While there is a rational basis for only focusing on the things you can control, in practice, I've observed that people who adhere to Stoicism as a core part of their philosophy toward life end up using it as a crutch to intellectualize disengagement and shy away from confrontation of all forms.
There is a healthy and rational way to engage in conflict resolution and ignoring the problem, refusing to have difficult conversations, burying one's head in the sand, none of these things accomplish anything other than to result in a gradual surrender to people who have no such qualms.
This strikes me as an objection to people’s interpretation of the philosophy. Even the early stoics believed this would be the wrong way to live. The four core virtues include courage, and the people shying from confrontation would be lacking that virtue. They would also be willfully ignorant, thus lacking wisdom. Then finally, they would be lacking temperance by failing to resist their urge to hide from something that makes them uncomfortable.
I’m not saying stoicism is perfect or anything like it.
I describe what you’re noticing as “inviting death into life”. I do agree a lot of people use philosophies like stoicism to intellectualize and justify this behaviour. It’s a very common kind of psychological illness though, and people find all kinds of ways to do it. They suppress themselves (and those around them) by rationalizing their inability to engage in life.
I find a lot of people who do this can be very intelligent. When I realized how it works it was very eye-opening how little an intellect can protect you from maladaptive behaviours. The brain can seriously undermine itself through defensive and protective behaviour.
Yes, "inviting death into life" is a good way to put it.
The classical philosophy was much purer in many ways than modern practice, agreed on that point.
Although I do often question how much value it was to Marcus Aurelius himself as a father given how his son turned out. I don't intend that as a low blow but as a serious question of the long term value of the implications contained in the philosophy.
No, you're right to ask that. It's an interesting question to me in this era of time and regarding the merits of stoicism in general. One of the most highly regarded stoics (though he never explicitly identified as one) was the father of a horrible megalomaniac.
I don't think it'll be possible to ever know why that happened and how, but it's worth being suspicious of.
One of the main issues with stoicism (from my perspective) is that people can easily think they're engaged in the philosophy internally, yet they'll rarely if ever practice it externally in the world. It's easy to think Aurelius was practicing it externally because of how he expresses himself in text, and how his time as emperor was positively renowned... But this doesn't necessarily mean he was engaged in practicing the philosophy holistically in all aspects of his life. Maybe he was a bad father. There is evidence that Commodus didn't receive as much guidance as Marcus himself did, which is odd. Marcus was ill and facing the worst kinds of things, yet you'd think he'd have the resources and sense to ensure his son was receiving training and guidance to greatest extent possible. It's easy to be critical, though. He faced tremendous losses and stress in his life that would likely wear me into a pulp.
But then there's also the possibility that the winners write history, and those who assassinated Commodus ensured that records of his rule were made to seem horrible. It's hard to be certain of what really occurred.
Still, there are likely more stoics out there who try to think like a stoic but don't act like one. It's the same with any philosophy. Bringing it into practice is the hard part, and most of us fail to some degree or another. I do think stoicism is particularly vulnerable to this mistake though, but that's only based on intuition and anecdotal experience.
I know what you're getting at here, but one should never underestimate the ability of the "self-help" publishers and snake-oil communities in general to commercialize, popularize, and ultimately derail and derange any kind of wisdom they get their hands on. Lots of people involved in "self-improvement" also aren't being honest with themselves and are actually looking to rationalize whatever their existing bad behaviours are with sophisticated-seeming nonsense.
Stoicism is like Buddhism or anything else here, where you're better off with primary sources or certain vetted guides/commentaries. Talking to certain segments of people that loudly consider themselves practitioners may not be the best way to actually get acquainted with the philosophy..
One of the funniest things about modern stoicism hucksters is how steadfastly they're focused on using the philosophy to get more out of wholly external aspects of life. There's very little focus on the hard parts, like being at ease with who and what you are and what your place in the cosmos is, and utilizing your virtues to the best of your ability. It's more like "here's the dichotomy of control... Now use this knowledge to control your sales funnel and maximize profits this quarter!"
I think this is a valid objection and through the years I realized what the best use may be for stoicism: a fallback in difficult times when all other philosophies fail.
Sure, if you can resolve conflicts and engage with problems, go for it and do it. Sometimes though the world around you is falling or you suffer terrible loss or you face impossible situations -- then Marcus Aurelius will still be there waiting for you, with advice to offer. Also worth remembering he wrote the thing itself with war and death all around him.
There is a healthy and rational way to engage in conflict resolution and ignoring the problem, refusing to have difficult conversations, burying one's head in the sand, none of these things accomplish anything other than to result in a gradual surrender to people who have no such qualms.