Zeno Was a Beta Male

I came across the word 'Stoicism' in the early 'post-Covid' era when my high school resumed back to normal settings. That was also the time when people I was surrounded with transitioned from Andrew Tate to Jay Shetty. Though I can't really tell which one's worse. It was a strange era, where every teenage boy either wanted to be an emotionless “alpha” or an enlightened monk chugging matcha tea while talking about purpose.

To give you context, Stoicism was one of the dominant philosophical systems of the Hellenistic period and the Stoic school was founded around 300 BCE by Zeno of Citium, a voracious reader of Socratic dialogues, who also studied under the Cynic Crates and was influenced by the teachings of Plato’s Academy and the Megarian School.

Stoicism focused on, in a nutshell, is grinding alone, never crying, and convincing yourself that detachment equals strength while chasing, as a limited being, an impossible, god-like ideal of virtue.

In practice today, it’s mostly just men white-knuckling their emotions, pretending indifference is wisdom, and calling it self-mastery.

Zeno founded Stoicism, so I'm guessing he took it very seriously and followed its principles religiously. To explain, Stoicism as a philosophy is not bad at all, in fact philosophy can't be put under this false idea of dichotomy of good and bad. However, the way in which it's practiced is subject to criticism, very obvious criticism in this case.

In this article, I will focus on critiquing Zeno's philosophical ideals that he largely proposed in Stoicism:

I. Nature is rational

Zeno and his Stoic successors held an unshakable belief that nature operated according to a rational, ordered structure—one that humans, through reason, could understand and align themselves with. This was based on the Greek concept of logos, a cosmic order that governed everything from planetary motion to human ethics. To the Stoics, the universe wasn’t chaotic or indifferent; it was a finely tuned system where everything happened for a reason.

If nature were truly rational, we wouldn’t have natural disasters wiping out thousands of people with no moral rhyme or reason. There would be no genetic mutations leading to horrific diseases. Evolution, the ultimate force of life’s development, is not rational—it is adaptive, reactive, and often cruelly indifferent to suffering. The Stoic assumption that nature has an intrinsic rational structure is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Nietzsche, ever the 'hammer' to weak philosophical idols, put it bluntly: "To say that Nature is good because it seems rational to us is a human projection, a self-deception of the worst kind." Nature is not “rational”—it’s indifferent, just like the universe. If you step in front of a train, physics won’t spare you because you were a good Stoic who accepted fate.

II. The universe is governed by reason, and humans should follow it deliberately.

This is where Stoicism sounds like a poorly programmed self-help app. The idea that humans should live in perfect alignment with reason assumes that we are primarily rational beings—except, as behavioral psychology and neuroscience have repeatedly shown, we’re not.

Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow exposes the fundamental flaw in this belief: most of our decisions are driven by subconscious biases and emotions, not reason. If humans were as rational as the Stoics wanted to believe, we wouldn’t have entire fields of study explaining why we consistently act irrationally. The Stoic ideal of "pure rationality" ignores the fundamental messiness of human nature.

III. Virtue: A Life Led According to Rational Nature is Virtuous

If virtue is living rationally, but humans are inherently irrational, then virtue itself becomes an impossible standard. This then just becomes a major logical flaw. What are you on, Zeno?

Even Aristotle, who was much more practical than the Stoics, emphasized eudaimonia—human flourishing—rather than rigid adherence to an abstract ideal.

Virtue is philosophical, vaguely described. You can't hold people to such vaguely described ideals that people have no way of knowing. This feels like a subtle way of stripping people of their humanity? The Stoic version of virtue lacks this nuance. It is absolutist, assuming that moral excellence is a static, universal state rather than something that shifts with context.

IV. Wisdom: The Root Virtue from Which All Other Virtues Spring

The problem here isn’t wisdom itself—it’s the Stoic assumption that wisdom is primarily about detachment. Wisdom isn’t sitting alone in a room meditating on logic; it’s understanding the full spectrum of human experience.

S?ren Kierkegaard, in contrast, argued that true wisdom requires passion and engagement with life. He called out philosophies that sought to escape life rather than embrace its contradictions. The Stoics, in their quest to remove all emotional turbulence, essentially turned wisdom into an avoidance strategy.

This is where Stoicism starts to resemble a self-imposed emotional lobotomy.

V. Apatheia: Passion is Irrational, and Life Should Be a Battle Against It

Zeno really looked at human emotion—the driving force behind art, love, ambition, and every great revolution in history—and thought, Nah, we should probably just get rid of that. If Zeno were alive today, he’d probably be one of those guys telling depressed people to “just grind harder” instead of actually dealing with their emotions. He'd also be your average finance bro who ChatGPTs everything he talks about, tells you to go to the gym and keep reaffirming that he's not like other miserable dudes in college. Ok.

This isn’t wisdom—it’s just emotional constipation. Even the Stoic poster boy Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations, struggled with the fact that he still felt things despite his best efforts to smother them under a mountain of rationality. It’s almost like… emotions aren’t optional.

VI. Pleasure: Neither Good nor Bad, Only Acceptable if It Doesn't Interfere with Virtue

Pleasure stems from pursuing passion (from Classical philosophical ideas and texts). If you're not allowed passion, how would you ever reach pleasure? Also, what does he mean by this? So you're just not allowed to feel good, but you're not allowed to feel bad about things either.

Stoicism’s definition of “virtue” is so extreme that nearly anything remotely enjoyable would probably be seen as an unacceptable indulgence. Laughing too hard? Dangerous. Feeling a little too content? Watch yourself.

Nietzsche, as always, comes in swinging against this ascetic nonsense. He argues that denying pleasure doesn’t make you stronger—it just makes you resentful. He calls philosophies like Stoicism a form of slave morality, designed to keep people docile and obedient rather than truly free. If Zeno had his way, we’d all be miserable monks convincing ourselves that joy is a distraction instead of, you know, the point of being alive.

VII. Evil: Poverty, Illness, and Death Are Not Evil

Zeno would walk up to a starving child and tell them, “Listen, you only think hunger is bad because you’re too attached to worldly concerns.”

There’s a fine line between resilience and outright delusion, and Stoicism sprints past that line without looking back. Saying that poverty isn’t evil is exactly the kind of thing you’d expect from a man who never had to experience it firsthand. It’s giving Silicon Valley billionaire telling people to ‘just be frugal’ while sipping a $15 oat milk latte.

This mindset completely ignores the systemic nature of suffering. Stoicism was born in a world where societal hierarchies were rigid, where injustice was rampant, and where most people didn’t have the luxury of sitting around pondering the meaning of virtue all day. But instead of advocating for change, Zeno just told people to accept their lot in life. It’s basically a philosophical participation trophy for people who don’t want to fight for a better world.

Existentialist thinkers like Sartre and Camus completely dismantle this nonsense. Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, argues that recognizing suffering is what gives life meaning—not just passively accepting it like a doormat. Stoicism’s approach to suffering isn’t noble—it’s just a convenient way to avoid doing anything about it.

VIII. Duty: Virtue Should Be Pursued for Duty, Not Pleasure

Duty to what, exactly? An abstract ideal? A sense of personal pride? The problem with duty-based ethics is that it often leads to blind obedience rather than genuine moral engagement.

Zeno was out here making morality feel like a 9-5 job with no benefits. He really thought people would be motivated by duty alone? Even Kant, who was all about duty-based ethics, at least acknowledged that people need some sense of internal fulfillment to keep going. But no, Zeno insists that virtue is something you do because you have to, not because it makes you happier, wiser, or more fulfilled.

This is exactly why Stoicism often turns into performative suffering. People today love to quote Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, pretending that waking up at 4 AM, taking cold showers, and never showing weakness is the peak of human existence. But really, they’re just cosplaying as emotionless demigods while secretly miserable inside.

Concluding Thoughts

I'm not judging you Zeno but I think all of this was a bit too much.

* proceeds to call him a beta male and critique his philosophy after hours of research in a LinkedIn article 2,325 years later *