[noobker]

tl;dr: Stoicism's first response to a problem is to change the individual (have the individual reinvent their worldview such that what can't be changed is instead accepted and perhaps even reveled in). In a world of decay, having this as your first response delays -- if not outright masks -- collective action towards rectifying the problem, towards building a better world.

Stoicism is great for dealing with things you can't change (illnesses, famine, etc). It's great for accepting that personal struggles, like the fact that your parents aren't going to say the Thing and give you a hug.

But what does Stoicism offer to the community? I as an individual can create my own happiness, but nothing in the philosophy would properly motivate me towards helping to fix the world with my brethren.

[yboris]

I like your recognition about the community. I humbly recommend everyone consider utilitarianism https://www.utilitarianism.net/

“The core precept of utilitarianism is that we should make the world the best place we can. That means that, as far as it is within our power, we should bring about a world in which every individual has the highest possible level of well-being.” - Peter Singer

[kodyo]

That sounds like an invitation to utopian authoritarians to define "well-being" for everyone else. Gross.

[yboris]

What an unfortunate misunderstanding of a philosophical idea that has been carefully developed for over 300 years.

[jonathanlb]

If you are responsible for your own happiness, it follows that others aren't.

Healthy relationships operate under this principle- that of recognizing (and respecting) the autonomy of the other. On the other hand, consoder toxic relationships where you feel a friend or romantic partner _owes_ you happiness and satisfaction.

[unlikelymordant]

If there are things in your community you can change, then stoicism certainly does not say dont do it. Marcus aurelius, one of the most famous stoics, was roman emporer. Hardly a position someone who felt they could change nothing in their community would take on.

[noobker]

> things in your community you can change

There are a class of problems that are immovable to an individual yet conquerable by a community.

The author's fear in this piece is that a follower of Stoicism would too readily accept one of those problems as unchangeable.

[kodyo]

> But what does Stoicism offer to the community?

Theoretically, the "community" would contain a pool of people who have done significant introspection and developed self-control.

Some people want prescriptive architectures for society that achieve some desired end (equity, diversity, whatever). Others are OK having some people with wisdom to turn to in the face of ambiguity.

[ohCh6zos]

Perhaps the appeal of the Stoics is that it rejects collective action? I know that’s a large part of the appeal to me.