Exactly my problem with the first part of the article. I mean he even ends that section saying that Nietzsche agrees: "Even if you’re (almost) guaranteed to fail, there is merit in extending yourself and expressing yourself into (or even against) the world.

Sure, you can’t control the outcome."

A stoic would say basically the same thing. I really can't believe the author didn't see this right in front of them.

But the equanimity part is something I struggle with myself when it comes to stoicism. I've recently started therapy and one of the biggest revelations is that I have (sub or not)consciously suppressed many, nearly all, of my emotional reactions in the interest of "mind over matter" and an Aristotilean concept of base emotions vs. a developed intellect that is "in control." To subscribe to this mindset blindly is to ignore nearly ALL the progress made in behavioral science and the associated philosophy. I haven't swung all the way to the other side, I'm extremely wary of all the "dopamine hit" psuedo-science out there. But at least in my personal experience, "allowing myself the permission to feel the emotions" (in the words of my therapist) before trying to wrangle them and force them into a constructive form has been very beneficial for my self-esteem and ability to think about myself and self-improvement.