Talk:Stoicism

Stoicism is NOT shoa
Shoa isn't the same as Stoicism, especially, do not write this in the German Wiki article as well, it's just NOT the same! I do not hate holocaust victim jews! --2001:16B8:57D0:200:B00D:AFAB:A5C1:6C0B (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @2001:16B8:57D0:200:B00D:AFAB:A5C1:6C0B of course, it is not. Do people really pronounce stoa as shoa? Worldpermeating (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing uncited claims and original research
There's a whole lot in this article that isn't supported by any secondary sources. It seems as if some editors may have read the extant works on Stoicism and arrived at their own original conclusions. I'm going through the article and removing anything that is not supported by a secondary, scholarly source. There are no shortage of academic sources covering Stoicism, we should have an article that represents the academic consensus rather than risk introducing some new age interpretations or self-help literature.

This article has a long way to go to meet the good article criteria despite being marked as such - the Stoics made highly structured divisions of their philosophy into Logic, Physics, and Ethics with highly structured subdivisions of each, this is nowhere to be found on this article. There's also almost no history of the movement and how it developed, or discussion of any of the influences it exerted over medieval or modern philosophy. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the transformation of this article by your hand. 182.239.146.18 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable Source
Hope nobody objects to me raising a question about this here, if so please direct me to the correct approach. Someone just contacted me pointing out that one of my own books is marked as an unreliable source in this Wikipedia entry. (Stoicism and the Art of Happiness, published by Hodder.) I just wondered what the rationale was for that decision. As far as I can see the book doesn't actually meet any of the criteria for a questionable source cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources It is not self-published but was published as part of a reputable series from a well-known publishing house. Thanks. - Donald Robertson HypnoSynthesis (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, you have come to the right place in the first instance. The book was tagged in January, for reasons not given. I have (a) removed the tag, and (b) linked the citation to the publisher's entry on Wikipedia - John Murray (publishing house). Please note that the article does not cite the Hodder printing, but the John Murray one. Hopefully this matter is now addressed and will not be repeated. (Personally, thanks for your time spent compiling the book.) 182.239.146.18 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Christian Misrepresentation
The section referencing influence on Christianity claims both systems assert fundamental human depravity. That isn't true of Stoicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:980:E520:949E:36AD:30D4:9503 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Acceptance of Anaxagoras' claim
As a subtopic in the categories section, there is a claim that "stoics accept the anaxagoras notion that when an object becomes red, it is because an universal redness has entered the body". I would doubt that claim considering that stoics themselves deny the existence of most universals as bodies (as a warning, i am not a stoic expert, so maybe i'm wrong in this claim, but it seems contradictory). Also, the claim is unlinked, so I would appreciate if someone links it to the direct source (which I couldn't find too, since the main sources never say this, though I couldn't read all the sources so maybe the source is there somewhere. Any way, it would be nice to link it). 181.97.174.141 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)