Seneca, Moral Letters 71.3

Socrates, who recalled the whole of philosophy to rules of conduct, and asserted that the highest wisdom consisted in distinguishing between good and evil, said: 
 
"Follow these rules, if my words carry weight with you, in order that you may be happy; and let some men think you even a fool. Allow any man who so desires to insult you and work you wrong; but if only virtue dwells with you, you will suffer nothing. If you wish to be happy, if you would be in good faith a good man, let one person or another despise you." 
 
No man can accomplish this unless he has come to regard all goods as equal, for the reason that no good exists without that which is honorable, and that which is honorable is in every case equal. 
 
You may say: "What then? Is there no difference between Cato's being elected praetor and his failure at the polls? Or whether Cato is conquered or conqueror in the battle-line of Pharsalia? And when Cato could not be defeated, though his party met defeat, was not this goodness of his equal to that which would have been his if he had returned victorious to his native land and arranged a peace?" 
 
Of course it was; for it is by the same virtue that evil fortune is overcome and good fortune is controlled. Virtue, however, cannot be increased or decreased; its stature is uniform. 

—from Seneca, Moral Letters 71 
 
I am sometimes puzzled by the way scholars approach Socrates as if his main concern was for snarky debate about lofty principles, when I have always seen him as a man who was first and foremost charged with a devotion to the practice of virtue. For better or for worse, my view of philosophy continues to diverge from the mainstream. 
 
For all the irritation this has brought me, I believe it is for the best. Without seeking an informed conscience to guide me, nothing else in my life will offer any benefit. When we are ignored, mocked or denounced, it is so easy to lose faith, to surrender to mere convention, to assume that the critics know best. No, what is reasonable should rule, not what happens to be popular at the moment, however much we may hope for a convergence between the two. 
 
Similarly, I easily get caught up in the illusion that one merit can be greater than another, and that it is somehow necessary to be “better” than someone else in order to become worthy. Though the quantity of money, the amount of pleasure, and the degree of fame appear to increase in value, the quality of the virtues is always the same in kind, for it is already the perfection of human character, however humble the circumstances of its expression. A good man is a good man, whatever the fixings. 
 
It might seem odd to say that a Nobel Prize winner or an esteemed statesman are no more special than a kindly janitor, but it isn’t about the smarts or the charm—it’s about the decency of soul, plain and simple. Cato lost to Caesar, and Seneca failed to reform Nero, and Marcus Aurelius had a rotten son, yet such conditions are never what define the grandeur of virtue. 
 
Ultimately, the battle of life is won by whoever fights with honor, not by whoever holds the most ground, and the smallest kindness is as much of a victory as the most sweeping social reform. The Stoic Turn makes this possible. Some would claim that withdrawing from the field at Pharsalus made Pompey a loser, though I believe it was his duplicity and perfidy that really spelled his doom. 
 

Will I manage to conquer myself? Then I might become the equal of every other good man, regardless of his renown. In the end, the rest doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. 

—Reflection written in 9/2013