Gregory, I’m interested in reading a rejoinder to the objection of fatalism in Stoicism. I’d appreciate if you could point me in the right direction. Can you think of a specific work I should read dealing with this issue off the top your head?
I don't know enough about Stoicism to be able to even begin to point out the flaws. I do like that you took the time to address the issue of people pointing out flaws that have already been identified. I will definitely be more weary in the future on buying into these allegations without doing my own research. I agree that you have to get out of your comfort zone and see what these philosophers actually had to say about those things you are pointing out as a flaw. Go read the book. For example, I just read Cicero's Stoic Paradoxes for the first time. I have a much better understanding about the difficulty of translating this material into modern English to where it makes sense. I looked at the work "Paradox" before I read book and thought why would Cicero spend his time telling the Stoics how to present their material more effectively and use a title indicating a self-contradictory conclusion. That would be confusing and never a good way to start the conversation. But, when I took the time to go and read the book I discovered that he was actually reaching unexpected conclusions and I think did a very good job of laying out the basic principles of Stoic thought. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and making me a smarter person.
Gregory, I’m interested in reading a rejoinder to the objection of fatalism in Stoicism. I’d appreciate if you could point me in the right direction. Can you think of a specific work I should read dealing with this issue off the top your head?
I don't know enough about Stoicism to be able to even begin to point out the flaws. I do like that you took the time to address the issue of people pointing out flaws that have already been identified. I will definitely be more weary in the future on buying into these allegations without doing my own research. I agree that you have to get out of your comfort zone and see what these philosophers actually had to say about those things you are pointing out as a flaw. Go read the book. For example, I just read Cicero's Stoic Paradoxes for the first time. I have a much better understanding about the difficulty of translating this material into modern English to where it makes sense. I looked at the work "Paradox" before I read book and thought why would Cicero spend his time telling the Stoics how to present their material more effectively and use a title indicating a self-contradictory conclusion. That would be confusing and never a good way to start the conversation. But, when I took the time to go and read the book I discovered that he was actually reaching unexpected conclusions and I think did a very good job of laying out the basic principles of Stoic thought. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and making me a smarter person.