This is beautifully written, Kevin.

To me Stoicism is a mixed bag. Its assertion that the universe (or universes) is possessed of two natures: logos and dumb matter seems quite absurd and certainly human centric. However, its emphasis on trying to cull truth from nonsense via close attention to thought, language, and observation is remarkably pre-scientific. And the aspect you bring forward here, the idea of careful, sensible thinking trumping emotion and instinctive passion provides a good starting point for self-examination. Related to that its goal of finding a good life (Eudiomonia) through concentrated and careful self-examination of one’s thoughts and behaviors seems useful. What it leaves out, though, is compassion and a sense or need of action on the larger scale to promote the greater good and oppose tyrannical actors. In some ways, Stoicism is built to moderate yet justify tyranny. This, in part, explains why it was so widely embraces by the elites of ancient Greece and, later, the Roman overclasses. As you know Stoicism developed originally as an offshoot of Socratic cynicism, which questioned everything. I think that what Stoicism eventually discarded of the Socratic aggressiveness and curiosity ends up being its major weakness.