Just Vibes no Meaning
How Philosophy turned into Performance
“Don’t explain your philosophy. Embody it.” – Epictetus
Philosophy is a word much discussed in academia, but common people like you and me discuss it too. I’ve always been enchanted by philosophy. This year I dove deep into Existentialism. I learned about Sartre, Nietzsche, and Frankl’s school of thought. I also learned that Camus rejected the label of being an Existentialist, but his books and ideas birthed “Absurdism” a sub-genre of Existentialism.
Schopenhauer’s essays made me view pessimism as a form of realism and somehow made me even sadder.
Having read works from Marcus Aurelius and Ryan Holiday, Stoicism is one I’m a bit familiar with. It’s easy to observe but hard to practice. As I lose my way sometimes on the internet, I come across individuals who embody Stoicism, and some who fail to do so.
I also noticed that many individuals, particularly younger men, misinterpret Stoicism and lean more toward the acts and mindset of Broicism.
What is Broicism, actually?
Broicism is a modern distortion of Stoicism that emphasizes hyper-masculine traits like dominance, emotional suppression, and self-aggrandizement. Sadly, this mindset is rampant online, promoted in the “manosphere” with following dominated by young men.What Broicism gets wrong is its misuse of Stoic ideas, cherry-picking only what’s cool or what justifies self-centered behavior.
Feelings and emotions are important part of Stoicism and disregarding them is one of its biggest misunderstandings. A real Stoic still feels, it’s how he controls his emotions that makes his actions Stoic. It’s not the absence of emotion, but the refusal to be ruled by it.
Marcus Aurelius felt deeply about duty, loss, and leadership. Epictetus spoke of hardship and injustice with acceptance, not detachment. Seneca wrote about grief and love with intensity. None of them advocated emotional suppression. They advocated mastery. To feel and still act with reason, that’s Stoicism.
Philosophy’s recent surge owes some of its rise to cultural trends. Figures of the so-called intellectual underground, or our modern-public philosophers, sparked interest in many young individuals (mostly men). Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Žižek, Holiday, and Greene, amplified by the Joe Rogans, Lex Friedmans, and Jockos of the world, somewhat made philosophy mainstream. And here lies the problem: podcasts, radio talks, and interviews discuss philosophy endlessly. Philosophy has become something we talk about, not something we practice.
It’s not wrong to be curious about philosophy; what’s wrong is what some are doing today.
They talk about being Stoic but complain about everything online.
They talk about working hard in silence but always post about it.
They subscribe to Machiavellian philosophy but refuse to do the hard work.
They quote Albert Camus but avoid effort.
Philosophy became branding.
The deeper issue here is that many young men are hungry for meaning, structure, and identity. Without mentors or strong masculine figures, they fall for charlatans and pretenders masquerading as experts; some charismatic, some intelligent, but not all trustworthy. Others who are more discerning turn towards philosophy because they offer clarity in a chaotic world. But they often stop at the surface. They read the books but avoid the discomfort of living them.
I’m not claiming expertise. I’ve made mistakes, misunderstood ideas, and followed the wrong examples too. But I’ve learned some lessons along the way. And I want to share what little wisdom I have through writing, not as a teacher, but as someone walking the same road.
If you’re lost, confused, or just trying to make sense of things, The Nightshift Journal is here for you. This could be your year. Let’s do it.
This is the first time I have heard of Broicism. Thankfully it is not the kind of stoicism I learned about first. I think you will enjoy reading Sterling's article on Stoicism. I just posted a note about it.