> 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!
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!