There's a persistent myth that Stoics don't (or shouldn't) cry. That the whole point of the philosophy is to become emotionally bulletproof. An unfeeling monument to rational willpower!

🧐 Well… Seneca would like a word.

The sage feels. The sage experiences joy, gladness, love, awe, and (yes) grief. What the sage doesn't do is mistake a preferred indifferent for an actual good, or allow a first emotional response to spiral into destructive panic or despair. There's a universe of difference between feeling grief and being consumed by it.

Imagine a loved one has died. We're at the wake together. Friends are crying, sharing memories, and looking to us for solidarity.

We excuse ourselves from the room because we "identify as Stoic" and don't want to be seen with tears on our face. We’re embarrassed of what we feel, because we’ve seen one too many TikTok posts about Stoic masculinity (from ignorant fools).

What does hiding our emotions say about our character?

In our action we've abandoned the people who need us, not for a principled reason, but to protect an image of emotional invulnerability that Stoicism never asked us to cultivate anyway.

Stoicism says: work toward moral wisdom.

It does not say: never cry.

Context determines everything. Sometimes the virtuous thing to do is to sit with people we love and let the tears come.

Today's suggestion: If something moves you today (a kindness, a memory, a piece of music) consider letting it. We don't need to perform unfeelingness. This has never been the Stoic assignment.