In Marcus Aurelius' defense, he wasn't writing for an audience. What is now called his Meditations wasn't written for publication, just to himself.

I'm aware, but only because Dala informed me of the same last night after she read my post. That said, reading his works is like eating flavorless bread. Substantive? Yes. Nourishing? Kind of. Pleasurable? No. Not really in the common sense of the concept.

I love the quote you shared. I agree with it in some ways too. I think my personal biggest complaint of Stoicism, of what I've seen of it and read in it and such, is that there's this undercurrent of an egocentric world view, which lends itself to vanity, self importance, and a perception that could lead oneself to behave intractably with the world and people around them. Sometimes I get the sense that Stoicism leaves no room for understanding that individuals make up the collective whole and the collective whole influences the individual, to the point where we need to understand that we are individuals, we are collectives, and no matter how much we wish to will otherwise, one does not exist without the other. I wouldn't say it's definite, but I have a pretty good feeling Stoics would be against face masks, greater good be damned.