This is about what I was expecting. Nothing amazing, but it gets the point across. We'll pass on this one for the library.

A pellucid and aptly compact introduction to the central themes, concerns and challenges of Stoicism as a practical guide to living well. The Prologue and Epilogue bracket the following chapters:

1 The Philosopher as Doctor
2. What Do You Control?
3. The Problem with Emotions
4. Dealing with Adversity
5. Our Place in Nature
6. Life and Death
7. How We Live Together

Authored by a philosopher with proven expertise in the relevant scholarship, as well as a founding member of Modern Stoicism ( the group behind Stoic Week and Stoicon), which infuses the book with contemporary relevance. For any academic and public library general collections.

I really enjoyed this easy-to-read intro to Stoic philosophy and history. The book breaks down Stoic thought into a handful of chapters/themes, linking them together with examples and sprinkling them with quotes from the Stoic originators (and scenes from their lives). Makes me want to pick up some longer works!

With the world a complete dog's breakfast, my seventh decade nearly upon me, and intimations of mortality coming thick and fast, it seems an excellent time to seek the consolations of the Stoic philosophy. If you find yourself in a similar bind, this book is an good place to start. I read an (free for review) electronic version of this book, but I hope the publisher actually issues it in pocket size, as (at 60 pages) it would be an excellent addition to any overcoat or purse for people who are attempting to break the insidious grip of the smartphone while commuting and other waiting.

This is largely an introduction to a trio of great Roman thinkers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius), although other philosophers appear briefly. If you've read even one or two other books on the topic or the previously-mentioned philosophers, this book probably won't tell you anything that you don't know.

The book has a lot of great good sense that would be difficult for any person to argue with. Philosophers analyze how you think. Wealth is neither good nor bad itself, but it can be used for good or bad ends. Pursuit of fame or money can be a grave mistake. Some (maybe much) of your life is out of your control. Don't react impulsively. Don't let anger control your actions. Don't worry about what other people think. If you postpone your plans and dreams until retirement, it may be too late.

Some might argue against the existence of a rational intelligence driving the universe, but it's interesting to see that Stoics came up with, and defended, this idea without the influence of religion as we practice it.

I, rightly or wrongly, tend to associate Stoics with conservatives, in the modern US political sense of that last word. I guess it's because I've seen it come up in the writings of Nassim Nicolas Taleb, who doesn't have much good to say about non-conservatives, also because Stoicism seems to frequently address the value of self-control, also a favorite topic of US conservatives (in rhetoric, if perhaps not so much in practice). So I was surprised to read that some stuff that could be interpreted as a defense of unfashionable internationalism, including this quote from Seneca (location 504):

Let us grasp the idea that there are two commonwealths – the one, a vast and truly common state, which embraces alike gods and men, in which we look neither to this corner of earth or to that, but measure the bounds of our citizenship by the path of the sun; the other, the one to which we have been assigned by accident of birth. The key thing to note here is that we are members of both communities, with responsibilities to our local community but also with a duty of care to all humankind that transcends local customs and laws. On occasions where the two might come into conflict, the latter must come first, but doesn't make the former go away.

I also enjoyed learning why the Stoics are called Stoics (Kindle location 24).

I'd like to quibble with one sentence at location 197: “In modern English, the word 'stoic' has come to mean unfeeling and without emotion, and this is usually seen as a negative trait.” I just don't think this is correct. Of course, some people may feel this way. But this sentence is in the form of a general statement of fact, and I don't think enough people have this negative version of the word “stoic” in their mental dictionaries to support it. The problem is not, I think, that people are going around with an incorrect definition of “stoic”. The problem is that people are going around with no definition of “stoic” at all.

You might reasonably object: if you want to learn about stoic philosophy, why not read the philosophers themselves? I tried. There are a bewildering variety of translations available. I have somewhat less cash on hand than I would ideally want, so I first tried an old translation, now in public domain, available for free download. The translator had the curious notion that deliberately rendering the translation in language that was antiquated – even at the time of publication – somehow captured the spirit of the original more completely. The results were occasional sentences of great lucidity followed by difficult-to-understand paragraphs. I did not finish the book.

This book has a recommended reading list in the back, which I hope will guide me to more readable translations. I converted the reading list into a Goodreads shelf.

There are also no less than four lists about Stoic-related books on Goodreads Listopia.

I received a free electronic galley copy of this book from University of Chicago Press via Netgalley. Thanks to all.