rose from false judgments and that the sage-- a person who has attained moral and intellectual perfection--would not undergo them. The later Stoics of Roman Imperial times, Seneca and Epictetus, emphasize the doctrines (already central to the early Stoics’ teachings) that the sage is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Our phrase ‘stoic calm’ perhaps encapsulates the general drift of these claims. There are many similarities between Cynicism and Stoic Ethics. The Stoics modified and softened the harsh outlines of Cynicism and in the process created inconsistency. They laid down harsh principles then toned them down to admit exceptions. The process of toning down took place in three ways: The principle of complete suppression of passions was modified to, the wise person might exhibit certain mild and rational emotions, but never be allowed to grow. Second, they modified the principle that all else, save virtue, is indifferent by declaring that among things indifferent, some are preferable to others. Indifferent things were classified into three categories; those to be preferred, those to be avoided, and those that are absolutely indifferent. Finally, the principle that people are either wholly good or wholly evil was toned down because when thinking of themselves, they hesitated to claim perfection, to put themselves on a level with Socrates, yet they could not bring themselves to admit there was no difference between themselves and the common herd. I find it very interesting that Stoics accepted their inconsistencies of setting harsh principles yet allowing for exceptions to them. My interpretation of Stoicism is that we all have a set of rules to live by but within that set of rules, there are acceptable deviations, as long as the basic foundation stays intact. It really is necessary to have reasonable movement within the guidelines, in order to be independent. ...
