I'm not sure I agree with that characterization of stoicism. A stoic isn't necessarily a pure pragmatist with no interest in optimism. Marcus Aurelius strove to do the best with circumstances as he found them rather than obsessing over what he couldn't have (ironic for a man who aspired to be a priest and was disappointed to be a Roman emperor). To be the best person you can be requires something of an optimistic outlook, seeking the best possible outcome and striving to achieve it. When his wife and best friend threw a coup in his absence he fast-marched his army back to the capitol not to deliver righteous judgment but so he could express his forgiveness of them. He wrote that he was most disappointed that he never got the chance since they committed suicide before he could arrive. Aurelius struck me as a man who didn't let optimism blind him from reality, but used it as a guide for what he wanted to achieve.
Fair enough. Can’t claim to know enough, or to’ve lived enough, to understand stoicism as anything other than Pop Stoicism. That said, seems to me that what you mean by Marcus’ ‘optimism’ above might be, coldly and analytically, described as the wisdom to expect and accept Providence as well as Fate. That might not be optimism at all, which could more easily mean focusing on the good and ignoring the bad. Marcus’s stoicism might’ve been in his knowing about, reasoning with, enduring despite and living through those things.
You can’t take my word for it, though. I seem to be more at home with ideas like Reddit karma than loftier ideas like Instant Karma, or some other, older version of Karma that may’ve come up in class a couple of times.
I'm not sure I agree with that characterization of stoicism. A stoic isn't necessarily a pure pragmatist with no interest in optimism. Marcus Aurelius strove to do the best with circumstances as he found them rather than obsessing over what he couldn't have (ironic for a man who aspired to be a priest and was disappointed to be a Roman emperor). To be the best person you can be requires something of an optimistic outlook, seeking the best possible outcome and striving to achieve it. When his wife and best friend threw a coup in his absence he fast-marched his army back to the capitol not to deliver righteous judgment but so he could express his forgiveness of them. He wrote that he was most disappointed that he never got the chance since they committed suicide before he could arrive. Aurelius struck me as a man who didn't let optimism blind him from reality, but used it as a guide for what he wanted to achieve.
Fair enough. Can’t claim to know enough, or to’ve lived enough, to understand stoicism as anything other than Pop Stoicism. That said, seems to me that what you mean by Marcus’ ‘optimism’ above might be, coldly and analytically, described as the wisdom to expect and accept Providence as well as Fate. That might not be optimism at all, which could more easily mean focusing on the good and ignoring the bad. Marcus’s stoicism might’ve been in his knowing about, reasoning with, enduring despite and living through those things.
You can’t take my word for it, though. I seem to be more at home with ideas like Reddit karma than loftier ideas like Instant Karma, or some other, older version of Karma that may’ve come up in class a couple of times.