I think because there was never anything really written about the shift in meaning. Stoicism as practiced in antiquity shares a lot with mindfulness and Buddhi

I think because there was never anything really written about the shift in meaning. Stoicism as practiced in antiquity shares a lot with mindfulness and Buddhism. It's about acceptance of the now. And what you can and cannot control. It's not that you aren't allowed to feel, just that you aren't allowed to have your emotion rule your reason. Bob died. That is sad. You can grieve. But Bob is dead. Nothing is going to change that. Killing yourself so you don't have to live in a world without Bob is not rational. Yelling at someone for asking your a question is not rational. Even if you are sad. You can't control your sadness. But you can control your actions. And your actions should be dictated by reason. Setting up a will that details what happens when you die, that is a rational response to Bob's death. Even if it's informed by sadness. Because his death could have made you realize that you don't have a plan. But over time, that has been warped into a complete rejection of emotion. So when we say someone is stoic, that's what we mean, that they're displaying no emotion. And that's the notion they're arguing against.