Talk:Contemporary Stoicism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tone of the article

I'm not the one who reported this article, but I suspect that part of the problem may lie in the general tone of the article, and not simply citations - note that the template message also suggests to verify the claims made. I'd noted that there are a few things about this article that are characteristically un-encyclopedic, and that might be improved. Without going into too much detail, I'd noted some problems from the outset. By way of example, the second paragraph of section 2.1:

"That being said, we may cautiously assert, that the defining issue for modern Stoicism is the question of its relationship with the original, ancient Stoicism":

• Is this, in fact, the case? I've followed the modern stoic movement for some time, and I'm not sure that I could say that the "defining issue" for myself, or others, has been the relationship between ancient and modern stoicism.
• If this is a "defining issue," there should be a citation to establish this fact. Who, for example, has indicated that this is a defining issue? Have authors of disparate views concurred on the notion that modern stoicism hinges on the issue of its relation to the politics of Cato or the metaphysics of Marcus? If so, who has? If not, why the assertion?
• Grammatically, I've never seen an encyclopedic entry state that "we may assert" anything. Who is the we? Why are we asserting? Are encyclopedias ever 'cautious' in their assertions? The encyclopedic tone is all about reporting generally held and otherwise verifiable beliefs, and not about advancing "original" theories about this or that.
  • On a related note, the passive tone of "we may cautiously assert" is completely out of place in an encyclopedic entry, but precisely the sort of thing you'd expect to find in an original essay.

Similar problems permeate the article. It reads like an essay, and nothing at all like an encyclopedic entry, the likes of which Wikipedia is all about. As such, it reads like original research, which seems to be the problem that the template message is addressing. Modern stoicism seems like the sort of thing that really ought to have its own Wikipedia entry. I think this just needs to be cleaned up, with the passive voice exorcised, thoroughly cited, and impassively reported upon. Should be good after that.

Deinonychai (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but notice the list of notable books includes a book which is "forthcoming". Is it possible to predict that this book will be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.220.127 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Invented term/distinction

This article is currently over 3,000 words, yet relies on four sources, all of which are books, which indicates the majority of this article is original research. If you were to remove the original research, the article could not stand on it's own. The attempt is to make up a trend where there isn't one. There isn't one credible third party media source that has used the term "modern stoicism" in and sort of trend piece or academic journal making the distinction between modern stoicism and stoicism.

The page seems to be a passion project of the author, user "Stoic Warrior", whose only entries are on this page and related pages. As noted above, it reads like a personal essay from them, desperate to make it a trend, as seen in the first entry on this talk page, "This article is fully serious and all the stuff is legit."

This is an invented trend by user "Stoic Warrior", not supported by any credible third party sources, and should be deleted. Weathermandela (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I support the article, although I should say I volunteer to help with Stoic Week, etc. Can I just clarify, though... Modern Stoicism has actually been covered pretty extensively in the media, albeit under different names, e.g., covering Stiocism Today or Stoic Week, etc. Are you suggesting that coverage isn't sufficient or just that the article has failed to sufficiently cite it? More links to mainstream media could easily be added, if that's necessary/appropriate. I just did a BBC Radio Four interview on Modern Stoicism for example, along with several other people involved in the field, from different backgrounds. Also, when you say it relies on sources that are books, how is that problematic? Do you just mean it requires more media sources to be added to support its credibility? There are many books and media references that could be added quite easily to substantiate this article, IMHO. I don't mind providing references, although as someone who's volunteered for Stoic Week, I also want to be transparent about that and not contribute if it's considered biased. (Although, you know, it would probably help if I pointed out to someone what the relevant sources are, etc.) I have already added a section about the influence of Stoicism on psychotherapy, because that was lacking, and it's my specialist area. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible promotion effort

In addition to my comments above about invented distinction, it could be argued that this page is an attempt at advertising by the user "Stoic Warrior". Reviewing the user's talk page you find that a page created by the user previously was deleted. That page was "Stoic Week", which if you Google, is an event created and hosted by the website "modernstoicism.com"

Further, other edits done by "Stoic Warrior" include promotional and soapboxing edits to pages related to this one, which were reverted a few weeks ago. Weathermandela (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Author's reply, Jan 3, 5.17 PM UTC

Dear All, thank you for your extensive commentary. There is a great deal of merit in what you said above and I will be happy to improve the arcticle following your suggestions. I do believe - as someone has alreaedy noticed - that it is possible to keep it up with the Wiki standards and that the modern Stoic movement deserves an entry of its own. I think I will be able to make proper amendments until, let us say, the end of January. I hope such time frame will be OK and that it will avoid deletion until then. Also, I'm sorry for the very crude way of talking, but Wikipedia has changed a lot since I last edited in back in 2006, and now I find it very hard to do the "talking" page. For an outsider it is very difficult to even figure out where to discuss the article. I'll do my best to upgrade the article, as discussed, later in January. Thank you for your patience, Stoic Warrior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoic Warrior (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

what is this, anyway?

Holy Cow! Anyone care to explain what "modern stoicism" actually is? I read half the article before I gave up. It seems to assume that you already know what it is, which is ... useless. WTF. Come on ... we can do better, here. 84.15.185.14 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

'Notable books'

Is this appropriate to have on wikipedia? It seems like an original and opinion-based list with no sources explaining why each book is important. Jtaylor100 (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sections on Differences with ancient stoicism

This entire section is just a re-write of this guy 'Becker's' views. It needs to be greatly scaled down, re-written in more readable English, and to include other authors and possibly a rebuttal.

REQUEST FOR DELETION

This article is using the name of a private organisation as it's title. modernstoicism.com the original author is a member of the Modern Stoicism Ltd Organisation and a former student of Lawrence Becker, who is cited as if to represent him as the intellectual founder of a new philosophy, with followers that adhere to his doctrines. This is false, there is no such consensus, Becker is not an influential author outside a small group of acquaintances. His writings are controversial within the Stoic community...

The general quality is poor...

While it is true that Albert Ellis referenced Stoicism in his Rational EMotive Behavioural Therapy, it is not at all foundational, and both REBT and CBT are psychotherapies, not ethical philosophies.

Viktor Frankl whos is referenced identified himself as an Existentialist. that he named his philosophy Logotherapy, is incidental.

The alleged "modern Stoicism movement" circulates around Modern Stoicism ltd. and they events they organise.

Of the people reference

Alasdair MacIntyre is an Aristotelian has not written on Stoicism other than briefly, and dismissively, in After Virtue. Martha Nussbaum is another critic of Stoicism, not an adherent. Lawrence Becker has been discussed, he is now deceased but none of these academics have ever been participants in any way in any movement.

Mouron Rouge (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The article as a whole is vague, misleading and uninformative and is pushing a very personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouron Rouge (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

= Edit =:

I saw this in the comments below: "promotional and soapboxing". This would describe this article very accurately.

Mouron Rouge (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

moved this thread in the normal position. Haven't examined the article vs. the complaint above other than to see that the article is 6 yo. Prolly above is more or less specious or at least oblivious in as much is it suggests deletion instead of correction. There is in fact such a thing as modern stoicism, like it or not. In fact every major philosophical current of the past generally has some modern version because philosophy is vacuous and mills the things until it (philosophy) falls off. Lycurgus (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

while it is true that there is such a thing as modern or contemporary Stoicism, this article is not very indicative of that movement as a whole. the section on the differences between ancient and modern Stoicism does not reflect most peoples views of Stoicism as a way of life. it is very much geared towards one person's interpretation, the original authors, who is a part of the Modern Stoicism Organization. Broadfootrj (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, the quality level of the article is not high. Also "most people" don't have an opinion or even know what Stoicism refers to let alone what it actually is. I removed a whitespace in your comment for alignment. 'Most people' that even have any idea whatsoever prolly conflate it with "the strong silent type". 98.4.112.204 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)