mvdenk t1_je5lbso wrote

It was, next to the other given reasons, also done semi-intionally targeted against the "heathen pagan religions of old". In the past, there were many Christian and Muslim groups actively despising or destroying pagan monuments (even still in the modern era, see the Taliban for example).


mvdenk t1_izah3vq wrote

There is a difference between "how you feel" and "how you act". A stoic wouldn't argue to not feel, or force themselves to feel everything as okay. Rather, they would investigate why they feel this way and try to find the root cause and think of the most fitting action. Therefore, they make their emotions constructive rather than destructive.


mvdenk t1_iz94fzk wrote

That's one form of stoicism, but it can also be different. For me, accepting my emotions is part of accepting the world, so stoicism is not necessarily about controlling them by subduction (even though it is often practiced or explained this way).

Stoicism is more about yourself not being controlled by your emotions.


mvdenk t1_ixydtvm wrote

It was not yet clear how much (dark) behavioral patterns are passed on due to genetics vs due to upbringing, this article contributes to this insight.

Also, "this is trivial" is bad science, we need to always test our hypotheses before we can be sure™ (we can never be 100% sure, but we can make it probable borderlining certainty). I hate these "this was trivial anyway" statements every time I see them.