I think Kieran Setiya makes Stoicism out to be the philisophy of the doormat. Did I miss something or did this piece say a whole lot of nothing? Was there a take away?

Stoicism is perhaps the most misunderstood philisophy of the modern era (aside from maybe Existentialism). Stoics were rationalizing emotion. Problematic as that may be, you can have a discussion on this, but they were not stifling emotion or avoiding emotion, they were attempting to tackle the problems that arise from irrational emotion (in order to live the good life).

Anger to Stoics was always wrong, and the most rational emotion is love. It is misleading of Setiya to say that Stoics argue we should stifle grief. Also misleading to cite James' take on Slaves in the American South as a reaffirming source to this notion Stoics just ... take it.

"Rail against even things you can’t control" - Yeah Stoics would disagree. But there is nothing to say Stoics would passively take whatever comes. In the case of slavery in America; a Stoic icon would be Harriet Tubman, a Stoic anti-hero John Brown. Praise whoever you want, and argue the case for which hero is better - just stop misinterpreting Stoic thought.

In the end Setiya makes a rather unprofound claim it is best to sometimes help people with grief by saying " “I hear you” — rather than a solution to it. " and how ironic because what could be more Stoic?

Ramble over. I appreciated the read, I just hoped for more out of someone who teaches at MIT. Am I wrong here?