The stoics traced their lineage back to Socrates: Zeno of Citium was a student of Crates of Thebes, who supposedly studied under Diogenes of Sinope who supposedly studied under Antisthenes who was a student of Socrates. By the time stoicism was in full swing, the platonic Academy was taken over by the sceptics with guys like Arcesilaus and Karneades openly attacking the tenets of stoicism in their writings.

Yeah, I was more trying to refer strictly to the teachings of Plato (as found in The Republic, for example) in comparison to Stoicism.

One question that interests me, is why did the Platonist school, even though it was more widespread than Stoicism, didn't produce important historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Would it be because of the overly theoretic aspect of Platonism?

One question that interests me, is why did the Platonist school, even though it was more widespread than Stoicism, didn't produce important historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Would it be because of the overly theoretic aspect of Platonism? — Agustino

Well, apart from the people I already mentioned (Arcesilaus and Karneades where scholarchs of the Academy), Cicero also went to the Academy during his time in Athens. Cicero wasn't exactly a platonist though.

One question that interests me, is why did the Platonist school, even though it was more widespread than Stoicism, didn't produce important historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Would it be because of the overly theoretic aspect of Platonism? — Agustino

With my utmost respect, are you even serious about asking this question?

One question that interests me, is why did the Platonist school, even though it was more widespread than Stoicism, didn't produce important historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Would it be because of the overly theoretic aspect of Platonism?

Esoteric vs exoteric

With my utmost respect, are you even serious about asking this question? — Caldwell

What's wrong with asking that?

Well, apart from the people I already mentioned (Arcesilaus and Karneades where scholarchs of the Academy), Cicero also went to the Academy during his time in Athens. Cicero wasn't exactly a platonist though. — Ying

What about, for ex. Plutarch?

Esoteric vs exoteric — Cavacava

I doubt that - if you read Plato's works, most of them have a fair balance between the esoteric and the exoteric. And there are Platonists like Plutarch who are very much focused on social issues.

Every narrative is a mix, but Plato never suggested a set rules for behavior like some of the Stoics. The substance of Plato's dialogues is between the lines, and not in the lines. Plato teaches how to think, not what to think.

Which do you think was more accessible to those that followed?

What about, for ex. Plutarch? — Agustino

Uh, sure. I don't know much about that dude so didn't mention him. :)

Uh, sure. I don't know much about that dude so didn't mention him. :) — Ying

Okay, so then on ethical matters, do you agree more with the Platonists or the Stoics?

I was actually discussing this here recently too:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/149344

Okay, so then on ethical matters, do you agree more with the Platonists or the Stoics? — Agustino

Classical scepticism/daoism. I'm basically against prescriptive ethics, dualistic value judgement systems etc. 8-)

One question that interests me, is why did the Platonist school, even though it was more widespread than Stoicism, didn't produce important historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Would it be because of the overly theoretic aspect of Platonism? — Agustino

What's wrong with asking that? — Agustino

I was wondering why not ask, why had Stoicism been adopted as a practical philosophy and practiced in everyday life? (Stoicism was purported to be the basis of Christianity). And meanwhile, you could also argue that Platonism was truly a scholastic endeavor.

(Stoicism was purported to be the basis of Christianity). — Caldwell

As was Platonism for that matter, in fact, more so in the case of Platonism.

I was wondering why not ask, why had Stoicism been adopted as a practical philosophy and practiced in everyday life? — Caldwell

What's the significant difference between this question and mine?

What's the significant difference between this question and mine? — Agustino

You blurred the difference between the two, instead of highlighting it. Short of saying you didn't know the significant difference, I suspect you were eating a really good sandwich when you blurted out this thread, no?

Right... :-}

Kay.

Hope there is no problem in arriving late at the debate but the two philosophies are considerably different and seem to agree only that virtue is the way to happiness. One possesses dualism between matter and spirit, as far as I know it was not dogmatic, it is strongly based on logic and has math as necessary in its curriculum, its members were practicing vegetarians and animal rights activists. The other is a non dualist and dogmatic, mainly ethical, philosophy with little logical requirements and advocating flesh eating.
Why did one not seem to produce important politicians and the other did? I honestly don't know if it did or not but except for some branches of Stoicism there doesn't seem to be a bias about a philosopher engaging in such an activity while you can see that it was not the ideal occupation in Platonism.

I do not remember when Stoics advocated meat-eating. Rufus was a vegetarian, the same goes for Senecca (although his vegetarianism was mainly driven by the teachings of Pythagoras).

It might be helpful to consider Plotinus as a self-identified follower of Plato who disagreed with his Stoic contemporaries. I would like to draw more lines from actual texts but that is an academic endeavor I cannot take on at the moment. Consider the following paragraph from SEP:

The second group of major opponents of Platonism were the Stoics. The Enneads are filled with anti-Stoic polemics. These polemics focus principally on Stoic materialism, which Plotinus finds to be incapable of articulating an ontology which includes everything in the universe. More important, Stoic materialism is unable to provide explanatory adequacy even in the realm in which the Stoics felt most confident, namely, the physical universe. For example, the Stoics, owing to their materialism, could not explain consciousness or intentionality, neither of which are plausibly accounted for in materialistic terms. According to Plotinus, the Stoics were also unable to give a justification for their ethical position – not in itself too far distant from Plato’s – since their exhortations to the rational life could not coherently explain how one body (the empirical self) was supposed to identify with another body (the ideal rational agent).

Heat energy was divine for the Stoics. The sun particularly. The Hindu idea of "tapas" in the stomach would have resonated with them. Stoics were materialists though while Hindus are usually idealist. Few have impugned the Stoics are moral grounds, therefore they seem to have been a pretty noble band of materialistic atheists. There are many such people around these days.

Seneca was only briefly a vegetarian before becoming a Stoic, it seems he didn't want to be confused with some groups.
Didn't know Musonius was vegetarian, only that he advocated eating like slaves did which I imagine meant little or no meat. It is possible that some stoics and cynics were vegetarian as a matter of frugality or even for other reasons.
Zeno in his polemic Republic seems to have advocated even cannibalism, probably in justifiable situations.

Please allow me to hang my piñata. And nothing here original with me, but adduced from here and there; inevitably, memory being what it is, some of it mistaken, and so I invite correction. Also, imo the OP is and the thread so far has stayed focused on an admirable topic for a philosophy site, and reasonably well-handled. I especially admire an almost Socratic-like appreciation for short replies.

I assume Plato may be taken to represent Platonism, and of Stoicism, Zeno, but including later Stoics. The idea here to distinguish between what something was and what it may have evolved and changed to over half a thousand years and more.

Very roughly:
Plato was concerned with finding certainties and perfection. Unable to find any in his world - nature - he looked for and found them out of this world in ideals. He then tried to apply those perfections to his own imperfect world.

Stoics, on the other hand, remained in this world and attempted to figure out how to make the best of it.

One might say the Platonists tried to emulate an unnatural perfection, the Stoics to be it naturally. Or for a Platonist, what should I do or be, For a Stoic, what am I, or what may I be, given who and what I am.

The Stoics revered Socrates, but that Socrates wasn't the Socrates of Plato.

The Stoics conception of an immanent divinity also sets them apart from Plato, and served to prevent them from flying off into the Never-Never Land of Platonism and Neo-Platonism and their offshoots and, of course, Christianity to the extent it borrowed from Plato than Aristotle and others of the ancient schools.