Yes I can definitely be harsh on the Stoics on occasion, but in reading a little more into Emily Austin's book tonight I came across a couple of relevant paragraphs from Chapter 15 that remind me to keep the pressure on due to the different approaches to dealing with what is and what is not in our control
Oh, I agree with your sentiment there, Cassius . We certainly have precedent for forcefully engaging with "our rivals" from the earliest students (and founder) of the Garden. The only caveat I'd offer is to make sure we're sticking to facts about their philosophy and not engaging in stereotyping. Not that you were doing that in #13 necessarily, but we have to be sure we're being frank about the real tenets of their philosophy so they can't accuse us of "not understanding" it. That's why Dr. Austin's regularly bringing up specifics is important. The Epicurean fact of "the way things are" that bad things that happen are just bad and painful and not part of a providential plan is so important. To a Stoic, the death of a loved one (if Stoics can even use that term), including a child, is of no consequence to one's happiness. Epicureans understand the "bite" of grief and provide ways to cope. Dr. Austin also brings up the Stoic idea that friends are there to allow the Stoic to practice virtue, but friends are just a "preferred indifferent" and aren't necessary to one's well-being. Those are the kind of specific "practices" and ideas that make Stoicism unsatisfactory and unsatisfying to me. She does a great job of laying those kinds of things out in that podcast episode... Right on the Stoics' own turf!
