I have been interested in Stoic philosophy for a while now, its sober and realistic approach to life appeal to me. There are however two points from the (classic) Stoic which I don’t agree with.
One important tenet within classic stoicism is to focus on the things you have control over versus things you don’t control. I believe this binary approach is lacking realism is our modern world, and most likely the old one as well. Others have noted this as well, William B. Irvine wrote about this in his book A Guide to the good life referring to it as dichotomy versus the more realistic trichotomy of control. In short, the dichotomy of control describes the things in life which we control (whether to act like a child) versus the things we don’t control (the phases of the moon).
In contrast trichotomy places a nuance on the things over which we don’t control and acknowledges the situation we could have influenced the outcome, even if the influence might only be minimal. Whether or not you will get a promotion is dependent on several variables, a lot of which are within your influence. Even though this provides a more realistic world view it does provide us with a new question. How do you determine the amount of control you have or had on a given situation?
Determining whether something is within our influence leans heavily on our self-awareness. Which, to be honest, does not have the best track record for most of us. We all know people who are either over confident or insecure, both of which provide a distorted image of the world. Realising the importance of personal insight on this part is of major importance.
It is easy to complain about not getting a promotion, it is harder to look for the reason why and to act upon it.