The way I look at it is this. Within the stoic philosophy I have found a way to help me deal with my trials and tribulations of life. If it works for you then hey go for it( as long as it does not hurt people) if it does not than heck move on and find another philosophy and way. The false promise of stoicism? when I found the philosophy, sure there were people whom were saying it would open my mind and that it would help me. I took these with a grain of salt of course but for my philosophy. It helped. It is slowly making me a new man. Sure I am only 20( will be 21 next month) and my mind can indeed change. But the result in the end for me was that I did receive inner peace. Therefore for me, it was not a false promise.
That's wonderful news - I'm glad it's having such a positive impact. As you say, Stoicism is not a 'false promise' for many who have extracted genuine value from it.
What are your thoughts on the content of the video then? Did you watch it? Your comment is only about the title. Seems like you were triggered by the title and try to make it seem like you can refute the video without watching it.
Stoicism and Objectivism have several values in common, such as the morality of selfishness, but they differ drastically regarding things like Determinism. Stoicism holds that there is little in life that YOU have control over other than your emotions and how you feel about things that happens to you. Objectivism rejects Determinism altogether. Our future is NOT predetermined at birth. We have free will.
This is a well made video and an accurate description of stoicism. However, this video is making me rethink oism. Desire and aversion compromises contentment, and if oism requires desires and aversions, then I cannot accept oism entirely.
Feelings of desire cannot "compromise contentment". Only if you have some almost buddhist concept of "desire" where it implies a lot of negativity, envy, hostility, focusing on what one lacks, not enjoying what one currently has, etc. But that would be an inaccurate concept of "desire".
What I have learned from stoicism 1- Not worry about death its a natural part of life 2- don't be excessive about anything even on feeding urself 3- don't be angry don't let ur inner peace disturbed by unnecessary things like I am gonna take an exam the result is not completely up to me right I just throw the arrow not control arrow so I work for exam the result is not up to me so I shouldn't worry on my actions 4- we are social creatures and we have to be good person for our society. 5- for me there is no determinism in stoicism ofcourse there are things which are not our control like we don't choose our family or our social money status 6-Time is valuable and we are reasonable creatures so act like that. 7- I shouldn't pursue money or reputation 8- I shouldn't complain about anything or in conditions which I am in I found peace with stoicism instead of past thinking about past I live in moment yes I still think about future but I don't get anxious and destroy my inner peace When U say determinism it means living not think about tomorrow no that's not true ı am thinking about tomorrow yes but I am not getting anxious and disrupt my inner peace also Stoicism defending gaining physical endurance and its a good thing right in this life you cant be weak this world is a hell for weak people both mentally and physically cold weather starvation etc also there is a thing in stocisim we don't fear from things but how we judge them I am gonna apply a job but I think about the job and getting anxious about how it is without trying it so I don't let myself my judges hinder me my English is weak hope you guys get my point Stoicism is the best philosophy if you are mentally weak person that's all I can say. with stoicism you can suppress some of the bad emotions like getting angry frustration I mean either you can live happy or constantly with these bad emotions believe me second one is better because in modern life we already suffering from so many mental issues that's clear.
What you learned from your philosophy amounts to a bunch of sayings that say don't do this and you shouldn't do that. It doesn't teach you how to pursue values. You mentioned one of your rules is don't pursue money, for example, but what is money other than a measurement of value. To earn your money you must be productive, and the more productive you are the more money you'll earn. So the philosophy is essentially saying "Don't bother being productive and don't aspire to be something better than you are right now our were born to be. Simply endure." This attitude is a consequence of determinism and says, "You should learn to appreciate your lot in life because it was fated to be so." You can probably protect yourself from pain while embracing a philosophy like this, but the consequence is you also shield yourself from passion and real happiness. A level of indifference becomes the goal. But emotions are important, not just some emotions, ALL emotions. There are real consequences for trying to cut yourself from the one's deemed less desirable. There are definitely some values to be taken from stoicism but it is not a philosophy fully integrated with reality. It's a deterministic death worshiping philosophy, as it's geared towards numbing you to reality to shield you from loss/fear. Reality becomes just something to endure and wanting more for yourself is just a waste of time.
10:06 damn, the way to deal with pain or loss is to give up on valuing what you once valued. What a bad method. To protect yourself from the pain of loss you'd devalue the world, something I've done.
I think this is a misinterpretation of stoicisms goals and a better page to gain knowledge on it stories of the old. Not my page just very good Or at the source the meditations from the philosopher king himself etc ...
Smith: stoicism has some good things over here, but also some bad things over there Modern stoics: I agree, so let's change the bad parts and keep the good parts Smith: Noooooo you can't do that!! That's changing it!!!
Modern stoics are like Christians in that aspect. Bible is the ultimate moral guide, unless when it conflicts with their modern moral sentiments. At the end, so much gets discarded or altered, that the older designation barely applies. But the keep calling themselves Christians/Stoics.
Smith is right, you can't change the fundamental principles of stoicism and still call it stoicism. Just like you can't reject the 10 commandments and still call yourself a christian
I've dealt with this specific issue in transitiioning from Stoicism to Objectivism (as a philosophy to guide me). What I noticed very quickly is that all the good parts of stoicism can be found under Reason e.g. Seneca "men are harmed more in their minds, then when the event occurs" which in reason is saying: if I'm going to be harmed by x, I'll be harmed in reality when it happens, not by an arbitrary (irrational) anticipation. p.s. when i took stoicism seriously, that's when I started to devalue the world, a bad path to go down.
@@GurniHallek I agree with ayn rand 100 % . But problem it is that it(her philosophy) makes life really complicated, in life sometimes you have to lie and fake things so that it works out in the end. Roark goes to the quarry and works cos he's fictional character who runs only own self respect, think of the people with kids, entire families depending on them and they have to lie and make things work instead of takin a decision to run of to a quarry just cos they feel like theyve lost there integrity . The point is u cant be roark , cos ur a human who needs bread and butter , not a fictional character. So there's no point in this over sensitization towards integrity in a mixed economy where jobs are normally scarce and resources are limited, you DO EVERY DAMM THING TO SURVIVE FIRST, NOT THINK OF EVERY LAST ATOM OF INTEGRITY IN FAKING A JOB INTERVIEW COS IT MIGHT AFFECT YOUR SELF ESTEEM.
@@avonflex5031 "But problem it is that it(her philosophy) makes life really complicated" I disagree. Objectivism makes life really bloody simple, i find, in the areas where it was intentionally overcomplicated. Which is basically almost every aspect of it. And since it recognizes hierarchy of values, it doesn't actually demand that you sacrifice your wife, kids and yourself to a hungry death to keep "every last atom of integrity", because some scumbags arranged matters in such a way that you have no reasonable alternative. Just don't fool yourself about what you are doing and why.
99% of stoics don't even know their own philosophy as well as they believe they do tainting it with a concept of free will. Free will does not truly exist nor does determinism.
@@kylelundgren5133 that's why one must separate wheat from chaff, denying free will is a falacy within itself, and the ultimate deflection of responsibility.
I listened to the first 3 minutes. That was enough to realize Aaron Smith actually knows nothing about Stoicism. The Stoics were not Determinists. Accepting that some things, even most things, are beyond your control is just reality. And it is not the same thing as accepting that nothing is within your control. Neither ancient nor modern Stoics believe that nothing is within your control. When he was quoting some of those authors, he should have read the books in their entirety.
Chrysippus (ca. 280 - 206 B.C.), held that an action is “up to us” (or in our power), if it results, at least in part, from a cause that’s within us. But he also held that these internal causes (our judgments, values, motives and choices) are the inexorable result of a whole chain of prior (and equally inexorable) causes, which he called Fate. Whatever you do or decide to do - whether to get married, to leave your job or to order another round of sake - you had to do it; your decisions and actions were necessitated by factors preceding your birth. Despite his language of some things being “up to us,” Chrysippus is neither endorsing free will nor rejecting determinism.newideal.aynrand.org/the-false-promise-of-stoicism
@@TheTektronik And the only things within the bounds of one control according to stoicism is your attitude to what happens, since everything is preordained by fate. Indeed, it's not exactly "nothing is under your control", but pretty bloody close. That's why it's such a pathetic philosophy.
Go to the doctors with your father and hear the words 'I'm afraid it's cancer' - then get home and try to be a stoic. It's a fair-weather philosophy: when you need to lean on it the most it collapses under the strain.
Chrysippus (ca. 280 - 206 B.C.), held that an action is “up to us” (or in our power), if it results, at least in part, from a cause that’s within us. But he also held that these internal causes (our judgments, values, motives and choices) are the inexorable result of a whole chain of prior (and equally inexorable) causes, which he called Fate. Whatever you do or decide to do - whether to get married, to leave your job or to order another round of sake - you had to do it; your decisions and actions were necessitated by factors preceding your birth. Despite his language of some things being “up to us,” Chrysippus is neither endorsing free will nor rejecting determinism.newideal.aynrand.org/the-false-promise-of-stoicism/
@@oscard.fernandezj.3096 I deny that life begins at birth - one's life is constructed not just of the narratives we create for ourselves, but also the narratives others create for us and how we play a role in their narratives: our parents start writing our life story before we are born. We are linked to the first human through a longer narrative and their decisions directly influenced our lives - so I expand the definition of 'my life' and refute the claim that 'my' causes have to be within myself to be 'my' cause.There is no bright line as Chrysippus would like there to be between internal and external. One is incoherent without the other.
I'm sorry but I think that's nonsense- not least of which because of all the Stoics in history who faced equally challenging situations, and retained their beliefs (not only retained, but persevered and thrived in those situations precisely because of their stoicism). Think of Epictetus living as a slave, James Stockdale enduring life in a North Vietnamese POW camp, Cato the Younger resisting Caesar and then opting to commit suicide on defeat, so he would not have to 'outlive the Republic'. Your premise is disproved in practice. Stoicism only rises in value in the face of adversity, it certainly doesn't just crumble at the first sign of trouble.
@@samchandler7747 Well your argument is equally disproved in practice - but I only need for my claim to be shown to be correct once for my argument to hold, while your claim only needs to be shown to have been wrong once for it to fall. But this is besides the point. I would say that when you get home from the doctor's and are processing the fact that your father will die, if you don't feel an incredible sadness and some inner turmoil then you are not living correctly. I used to look up to emotionless utterances like Camus' 'Mother died today' and aspire to be able to say them. Now I realise I got life all wrong, and emotions and irrational hope or fear are all part of the human experience; and the most important part at that.
I am sorry for your loss. My father died two years ago. Stoicism does not free us from pain or suffering. It does not turn us into Howard Roark superheroes. Stoicism helped me to stay disciplined in with my thoughts during that time. It gave me the power to banish my inner demons and to get on with the process of grieving. Stoics are not indifferent, but instead we strive to be resilient.
Stoicism cosmology says that world is lasting action (pneuma) and judgment over unfinished action is not logically correct? Denies determinism from the beginning. Valuable stoic action has to be reasonable first?
Chrysippus (ca. 280 - 206 B.C.), held that an action is “up to us” (or in our power), if it results, at least in part, from a cause that’s within us. But he also held that these internal causes (our judgments, values, motives and choices) are the inexorable result of a whole chain of prior (and equally inexorable) causes, which he called Fate. Whatever you do or decide to do - whether to get married, to leave your job or to order another round of sake - you had to do it; your decisions and actions were necessitated by factors preceding your birth. Despite his language of some things being “up to us,” Chrysippus is neither endorsing free will nor rejecting determinism.newideal.aynrand.org/the-false-promise-of-stoicism
Classical stoicism most certainly was, modern Stoicism not so much. Many Stoics today have abandoned the concept of Providence and a benevolent, intelligent cosmos. It should also be noted that this was not without precedent: even Marcus Aurelius, an obvious believer, spoke often of the possibility of an unordered and anarchic universe - the Epicurean 'collision of atoms' - being true. The Classical Stoic preference was obviously the former, though this example demonstrates that Stoic ethics - the philosophy of life tied to it - can still hold up even in the abcence of its former metaphysical certainty
The way I look at it is this. Within the stoic philosophy I have found a way to help me deal with my trials and tribulations of life. If it works for you then hey go for it( as long as it does not hurt people) if it does not than heck move on and find another philosophy and way.
The false promise of stoicism? when I found the philosophy, sure there were people whom were saying it would open my mind and that it would help me. I took these with a grain of salt of course but for my philosophy. It helped. It is slowly making me a new man. Sure I am only 20( will be 21 next month) and my mind can indeed change. But the result in the end for me was that I did receive inner peace.
Therefore for me, it was not a false promise.
Happy Birthday 🥳 I love stoicism, I agree it changed my life 🧐🤓😎
@@eboogieellison6004 Thank you so much ! I am glad that it helped change your life as well!
That's wonderful news - I'm glad it's having such a positive impact. As you say, Stoicism is not a 'false promise' for many who have extracted genuine value from it.
What are your thoughts on the content of the video then? Did you watch it? Your comment is only about the title.
Seems like you were triggered by the title and try to make it seem like you can refute the video without watching it.
What's ironic is that I myself and other people I know employee elements of objectivism in a similar way that we employ elements of stoicism
Stoicism and Objectivism have several values in common, such as the morality of selfishness, but they differ drastically regarding things like Determinism. Stoicism holds that there is little in life that YOU have control over other than your emotions and how you feel about things that happens to you. Objectivism rejects Determinism altogether. Our future is NOT predetermined at birth. We have free will.
Stoicism is unreason.
This is a well made video and an accurate description of stoicism. However, this video is making me rethink oism. Desire and aversion compromises contentment, and if oism requires desires and aversions, then I cannot accept oism entirely.
It's not accurate
Feelings of desire cannot "compromise contentment". Only if you have some almost buddhist concept of "desire" where it implies a lot of negativity, envy, hostility, focusing on what one lacks, not enjoying what one currently has, etc. But that would be an inaccurate concept of "desire".
Curious, I find an ongoing liberation in Stoicism, knowing at any moment I have choice which no person or situation can take away from me.
What I have learned from stoicism
1- Not worry about death its a natural part of life
2- don't be excessive about anything even on feeding urself
3- don't be angry don't let ur inner peace disturbed by unnecessary things like I am gonna take an exam the result is not completely up to me right I just throw the arrow not control arrow so I work for exam the result is not up to me so I shouldn't worry on my actions
4- we are social creatures and we have to be good person for our society.
5- for me there is no determinism in stoicism ofcourse there are things which are not our control like we don't choose our family or our social money status
6-Time is valuable and we are reasonable creatures so act like that.
7- I shouldn't pursue money or reputation
8- I shouldn't complain about anything or in conditions which I am in I found peace with stoicism instead of past thinking about past I live in moment yes I still think about future but I don't get anxious and destroy my inner peace
When U say determinism it means living not think about tomorrow no that's not true ı am thinking about tomorrow yes but I am not getting anxious and disrupt my inner peace also Stoicism defending gaining physical endurance and its a good thing right in this life you cant be weak this world is a hell for weak people both mentally and physically cold weather starvation etc
also there is a thing in stocisim we don't fear from things but how we judge them I am gonna apply a job but I think about the job and getting anxious about how it is without trying it so I don't let myself my judges hinder me my English is weak hope you guys get my point
Stoicism is the best philosophy if you are mentally weak person that's all I can say. with stoicism you can suppress some of the bad emotions like getting angry frustration I mean either you can live happy or constantly with these bad emotions believe me second one is better because in modern life we already suffering from so many mental issues that's clear.
You cant control and supress bad emotions and act better is it false really can u make a good decision while u anxious?
@CHAOSCANDIDATE this comment was before I had read his books but anyway
What you learned from your philosophy amounts to a bunch of sayings that say don't do this and you shouldn't do that.
It doesn't teach you how to pursue values. You mentioned one of your rules is don't pursue money, for example, but what is money other than a measurement of value. To earn your money you must be productive, and the more productive you are the more money you'll earn. So the philosophy is essentially saying "Don't bother being productive and don't aspire to be something better than you are right now our were born to be. Simply endure." This attitude is a consequence of determinism and says, "You should learn to appreciate your lot in life because it was fated to be so."
You can probably protect yourself from pain while embracing a philosophy like this, but the consequence is you also shield yourself from passion and real happiness. A level of indifference becomes the goal. But emotions are important, not just some emotions, ALL emotions. There are real consequences for trying to cut yourself from the one's deemed less desirable.
There are definitely some values to be taken from stoicism but it is not a philosophy fully integrated with reality. It's a deterministic death worshiping philosophy, as it's geared towards numbing you to reality to shield you from loss/fear. Reality becomes just something to endure and wanting more for yourself is just a waste of time.
Dont me obsessive aboutamything???? Even reason? What about happiness? What about thinking???
10:06 damn, the way to deal with pain or loss is to give up on valuing what you once valued. What a bad method. To protect yourself from the pain of loss you'd devalue the world, something I've done.
There are people with arbitrary values.
I think Buddhism also tries to sneak that in there a couple times.
@@trygveskogsholm5963 I agree.
Same here, fren.
Would love to know what else about stoicism you can notice as damaging
I think this is a misinterpretation of stoicisms goals and a better page to gain knowledge on it stories of the old. Not my page just very good Or at the source the meditations from the philosopher king himself etc ...
Marcus is the best stoic I listened too.
I only listened to Marcus Aurelius.
Smith: stoicism has some good things over here, but also some bad things over there
Modern stoics: I agree, so let's change the bad parts and keep the good parts
Smith: Noooooo you can't do that!! That's changing it!!!
Modern stoics are like Christians in that aspect. Bible is the ultimate moral guide, unless when it conflicts with their modern moral sentiments. At the end, so much gets discarded or altered, that the older designation barely applies. But the keep calling themselves Christians/Stoics.
Smith is right, you can't change the fundamental principles of stoicism and still call it stoicism. Just like you can't reject the 10 commandments and still call yourself a christian
I've dealt with this specific issue in transitiioning from Stoicism to Objectivism (as a philosophy to guide me). What I noticed very quickly is that all the good parts of stoicism can be found under Reason e.g. Seneca "men are harmed more in their minds, then when the event occurs" which in reason is saying: if I'm going to be harmed by x, I'll be harmed in reality when it happens, not by an arbitrary (irrational) anticipation.
p.s. when i took stoicism seriously, that's when I started to devalue the world, a bad path to go down.
@@GurniHallek I agree with ayn rand 100 % . But problem it is that it(her philosophy) makes life really complicated, in life sometimes you have to lie and fake things so that it works out in the end. Roark goes to the quarry and works cos he's fictional character who runs only own self respect, think of the people with kids, entire families depending on them and they have to lie and make things work instead of takin a decision to run of to a quarry just cos they feel like theyve lost there integrity . The point is u cant be roark , cos ur a human who needs bread and butter , not a fictional character. So there's no point in this over sensitization towards integrity in a mixed economy where jobs are normally scarce and resources are limited, you DO EVERY DAMM THING TO SURVIVE FIRST, NOT THINK OF EVERY LAST ATOM OF INTEGRITY IN FAKING A JOB INTERVIEW COS IT MIGHT AFFECT YOUR SELF ESTEEM.
@@avonflex5031 "But problem it is that it(her philosophy) makes life really complicated"
I disagree. Objectivism makes life really bloody simple, i find, in the areas where it was intentionally overcomplicated. Which is basically almost every aspect of it. And since it recognizes hierarchy of values, it doesn't actually demand that you sacrifice your wife, kids and yourself to a hungry death to keep "every last atom of integrity", because some scumbags arranged matters in such a way that you have no reasonable alternative. Just don't fool yourself about what you are doing and why.
You can overcome any hardship by falling asleep listening to this.
U sure don't understand this subject..
Or you don't
The proper title: 20 mins of aaron smith rambling about that which he does not understand
99% of stoics don't even know their own philosophy as well as they believe they do tainting it with a concept of free will. Free will does not truly exist nor does determinism.
@@kylelundgren5133 that's why one must separate wheat from chaff, denying free will is a falacy within itself, and the ultimate deflection of responsibility.
I listened to the first 3 minutes. That was enough to realize Aaron Smith actually knows nothing about Stoicism. The Stoics were not Determinists. Accepting that some things, even most things, are beyond your control is just reality. And it is not the same thing as accepting that nothing is within your control. Neither ancient nor modern Stoics believe that nothing is within your control. When he was quoting some of those authors, he should have read the books in their entirety.
Chrysippus (ca. 280 - 206 B.C.), held that an action is “up to us” (or in our power), if it results, at least in part, from a cause that’s within us. But he also held that these internal causes (our judgments, values, motives and choices) are the inexorable result of a whole chain of prior (and equally inexorable) causes, which he called Fate. Whatever you do or decide to do - whether to get married, to leave your job or to order another round of sake - you had to do it; your decisions and actions were necessitated by factors preceding your birth. Despite his language of some things being “up to us,” Chrysippus is neither endorsing free will nor rejecting determinism.newideal.aynrand.org/the-false-promise-of-stoicism
@Time Warp are you confusing Stoicism with discount nihilism or something ?
Stoicism is about mental fortitude in the face of adversity
Indeed, stoicism teaches one to worry about things within the bounds of it's control.
@@TheTektronik And the only things within the bounds of one control according to stoicism is your attitude to what happens, since everything is preordained by fate. Indeed, it's not exactly "nothing is under your control", but pretty bloody close. That's why it's such a pathetic philosophy.
@@GurniHallek Nice strawman
Go to the doctors with your father and hear the words 'I'm afraid it's cancer' - then get home and try to be a stoic. It's a fair-weather philosophy: when you need to lean on it the most it collapses under the strain.
Chrysippus (ca. 280 - 206 B.C.), held that an action is “up to us” (or in our power), if it results, at least in part, from a cause that’s within us. But he also held that these internal causes (our judgments, values, motives and choices) are the inexorable result of a whole chain of prior (and equally inexorable) causes, which he called Fate. Whatever you do or decide to do - whether to get married, to leave your job or to order another round of sake - you had to do it; your decisions and actions were necessitated by factors preceding your birth. Despite his language of some things being “up to us,” Chrysippus is neither endorsing free will nor rejecting determinism.newideal.aynrand.org/the-false-promise-of-stoicism/
@@oscard.fernandezj.3096 I deny that life begins at birth - one's life is constructed not just of the narratives we create for ourselves, but also the narratives others create for us and how we play a role in their narratives: our parents start writing our life story before we are born. We are linked to the first human through a longer narrative and their decisions directly influenced our lives - so I expand the definition of 'my life' and refute the claim that 'my' causes have to be within myself to be 'my' cause.There is no bright line as Chrysippus would like there to be between internal and external. One is incoherent without the other.
I'm sorry but I think that's nonsense- not least of which because of all the Stoics in history who faced equally challenging situations, and retained their beliefs (not only retained, but persevered and thrived in those situations precisely because of their stoicism).
Think of Epictetus living as a slave, James Stockdale enduring life in a North Vietnamese POW camp, Cato the Younger resisting Caesar and then opting to commit suicide on defeat, so he would not have to 'outlive the Republic'.
Your premise is disproved in practice. Stoicism only rises in value in the face of adversity, it certainly doesn't just crumble at the first sign of trouble.
@@samchandler7747 Well your argument is equally disproved in practice - but I only need for my claim to be shown to be correct once for my argument to hold, while your claim only needs to be shown to have been wrong once for it to fall.
But this is besides the point. I would say that when you get home from the doctor's and are processing the fact that your father will die, if you don't feel an incredible sadness and some inner turmoil then you are not living correctly. I used to look up to emotionless utterances like Camus' 'Mother died today' and aspire to be able to say them. Now I realise I got life all wrong, and emotions and irrational hope or fear are all part of the human experience; and the most important part at that.
I am sorry for your loss. My father died two years ago. Stoicism does not free us from pain or suffering. It does not turn us into Howard Roark superheroes. Stoicism helped me to stay disciplined in with my thoughts during that time. It gave me the power to banish my inner demons and to get on with the process of grieving. Stoics are not indifferent, but instead we strive to be resilient.
Stoicism cosmology says that world is lasting action (pneuma) and judgment over unfinished action is not logically correct? Denies determinism from the beginning. Valuable stoic action has to be reasonable first?
Chrysippus (ca. 280 - 206 B.C.), held that an action is “up to us” (or in our power), if it results, at least in part, from a cause that’s within us. But he also held that these internal causes (our judgments, values, motives and choices) are the inexorable result of a whole chain of prior (and equally inexorable) causes, which he called Fate. Whatever you do or decide to do - whether to get married, to leave your job or to order another round of sake - you had to do it; your decisions and actions were necessitated by factors preceding your birth. Despite his language of some things being “up to us,” Chrysippus is neither endorsing free will nor rejecting determinism.newideal.aynrand.org/the-false-promise-of-stoicism
@@oscard.fernandezj.3096 What we know is up to us but what about knowledge we don't know yet? Is it our's concept of reality? LOL
I am not very interested in talking about Platonism.
stoicism is the extension of the benevelant universe premise
Classical stoicism most certainly was, modern Stoicism not so much. Many Stoics today have abandoned the concept of Providence and a benevolent, intelligent cosmos.
It should also be noted that this was not without precedent: even Marcus Aurelius, an obvious believer, spoke often of the possibility of an unordered and anarchic universe - the Epicurean 'collision of atoms' - being true.
The Classical Stoic preference was obviously the former, though this example demonstrates that Stoic ethics - the philosophy of life tied to it - can still hold up even in the abcence of its former metaphysical certainty
The obnoxious mouth noises! Stop it!
The narcissism of modern stoics Please stop the obnoxious noise of typing.