The Virtual University: Marcus Aurelius Part 1

I just heard Stoicism characterised by a rejection of pleasure. This is utterly incorrect unless "pleasure" is highly qualified to mean base, instant, gratification.....which he did not do. Whether he did it purposely or just slipped, it continues a broad misconception of Stoicism as "grin and bear it" rather than a practical philosophy the practise of which will automatically, as a matter of cause and effect, bring tranquillity, which tranquillity is the soundest form of pleasure.
Cheeryble

Michael Sugrue rules!

Stocics do not care about what is out of their control. They may be seen as selfish, but they realize that they only things that matter in life are those things that are under our control. Nothing else matters. All else is irrelevant. Stoics can forgo pleasure without complaint. Our environment is mutable.

Yes, but that could mean anything. It could mean a spiritual pursuit. That would conflict almost assuredly with worldly, material pursuits. Socrates shows very little ambition except to show that others lack true knowledge and that he is in pursuit of knowledge.
By ambition, I mean what everyone means: the pursuit of worldly success.

Do you mean that stoic philosophy is too rational?

well they base their philosophy on rationalism, but at the same time they submit themselves to the Gods, because they believe that theses gods are rational in there actions.

That's not true. As far as I know stoics are not perse believing in God(s). The term Logos, which plays a crucial role in the understanding of Stoic philosophy, has been translated by some to a higher power. Submitting also isn't part of the Stoic vocabulaire, since it's a self-centered philsophy (like epicurianism). The Logos is to be found inside, not outside. If this is a pro or a con is yet too be seen.

well you have to admit that there is a form of fatalism in there philosophy

True, the one thing left to do for the stoic is moral improvement and hardening. The stoic is like a dying flower.