I don’t think Stoicism is the problem for you. It is good that you recognize that there are toxic people. Perhaps you would do well to avoid them. Nothing wrong with that, and I don’t see how that contradicts Stoic philosophy.

I have a similar problem. I try to follow Jesus’ philosophy, but it is really fricking hard to love Nazis. However, I am an INFP personality, so it often seems like almost everyone else is a Nazi! lol

I am trying to avoid toxic people, but when I can’t I am going to try to kill them with kindness. We will see how successful I am, though.

Reflect. Hatred is often a form of self-loathing and such negative emotions can be an ocean of insight into one's own mind.

However, people can be mean, cruel, deceitful, and all the other host of attitudes and behaviors that cause disenfranchisement and unhappiness. — Wallows

If you were to act that way, would it make you happy?

Sarte once said that hell is other people — Wallows

Being a misanthrope is perhaps the antithesis of stoic philosophy, yet here I am spouting a misanthropic tune about people in general. What to do? — Wallows

Best part is hate isn't a reflexive relation. You may hate me but it's possible I don't hate you.

However, there may be a symmetry. The hate may be mutual.

I guess everybody must hate something. Me, I hate myself.

I don’t think Stoicism is the problem for you. It is good that you recognize that there are toxic people. — Noah Te Stroete

Not entirely. I recognize that toxic people are around and about in the world, it's just that I seem to be committing a gross overgeneralization with some sort of prejudice against people in general. I am aware that the world is full of good people and such; but, I seem to disregard that fact and focus on the rotten few that can make your world a hell.

Nothing wrong with that, and I don’t see how that contradicts Stoic philosophy. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, to summarize the OP there's a profound cognitive dissonance presented in the OP. So, yeah...

Reflect. Hatred is often a form of self-loathing and such negative emotions can be an ocean of insight into one's own mind. — Tzeentch

What I can say about this is that my hatred is due to the "burden of trying to be a Stoic", by which I mean, that the amount of effort required to actually be a stoic is very high. It's not an easy task, being a stoic.

If you were to act that way, would it make you happy? — Tzeentch

"to act", what do you mean by that?

Hate is typically a bad thing. But, that's the issue here. I feel one way; but, my mind is telling me that the feeling is misguided. What to do?

Sarte once said that hell is other people. — Wallows

I'm not sure that Sartre did anyone any favors by coming up with that line in No Exit.

What to do? — Wallows

Is there any guru, philosopher, prophet, or saint, who offers a good one-bowl-just-add-water cake mix for happiness? No. Zeno letting you down, just when you were counting on him? Typical.

@Noah Te Stroete is trying to rely on Jesus; apparently it's not going well with the Nazis he's running into. Do I have an answer? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Life sucks. Our task: Get through the day as pleasantly as possible, sleep as well as we can. Repeat. Fitting into the various schemes of this or that guru, saint, or crackpot has to be fairly low on the list.

Nothing wrong with Zeno, of course. Or Jesus. Or Bitter Crank, for that matter. It just that in the final analysis, getting through life is an individual's always-unique lonely struggle. No matter which philosopher, saint, god, or guru you consult, nobody has an easy formula.

So carry on. Complaining often helps one feel better. Unload, move on. Take care. Good luck. Best wishes.

:up:

"to act", what do you mean by that? — Wallows

You expressed that you feel people can be mean, cruel, deceitful, to name a few things, and that you term yourself as somewhat of a misanthrope because of this. If you were to exhibit these behaviors, would it make you any happier?

Life sucks. — Bitter Crank

But, the Stoic says that one should not feel bitter over that fact, and to continue on one's journey despite this claim derived from experience. This is the quintessential ideal manifest in Stoic philosophy. That is to disregard such a sentiment and endure. It can be torturous.

Hate is typically a bad thing. But, that's the issue here. I feel one way; but, my mind is telling me that the feeling is misguided. What to do?
2m — Wallows

I don't understand how you can hate all people? Misanthropy means that right?

What is it that all people possess, the cause of misanthropy? That such a word exists tells us that there is something unappetizing about being human.

The answer may vary. If I were to be asked the question, I might hate humans because they're the only animals capable of cruelty/sadism. It sucks to be able to hurt and enjoy it.

What is your answer to ''what is it about people that you hate?'' What is the source of your misanthropy?

If you were to exhibit these behaviors, would it make you any happier? — Tzeentch

I don't think this is relevant. I don't need to reciprocate negativity with negativity. Nothing good comes out of it. I'm just highlighting the dichotomy between feeling and thinking with stoic philosophy.

Let's just say that if you conclude that exhibiting such behaviors would not make you any happier, perhaps a more appropriate attitude towards such people would be one of pity, instead of hate or dislike.

What is the source of your misanthropy? — TheMadFool

It is the arising sentiment about bad behavior that other people can display, which is derived from experience, whilst trying to maintain composure, through stoicism.

It's as if one were to live with a Pollyanna sense of optimism or to be confined to a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance in regards to experiencing life as a Stoic.

Let's just say that if you conclude that exhibiting such behaviors would not make you any happier, perhaps a more appropriate attitude towards such people would be one of pity, instead of hate or dislike. — Tzeentch

It would be near impossible to profess pity towards people who spit on you, don't you think? Again, we seem to be talking about ideals contra-reality.

The Stoical response is to be indifferent towards such behaviors...

It would be near impossible to profess pity towards people who spit on you, don't you think? — Wallows

It may be for you, but it doesn't have to be.

One finds that people who act in such negative fashion are rarely happy, and their negative behavior tends to be an act of denial towards their self-perceived inadequacies and not an act of healing them. So really the one they are hurting is primarily themselves.

It is the arising sentiment about bad behavior that other people can display, which is derived from experience, whilst trying to maintain composure, through stoicism.

It's as if one were to live with a Pollyanna sense of optimism or to be confined to a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance in regards to experiencing life as a Stoic. — Wallows

I underscored ''can'' above. It indicates possibility only and not actuality does it. People can be bad but are they in practice?

A simple answer is ''no''. People may think bad things but they don't act badly. There's a filter between thought and action and that may be relevant to your misanthropy.

Who was it that said ''ought implies can''. The contrapositive equivalent would be ''can't implies not an ought''. People can't control their thoughts. I don't know a lot about meditation but according to it, thoughts are spontaneous and never-ending and beyond control. So, people thinking bad thoughts are not doing it intentionally. Why hold that against anyone?

However, we can pick and choose which thoughts to act on. Therefore, we are to be held accountable for our actions but not our thoughts.

What I mean is you should look at people's actions (actuality/is), rather than thoughts (possibility/can). Perhaps you'll hate people less for the predicament everyone is in or love them for being intentionally positive despite being unable to control their thoughts (good AND bad).

Remember I said that it's cruelty and sadism that I hate about humans and I realize that this too is a ''can'' thing, a possibility. If seems I've disregarded my own observation that we should evaluate people on actions (actuality) and not on thoughts (can/possibility).

Having said that, there are truths that refute my claim. For instance, the police force and the law indicate that all is not well. If given the chance, people will choose to behave badly, vindicating your misanthropy based as it is on the badness of people. Yet, we may ask why isn't anarchy the prevalent state of affairs?

Perhaps frustration is a better word for my lingering sentiment hereabouts. Frustration with people who are nasty along with the fact that nobody wants to be corrected.

This might be of interest:

I come now to the unacceptable face of Stoicism their wider value system and their belief that everything except character or more generally rationality is in the end indifferent. Of course anyone who reached the Stoic ideal of wisdom would regard everything else as indifferent and then would be (almost) free of emotion. But Stoic sages were rarer than the phoenix.1 What I want to stress in this chapter is that the theory of indifference was not an essential part of Stoic therapy. It was one of their reasons their own peculiar reason for taking freedom from emotion (apatheia) as an ideal. I shall discuss apatheia in the next two chapters but we do not have to agree with that ideal in order to learn from the Stoics how to get rid of unwanted emotions. And in getting rid of them we do not have to resort to their theory of indifference. Before I can show this I must explain what the theory of indifference is.

 https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/emotion-and-peace-mind/12-stoic-indifference-barrier-therapy

----------

You don't have to agree with the theory of indifference to benefit from a Stoic therapy.

There are some daily exercises that might be useful. Or not.

https://dailystoic.com/10-insanely-useful-stoic-exercises/

You don't have to agree with the theory of indifference to benefit from a Stoic therapy. — Amity

What do you mean by that? Thanks for the link, quite interesting.

What do you mean by that? — Wallows

What do you think I mean by that ?

That anyone would not feel in life is unlikely. Certain events arouse emotions or feelings. You can be Stoic to a point, but there is also Hedonism and the Utilitarian principle to think about. Why choose one over the other? Why not try them all out?

Being a misanthrope is perhaps the antithesis of stoic philosophy, yet here I am spouting a misanthropic tune about people in general. What to do? — Wallows

Stop allowing yourself to be unduly disturbed by things beyond your control--which would include "people in general."

As Epictetus said (I quote from memory): "Do the best you can with what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens."

Doesn't Buddha kind of represent the ultimate stoic.

Thought or feeling for him would not be a problem given an austere regime for training for equanimity in chaos.

Stoicism would likely involve training oneself not just by Wallowing (the limiting cycles of your activity and responsibilities), but by enduring what isn't necessary to endure. Taleb's concept of antifragility might be useful here. Someone who voluntarily endures what they normally avoid is better equipped to handle the unsuspected unpleasant. Common sense?

Stop allowing yourself to be unduly disturbed by things beyond your control--which would include "people in general." — Ciceronianus the White

Easy to say. I am unable to get past the burden of Stoicism manifest in this quote from Marcus Aurelius:

Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. — Marcus Aurelius

Really? Begin each morning with negative visualizations of people in general? Who does this to themselves?

For the matter, I have fallen back to Cynicism. I am a failure as a stoic wannabe.

Really? Begin each morning with negative visualizations of people in general? Who does this to themselves? — Wallows

Marcus was an emperor of Rome. He had to deal with the duties of his court which meant that he had to deal with these kinds of people on a daily basis. I don’t think he would expect the same from you.

Stoicism requires discipline, and practice. But in many things it is simply the application of intelligence to circumstances encountered. Many people do wrong. If you can stop them from doing wrong, do so. If you can't, their conduct is to be regretted, but it's of no use to let yourself be overwhelmed by their character or conduct, and it's within your power not to be.

Part of stoic practice is to anticipate uncomfortable and even terrible situations as a means to prepare for them if they occur. The Cynic Diogenes the Dog lived in a barrel, it's said. Some would find that more difficult than "negative visualization."

Stoicism requires discipline, and practice. — Ciceronianus the White

That much I understand.

Many people do wrong. If you can stop them from doing wrong, do so. — Ciceronianus the White

How? We live in a postmodernist society where anything flies and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I suspect it was much "easier" being a stoic back in the days of ancient Rome.

If you can't, their conduct is to be regretted, but it's of no use to let yourself be overwhelmed by their character or conduct, and it's within your power not to be. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, but I find stoicism to be in some ways at odds with human nature despite the appeals to being in accordance with nature. My resentment is the nullification of legitimate feelings, like anger, and their repression. I mean where else does it go?

There’s a difference between finding value in a philosophy and being a paragon of that philosophy. I think there is value to Stoicism as there is value in Christ’s teachings. Now, I don’t follow Stoicism myself because I am a Christian. However, I don’t think it would be wise of me to throw away Jesus just because I can’t be like Jesus. I can strive to be better following Christ’s message. Likewise, a follower of Stoicism can strive to be better keeping in mind the teachings of Marcus Aurelius without feeling defeated for not living up to his extraordinary example.

But, do whatcha gotta do.