ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἀνὴρ [ἀδιάπτωτος καὶ] ἀδιάσειστος
The good man (agathos aner, man who acts for the benefit of others) is [infallible and] unshakeable.
This can be (plausibly) used to describe Sam Altman, for example
Rate-limited edit: my (evasive?) answer was that Stoics were careful enough not to use the word "good", but the more subtle, one might accuse utilitarian, "agathos" in that scenario
Should I interest you in the needle's eye left for cybernetic* shareholders?
*Neither fully machine, nor fully human, nor even monolithic, but definitely no camel, bc camel, unlike horse, can survive anywhere and were once native to the USA (arguably)
The Greeks?
Meditations is largely Marcus Aurelius soothing himself with logical arguments.
Im not doing it full justice but the passages read like “A whole is not less than its parts, Humans are intelligent, therefore the universe is intelligent, there for my situation is a logical plan from the universe, so I should be content.” Marcus was explaining why he needed to be the perfect elite Roman citizen, using nature to logically show why he needed to embody societally cherished traits like being logical, just, fair, but also being stern, powerful and strong. Over and over again.
Now at the time, they did consider it a hard science. They were trying to figure out secrets of the universe, the absolute correct ethics, and therapy (controlling your emotions) at the same time. Each tenet relied on eachother, you couldn’t have one with the other. Today we know the science was wrong and ethics are more complicated than they could’ve imagined, but the controlling emotions side remains. So I completely disagree that modern stoic bros are bastardizing it, it just is an flawed ideology that matches well with some of our modern western traits of a “masculine” man.
The stoics cried, they laughed, they expressed joy, they were by all accounts emotionally expressive.
The control was about what actions were to be taken in the face of those emotions and other considerations, not suppressing or controlling the emotions themselves.
It's not a small distinction.
This is so false it deserves comment. For example, the SEP for Stoicism [1]. You'll notice that the first entire two sections are Physical Theory and Logic. Ethics comes later and it isn't until 4.3 (after Telos and Virtue) that you get to indifference. From the intro:
"Stoic philosophy was, from Zeno onwards, conceived of as comprising three parts: physics (phusikê), logic (logikê), and ethics (êthikê)."
I think you are over-indexing on one work by one Stoic. There is much, much more to actual Stoicism than "controlling your emotions".
Although, I am convinced Marcus Aurelius used Stoicism as a tool to control his emotions. Meditations reminded me of cognitive behavioral therapy. Repetitive soothing phrases to induce equanimity.