[drewcoo]

The article doesn't show how stoicism is at fault for any fault shown. Which is especially poignant given that Stoicism is about ideals of virtue. (The until recent decades meaning of virtue as "truth" and not "fake.") Stoicism cares about fault and is not afraid to judge itself.

Nor does the article show how now people today are driven by virtue more than things like . . . say, influence. Or who those virtuous but doomed/destructive Stoics are who seek to follow truth.

This is an invective against not just stoicism but truth itself. What do I expect from Psyche? How do they vet these things?

To Henry Gruber at Harvard, you seem to have an early draft of something here. It has . . . problems. But maybe potential. You've read and thought a little. With a little more, what can you make it into?

There is a political case to be made against virtue (this was not it). There is an economic case (this not it). There is even something to be said for un-virtuous romance or how sex workers are virtuous but not really romance (not this thing, Gruber). So what is this?