I think that is one of the reasons for the decline of stoicism; it was unable to provide a kind of positive philosophy or source of philosophical vitality. It is one of the reasons it was pushed aside by the early Christian church, which valued the human person in a way that stoicism nver could. That isn't to say that stoic virtues and values are not worthy, as they certainly are, and 'stoicism' is a valuable personality trait. But it needs to be animated by compassion, and it's hard to see what the source of that compassion is in the traditional stoic accounts.

So basically Stoicism is just too rational for the masses.

Think that sums it up about right.

There's a nice book that I bought as a gift for a friend a little while back, A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy by William B. Irvine Link: http://a.co/hHj3tsj

I think it conveys the real philosophical juice which made stoicism attractive in the first place.

Also Jules Evans, who has a great website http://www.philosophyforlife.org, utilizes many elements from Stoicism. (If you scroll down on the right, he has 110 posts labelled 'stoicism'.)

So I think if you're prepared to dig into some of those sources, there is a lot of value there.

But the point with any real living philosophy is, it has to connect you with some source of joy, vitality, or meaning, whatever school or style you choose.

There is the *opinion* that we should concern ourselves exclusively with what is in our control, and there is the *active* concerning of ourselves exclusively with what is in our control. The former can lead to feelings of isolation and detachment. The latter leads to feelings of liberation and optimism (I speak from experience). All I concern myself with is philosophy, and as a result, I lead a supremely happy and full life.

Stoicism is about pursuing Eudaimonia (flourishing as a human). So in that way it's anti-fatalistic. Unless one considers the pursuit of Eudaimonia itself to be fatalistic in some way.

I've been reading through Epictetus' Discourses, I've read most of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, I've read the Enchirdion, and I've read Musonius Rufus' fragments, and I've read many of Seneca's letters. I've also read Cicero's comments about Stoicism. I don't see Stoicism as fatalistic. They do believe the universe is deterministic in nature, but take comfort that one does have control over one's attitudes and one's actions and reactions. I've read about Seneca and Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, and I don't see a fatalistic attitude.

The Stoic attitude was such that they suggested if you saw something that needs to be changed, then you should do something about it. Their attitude toward friendship is such that, they said if you see a friend screwing his life up, you should say something. Epictetus was an influential head of a school, Seneca was a wealthy and successful businessman, Marcus Aurelius was one of the best Emperors of the Roman Empire, and he fought off the Germanic tribes. I know a modern-day Stoic blogger and podcaster who is involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. If that's evidence of fatalism, then I wonder how it is being defined.

here are some more modern Stoicism blogs and podcasts
Traditional Stoicism
The Painted Porch
The Immoderate Stoic

But, I admit I'm biased.
I plan on participating in Stoic week again this year (Oct 17-23).. And I recently bought my ticket for Stoicon.
Pierre Hadot wrote quite a bit about the Stoics and has nothing but good things to say. I will soon start his book about Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, called The Inner Citadel.

I credit my interest in Stoicism with an increase in tranquility and an increased satisfaction with life in general. I think Stoic joy is within reach.

Inspiring post, anon. Great to hear accounts of those for whom philosophy really is a path.

Thanks Wayfarer,
I'm not sure if my friends/family/enemies see any changes, but I feel like I'm on a path to freedom (from the passions, at least). It's about progress.

I did get into a debate with some other modern day Stoicism enthusiasts who pointed out that Sellars in his book Stoicism, said quote "they denied free will". I did a little research and found that the early Stoics, including Chrysippus did teach a doctrine of "universal determinism" that does sound very fatalistic, and does seem to deny free will. But, A.A. Long in his book Epictetus suggests that Epictetus himself may have dismissed the doctrine. Epictetus definitely suggests that we do have a free will that is compatible with determinism, and that we better work on our "Governing Principle" if we expect to make any kind of progress.

So, perhaps the early Stoics were fatalistic (or at least their doctrine was) but by late Stoicism, it sounds like they had abandoned the fatalistic doctrine of "universal determinism".

I understand the philosophy was taught for something like 600 years, and the doctrines did change over time. One of the few things we know that all Stoics believed is that Virtue is necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia. The 4 cardinal virtues are Wisdom, Justice, Courage and Temperance.

Surely you couldn't go wrong following such principles.

I do see a lot to admire in the people and in the teachings. To me it's basically about believing the world is a certain way, and believing that if one knows certain things and acts in certain ways, then one can make progress towards Eudaimonia. Even if they're ultimately wrong about the nature of the world, if everyone were to practice what the Stoics taught, the world would be a better place. The Stoics were also accepting of people who disagreed. I see very few downsides that might come from reading Stoic teachings and putting them into practice.