> I believe that ultimately it is. Then we'll have to disagree. Being more "efficient" may be a by-product of stoicism, but it's not a measure of it and it's n

> I believe that ultimately it is. Then we'll have to disagree. Being more "efficient" may be a by-product of stoicism, but it's not a measure of it and it's not a stated goal. At any rate, stoicism is not a shortcut to happiness. It's a arduous one because it takes practice and conscious effort. Stoicism isn't about removing external pleasures either, the philosophers warn us about the dangers of seeking pleasure where it could trap us. They never said you shouldn't enjoy what surrounds you, on the contrary, they urge you to take pleasure in the things that are accessible to you instead of lusting for things that you believe will bring you pleasure. You can call that efficiency if you wish, but that's a strange way of putting it. >Another concern also is that if we advocate to some broader public to adopt some "new" philosohpy, I think it's a prerequisite that that philosphy be one that ensures the wellbeing of a society as a whole. Otherwise it might prove difficult to engender support. I think this is a delusion: billions of people believe in mainstream religions that have encouraged bigotry, hatred and wars. Countless have died in the process. Stoicism doesn't promote intolerance. It promotes reason, compassion, an awareness of our personal place in the world and our responsibilities to it. In terms of well being for the world, I'll take that over most other forms of philosophies. You are perfectly free to wait until something better (for you) comes along.