[pushcx]

This article ends with its thesis:

> Because if you accept your fate joyfully, as a Stoic sage should, you’ll never try to change it.

This is a common criticism. To pick one of many convenient rebuttals, here's William Irvine's book A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, chapter 5:

> To the contrary, they were fully engaged in daily life. From this, one of two conclusions follows: Either the Stoics were hypocrites who did not act in accordance with their principles, or we have, in the above argument, somehow misinterpreted Stoic principles. I shall now argue for this second alternative.

> Remember that among the things over which we have complete control are the goals we set for ourselves. I think that when a Stoic concerns himself with things over which he has some but not complete control, such as winning a tennis match, he will be very careful about the goals he sets for himself. In particular, he will be careful to set internal rather than external goals. Thus, his goal in playing tennis will not be to win a match (something external, over which he has only partial control) but to play to the best of his ability in the match (something internal, over which he has complete control). By choosing this goal, he will spare himself frustration or disappointment should he lose the match: Since it was not his goal to win the match, he will not have failed to attain his goal, as long as he played his best. His tranquility will not be disrupted.

[drieddust]

Unattached action is the central message of epic Hindu text Bhagwad Gita.Two shlokas (verses) I find extremely comforting are [2.47] and [3.5].

Verse [2.47] says:

1) Only rightful action is in your control.

2) Fruits of your action is never in your control.

3) Give up the pride of doership .

4) Last but not the least do not get into inaction.

Verse 3.5 says:

No body can remain inactive even for a second. All living being have to act even to sustain their bodies.

Anyone interested in stoicism should also read it from a good translation.

[sifar]

There is also that when you are too enamored by the results of your action, it gets in the way of doing.

The Tao Te Ching also talks about not striving for things.

It is interesting that these three philosophies from three different civilizations at different times overlap in their outlook to life, which hints at something permanent. It would be great to map the migration of these ideas between them and how we arrived at the diverged modern day outlook.

[drieddust]

I think ancient people have gone through same struggles and came up with similar answers and they also exchanged ideas.

> enamored by the results of your action

Bhagwad Gita is poetry and philosophy but it also reasons from the first principle. How attachments leads to self destruction is deducted so well in verse 2.62 and 63. I can read/recite Sankrit a little and it's so amazing to think that you can have poetry and step by step reasoning in same verse.

Reasoning goes like this:

Verse 2.62

1. When one deliberates the fruits of the action, they get attached to it.

2. Attachment leads to desire.

3. Desire lead to the anger.

Verse 2.64 carried the thought forward and finished it.

4. Anger leads results in confusion.

5. Confused person loses the memory.

6. Loss of memory leads to destruction of intellect which lead to complete destruction.

All of this sound much more melodic and transcendental when you can understand.

[vinceguidry]

The article author substantiated their argument with actual historical examples. Your rebuttal supported their argument with, basically, platitudes.

[pushcx]

Yep. The article points out "The stoicism that has become popular today draws on Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, three men living during the Roman Empire..." and discusses each. The same book I quoted has a similar sentence "The most important of the Roman Stoics—and the Stoics from whom, I think, modern individuals have the most to gain—were Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius." Each of them gets a few pages of personal history, their refinements to or deviations from the Stoicism of their time, and how the two connect. I didn't want to post a ton of quotes to try to rebut every detail of the article, but you're right that I missed the opportunity to mention that's available as well.

[cpleppert]

>> The attention to Aurelius as emperor comes at the price of overlooking the young Marcus, a lover writing erotic letters to his teacher, the African orator Fronto:

There isn't a lot offered to support the conclusion that stoicism somehow caused Aurelius to turn away from love and accept power. I would be hesitant of drawing such a conclusion based on the paucity of evidence; but the author just asserts it. The trope of the philosopher more interested in contemplation than earthly affairs is just that: a trope. There isn't really an argument here, just indignation at this ancedote.

[vinceguidry]

I don't get it. We have actual, historical sources, that point to what the Stoics were all about, not a lot mind you, but primary sources of any sort from that time period are rare. Nevertheless, we have them. You've gotta be an actual historian to be able to contextualize them, but we're in luck here, people have done that!

But people will go with the pithiest pop philosophy and pooh pooh the real history. And worse, claim that theirs is the more well-sourced position! Based on non-historical pop takes! Ah well. Stoicism, just like all pop takes on Roman culture, will never die.

Like, look at your argument here. You're dismissing the authors examples, keep in mind that these are direct sources from the time period, by a practicing historian, with the reasoning that "it's just fitting a common trope." Nothing to replace it with, nothing to the contrary except "it's a trope". At least the other reply appealed to an authority!

I'm trying to work out in my head just how close to a degree in history you have to be, either through self-study or matriculated study, in order to actually be able to appreciate history, to not make these kinds of basic category errors regarding sourcing. I guess it's a lot.