A core idea in the philosophy of Socrates and the Stoics is that only the honorable is good. This means that the only good thing is what wise persons would agree is honorable. Not what, say, a bad government say is honorable. If the government says that it is honorable to invade another country and to enslave it’s population that does not make it honorable to do so - even if that government manages to make its subjects agree.
One way to make a mistake here and listen to wrong ideas of what is honorable is to act for the sake of praise. If praise is the goal, it doesn't really matter who is praising. It is very easy for us to fall into that trap. We humans are often in a state of uncertainty and low self-esteem. Praise can make us feel good about ourselves - but only until the next wave of doubt overwhelms us. What we really need is not praise but wisdom - as stable idea as possible about what we ourselves actually think is good and bad. When that is the goal it becomes obvious that it is essential who we rely on for support in reaching that goal - and that praise from unwise people is not just irrelevant but highly damaging.
“if a good man has a good opinion of me, I am in the same position as if all good men had the same view. In fact, they would all have the same view if they knew me. Their judgment is one and the same, equally marked by the truth. They cannot disagree with one another, and so it is as if they all had the same view, since it is not possible for them to take a different view. When it comes to glory - that is, to reputation - one person's opinion does not suffice. In the one case, a single judgment can stand for all; because if all good men were asked, their judgment would be unanimous. In the other case, different people make different judgments. Agreements will be difficult to find, and the entire situation will be rife with doubt, uncertainty, and suspicion. Do you suppose that everyone can be of one mind? That does not even hold for the single individual. What decides in the case of the good man is what is true; truth has a single force and a single face. With these others, what they accept are falsehoods, which are never consistent but always subject to change and disagreement”.
- Seneca, Letters 102.12-14
Gaius Julius Caesar. A man who probably cared too much about glory.
As in so many other areas in life, a major challenge here is to avoid group think. Even when we are making an effort to improve our decisions by turning to other - "wise" - people for feedback or inspiration, those "others" tend to be people we already agree with on core issues. Obviously, this means that even when we are convinced that we are acting for the common good, there's a very real risk that we are actually acting for the sake of being praised by our peers. It is important to constantly remind ourselves that "what wise people would agree upon" does not mean "what I and my friends would agree upon" but "what everyone who is committed to the truth would agree upon - regardless of what other people might think".
As in so many other areas in life, a major challenge here is to avoid group think. Even when we are making an effort to improve our decisions by turning to other - "wise" - people for feedback or inspiration, those "others" tend to be people we already agree with on core issues. Obviously, this means that even when we are convinced that we are acting for the common good, there's a very real risk that we are actually acting for the sake of being praised by our peers. It is important to constantly remind ourselves that "what wise people would agree upon" does not mean "what I and my friends would agree upon" but "what everyone who is committed to the truth would agree upon - regardless of what other people might think".
Great post.
Seems to negate most politics, though.
See this post as well:
https://janniklindquist.substack.com/p/lay-aside-everything-not-your-own/