The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a student of the philosopher Epictetus and a noted stoic himself.  In Book 6 of his Meditations, Aurelius writes (Chapter 21), "If anyone can refute me - show me I’m making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective - I’ll gladly change. It’s the truth I’m after, and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance."

This is a noble thought, and reminiscent of the Dalai Lama's "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change" (The New York Times, November 12, 2005).  "By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced," he continued, "I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

I have been reading Epictetus' Discourses, and have been dismayed at his naivety and primitivism as much as I've been inspired by the strength of his message.  My challenge is in continuing to accept Epictetus' teachings in spite of the obsolete models of his world view.  

Epictetus' thinking was confined by First Century views on psychology, science, and religion.  For example, his contemporary Claudius Ptolemy looked at the sun, the moon, and the stars and logically concluded that they must be circling the Earth in a geocentric universe - I mean, just look for yourself.  It wasn't until centuries later that Galileo if not invented, at least perfected, the telescope, and with the improved observations available to him, was able to observe flaws in the Ptolemaic model and was able to develop the heliocentric model (with help, of course, from Copernicus).

Epictetus appears to accept the Platonic model of reason driving the motions.  Just look for yourself - we observe some phenomenon, we make a decision and a judgement, and choose to either be angry, be happy, or to just ignore it.  It's just logical - that is how it seems and how it appears to us.  However, later psychologists and philosophers had the benefit of a new invention, psychoanalysis, as revolutionary a tool as the telescope was to astronomers.  Hume, Freud and others were able to discern that the subconscious mind makes many decisions for us before we're even aware of it, and that it might be more accurate to say that we observe some phenomenon, subconsciously become angry, happy, or indifferent about it, and only then make a conscious decision or judgement.

I can go on and on about Epictetus' views on science and about religion.  In one chapter of The Discourses, Epictetus basically arrives at the equivalent of the modern, pseudo-scientific "intelligent design" theory.  Since there is color in the world, he argued, as well as both an eye that can discern color and a mind that can appreciate it, there must be a divine creator behind it all.  All those things are unlikely to have occured in the same universe by mere chance and happenstance, amirite?  

I can overlook much of the First Century thinking while reading Epictetus, but it seems like in every other chapter, the man paints himself into another anachronous corner as he builds his logical house of cards (too many metaphors?).  For example, he goes on to argue that the Divine Creator, that Intelligent Designer of color and eyes, gave man the ability to reason and reach decisions without relying on instinct and intuition (which is exactly what we do).  This faculty of reason is the spark of divinity in all of us, he argues, our god-like nature that no one can take away from us.  Take away my wealth, my family, my reputation in the world, he argues, beat me, torture me, humiliate me if you must, but I will always have that divine spark of Zeus which no one can take from me.

I like the sentiment, and it explains much about the bravery and stamina of the stoics, but when I can't accept the basis for the argument, should I accept the argument just because it appeals to me?

I starting reading the stoics because I was attracted to that argument and saw many parallels between stoic philosophy and Buddhism, and started out considering myself a "Contemplative Stoic."  But now that I've made the mistake of actually reading the source texts and examining the teachings for myself, I'm starting to reconsider.  Is it possible to accept the conclusion when one doubts the premise?  Or do we need to update the conclusions based on science and a better understanding, as Marcus Aurelius and the Dalai Lama suggest?  

Should I now consider myself a "Sceptic Stoic" (or a "Stoic Sceptic")?