> In reading the book I get a gloomy feeling, as if the author was deeply disturbed by something but couldn’t quite articulate what.

The author seems to elude that Meditations is simply inspired by war because that was the time in which it is supposed to have been written. Meditations is a self reflection book, never intended to be published, and is likely inspired by his entire life. From the deaths in his family, to the plagues, managing wars, and his own lack of desire to be emperor.

> Problem: The modern world contains abundant food, screens, advertisements practically weaponized to influence you, endless games and drugs.

> Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc.

Stoicism can help someone see value in and yet seek moderation in these things. The solution and problem are not framed in a way Stoicism can really help you though. For instance, when I used LSD I went into it with intention and moderation. I wanted to address and heal my trauma but I didn't want a recreational trip. Stoicism helped me develop that intention and helped me commit to the idea despite fears that I could not answer. Turns out, if you talk to any psychonauts, this is exactly what you should do before a trip.

> By couching success as something that happens entirely within the ego, it encourages one to downplay anything external. If a stoic attitude is applied too liberally, the insistence that success lies solely within becomes an unconscious dodge of difficult forces and responsibilities beyond one’s complete control.

I disagree that this is the point of Stoicism. It can help you moderate the ego and shape the lense that the ego can influence, but it also helps you dig into and understand failure at a mostly logical level. I don't think it leaves the bucket and responsibility with the ego as much as it would influence me to think that sometimes my own personal failures, when not directly attributable to my actions or out of my influence, is the sum of many variables out of my control. Now, what you do from there has many forks, not one.

> If our surroundings are miserable, perhaps we’re better off acknowledging our malcontents.

This is basically step 1 of Stoicism. Know the degrees of control and influence in your life.

> We should express our distress, and try to work together to change that environment, instead of reorganizing our inner feelings until we decide that the current (less optimal) world cannot possibly bother us.

This isn't out of the purview of a stoic, but participation in such an activity may vary stoic to stoic. The choice to participate or not participate depends on many internal variables that the potential participant may be working with. Would you really want someone to participate in political change who feels their own internal variables are not aligned in such a way to fully participate? Stoicism also breeds a sense of priority in issues, and participation in such an activity may be eschewed by having other priorities that the stoic may see as more important or of more immediate benefit. Stoicism asks a question and provides a framework, the answer is for the user to describe.

> Great empires, communities, and societies are not solo undertakings, they cannot be achieved by inner work. They require the attention of strong persons who refuse to discount the external world.

Stoicism helps you become the strong person in the face of perceived adversity. The overall fabric of participation is not part of Stoicism at all, to my knowledge.

I think the author misses the point of how stoicism is used and what it's really for. I can't even really figure out what the author wants in its place. It seems like they're championing some grander philosophy that begets cooperation among many individuals. This is not at competition with stoicism. Using the OSI model for my metaphor, that would be a layer above stoicism as stoicism would help the individual be an intentful member of said group.