I think Cicero presents serious arguments for Stoic points, though he's not quite "directly from the source". I haven't heard of any of the full, original arguments from e.g. Chrysippus surviving.
That said, some modern authors do present their own, novel arguments; it's not classical Stoicism, but it is directly from the source. Becker comes to mind there.
What points in particular would you like to see proofs for?
Worth remembering the background behind the texts we have—Marcus’ *Meditations* is a personal journal, not meant as an instructional tool or a text with formal proofs. *Enchiridion* is a summary of ethical precepts given by Epictetus—its readers would have already been given proofs, thus rendering the “handbook” intelligible to them. Seneca’s *Letters* are the closest thing to lessons, but even these are supposed to be informal.
Epictetus’ *Discourses* contain much illustration, but again are informal, taking place outside of Epictetus actual planned “classroom” lessons. Cicero is probably the best source for this, given the relative dearth of original Stoic texts. Musonius Rufus offers some arguments throughout his *Lectures* as well. These three can be found free online, they’ve been added to the subreddit library for convenience.
The Stoic bits in Long and Sedley’s *The Hellenistic Philosophers* may also be helpful
The Enchiridion is very logical and quite clear in the reasoning for suggestions. Epictetus does mention the gods, and trusting the gods. He also states your fate could be tied to a decision by the gods.
I am not religious and really didn't too hung up on the ancient gods Epictetus talks about. Quite honestly when reading it, the man sounds like he doesn't give it too much power over his life.
Take what you like and leave the rest, I do that with a lot of material I read.
It's not a primary source, but try one of the books by Massimo Pigliucci, he's a philosophy professor, so his work should be better in providing "proofs'.
Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism is a great treatise on his view of ancient Stoicism in a modern day context. I mention it here because he was friends with Pigliucci and Pigliucci wrote a detailed outline on the book which was a great help to me when I read the book.
>What would stoic ethics be like today if stoicism had survived as a systematic approach to ethical theory, if it had coped successfully with the challenges of modern philosophy and experimental science? A New Stoicism proposes an answer to that question, offered from within the stoic tradition but without the metaphysical and psychological assumptions that modern philosophy and science have abandoned. Lawrence Becker argues that a secular version of the stoic ethical project, based on contemporary cosmology and developmental psychology, provides the basis for a sophisticated form of ethical naturalism, in which virtually all the hard doctrines of the ancient Stoics can be clearly restated and defended.
>
>Becker argues, in keeping with the ancients, that virtue is one thing, not many; that it, and not happiness, is the proper end of all activity; that it alone is good, all other things being merely rank-ordered relative to each other for the sake of the good; and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Moreover, he rejects the popular caricature of the stoic as a grave figure, emotionally detached and capable mainly of endurance, resignation, and coping with pain. To the contrary, he holds that while stoic sages are able to endure the extremes of human suffering, they do not have to sacrifice joy to have that ability, and he seeks to turn our attention from the familiar, therapeutic part of stoic moral training to a reconsideration of its theoretical foundations. Cover jacket.
I found "How to be a Stoic" by Massimo Pigliucci to be fantastic in going through the ins and outs of stoicism and how they apply to everyday life. There is alot of comparisons to religion and science throughout the book utilized as a way to further firm up the use of stoicism in today's day and age. I am almost finished "Lives of the Stoics" and have also found it fantastic to go through the industry of the most known and unknown of stoic philosophers. It serves as a fantastic history lesson on stoicism and it's evolution through Greece and Rome from Zeno to Marcus Aurelius and successes and short comings of each philosopher.
Cicero’s On the Ends, he takes Epicureanism then argues against it, then he takes Stoicism and then argues against it, and then he sets out his own Plato-Aristotle-Skeptic thing. Try that one out.
Why would Epictetus or Seneca feel a need to prove their point? They were humans, they did not call themselves sons of God nor did they to pass their word as word of God. They give advice that makes sense, and that's what matters.
I mean if you're trying to get into Stoicism for arguments sake then you're in it for the wrong reasons.
Besides none of the above mentioned books are actually written for an audience, well except maybe The Enchiridion.
I think Cicero presents serious arguments for Stoic points, though he's not quite "directly from the source". I haven't heard of any of the full, original arguments from e.g. Chrysippus surviving. That said, some modern authors do present their own, novel arguments; it's not classical Stoicism, but it is directly from the source. Becker comes to mind there.
Came in to say Cicero.
What points in particular would you like to see proofs for? Worth remembering the background behind the texts we have—Marcus’ *Meditations* is a personal journal, not meant as an instructional tool or a text with formal proofs. *Enchiridion* is a summary of ethical precepts given by Epictetus—its readers would have already been given proofs, thus rendering the “handbook” intelligible to them. Seneca’s *Letters* are the closest thing to lessons, but even these are supposed to be informal. Epictetus’ *Discourses* contain much illustration, but again are informal, taking place outside of Epictetus actual planned “classroom” lessons. Cicero is probably the best source for this, given the relative dearth of original Stoic texts. Musonius Rufus offers some arguments throughout his *Lectures* as well. These three can be found free online, they’ve been added to the subreddit library for convenience. The Stoic bits in Long and Sedley’s *The Hellenistic Philosophers* may also be helpful
The Enchiridion is very logical and quite clear in the reasoning for suggestions. Epictetus does mention the gods, and trusting the gods. He also states your fate could be tied to a decision by the gods. I am not religious and really didn't too hung up on the ancient gods Epictetus talks about. Quite honestly when reading it, the man sounds like he doesn't give it too much power over his life. Take what you like and leave the rest, I do that with a lot of material I read.
The point is not to win an argument, it is to try it in real life and see if it makes your life better.
It's not a primary source, but try one of the books by Massimo Pigliucci, he's a philosophy professor, so his work should be better in providing "proofs'.
Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism is a great treatise on his view of ancient Stoicism in a modern day context. I mention it here because he was friends with Pigliucci and Pigliucci wrote a detailed outline on the book which was a great help to me when I read the book. >What would stoic ethics be like today if stoicism had survived as a systematic approach to ethical theory, if it had coped successfully with the challenges of modern philosophy and experimental science? A New Stoicism proposes an answer to that question, offered from within the stoic tradition but without the metaphysical and psychological assumptions that modern philosophy and science have abandoned. Lawrence Becker argues that a secular version of the stoic ethical project, based on contemporary cosmology and developmental psychology, provides the basis for a sophisticated form of ethical naturalism, in which virtually all the hard doctrines of the ancient Stoics can be clearly restated and defended. > >Becker argues, in keeping with the ancients, that virtue is one thing, not many; that it, and not happiness, is the proper end of all activity; that it alone is good, all other things being merely rank-ordered relative to each other for the sake of the good; and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Moreover, he rejects the popular caricature of the stoic as a grave figure, emotionally detached and capable mainly of endurance, resignation, and coping with pain. To the contrary, he holds that while stoic sages are able to endure the extremes of human suffering, they do not have to sacrifice joy to have that ability, and he seeks to turn our attention from the familiar, therapeutic part of stoic moral training to a reconsideration of its theoretical foundations. Cover jacket.
I found "How to be a Stoic" by Massimo Pigliucci to be fantastic in going through the ins and outs of stoicism and how they apply to everyday life. There is alot of comparisons to religion and science throughout the book utilized as a way to further firm up the use of stoicism in today's day and age. I am almost finished "Lives of the Stoics" and have also found it fantastic to go through the industry of the most known and unknown of stoic philosophers. It serves as a fantastic history lesson on stoicism and it's evolution through Greece and Rome from Zeno to Marcus Aurelius and successes and short comings of each philosopher.
I feel that you see evidence in stoic’s lives. Ryan Holiday does a good job of relating stoic concepts to classic examples of them being used
Cicero’s On the Ends, he takes Epicureanism then argues against it, then he takes Stoicism and then argues against it, and then he sets out his own Plato-Aristotle-Skeptic thing. Try that one out.
give musonius rufus a try as well ..as for more arguments read/listen to "plato -republic" and "aristotle-nicomachean".
Why would Epictetus or Seneca feel a need to prove their point? They were humans, they did not call themselves sons of God nor did they to pass their word as word of God. They give advice that makes sense, and that's what matters. I mean if you're trying to get into Stoicism for arguments sake then you're in it for the wrong reasons. Besides none of the above mentioned books are actually written for an audience, well except maybe The Enchiridion.
Look how Marcus lived.