What’s the difference between stoicism and Stoicism?

Why it’s important to distinguish clearly between stoicism (small s) and Stoicism (capital S).

In my experience as moderator of a large discussion forum on the topic of Stoic philosophy, some of the most common misconceptions are due simply to people confusing stoicism (lower case s) with Stoicism (upper case S).  When I’ve posted the question “What’s the difference between stoicism and Stoicism?” the most common response is some variation of: One is capitalized and the other isn’t. 

This isn’t a trivial distinction, though, because the two words have come to mean quite different things.  As Socrates pointed out, we have to agree on the correct definition of key terms to have a rational conversation about most subjects.  Likewise, when people conflate stoicism with Stoicism, from what I’ve seen over the years, they inevitably end up confusing themselves and other people.

For example, like most dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary distinguishes between two separate definitions:

1 The endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.

2 An ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Definition 1 is actually lower-case stoicism.  It’s the modern-day concept of a personality trait or coping style, which people typically equate with having a “stiff upper lip” or the advice to “suck it up”, and so on.  When used in this way it’s never written capitalized.

Definition 2 is upper-case Stoicism, an entire school of Greek philosophy that subsequently flourished throughout the Roman empire, and lasted for about five centuries.  It’s this form of Stoicism, Stoic philosophy, that we’re talking about when we talk about Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, and the use of Stoicism for modern-day personal development, etc.  When used in this way, it’s virtually never written without capitalization – except by people who are confusing the two concepts.  As Frank McLynn puts it in his biography of Marcus Aurelius: “ancient Stoicism was not modern stoicism (with a small ‘s’)” and again “It will be appreciated immediately that the modern word ‘stoical’ is very different in connotation from the Stoicism of the ancients.”

NB: I’ve noticed several people remark that stoic is an adjective and Stoic a noun.  That’s incorrect.  According to the OED and most other English dictionaries both words can serve either as an adjective or noun.

Of course, the notion of a stoic personality trait is historically derived from the impression people have of ancient Stoic philosophy.  However, it’s only very loosely related and in some important ways actually runs quite contrary to what Stoicism teaches, as we’ll see.  They’re definitely not the same thing, nor is stoicism necessarily a part of Stoicism.  Failing to distinguish between them has therefore caused a lot of confusion about Stoic philosophy to spread on the Internet.

This mix up between stoicism and Stoicism isn’t unusual.  Many Greek philosophical terms have been caricatured over the centuries and so we normally distinguish between the modern term and original meaning by capitalizing the latter, because it’s a proper noun.  For example,

  • epicurean is not the same as Epicurean
    The former usually implies a gourmand or someone who enjoys fine eating whereas the latter is a whole school of philosophy named after its founder Epicurus, who actually recommended fairly austere habits of eating and drinking
  • a cynic is not the same as a Cynic
    The former usually implies someone who is distrustful of others and assumes the worst of them whereas the latter is a school of Greek philosophy that teaches us, among other things, to be indifferent to the opinions and actions of other people
  • a skeptic is not the same as a Skeptic
    The former often denotes someone who doubts the truth of accepted opinions whereas the latter was an ancient philosophical movement that advised its followers to suspend judgement one way or the other
  • an academic is not the same as an Academic
    The former usually means someone who is engaged in scholarly pursuits whereas the latter denotes the school of philosophy founded at Athens by Plato
  • A sophist is different from a Sophist
    The former means someone who reasons fallaciously or manipulatively whereas the latter was a professional teacher of rhetoric and philosophy.
  • And so on…

Some of these words have come to mean a vague trait that can at times be used in ways that relate accurately to at least some aspect the philosophy from which they’re derived.  For instance, the ancient Academics were typically known for being quite academic, in the modern sense, or scholarly, but there’s much more to the philosophy than that.  Likewise, often the Sophists were accused by philosophers of specious reasoning or what we now call sophistry but a few were held in high regard such as Prodicus, a good friend of Socrates.  Some of these other terms, particularly epicurean are very misleading caricatures of what the philosophy actually taught, and often be used in ways that have the potential to become very misleading if we’re trying to talk about the philosophy.  So it’s actually extremely important to capitalize and distinguish between the common noun, epicureanism, and the proper noun Epicureanism.  But people also have to understand the distinction.

When it comes to mixing up the words Stoicism and stoicism, there are several problems.  Firstly, people often just equate it with mental toughness and so it’s not unusual for them to argue that people they revere as tough or self-disciplined are Stoic role models.  The UFC fighter Conor McGregor is a typical example people choose but there are many similar conversations on the Internet.  Now, it’s fair to say he may be someone tough and self-disciplined but he’s obviously very far removed from figures like Socrates and Marcus Aurelius, who were held up as examples of Stoicism in the ancient world.  He’s probably a better embodiment of stoicism than Stoicism.  He arguably doesn’t embody the Stoic virtues of wisdom and justice, or natural affection toward others and ethical cosmopolitanism, in quite the way that Marcus Aurelius does.  But there are nevertheless a surprising number of people on the Internet who confuse the two things in this way: tough guys as Stoics – something the ancient Stoics would have been completely puzzled by as they viewed competitive sports as vanity and a distraction from the lifelong pursuit of moral excellence and philosophical wisdom.  (The Stoics believed in moderate exercise, engaged in for the health of the body and the development of character, but it shouldn’t normally be our main pursuit in life and the competitive aspect would appear petty and absurd to them.)

The word stoic also implies to many people some kind of suppression or concealment of unpleasant feelings: the stiff upper-lip notion.  Boys don’t cry, etc.  That’s particularly problematic, though, because it’s well-known from large volumes of modern research in the field of psychotherapy that the suppression of negative feelings can be quite harmful.  I don’t have space here to elaborate in great detail on the reasons for that, unfortunately, but it’s taken for granted by most modern evidence-based psychotherapists that emotional suppression is typically unhealthy.  To touch on just one small aspect: the more strongly people judge unpleasant thoughts and feelings to be bad, harmful, or undesirable the more attention they will automatically allocate to them.

In extreme cases, people can end up torturing themselves with doomed attempts to suppress distressing automatic thoughts, as in some forms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).  Likewise, people who suffer from Social Anxiety Disorder typically view symptoms of their nerves or anxiety as embarrassing and humiliating and strongly desire to conceal shaking hands or suppress their negative thoughts and anxious feelings while speaking to others.  However, that usually backfires by increasing their self-consciousness, making their behaviour feel more stilted and awkward, and amplifying their anxious feelings.  By contrast, as the Stoics knew, people who don’t care if they look or feel anxious, and accept their own nervous sensations with indifference, are likely to fare much better.

People often think that being stoic means trying to suppress natural feelings of sadness, anger, or anxiety, and to hide the fact they’re feeling tearful or shaking, etc.   That typically means they’re judging these things as “bad” or harmful in some sense – judging the feelings negatively.  The ancient Stoics, by contrast, make a clear distinction between automatic feelings (proto-passions, propatheiai) and full-blown unhealthy passions, which are under voluntary control.  The Stoics advise us to accept our initial automatic feelings with total indifference, as being natural and inevitable, and to be indifferent toward other people seeing evidence of them.  The clearest illustration of this comes from a famous anecdote in Aulus Gellius where he describes a Stoic’s anxiety during a dangerous storm at sea.  Stoics do cry, and shake, and grow pale.  They don’t view this negatively or care much about it.  What they do care about is what happens next: how they voluntarily respond to these feelings.

When people talk about being stoic they often mean trying to suppress automatic emotional reactions, therefore, which they view as negative.  A Stoic philosopher would view the same feelings with detached indifference, though, as neither good nor bad – he would accept them as natural and inevitable, and beyond his direct control.  The word stoic is often just used as a synonym for unemotional and that’s definitely not what Stoicism teaches –the ancient Stoics repeatedly emphasized that their ideal was not to be like statues or men with hearts of stone.  Rather than trying to suppress feelings or sensations, which would entail judging an indifferent to be bad or harmful, the Stoics tried to modify the underlying value judgement.  That approach happens to be more in accord with the way modern cognitive therapists approach emotional change and it’s very different from what people mean by “keeping a stiff upper lip”.

Another observation that seems to help is this…  When people conflate stoicism and Stoicism they’re typically ignoring the entire social dimension of Stoic Ethics.  When they say that someone is a stoic they don’t usually have in mind that they believe justice, fairness, and kindness are cardinal virtues in life, that we should cultivate the bond of natural affection that exists between us and other human beings, and treat them as equals, as part of a brotherhood of man, viewing all people as our fellow-citizens in a single cosmic city.  (The word cosmopolitan is another whose meaning has been corrupted over the centuries – it means a citizen of the whole cosmos who treats others as her fellow-citizens.)  I’ve found that framing the question like this often serves to highlight the difference: “What’s the difference between being stoic about the welfare of others and being Stoic about the welfare of others?”

There’s also the matter of healthy emotions in Stoicism.  For many people stoicism seems to have some connotation of being unemotional or at least it sounds a little odd to their ears to say that stoics could be particularly cheerful and affectionate.  However, the Stoic philosophers had a whole system of classification for healthy emotions: their goal was not simply to be emotionally empty but rather to experience healthy feelings of joy, cheerfulness, affection, and so on, which naturally supervene upon virtue.  I notice that when people conflate stoicism and Stoicism they find this baffling and sometimes even joke about how Stoics having feelings is a sort of contradiction in terms, something inconceivable to them.  However, healthy emotions play a central role in Stoicism and, for instance, Marcus Aurelius refers very frequently to feelings of joy or cheerfulness and affection toward others.

People sometimes continue to equate stoicism and Stoicism even after reading popular Stoic texts like The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.  That’s actually quite puzzling and can only come from a very superficial reading.  Marcus actually talks about the social virtues on virtually every page of The Meditations, it’s his main preoccupation, unsurprisingly, as emperor of Rome.  Nevertheless, people sometimes still manage to come away with the total misconception that being a Stoic meant being tough-minded and totally uncaring about others.  I find that when that’s pointed out and they go back and take a second look at the text, though, the depth of their misunderstanding usually becomes very apparent to them.  It should be clear as crystal that Marcus believes that to be a Stoic we must aim to live in harmony with others.   To turn our back on them or rage against them is viewed by him as a cancerous form of alienation, completely at odds with Stoic Ethics.   The Stoic wise man is kind to others and wants to help them.  We know Marcus wanted his reign to be remembered above all as exemplifying the virtue of Beneficence toward others. People seldom have that aspiration in mind when they talk about being Stoic, and confuse it with being stoic, though.

22 replies on “What’s the difference between stoicism and Stoicism?”

Well done. I have to wonder if the word “indifferent” also trips up some people. They might interpret it to mean that Stoics are numb to their emotions rather than understanding that indifferent means regarding the emotions as neither good nor bad.

[…] One of the first things we need to knock out of the way is the difference between Stoicism (Proper Noun) and stoicism (Common Noun). The former is the ancient Greco-Roman philosophy that we are discussing here, while the later is a personality trait that is characterized by a suppression or concealment of emotions – the notion of a stiff upper-lip. For a more detailed explanation between the subtle yet enormous difference between these two words, please see this excellent article written by scholar and modern Stoic authority Donald Robertson. […]

[…] One of the first things we need to knock out of the way is the difference between Stoicism (Proper Noun) and stoicism (Common Noun). The former is the ancient Greco-Roman philosophy that we are discussing here, while the later is a personality trait that is characterized by a suppression or concealment of emotions – the notion of a stiff upper-lip. For a more detailed explanation between the subtle yet enormous difference between these two words, please see this excellent article written by scholar and modern Stoic authority Donald Robertson. […]

[…] One of the first things we need to knock out-of-the-way is the difference between Stoicism (Proper Noun) and stoicism (Common Noun). The former is the ancient Greco-Roman philosophy that we are discussing here, while the later is a personality trait that is characterized by a suppression or concealment of emotions – the notion of a stiff upper-lip. For a more detailed explanation between the subtle yet enormous difference between these two words, please see this excellent article written by scholar and modern Stoic authority Donald Robertson. […]

VERY interesting – Thank you. I’m new to Stoicism – this article has helped me a lot especially with something that happened recently.

It’s a bit frustrating, isn’t it(?), how hard we work to simply come back to clarity that was on offer several thousand years ago. How the layering of meaning (often ill-intentioned) over the millennia has obscured what the Greeks (etc) worked so hard to make clear. Your opening point regarding Socrates statement on the necessity of agreeing on definitions – of course essential, so often ignored, or worse. Appreciate your site and wisdom!

First of all: Socrates was not a Stoic.

Besides it is a common misconception that a modern Stoic has to follow the writings of M. Aurelius and Epictetus literally in order to deserve the capital S. This would be an argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) Stoicism is a philosophy, not a religious revelation.
Along with our advance in science philosophy necessarily has to advance too. Stoic physics in the time of Zeno and Chrysippus for example was based on the 5 elements (earth, water, air, fire, aether), but today we have a better understanding of nature. Therefore the theoretical background of Stoic philosophy has to change too.
Even Roman Stoicism, which today is almost exclusively quoted as example of Stoic philosophy, was very different from Greek Stoicism, which is today mostly ignored. In the same way modern Stoicism needs to be different.
What always remains the same however is Stoic practice, what the article calls “stoic” with lower case s. This attitude of apatheia (the stiff upper lip) is what remained the same throughout the centuries. It is the true core of Stoicism, because this has always been the trademark of Stoicism. Not obsolete beliefs in the pneuma, the aether, and determinism is what Stoicism is about, but the rejection of passions and emotions and the dedication to the logos, which is reason and logic.
This is what Stoic virtue (arete) is about. This is in no way different from the meaning of lower case stoic only that it also includes the mathematical discipline of logic, which remains valid since the time of Chrysippus.
Stoicism is not psychotherapy or a feel-good New Age movement where anything goes, as some self-declared modern “Stoics” want us to believe. Stoicism is strict self-discipline and effort to the degree of asceticism, but it is also very rewarding for those who master it and reach ataraxia. Because after all philosophy should be the path to eudaimonia.

Thanks for your comment. You’re certainly right that Socrates was not a Stoic. That’s not something that’s suggested anywhere in the article, though. I’d assume nobody believes that to be true. If you got the impression that possibly Socrates was a Stoic that’s definitely mistaken. The Stoics were, however, considered to be philosophers in the Socratic tradition, and even described as a Socratic sect. They view Socrates as one of their most important influences. Epictetus, for example, refers to Socrates more often than any other individual and advises his students to emulate him. However, Socrates died generations before Stoicism even existed so most certainly was not himself a Stoic.

I agree that a modern Stoic would not have to follow the writings of Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus literally to deserve the title. I doubt if I’ve ever met anyone who attempted to do so, though, at least in their entirety. Obviously, few people (nobody?) today accepts the whole of Stoic physics.

The reason people don’t refer as much to Greek Stoicism is that only fragments survive, and their reliability is sometimes in question. We have far more complete material from the Roman Stoics. There’s actually some disagreement, therefore, among scholars as to how much Stoicism changed over the centuries.

What I disagree with in your comment is the way you seem to equate apatheia with a “stiff upper lip” attitude. That’s definitely just a misconception. I don’t think there’s a single modern scholar who would really claim that they are synonymous. Apatheia means freedom from, or overcoming the passions, but not propatheiai (proto-passions), which the Stoics accepted were involuntary. As the article attempted to explain, people today often use “stoicism” to mean concealing or suppressing even those sort of feelings which the Stoics class as indifferent, which is part (but not all) the reason why it’s crucial to clearly distinguish apatheia from “stiff upper lip” (lower case) stoicism.

You’re certainly also in error when you say that Stoicism is not psychotherapy. Chrysippus and other Stoics wrote books on ancient psychotherapy and the Stoics frequently appeal to the concept of psychological therapy and a often employ an explicit medical analogy to understand the many concepts and practices their philosophy contains. Of course, that’s only a part of the whole philosophy and needs to be understood within the broader context. Nevertheless Stoicism was always understood as, and referred to as, a therapy of the mind (psychotherapy), or as containing such a therapy. That’s actually integral to most of the surviving Stoic literature. Moreover, in addition to the psychotherapeutic nature of ancient Stoic terminology and practices, Stoicism was also explicitly acknowledged by Beck and Ellis, the pioneers of modern cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy, as the philosophical inspiration for their approach. I dedicated a whole book to surveying the many historical, conceptual, and practical connections between ancient Stoicism and modern psychotherapy. (Early 20th century psychotherapists were also explicitly influenced by ancient Stoicism.) I also think you’re definitely mistaken in equating psychotherapy with “New Age’ or “feel-good” practices – that’s certainly wrong. Those are demonstrably completely different things from psychotherapy.

I enjoyed the article and whilst I agree that definitions are important—words do mean things—I suppose that I’m too pragmatic and utilitarian to fully appreciate the distinctions here. I was raised to be “stoic” by my father and decades of military service and multiple combat tours have cemented that into my being. However based on what I read here, my “version” of stoicism seems to be some bastardized version of the two. We had a saying “puke later, there’s work to do”. You could put any visceral emotional reaction in there and it would work—Cry later, there’s work to do etc. Yes it is repression of a sort but the article appears to portray it like that is absolute—and in my upbringing and adult life that’s not how it wasintended at all. Instead, it was control your reaction so you could master (as best you can) the chaos around you and then deal with your internal chaos when safe and secure—at a place and time of your choosing. Emotions weren’t bad even the “proto” ones; they just weren’t useful at that time. You aren’t unfeeling or numb, just controlled. And while I do not agree with the blanket negative characterization of repression (although I view it more as compartmentalization) it is not something meant for the long term at least in my life. I think it’s been a crucial tool that has assisted me in everything to survival to helping others cope with uncertainty in more mundane situation. Our attitude is much like that of a Stoic to visceral reactions but not identical. Over time you can control or moderate them and train yourself to deal with your situation first and emotions second—but similar to the Stoics described here there’s no negative associated to the feeling(s) you experience. “It is what it is”. How you let it drive you is your power, your choice and that is most important. When I am truly upset, enraged, I will have tears in my eyes—and that’s great because it lets me know I have a decision to make—rage and destroy things may not be able to repair or control myself and serve out dessert, cold.

Just my two cents and probably not that helpful but I appreciate the chance to opine and venerate my father who made me into the man I am today. My success is his and the mistakes are mine.

Thanks. But then if you’re talking about temporarily setting an emotion aside, and allowing yourself to experience it later, that’s probably not what most people mean by the word “stoic”, and neither is it what the term means when used in health research.

There is a quote that says that “civilizations start out Stoic and finish out Epicurean”. It’s enlightening to know that Epicurean and epicurean are two entirely different things, just as stoic and Stoic are different. Thanks for the article!

“the ancient Stoics would have been completely puzzled by as they viewed competitive sports as vanity and a distraction from the lifelong pursuit of moral excellence and philosophical wisdom.  (The Stoics believed in moderate exercise, engaged in for the health of the body and the development of character, but it shouldn’t normally be our main pursuit in life and the competitive aspect would appear petty and absurd to them.)”

This section has me feeling conflicted. Does it mean that to be a Stoic and be congruent in a Rogerian sense that a Stoic should not actively participate in competitive sports? I understand that it can distract – that time spent in sporting activities could be spent on furthering oneself. Is it incongruent to be a Stoic if you thrive and actively engage in competitive sports. I am very new to the philosophy of Stoicism but I am also a triathlete. Looking for some clarity please.

Excellent , now my mind is full of clarity.I thoroughly enjoyed reading the entire article.Thank you

I’m not sure so sure about this. You claim to be an authority on Stoicism and yet your best interpretation of what Aurelius meant is that we should be in harmony with others. Almost there, but not quite. Aurelius wants us to be in harmony with the universe (which entails humans). This means so much more than your definition and in fact, he equates being in harmony with oneself with being in harmony with the universe. In order to achieve this, the Stoics stressed virtue, which they divided into 4 categories: wisdom, courage, justice and moderation (e.g. self-control). Having a stiff upper lip is literally about having courage and self-constraint in the face of adversity. These characteristics are entailed in Stoic philosophy so I have no idea why you’re going out of your way to attempt to disconnect them. Having a stiff upper lip is a necessary condition for being a Stoic but not a sufficient one. This is NOT the same as equating them (logic 101). If Marcus we’re here today, I’d imagine he’d tell you to continue working on your mental faculties. You clearly are inserting some biases into your interpretation of the philosophy and your grasp of logic is weak. I don’t claim to be a practitioner of the philosophy. I would like to be someday but I don’t think I know enough. But I can definitely say that your interpretation is misguided. Keep trying Donald, the road to wisdom is a long one and I can’t be mad at you for being a bit behind on that road.

We call him Marcus normally rather than Aurelius, his first name rather than (adoptive) family name, because an emperor. See my article elsewhere on the three domains in Stoic ethics. The Stoics themselves traditionally defined virtue as living harmoniously in accord with oneself (reason), others (society), and the cosmos (God or Fate). If you look deeper into the Stoic literature, you’ll find that the four cardinal virtues are just one conventional way of articulating the good but that the more fundamental Stoic definition is the one I mentioned in the article, that we should “live in agreement” or harmony across these three domains.

[…] Stoicism does not advocate hiding from emotions but rather dealing with them appropriately and accepting reality as it is, not as we wish it to be. It is a common misconception that Stoics suppress their emotions. It is not about suppressing emotions, but rather being in control of our emotions, that is a central tenet of Stoicism. (For more on this topic see Stoicism vs stoicism.) […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *