I don't know. I'm way too emotional myself. I often act on impulse, regretting everything the very next second. People think that I'm cold, heartless & calculated, without any human emotions whatsoever. Believe me, nothing could be further from the truth in my case! Thank God I'm a pacifist myself. What can I say, sometimes it's best to keep your feelings to yourself, on some other occasions, it's best to let everyone know exactly how you feel at the moment. Guess you can say it all depends on the situation. That's not much of an answer, I know, but it's the best possible answer I could come up with on such short notice. Hope you like it.
Considering I can be extremes on both side, I would say both sides have fucked me over and I rather just be neutral with a hint of emotional.
....But I guess more stoic.
In philosophy, while stoicism is more about resilience and logic, it doesn’t imply emotionlessness at all.
It is emotional control in it's highest form. It is not that one does not feel pain but is the fact that they can control their sense of it or their emotional and physical reaction to it making them appear emotionless.
In this context, if your definition of the term stoic is merely "emotionless", and you are using it synonymously, then my answer would be I would rather be emotional because the world will feel hollow once you lose all of your emotions. You will neither feel the positive emotions, nor the negative ones. I want to feel and experience all those beautiful moments and feelings and many events that made me feel so happy and different range of emotions that I am glad that I had. I'd rather have emotions and learn how to control them instead of not having any emotions at all.
