I don't get it. We have actual, historical sources, that point to what the Stoics were all about, not a lot mind you, but primary sources of any sort from that time period are rare. Nevertheless, we have them. You've gotta be an actual historian to be able to contextualize them, but we're in luck here, people have done that!
But people will go with the pithiest pop philosophy and pooh pooh the real history. And worse, claim that theirs is the more well-sourced position! Based on non-historical pop takes! Ah well. Stoicism, just like all pop takes on Roman culture, will never die.
Like, look at your argument here. You're dismissing the authors examples, keep in mind that these are direct sources from the time period, by a practicing historian, with the reasoning that "it's just fitting a common trope." Nothing to replace it with, nothing to the contrary except "it's a trope". At least the other reply appealed to an authority!
I'm trying to work out in my head just how close to a degree in history you have to be, either through self-study or matriculated study, in order to actually be able to appreciate history, to not make these kinds of basic category errors regarding sourcing. I guess it's a lot.
