conducive to the contemplative life of philosophy, while wealth is an obstacle to this.993 It is the poor, rather than the wealthy, who have leisure.994 They are also obliged to be strong (καρτερεῖν), while the wealthy become effeminate, since they have no impetus to work.995 Thus poverty, when accompanied with justice, should be more highly honored than wealth.996 The author concludes that it is therefore best to despise wealth and turn to the life of philosophy, for this develops generosity instead of stinginess, and contentment instead of insatiety. Such a life uses what is on hand, and lives content with present blessings (τοῖς παροῦσι).997 The marked contrast between this ascetic philosophy of poverty and the saner teaching of Plato, who was as much opposed to poverty as to excessive wealth, is patent.
STOICS
The Stoics were the natural descendants in thought of the Cynics, whom they resemble closely in their attitude toward external goods. According to their definition, a good must have an unconditioned value (absolutum, αὐτελές). Whatever exists merely for the sake of something else, or is of value only in comparison to something else, is not a good.998 A similar doctrine was held concerning evil. Thus spiritual goods were counted to be the only true wealth,999 and he who had the right attitude toward all,1000 and used all rightly, was thought to be the spiritual owner of all.1001
Zeno, the founder of the school,1002 classified both wealth and poverty among the so-called “indifferents” (ἀδιάφορα),1003 as neither good nor evil per se. Like the Cynics, he eulogized poverty, though not to such an extreme degree.1004 He went with them only so far as to insist that wealth and poverty have no value, except in relation to the proper spiritual attitude.1005
In his argument that temples are not especially holy places, since they are the work of artisans (βαναύσων), Zeno exhibits the common negative