>>12800711>>12800707The thing with stoics is that they completely miss what the actual stoics were about. There was almost a thousand years before the stoics were remembered and what is now known as stoicism is completely misunderstood by most modern people; as they tend to think of stoicism as a philosophy that is solely "resigned to fate". The reality is that the stoics had many variations of the fate concept. It would be an oversimplification to say that they believed that fate was absolute, determinate and immutable. For instance, the stoics had three main fate concepts called: heimarmene, anangke and pronoia. Heimarmene is probably the closest to immutable fate but it is the kind of fate present within (for instance) the seed to become a tree or a tomato. The other two modes of fate are really almost opposites of each other. Pronoia is often described as providence and foresight, whereas anangke is the ignorance that leads us to choose one path over another. These three fate concepts actually can compete with each other which from a stoic point of view could be seen as leading to a level of indeterminism.
Regardless, the type who op is talking about are simply nihilists who are co-opting stoicism because they feel guilty about their real nihilism.
