There seems to be a complete lack of understanding that this approach has been powerful for so many.
It seems to me that hardly anyone anymore understands or tolerated fruitful historical processes for creating systems of ideas.
Which, incidentally, involves reading.
> The main point of contention between Aristotelian and Stoics is the issue of whether virtue is sufficient for happiness (Aristotle, NE 1.8-10, Cicero, On Ends Books 3-5). Both Aristotle and Stoics claim that virtue is an essential component of happiness. But while Aristotle sees happiness as dependent on a combination of virtue and bodily goods (for instance, health) and external goods (for instance, money, power and friends), for the Stoics happiness depends solely on virtue. Thus, for Aristotle virtue is necessary for happiness, but not sufficient, whereas for the Stoics it is both necessary and sufficient.
* https://modernstoicism.com/aristotelian-and-stoic-happiness-...
That said, Aristotle and Epictetus differed pretty significantly on the question of what constitutes happiness (this English word doesn't really capture the full sense of the Greek well), which is the core question of the ethics.
As an aside, I find it amusing that a piece in the New Yorker has the gall to criticize Aristotle of all people for meandering prose which often leads nowhere.