The humanist and classical scholar Justus Lipsius (Joost Lips) (1547–1606) was the founder of Neo-Stoicism, a partially Christianized Stoicism. Learn more.
Civil e-mail containing comments, constructive criticisms, and the like is gladly received, although I cannot promise to answer everything. I will, however, make an honest attempt. Offensive e-mail is deleted unread. Choose your subject headings carefully as I sometimes decide to delete from them. I do not open attached files from unknown parties. If you send a message not addressed to me in particular, I will be tempted to let someone in general answer it. Pith is king and neatness counts. E-mail is subject to posting in whole or in part at my discretion unless the sender requests otherwise.
Comments Policy
You must be pre-approved to leave comments on this site. If I know you and you have already established your bona fides, then you are in like Flynn, whether or not you hide behind a pseudonym. But if I don't know you, or you have proven yourself to be offensive in the past, then you are out like Stout — unless you reveal your real identity and provide me with some way of verifying it. In other words, no one I don't know will be approved who comments anonymously or pseudonymously. Full statement here.

I wonder also if this has not occurred in our own time, and would explain the popularity of Buddhism. I know that the formal Christianity of my upbringing offered no clues as to the possibility of a salvation here-and-now. My parents were saavy enough to be aware of the Christian mystical tradition and brought it to my attention at an early age, and that provided a more expansive view of Christianity. But otherwise the emphasis was on avoidance of sin, guilt, and salvation after death.
There was a reaction in the Church, of course, with a new emphasis on "love" and "compassion" in the late 60's and 70's. But this movement always struck me as phony. Not phony as an ideal, but phony in the notion that one could just choose to love in this way; no clue that apatheia is a prerequisite of agape. I think Gurdjieff had the right assessment of this, when he said something to the effect that there are no Christians and it was impossible to be a Christian, because people had lost the esoteric methods needed to become Christians. (Maybe Malcolm remembers what G. said better.) Jacob Needleman, a follower of Gurdjieff, wrote in his book "Lost Christianity" that "all these high ideals have been let loose in the world like a pack of marauding dogs."
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.