This post is a response to the piece "Stoicism is Not Enough.” The author presents a common enough point of view that I think the response is of general interest. My understanding of Stoicism is significantly different from the one described. In particular, it seems to me that he selected a few aspects of it while ignoring several others that fundamentally alter the overall effect, even of those aspects he focuses on. The sources he seems to be reacting to, Stoicism as described by "Silicon Val...

The Modern Stoicism blog recently posted a “symposium” discussing what is meant by "Modern Stoicism." The introduction begins by pointing out that the question is both very common, and difficult to answer, an assessment with which I wholeheartedly agree. Most attempts to answer the question consist of formulating a set of philosophical doctrines. Both Lawrence Becker (A New Stoicism, p. 6) and Andrew Holowchak (The Stoics: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 24-26) give lists, and this is the approac...

This post began as a comment I wrote on a Reddit post discussing the differences between Stoicism and Epicureanism. The post and other comments on it (including my own) were focused primarily on differences in specific doctrines and beliefs, but I felt like these were missing something important, something fundamental. It is possible to know all the details of something without actually “getting it.” This was my attempt at getting “it” across. Although inspired by some elements of the biographi...