“‘a person will care most for something he really loves.’
‘Necessarily.’
‘And he will most love something when he thinks the same things are in its interest as in his own, and when he supposes that he is doing well if it is, and if it’s not, neither is he.’”
- Socrates talking to Plato’s brother Glaucon in Plato’s Republic 412d
To love someone or something (one’s community) is to see that someone or something as an extension of oneself. The happiness we are all seeking is happiness for all those who we see as belonging to us. But how does this square with Socrates’ claim in 387d-e that the good person is self-sufficient - “setting the standard for others by being least reliant on another”?
Achilles binding Patroclus' wounds. Kylix vase by the Sosias painter, 500 BC
I guess the answer is that if we ignore the fact that someone who belong to us is not doing well then we ourselves are definitely not doing well - but if we do our best to help those not doing well then we are doing well (regardless of the outcome).
Some people think that the Stoics would not agree that a Stoic is not doing well if his loved ones are not doing well - as this would imply that the happiness of the Stoic depends on something outside himself. This is not the case. See my comment below - and this quote from Seneca:
"I can name you many people who have friends and yet are without friendship; this is not the case, though, where equal willingness draws minds into companionship of a honorable intentions. How could it be? For they know that everything they have is held in common, and especially their trials".
I guess the answer is that if we ignore the fact that someone who belong to us is not doing well then we ourselves are definitely not doing well - but if we do our best to help those not doing well then we are doing well (regardless of the outcome).
Some people think that the Stoics would not agree that a Stoic is not doing well if his loved ones are not doing well - as this would imply that the happiness of the Stoic depends on something outside himself. This is not the case. See my comment below - and this quote from Seneca:
"I can name you many people who have friends and yet are without friendship; this is not the case, though, where equal willingness draws minds into companionship of a honorable intentions. How could it be? For they know that everything they have is held in common, and especially their trials".
- Seneca, Letters 6.3