Our modern conception of virtue is predicated on the Greco-Roman period of antiquity, but we find ourselves in an interesting position in relating to the vocabulary that we use to talk about these ideas. There are two main versions of the four cardinal virtues of which I am aware. They are “Temperance, Fortitude, Prudence, and Justice” and “Temperance, Courage, Prudence, and Justice.” These translations are interesting, and I’ll discuss them each in turn.

Temperance: σωφροσύνη (sōphrosynē): In English, temperance is generally understood to mean “moderation” esp. in the case of alcohol, but more truly in respect to all the passions or emotions. It is “the middle path.” However, in the Greek, sōphrosynē means something different. When translated to Latin, the word they used was ‘decorum,’ which the Romans graciously passed to us via the Normans in 1066 when they concurred England.

A better English translation would be “fittingness,” meaning that state of a critter fitted and suited to it appropriate functions in its particular context. When meeting your spouse’s boss, extra politeness would be fitting. When celebrating a birthday, the consumption of a moderate amount of alcohol would be fitting. When reprimanding a child in your care, a certain amount of firmness tempered by mercy and concern for his or her well-being is fitting.

Fortitude/Courage: ἀνδρεία (andreia): Fortitude and courage are related, but not directly interchangeable. Taking aside the social construction of gender, the Greek word here better translates as “manliness.” Courage can relate to physical and also to moral courage, the same can be said of fortitude. The difference here tends to be one of the school of thought of the translators and philosophers, but it is interesting to note what each much have thought “manliness” most entailed.

Prudence: φρόνησις (phronēsis): also comes to us from the Latin, prudentia. Meaning, in the native Greek wisdom, but having added to it knowledge. Not a whole lot of issues here.

Justice: δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē): sometimes Justice, Fairness, and in Christian traditions, often piety or righteousness. Not much of an issue here.

Consider also, that the word Virtue is often translated from the Greek arete (ἀρετή), when a better translation might be something like “excellence” or “a thing functioning according to its truest nature.”

Whenever we are dealing with such important ideas as morality and ethics, we often detach from them the conception that they are informed by and shaped by us, ourselves. The conception of virtue is appropriate for a certain people, of a certain time, in a certain place, speaking and thinking in a certain way. Just food for thought.

Be well, and be excellent.

In a facebook group of Stoics, someone posted a questions about what they should do if their practice of Stoicism was being perceived as cold-heartedness.  I’ll include an expanded version of my reply here.

My knee-jerk reaction is that your practice of Stoicism shouldn’t negatively effect those around you. Stoicism, to me, isn’t a total repudiation of emotions, esp. not sympathy and care for your fellow man.

Emotions, feelings, physical reactions can mitigated, but not eliminated. Nor would it be desirable for them to be so.  To me, it is not letting your emotions and whims control you. Within the two spheres of influence, what we can control and what we cannot, one of the things we cannot perfectly control is having a human central nervous system, an endocrine system, etc.  You cannot, and should not seek to, banish all emotions from you, least of all sympathy to the pain of your brothers and sisters.

First you might ask “Am I being cold-hearted? Am I doing something wrong?” If so, correct that error.  If in fact, you are doing something that does not represent your highest and best good, virtue:  you should want to change that.  If you are causing undue or immoral harm, you should want to reduce that.

Secondly, if you are not in the wrong, you cannot control how another perceives your actions.   You might attempt to educate or teach them about what you’re doing.  You might talk about healthy thinking and unhealthy thinking.  If the person can receive that message, of course.

Seneca talks about grief in Letter LXIII.  I think it’s reasonable to see if that applies to other emotions.
Helping a friend or lover bear some pain would be virtuous, to my mind.

“It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”
— Epictetus

We often hear, or make, the lament of “why do bad things happen to good people?”  The Stoics, modern and ancient, would argue that there is no such thing.  Things are divided into two main camps, those things which we can control, and those things which we cannot.  Namely, the experience we are having as critters bearing about a human central nervous system (and dare I suggest it, a soul/consciousness) are not in our control.  Our response both as internal thinking and as how we act are.

The things that happen to us are neither good nor evil.  Making one’s thinking right with reality and virtue are the only goods.  Everything else, the Stoics argue, are indifferents.  Meaning, that they cannot be good or bad, they just are.  Only our thoughts, emotions, and actions in the world can be good or evil.  We as rational actors determine this.  This isn’t to say that whatever we decide is good, it is not a true moral relativism, so make not that mistake.

“Man is not worried by real problems so much as by his imagined anxieties about real problems “
— Epictetus

Our thinking can be well or ill.  There is a branch of Psychiatry called the Initiative for Innate Health which seeks to teach people that perceived illness are “warning alarms” for unhealthy thinking.  Anxiety, panic attacks, even schizophrenia can be used by the person as a barometer for whether or not they are using their thoughts correctly.  It is controversial, but it tends to be relatively successful at getting folks off (or reducing drastically) chemical interventions and in the subjective quality of life of the people who are treated.

I suspect the stoics would be not at all surprised.  Stoicism seems to be this strange mixture of fatalism and free will.  “The situation I find myself in merely is, my reaction to is up to me.”  The more we can bend our thinking to adequately represent reality as we experience, the closer to happiness we will find ourselves.

I see this at work.  Most of us at work are in nearly the same position.  Some are happy and content, some occasionally unhappy (me), and some habitually unhappy.  How is it that nearly identical experience provoke such a wide range of responses?  The simple answer is that they don’t.  The response is up to me, to us, to you.

Bend your thoughts your to good things, and find goodness in your experiences.  Act with virtue, live with control, and accept.