His philosophy is rather reliant on believing in the gods. A creator. That if a lowlife steals your car, the creator has taken it back. Except we cannot rationally assume there is or isn’t a god. It is beyond what we can possibly know, so basing a large part of your belief on this assumption, is not logical.
He also says, no one can harm you without your consent, it is only if you consider it a harm that you are harmed- well no, logically, if someone kills me i am dead regardless of my attitude to it, it feels like a cope of not having control, and as he used to be a slave that is fully understandable, but it is not a vice to admit injury, it is not even un-stoic, whether or not it becomes un-stoic, depends on your method of dealing with/reacting to it. It’s also inconsistent as he claims both;
1. We cannot control external things, including our bodies.
2. Yet he also claims we cannot be harmed without our consent, implying that internal states, our bodies, are fully under our control.
We cannot isolate our minds from the body, when our brains are physically vulnerable to things like toxins, injuries and strokes, which can alter thoughts without any “consent”.
Also, “take only as much as your basic need requires, i mean such things as food…and household slaves…but cut down everything which is for outward show or luxury.” Right…
TLDR; Reliance on the divine makes the system unjustified as a universal and individual moral framework. Philosophy above all should be rational, hence this fails as pure philosophy, even if it has practical benefits. This reads more as self-help than philosophy.