Virtue is unconditional.

"Virtue is not changed by the matter with which it deals; if the matter is hard and stubborn, it does not make the virtue worse; if pleasant and joyous, it does not make it better.  Therefore, virtue necessarily remains equal.  For, in each case, what is done is done with equal uprightness, with equal wisdom, and with equal honor.  Hence the states of goodness involved are equal, and it is impossible for a man to transcend these states of goodness by conducting himself better, either the one man in his joy, or the other amid his suffering.  And two goods, neither of which can possibly be better, are equal.  For if things which are extrinsic to virtue can either diminish or increase virtue, then that which is honorable ceases to be the only good."

--Seneca, Moral Letters to Lucilius 66 (tr Gummere)

The Stoic, unlike the Epicurean, already understands that life is not measured merely by pleasure or pain. Yet he he may still be under the impression that a virtuous life is somehow better when it is accompanied by wealth, pleasure, or success. That's trying to have it both ways. We can't say that the measure of man is the content of his character, and then proceed to qualify this with the condition that he is better and happier when his character is accompanied by external fortune.

A few years back, I started posting very brief Stoic passages on social media among a small group of friends.  It was a great joy to see that others were having similar struggles and similar reflections, and I recognized that I wasn't the only one out there that thought Stoicism was of wonderful assistance in life.

One woman, a former colleague, seemed especially inspired by the passages we were all discussing. Yet one day she finished off a comment with these words: "well, it's a wonderful ideal, isn't it, but I can't ask myself to give up my job or my house or my family for all of this. I need to be happy as well as good, I guess."

I respectfully suggest that this is a misunderstanding of Stoicism. Being happy and good are one and the same, and as soon as I claim, like a follower of Immanuel Kant, that they diverge from one another, I have lost my way. If I present any sort of tension or opposition between happiness and virtue, I will end up trying to serve two masters. As with my friend, because of the pull of things of the world, the measure of of wisdom and virtue will now be conditioned by pleasure.

I choose not see a false dichotomy here. As a being of intellect and will, I am made to know the truth and to love the good. All other aspects of my nature are secondary to this end. The true joy of my life, that which completes my nature, is to live well. It is not a burden at all, but a great privilege, to know that either pleasure or pain, success or failure, wealth or poverty are all equal opportunities for me to act with excellence.

I think of this differently than most. Instead of saying that my life is worth living when things are going well, I can now say that my life is worth living both when things are going well, and also when they are going poorly. That ends up being a much broader view of happiness, and is hardly restrictive. My life can now becomes pleasant because it is good, not good because it is pleasant.

Written on 1/30/20012

Image: Leonardo Da Vinci, Allegory of Pleasure and Pain (c. 1480)