This contacts something I think about.
When we do science in a rigorous, non-anthropocentric, fashion, we find that the universe is a clockwork mechanism, life is a thermodynamically favorable process, and that there doesn't appear to be any objective meaning.
Which leads to a person asking, "Knowing this, what do I do [with myself, perhaps]?"
And I think that there are four philosophies that begin with that premise: stoicism, epicureanism, absurdism, and nihilism. And people go on and on about which one is the 'right' one, and I just think they're tools in our toolbox, suitable for different situations.
A slave from the mines of Laurium would find in stoicism very useful tools for enduring hardships in life. Epicureanism is full of tools for how to comport yourself when you have a lot of control over your surroundings.
Nihilism and absurdism contain reasons to keep getting out of bed. There isn't any objective meaning or god? Well, good news, that means that anything you decide is important is as important as if god himself said so. Still upset that there isn't any objective meaning? More good news, friend. You can keep searching for meaning even though it isn't objectively there, because the search for meaning is a rewarding human experience. And you can decide that a thing is meaningful, and that has weight because you're god.
To say that stoics 'got it right', I think, is a bit incomplete; it implicitly buys into an idea that a single philosophy or way of being is 'the right one', where instead they can each be well suited to different situations.