I'm curious why you think the author misrepresents/misunderstands stoicism on this point.
The entire piece is that Stoicism is an individual's philosophy -- one that solves an individual's struggles. The philosophy helps confront that which you can't control...but the author is arguing that it will tempt you to throw up your hands, that you can't control anything.
The short of it is that Stoicism encourages an individual to draw within themselves and create a worldview that is acceptable. All well and good for the individual, but the world's problems will be fixed by collective action -- not individuals withdrawing.
Too much Stoic navel gazing might decrease the likelihood you join the community action board.
"Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc."
This is a modern mischaracterization of stoicism. Mainly because "non-response" is usually interpreted as some sort of strength of will. Even you, you see stoicism as some sort of withdrawal. It's not.
It's not about rejecting the outside world, it's about accepting the outside world. And accepting that the outside world is just that, outside. Being upset at the past is an exercise in futility. It's wasted emotion. Wasted energy.
Stoicism does not reject collective action. What is war but a collective action. And Marucs Aurelius waged him some war. But let's pretend he lost a battle. Well, getting angry isn't going to help. It's not productive. Why did you lose? Can you change things to not lose again? Etc.
Accept what you cannot change. Desire to change the unalterable is the core of suffering.
And sure, anything misapplied or applied too heavily can have bad outcomes. But that's true in all cases. We need water to live, yet we can also drown in it.
But that's life really. There is no "answer". Especially one that means you've "solved" life. Life isn't something to be solved. Life is a river. And you are just a leaf upon it. And sometimes you might get hung up on a rock, but then an eddy will dislodge you and you will continue on down the river.
I'm curious why you think the author misrepresents/misunderstands stoicism on this point.
The entire piece is that Stoicism is an individual's philosophy -- one that solves an individual's struggles. The philosophy helps confront that which you can't control...but the author is arguing that it will tempt you to throw up your hands, that you can't control anything.
The short of it is that Stoicism encourages an individual to draw within themselves and create a worldview that is acceptable. All well and good for the individual, but the world's problems will be fixed by collective action -- not individuals withdrawing.
Too much Stoic navel gazing might decrease the likelihood you join the community action board.