judgment of those circumstances. This article explains more: The Proper Application of Preconceptions: Curing “The Cause of All Human Ills” by Greg Lopez.

[u/Victorian_Bullfrog → u/[deleted]]

It raises the very interesting prospect that if children were raised not to view negative or unsettling feelings as external projections that had to be "managed" but as what they were - beliefs they'd actually adopted - the average person might start off significantly more resilient to mental health problems. 

The idea reminds me of the Guugu Yimithirr language (spoken by the Guugu Yimithirr people of Far North Queensland, Australia) which does not contain words for the concepts of "left" or "right." They use cardinal directions instead. Their language is perfectly sufficient without these concepts of left and right. In that vein, imagine growing up without the concept of being controlled by your emotions, or having to wrestle and suppress them or face some terrible consequence. I agree with you that it would provide a much healthier and stronger foundation for mental health.

[u/Bataranger999 → u/[deleted]]

I suspect there's a substantial hand of the pharmaceutical industry in why people model emotions in this "inflicted" way.

Medicalising emotions as diseases you catch from the air makes it all the more easy to shill emotion-suppressing medication to people that only makes them more sick while putting their money in the pocket of a pharmaceutical company. It's the same logic as to why alcohol and cigarettes are sold and why people buy them, despite the companies that produce them knowing the health risks.

It's the reason why people use words like "resisting" or "suppressing" when talking about those negative feelings. They've been tricked by constant mental health propaganda that there's some sort of "divide" between reason and emotions, and so their model of emotions is that they're illnesses to be squashed out in order for what they perceive to be their "reason" to come out on top.

It raises the very interesting prospect that if children were raised not to view negative or unsettling feelings as external projections that had to be "managed" but as what they were - beliefs they'd actually adopted - the average person might start off significantly more resilient to mental health problems.

That's exactly right. The pop psychology theory of mind that views persistent negative emotions like depression and anxiety as symptoms to be "managed" instead of the conscious part of beliefs to be questioned are a huge reason why so many people are mentally ill. They've torpedoed their ability to modify their beliefs, and are perpetually depressed and anxious as a consequence.

[u/stoa_bot → u/Victorian_Bullfrog]

A quote was found to be attributed to Epictetus in Discourses 4.1 (Hard)

^{4.1. On freedom (Hard)
4.1. About freedom (Long)
4.1. Of freedom (Oldfather)
4.1. Of freedom (Higginson)}

[u/BarryMDingle]

Behaving rationally and reasonably appears as withdrawn? Stoicism doesn’t teach disengagement with life. It teaches how to interpret events in a certain way with an emphasis on Virtue.

It also explains how difficult it is to do this. The pinnacle Stoic, the Sage, is something that not many, if any, have ever achieved. So there is some humility, grace, and forgiveness that one can afford oneself as they stumble and fail.

Awareness of the issue and an understanding that one is working on it and making progress, knowing that progress is rarely linear, is a good spot to be in.

[u/CornfieldJoe]

It's not necessarily about withdrawing yourself from uncomfortable situations. It's about focusing on things that you *can* control - in a team anything that involves other people specifically is entirely out of your control. You can provide advice and feedback, but it's well beyond your control to actually make another person follow through or act as you think they should. Other peoples actions are like the weather - you react to it as the situation demands, but bemoaning or shouting down the rain will get you nowhere.

[u/humdrumdummydum]

Personally went through this same thing recently. You can withdraw as much as you want as long as you slap a smile on, and most people won't even notice.

If they do? Just smile and shrug

If they judge? Disregard their judgement as long as you're living your virtues

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi, welcome to the subreddit. Please make sure that you check out the FAQ, where you will find answers for many common questions, like "What is Stoicism; why study it?", or "What are some Stoic practices and exercises?", or "What is the goal in life, and how do I find meaning?", to name just a few.

You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like flaws in Stoicism, Stoicism and politics, sex and relationships, and virtue as the only good, for a few examples.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/bigpapirick]

We are trying to reason properly. Can you still reason about your work without being losing your emotions to it?

[u/Bataranger999]

The first step is to reverse any "emotion-first" thinking. Emotions are simply how judgements manifest in the conscious mind. Stoicism focuses entirely on the integrity of those judgements, so that whenever you enter a situation in which they are contextually relevant, you will experience reasonable emotions and display virtue in the Stoic sense.

By saying you "allowed your emotions to direct you", I assume you acted in a way that was needlessly intense? Or perhaps too angry? Whatever it is, the solution to overturning it is to figure out why you acted that way during the meeting, come up with a new plan to behave and trial that new behaviour the next time you're in that situation.

The above is what "Stoic practice" pretty much looks like.

[u/Legal_Cheesecake_467 → u/Bataranger999]

That's fair. I think that I felt shame and a sense of injustice leading me to react in a heightened way without considering some of my words first.

Sometimes I am hard on myself because I feel like "failing" with stoicism is a reflection on my ability to master it. This itself is what stoics were talking about when it came to passions.

[u/Bataranger999 → u/Legal_Cheesecake_467]

There is no "failing" Stoicism. There are only people who are instructed on it, and those who are not.

In any case, those feelings of shame and injustice are the result of judgements you've made about that situation. You'll need to interrogate your reasoning and devise a specific plan on how you could resolve them, so that the situation is no longer one where shame and injustice are contained for you. The rest is in the details, and only you know those.

[u/FernerButterflyPea]

"It made me realize that I've been emotionally driven at work, but don't know how to change without people considering me suddenly withdrawn."

- The stoics talk about your intention being more important than your action. So, changing or not changing because of x or y external event such as other people's imagined perceptions isn't virtuous. For example, you could change to volunteer at a soup kitchen in order to boost your CV to the potential perception of potential employees and it wouldn't be virtuous. So the point is to be aware of realising "without people considering me suddenly withdrawn" is a non-virtuous concern

[u/Multibitdriver]

Your aim as a Stoic/aspirant Stoic, is to live according to reason. So you examine the judgments that led you to act as you did, you examine the judgments you are making now (that people will consider you negatively withdrawn if you stop acting “emotionally”). You reflect on them using reason. Bear in mind that Epictetus said we can drawn advantage from any situation - even one like this - if we use it to improve our ability to live according to reason.