The problems with Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism is that they don't really adhear to the notion of 'everything in moderation'. The logical extremes either can lead to some genuinely useless approaches to life.
If one should never worry about things that they cannot possibly control, even if it directly affects one's life, because we are just going to cease to exist at some point anyway, how would one now whether or not they could alter it, if they never began worrying? This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
Perhaps if they had concerned themselves with things that on the surface seemed outside of their reach, they might have realised that some things are approachable, even if the solution is not obvious.
The idea that one should avoid worry about things outside one's control is not a bad suggestion in general, it just should not be taken as an extreme. I mean, there is probably a reason why philosophers went back to Aristotle and Plato after those other four Schools saw prominence.
Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophers weren't trying to make their religions compatible with Zeno's or Epicurus' teachings, but rather Plato's and later Aristotle's.
> This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
Reading list above, another aspect is that it has absolutely no answer for when you actually have problems. It starts with assumption that everything is perfect and issues are purely invented out of boredom. That sort of thinking does not help deal with actual stresses nor minimize harm, nothing like that.
Just look at dealing with people part and now imagine dealing with bully, narcisstic or abusive partner. This typical victim response does not make things better, but instead leads to cycle of abuse:
> One of the best way to respond to insult is with humor, especially self-deprecating jokes. Another way is with no response.
Likewise, I went through periods of self-denial of pleasure. I tended to decide that I wont waste time anymore and cut fun things out of my like. Depression and low productivity followed each time. It turns out that humans need some pleasure in their lives.
> It turns out that humans need some pleasure in their lives
Yes, don't cut out pleasure. You might want to borrow a leaf from A.A. Long (the preeminent expert on Stoicism):
I was sometimes asked which one of the three schools I fancied for myself. Please don’t be shocked at my flippant reply: "I am a stoic (lower case!) in the morning when I write, a Sceptic in the afternoon when I teach, and an Epicurean in the evening when I have fun."
I think it's true that none of these philosophies will be a "one size fits all" type thing. Personally, worry and anxiety just makes me useless. When I'm drawn into worries and fears about external factors, it saps me entirely of the energy to deal with just about anything, which is why I find stoicism helpful.
I'm sure there are other people who find the stress and anxiety about external factors as motivating and bearable, and would not find stoicism useful.
ETA: I don't find everything in stoicism to be useful. I kind of use my own personal "buffet" style approach, where I pick and choose what pieces from different philosophies work best for me.
I should have mentioned, that later after they got tired with reading Plato and Aristotle again, Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism all saw new light, but usually they were more combined into general useful advice on living a good life.
Cynicism's rejection of social norms, when it re-appeared in the late 18th century, morphed into a disapproval of society in general, and the modern usage of 'cynic' was meant to be someone who rejected social structures, and thus someone's who is negative, rather than someone trying to live a virtuous life without being 'chained' by society.
I think you've misunderstood what "worry" means to a Stoic. If you don't understand something or you cannot Co trol it completely or you don't know if you can control it, then concentrating on that isn't worry. It's only worry if and when it is totally beyond your control.
Also, I'd be interested to hear how many stoics committed suicide because they ran out of things to control!? I can think of only one person, and his suicide was forced and the only way to save his family I belive?
Bertrand Russel noted that stoicism came after Greece fell to Alexander. Stoicism was a philosophy of a defeated Greek culture; it's golden age of discussing democracy over.
While Stoicism was indeed founded by Zeno[0] shortly after Alexander's death[1], the essential philosophy (Cynicism) was older, having been granted to Zeno by Crates, who had learned it from Diogenes[2].
Which is why we find in Epictetus[3]:
Furthermore, the Cynic ought to possess great natural charm and readiness of wit—otherwise he becomes mere snivel, and nothing else—so as to be able to meet readily and aptly whatever befalls; as Diogenes answered the man who said: "Are you the Diogenes who does not believe in the existence of the gods?" by saying, "And how can that be? You I regard as hated by the gods!" Or again, when Alexander stood over him as he was sleeping and said,
Sleeping the whole night through beseems not the giver of counsel,
he replied, still half asleep,
Who hath charge of the folk, and for many a thing must he watchful.
A lot of christian philosophy is handed down stoic ideas, I would say more so than any other philosophy.
Also ancient Islamic philosophers mostly copied down Aristotle and hardly any Plato because the platoists taught it such that Aristotle was entry level and Plato was advanced, most of the scholars didn't stay and study long enough to have access to Plato's work and/or thought it less important since it wasn't studied by as many people and so most of that philosophy's writings were lost since most of our modern day copies of ancient philosophy came through Islamic sources.
> This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
Can you please cite a few of these prominent Stoics? Notwithstanding exceptional circumstances, suicide in general was not held in particularly high regard by the Stoics. As Epictetus has it[0]:
The following is another way in which the minds of those are affected who hear these precepts amiss. For example, a friend of mine for no reason at all made up his mind to starve himself to death. I learned about it when he was already in the third day of his fasting, and went and asked what had happened.—I have decided, he answered.—Very well, but still what was it that induced you to make up your mind? For if your judgement was good, see, we are at your side and ready to help you to make your exit from this life; but if your judgement was irrational, change it.—I must abide by my decisions.—Why, man, what are you about? You mean not all your decisions, but only the right ones. For example, if you are convinced at this moment that it is night, do not change your opinion, if that seems best to you, but abide by it and say that you ought to abide by your decisions! Do you not wish to make your beginning and your foundation firm, that is, to consider whether your decision is sound or unsound, and only after you have done that proceed to rear thereon the structure of your determination and your firm resolve? But if you lay a rotten and crumbling foundation, you cannot rear thereon even a small building, but the bigger and the stronger your superstructure is the more quickly it will fall down. Without any reason you are taking out of this life, to our detriment, a human being who is a familiar friend, a citizen of the same state, both the large state and the small; and then, though in the act of murder, and while engaged in the destruction of a human being that has done no wrong, you say that you "must abide by your decisions"! But if the idea ever entered your head to kill me, would you have to abide by your decisions?
> This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
To put a name to what you speak of, Seneca was forced to commit suicide by the emperor Nero. In letter 58 (titled 'A conversation about Plato'), he posits this view on whether it is appropriate to reject extreme old age (I'm not fully on-board with what he's saying; still forming my views):
"It's the next thing to cowardice when one merely waits in idleness for death to come, just as one must be excessively devoted to wine if he drains every drop from the vat and guzzles even the lees. The question, though is this: is the last part of life really the lees, or is it the finest, purest part? That is, provided the mind is without impairment, the sense intact and of use to the mind, and provided the body is not crippled and moribund before it's time. For it matters a great deal whether one is prolonging life or prolonging death. Yet if the body can no longer perform any service, why should it not be appropriate to release the suffering mind?"
That said, I see where you're coming from; we should indeed not take any of the school's thoughts to senseless extremes. We're lucky in that we can sensibly cherry-pick. But I wouldn't talk in super generalized terms as "The Problem" with X or Y school of thought. Of course they are riddled with their share of problems; we need to adapt them to our present conditions—after all, they were written more than 2000 years ago!
Calling it an extreme connotates it as "wrong" to a degree, when other philosophers might counter that there is just the right way and wrong way i.e. Kant's Categorical Imperative and its Universal Moral Law. I do not totally agree, or even understand, the implications of Kant's pov. especially the example of a Nazi knocking on one's door, one is universally morally compelled to say you are hiding people. However the intention of these "extreme ideologies" is not to create useful/practical approaches to life or thrive in society or even be happy, but to uphold values which may be greater than life itself.
I agree that if taken to the extreme this is the case; but I don't believe Stoicism suggests one should take it to the extreme.
Personally, I interpret "don't worry about it" more as "don't get hung up on it", or "don't take it personally". I agree entirely that this should not mean dismiss everything as an unapproachable problem; for me, looking at things to understand whether they are inside or outside my control has largely helped me realise that even for many of the things outside of my control, there are elements I can affect, and I can focus my efforts on those.
I get no benefit from being angry that my pizza delivery ended up one street over, nor from stressing that I was already between jobs before COVID made a mess of the job market. These are things I can't control.
What I can control is my reaction.
I could call the pizza place and complain, demand a refund, and tell everyone I know about their crappy service; I could leave bad reviews online, and hurt their business. I could blame COVID for everything, and sit inside watching Netflix for three months, wallowing. I could sit on my hands and wonder why people won't hire me, when I think I'm more than qualified for a position.
Or, I can thank the person my pizza was delivered to for letting me know it had ended up at their door, and develop a new friendship with a neighbour. I can let the pizza shop know about what happened so they can avoid it in the future, so that their business improves and succeeds, helping them and their employees. I can take the time I have on my hands and learn a new skill to be more employable, and make contacts in a new industry. I can make efforts to reduce the overall impact of COVID and protect my loved ones by adhering to social distancing.
I have chosen to try and make things better through my interactions with others, in large part because I know that some day I will die, and cease to be. I'm not sure I fully accept that yet, but understanding that I can't control it has led me to look at what I can control, and choose what I would like to do with the time I have. It has led me to actively making fond memories with people I care about, and helped me overcome the loss of loved ones by not being sad they are gone, but glad I got to share as much time with them as I did. It has led me to aim to leave a legacy of positivity and progress, and help lift others onto my shoulders where I can, so that I can be delighted by their successes; because in a long roundabout way, helping others succeed is how I can affect those big things that seem out of my control.
It has helped me see that stuff is just stuff, and in many regards I am but a small part in a large machine. It has helped me make the conscious choice that I would like to leave things better than I found them.
If one should never worry about things that they cannot possibly control, even if it directly affects one's life, because we are just going to cease to exist at some point anyway, how would one now whether or not they could alter it, if they never began worrying? This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
Perhaps if they had concerned themselves with things that on the surface seemed outside of their reach, they might have realised that some things are approachable, even if the solution is not obvious.
The idea that one should avoid worry about things outside one's control is not a bad suggestion in general, it just should not be taken as an extreme. I mean, there is probably a reason why philosophers went back to Aristotle and Plato after those other four Schools saw prominence.
Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophers weren't trying to make their religions compatible with Zeno's or Epicurus' teachings, but rather Plato's and later Aristotle's.