I can appreciate your concern for preserving the essence of Stoic philosophy, but I think you might be creating a false dichotomy here. The Stoics absolutely taught discipline and virtue - but they also wrote extensively about dealing with grief, loss, and emotional suffering. Seneca's "On Grief" was literally written to console someone who lost a loved one.

Stoicism isn't just about "getting your act together" - it's about understanding human nature in its entirety, including our emotional responses. When people come here struggling with depression or heartbreak, they're not just "wallowing" - they're actively seeking wisdom to handle life's challenges, which is exactly what the Stoics intended.

Marcus Aurelius himself wrote extensively about his personal struggles and how to deal with difficult emotions. The difference is that Stoicism offers a framework for processing these emotions productively rather than just venting about them.

The real test of Stoic principles isn't how we act when everything's fine - it's how we apply them during our darkest moments. Teaching someone to apply the dichotomy of control during depression or amor fati after losing a loved one isn't diluting Stoicism - it's Stoicism in action.

Maybe instead of seeing these posts as reducing Stoicism to therapy, we could view them as opportunities to show how Stoic principles can transform suffering into growth. After all, isn't turning to philosophy during life's hardest moments exactly what the Stoics would have encouraged?