There exists a delicate balance for the stoic between optimism and stoniness. It asks of the individual to face situations without being influenced by their surroundings, to act at all times rationally or else be slave to emotions. Fear, anger, pleasure, are all things that a stoic sage does not feel or act on, living serenely through virtuous activity. This balance allows for a full and complete life rather than one dictated by the whimsy of feeling.
Stoics believe that no man is wrong or horrible, as all humans are part of the perfection of nature. There exists no reason to find fault with something that is destined to be there, as all things are intrinsic. Though this is stated, it is unclear if stoics believe in the concept of destiny or if they respect the other existences of man. Their goal is to live harmoniously with all things in the universe.
In some aspects of stoic philosophy I found a comparison to Buddhism. Buddhism also expresses a desire for its followers to live harmoniously and unfettered by “unnecessary” emotion. I did not research any outreaching influences that may have supported that either body of philosophy touched the other. Maybe it was just an attitude that arose separately out of those two societies. Nonetheless, the two seem to relate to a degree.
A striking difference would be the lack of a nirvana-type “reward” in stoic philosophy, where they make no endeavor to understand anything beyond the life they currently lead. Everything happened in time, there was no need to fret on natural ends of life or consider what lies beyond. Stoics seem to hold weight in living rather than what follows.
Stoic types of characters seem to emerge from western genres or the “silent hero” type found in other literature and media. Even these characters tend to break from complete stoicism, though, harnessing violence and anger at some point throughout the piece (necessary to progression and literary purposes, of course). But people find something admirable about their coldness and so the archetype persists.
It seems that people more often attempt stoicism than achieve it. To exist completely rationally taxes a person who has previously lived on the edge of their emotions. It seems a type of path that one takes unintentionally from the start of their youth and then seeks a label for. To severe all ties to irrationality, to remain calm and indifferent in the face of all tragedy or irritation may strike some as intolerably inhuman. The philosophy suggests a lifestyle more libertarian than influential, though certainly some may find themselves putting aside their emotive ways for the stoic’s indifference.
