well, ok.

maybe, the stoics would accept the change, overall - even if parmenides wouldn't, and zeno would have come to his defense. parmenides was...we don't have the sources, i'm going to stop myself before i start. but, zeno was massively influential on the development of calculus (via archimedes), and the fact that parmenides was so influential on zeno means that, along with pythagoras, he's one of the origin points of western thought, even as he exists in history as a distant, distorted memory.

i wish we had better sources on parmenides...

but, when using the term 'stoic', i should refrain from referring too heavily to parmenides, who was really pre-stoic, even if it is the zeno/parmenides connection that is most interesting to myself as a failed mathematician. i mean, a seneca or a marcus aurelius doesn't really have a lot to say about the history of mathematics, which is where i'm actually coming at this from (if it wasn't obvious).

it's more the inability to affect the world around you that would define the later stoics than the idea that change is impossible, altogether. so, they'd end up just resigning themselves to it, and focusing more on how they feel about it than about how to actually do anything about it.

i suppose my tune, ignorance is bliss, is fairly stoic:

to worry about things you can't change,
is pointless and completely deranged



https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/stress