Were the Stoics Right?

Accept that life is a storm. There is no overcoming the storm. There is only living well despite it. And you do that through commitment to the only true good in this world: not approval, not success, not pleasure, but virtue. Despite the storm, you can retain your integrity by controlling the only thing you can: your thoughts and your behaviors.
That is the perspective the ancient Stoics argued for. This philosophy, articulated most famously by Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus, is massively influential in Western culture, appearing in Christian teachings, in modern cognitive behavioral therapy, and--in simplified form--the latest trendy self-help advice from would-be influencers.
If you'd like to brush up on this perspective, the three canonical texts are as follows:

• Letters from a Stoic by Seneca
• Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
• The Enchiridion by Epictetus

Each presents a different flavor of Stoicism. Seneca writes as a mentor would to a young friend. Marcus Aurelius writes a diary to himself with stern fatherly advice. Epictetus writes as a teacher handing down guidelines for assessing what we do and do not control in this world.
This all sounds great. But at different times, different Stoic writers admonish their reader to essentially:

• Gain perspective on life by viewing it as though you had already died.
• Accept what life has given you. If you can't accept it, you're delusional and that's your fault.
• Imagine losing everything you treasure so as to brace yourself for your inevitable loss (not remotely traumatizing!)
• Take. Cold. Showers. (the horror!)

So bleak. So cold. So grim. Is such a downer of a philosophy really the path to virtue? Is virtue itself even the right target? All this and more at our session on Stoicism.