UNIVERSAL TEMPLATE FOR LOGICAL REFORMULATION OF STOIC TEXTS v2.2

UNIVERSAL TEMPLATE FOR LOGICAL REFORMULATION OF STOIC TEXTS

Version 2.2 - Revised Edition

See this method in action: [Logical Reformulation of Epictetus' Enchiridion 3]

Study the philosophical foundation: [Grant C. Sterling's Nine Foundational Excerpts on Stoicism]

---

To reformulate any Stoic text into the formal logical style of Grant C. Sterling's "Core Stoicism" (Excerpt 9) — using theorem numbering, subordinate propositions, and Ergo conclusions forming a continuous deductive chain. This Template performs transformative reformulation: it translates source texts into Sterling's systematic Stoic framework, necessarily involving conceptual translation and use of technical Stoic vocabulary. It is not neutral paraphrase but systematic philosophical analysis.

---

## 1. Source Text and Required Materials

### 1.1 Source Text

The user must always provide the exact source text to be reformulated. The model must work only from the supplied passage, never from memory, paraphrase, or assumed knowledge of the text.

### 1.2 Sterling Reference Materials

Users should provide Sterling's Nine Foundational Excerpts on Stoicism as reference material for Stage Two evaluation. If not provided, the reformulator should note "Sterling references not supplied; Stage Two citations are to concepts from Sterling's system as understood by the reformulator."

### 1.3 Optional Materials

- Author-specific glossary for technical term translations

- Additional context about the source text's place in the author's corpus

---

## 2. Governing Principles

### Core Requirements

- Use the logical syntax and grammar found in Core Stoicism (Excerpt 9).

- Express reasoning through numbered Theorems (Th), supporting sub-propositions, and explicit Ergo deductions.

- Preserve elements of the Stoic causal chain (belief → value judgment → desire → emotion → action → character → eudaimonia) when present or clearly implied in the source text. Do not impose the full chain if it is absent from the source material.

- Each conclusion must follow demonstrably from prior premises.

- Translate source text concepts into Stoic technical vocabulary when the translation is semantically warranted by the text's content and philosophical context.

### Stoic Technical Vocabulary

When reformulating, translate source concepts into Sterling's systematic terminology where appropriate: virtue, vice, externals, belief, desire, impression, assent, prohairesis, eudaimonia, indifferents, preferred indifferents, dispreferred indifferents, apatheia, katalepsis, phantasia, hegemonikon, pathē, eupatheia, kathēkon, oikeiōsis.

**Translation Principle:** Use technical terms when the source text's concepts clearly correspond to these Stoic categories, even if the source uses different words. If uncertain whether translation is warranted, use the source term in Stage One and discuss the conceptual mapping in Stage Two.

---

## 2A. Two-Stage Reformulation Process

The Template employs a two-stage methodology to ensure both systematic philosophical analysis and critical evaluation:

### Stage One: Systematic Reformulation

In this stage, produce the logical reformulation by translating the supplied source text into Sterling's systematic Stoic framework. All prohibitions listed in Section 8 apply strictly to this stage.

**Requirements for Stage One:**

- Work exclusively from the user-supplied text

- Add no content from memory, external sources, or mere speculation

- Convert the text into theorems, supporting propositions, and Ergo conclusions

- Translate source concepts into Stoic technical vocabulary when semantically warranted

- Make explicit elements of the Stoic causal chain that are present or clearly implied in the source

- Supply suppressed premises only when meeting the strict criteria in Section 8A

- Maintain logical validity throughout

**Output of Stage One:**

A complete logical reformulation titled with the source text reference (e.g., "Logical Reformulation: Enchiridion 2" or "Logical Reformulation: Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 6.41").

### Stage Two: Critical Evaluation Against Sterling's Principles

In this stage, evaluate the Stage One reformulation using Sterling's Nine Excerpts as the standard for orthodox Stoic doctrine. The prohibitions do NOT apply to this stage.

**Requirements for Stage Two:**

Assess the reformulation against the following criteria derived from Sterling's Nine Excerpts:

1. **Cognitive theory of emotion:** Does the text hold that emotions (pathē) arise from value judgments about good and evil? (Sterling Excerpts 1-7)

2. **Foundational value theory:** Does it hold that only virtue is good and only vice is evil? (Sterling Excerpts 3, 4, 8, 9)

3. **Status of externals:** Does it hold that all externals are indifferent with respect to good and evil? (Sterling Excerpts 2, 3, 4, 8, 9)

4. **Preferred indifferents:** Does it include the doctrine that some indifferents are preferred and constitute the material of virtuous action? (Sterling Excerpt 9, Theorems 24-29)

5. **Logical order:** Does it derive claims about control from value theory, rather than treating control as foundational? (Sterling Excerpt 9, Theorems 6-12)

6. **Sufficiency of virtue:** Does it hold that virtue is sufficient for eudaimonia? (Sterling Excerpts 4, 5, 6, 9)

7. **Psychology of assent:** Does it explain emotion and action through the mechanism of assent to impressions? (Sterling Excerpt 7, Excerpt 9)

**Types of Evaluation to Provide:**

- **Consistency Assessment:** Identify which Sterling criteria the text meets and which it violates. Use the following symbols:

  - ✓ = Criterion is clearly present and correctly formulated

  - ⚠ = Criterion is partially present, implicit, or requires clarification

  - ✗ = Criterion is contradicted or denied by the text

  - — = Criterion is outside the text's scope (see Scope Assessment below)

- **Scope Assessment:** Determine the text's focus and intended coverage:

  - **Comprehensive:** Text attempts to cover multiple aspects of Stoic doctrine

  - **Focused:** Text addresses one specific aspect (e.g., impression management, virtue, emotion)

  - **Fragment:** Text is a brief excerpt that presupposes broader context

  

  Use this assessment to distinguish between problematic omissions and legitimate scope limitations.

- **Omission Analysis:** Note essential Stoic doctrines that are omitted in a way that creates distortion or misunderstanding. Distinguish between:

  - **Essential omission (problematic):** A doctrine whose absence distorts what the text does present, creates logical gaps, or promotes misunderstanding of Stoicism

  - **Scope limitation (not problematic):** A doctrine that would naturally appear in a fuller treatment but whose absence does not distort the text's actual claims

  

  List only essential omissions in this section. Note scope limitations in "Additional Analysis" without treating them as deficiencies.

- **Contradiction Analysis:** Specify precise contradictions with Sterling's formalization, citing relevant Excerpts and Theorem numbers

- **Translation Assessment:** Evaluate whether Stage One's conceptual translations into Stoic vocabulary were warranted or potentially distorting

- **Categorization:** Classify the text as:

  - **Fully consistent with Sterling's formalization:** Aligns with all relevant criteria; no distortions

  - **Compatible with minor variations:** Aligns with core principles; variations in emphasis or terminology that don't distort

  - **Incomplete:** Omits essential doctrines in ways that create distortion or logical gaps

  - **Contradictory:** Denies one or more foundational principles

  - **Non-Stoic:** Uses Stoic vocabulary but presents incompatible philosophy

- **Logical Assessment:** Identify any internal inconsistencies, invalid inferences, or factual errors in the reformulated argument

**Output of Stage Two:**

A clearly labeled section titled "Evaluation Against Sterling's Principles" that provides the critical analysis described above.

### Complete Output Format

```

# [Title: Logical Reformulation of Source Text]

## Stage One: Systematic Reformulation

[Reformulation using theorem structure, translating source concepts into Sterling's framework]

## Stage Two: Evaluation Against Sterling's Principles

**Scope Assessment:**

[Comprehensive / Focused / Fragment] + [Brief description of the text's specific focus]

**Consistency with Sterling's Criteria:**

[Assessment against the seven criteria using ✓, ⚠, ✗, or — symbols with explanations]

**Translation Assessment:**

[Evaluation of whether conceptual translations were warranted]

**Essential Omissions:**

[Only doctrines whose absence creates distortion or misunderstanding]

**Scope Limitations (Not Deficiencies):**

[Doctrines outside the text's focus but compatible with it]

**Contradictions:**

[Specific contradictions with Sterling, with citations to relevant Excerpts]

**Classification:**

[Category from the five options above]

**Additional Analysis:**

[Logical problems, factual errors, internal inconsistencies, philosophical contributions, etc.]

**Conclusion:**

[Summary assessment of the text's status as Stoic doctrine]

```

---

## 3. Structural Format

```

# [Title of Reformulated Text]

## [Optional Section Title]

Th 1) [Primary proposition]

  1*) [Supporting statement]

  2*) [Further premise]

  3*) Ergo, [Logical conclusion]

Th 2) [Next theorem]

  1*) …

  2*) Ergo, …

```

**Note on Ergo placement:** The Ergo may appear either as a numbered sub-proposition (e.g., '3*) Ergo...') or as an unnumbered conclusion following the sub-propositions, depending on logical flow. Maintain consistency within each theorem.

---

## 4. Logical and Linguistic Standards

### Universalization

Convert particulars to universals when the text clearly intends a general claim applicable to all rational agents. Preserve particulars when they serve essential rhetorical, exemplary, or personal functions in the argument. When uncertain, err toward preserving the source's quantificational structure.

**Examples:**

- "If you judge externals evil, you will be disturbed" → universal claim, appropriately reformulated universally

- "Remember that your wife is mortal" → particular serving hortatory function; may preserve "your wife" or note the personal address while also stating the universal principle

### Value Logic

- If X is not in our control → X has no moral value.

- False belief about X → emotion (pathos).

- True belief → freedom → happiness (eudaimonia).

### Logical Closure

Each theorem or sub-proposition sequence must conclude with an explicit 'Ergo' statement that either:

1. **Deductively follows** from the premises (strict logical entailment), or

2. **Restates the premises in canonical form** as a closure step (synthesis or summary)

When using closure-type Ergo statements (type 2), the conclusion should clarify or systematize what the premises establish rather than deriving something genuinely new. Both types are legitimate; the reformulator should use whichever best serves clarity.

---

## 5. Output Requirements

- Produce a single continuous text in the theorem-and-ergo style, with consistent numbering and syntax, concluding in a summary deduction uniting virtue, freedom, and happiness.

- Do not add explanatory commentary, introductory remarks, or interpretive notes within Stage One reformulation. Produce only the systematic reformulation itself.

- Stage Two evaluation should follow Stage One reformulation as a separate, clearly labeled section.

- Add nothing beyond the systematic reformulation in Stage One and the critical evaluation in Stage Two.

---

## 6. Invocation Example

Using the Universal Logical Reformulation Template v2.2, convert the following passage from Epictetus' Enchiridion 2 into the formal logical style of Grant C. Sterling's Core Stoicism (Excerpt 9). Number theorems sequentially, include supporting propositions and Ergo conclusions, translate concepts into Stoic technical vocabulary where warranted, and provide Stage Two evaluation. Here is the verified text:

"Remember that the promise of desire is the attainment of what you desire, that of aversion is not to fall into what is avoided, and that he who fails in his desire is unfortunate, while he who falls into what he would avoid experiences misfortune. If, then, you avoid only what is unnatural among those things which are under your control, you will fall into none of the things which you avoid; but if you try to avoid disease, or death, or poverty, you will experience misfortune. Withdraw, therefore, your aversion from all the matters that are not under our control, and transfer it to what is unnatural among those which are under our control. But for the time being remove utterly your desire; for if you desire some one of the things that are not under our control you are bound to be unfortunate; and, at the ​same time, not one of the things that are under our control, which it would be excellent for you to desire, is within your grasp. But employ only choice and refusal, and these too but lightly, and with reservations, and without straining" (W. A. Oldfather).

---

## 7. Embedded Example – Reference Model

The following demonstrates the expected output format when the template is applied to Epictetus' Enchiridion 2:

### Logical Reformulation of Epictetus' Enchiridion 2

**Stage One: Systematic Reformulation**

Th 1) The promise of desire is the attainment of what is desired; the promise of aversion is to avoid what is judged evil.

  1*) Whoever fails in desire is unfortunate, and whoever falls into what he would avoid experiences misfortune.

  2*) Ergo, success in life depends on the truth of one's value judgments about good and evil.

Th 2) Desire and aversion arise from beliefs concerning what is good and what is evil.

  1*) If the belief is false, the resulting desire or aversion is irrational and produces emotion.

  2*) Ergo, true belief about value is the sole condition of right desire and right aversion.

Th 3) Only inner events — beliefs, desires, and acts of prohairesis — are in our control; all externals are not.

  1*) Therefore, only in regard to what is in our control can desire and aversion be rational.

  2*) To apply desire or aversion to externals is to hold a false value belief.

Th 4) If one avoids only what is unnatural among the things in one's control, one will never fall into what one avoids.

  1*) What is unnatural within prohairesis is false judgment or vice.

  2*) Ergo, aversion should be directed solely toward false judgment and moral error.

Th 5) But if one tries to avoid disease, death, or poverty — things not in one's control — one will experience misfortune.

  1*) All misfortune follows from valuing externals as evils.

  2*) Ergo, to transfer aversion from externals to internal error removes misfortune at its root.

Th 6) Withdraw aversion from all things not in your control and transfer it to what is unnatural within those that are.

  1*) "Unnatural" means contrary to reason, that is, contrary to virtue.

  2*) Ergo, correct aversion is moral vigilance, not fear of circumstance.

Th 7) For the time being, remove utterly desire for externals.

  1*) If one desires anything not in one's control, one is bound to be unfortunate.

  2*) The things within one's control that it would be excellent to desire — virtue, correct judgment, rational use of prohairesis — are not yet perfected.

  3*) Ergo, suspend desire for externals until true value judgment has been established.

Th 8) Employ only choice and refusal (acts of assent and rejection), and these too but lightly and with reservation.

  1*) Choice and refusal belong to the faculty of prohairesis, not to passion.

  2*) To act "lightly and with reservation" is to choose conditionally — "if this accords with right reason."

  3*) Ergo, moderation of impulse preserves freedom even amid uncertainty.

Th 9) Since all desire and aversion depend upon belief about good and evil, and only internal acts are truly in our control, the rational agent must:

  1*) Withdraw desire from externals.

  2*) Direct aversion only toward false judgment and vice.

  3*) Exercise choice and refusal with calm reservation.

  4*) Ergo, by these acts one eliminates misfortune and secures freedom from disturbance.

Th 10) All misfortune arises from desiring or avoiding what lies beyond our control; all freedom and happiness arise from confining desire and aversion to what lies within it.

  1*) Ergo, one who suspends desire for externals and limits aversion to vice alone lives in accordance with reason, suffers no misfortune, and attains eudaimonia.

**Stage Two: Evaluation Against Sterling's Principles**

**Scope Assessment:**

**Focused.** This passage specifically addresses the discipline of desire and the proper objects of desire/aversion. It is pedagogical instruction on managing desire and aversion by aligning them with correct value theory. It is not attempting comprehensive coverage of all Stoic doctrine.

**Consistency with Sterling's Criteria:**

1. ✓ **Cognitive theory of emotion:** The text clearly holds that misfortune (a pathos) arises from false value judgments (Theorems 1-2, 5). Emotions result from desiring/avoiding externals falsely judged good/evil.

2. ✓ **Foundational value theory:** Implicitly present—virtue (correct judgment) is treated as the only genuine good, vice (false judgment) as the only evil (Theorems 4, 6, 7). The text's entire argument rests on this distinction.

3. ✓ **Status of externals:** Disease, death, and poverty are explicitly identified as externals that should not be judged evil (Theorems 3, 5, 6). The passage's central instruction is to withdraw value judgments from externals.

4. — **Preferred indifferents:** Outside scope. The passage focuses on the discipline of desire (what to desire/avoid) rather than on the discipline of action (what to pursue as preferred indifferents). See Scope Limitations below.

5. ✓ **Logical order:** The passage derives recommendations about what to avoid/desire from the prior claim about what is/isn't in our control, which itself follows from value theory (Theorems 2-6). Control-based guidance is grounded in value theory, not treated as foundational.

6. ✓ **Sufficiency of virtue:** Implied in Theorem 10—living in accordance with reason (virtue) is sufficient for eudaimonia. The passage promises that correct value judgment eliminates all misfortune and produces freedom and happiness.

7. ⚠ **Psychology of assent:** Present but abbreviated—Theorem 8 mentions "choice and refusal" (acts of assent) and connects them to prohairesis, but doesn't elaborate the full impressions-assent mechanism found in Sterling Excerpt 7.

**Translation Assessment:**

The Stage One reformulation translates Epictetus's terminology into Sterling's framework at several points:

- "under your control" → "in our control" / "within prohairesis" (warranted by Epictetus's consistent use of eph' hēmin)

- "choice and refusal" → "acts of assent and rejection" (warranted by Epictetus's technical usage)

- "what is unnatural" → "contrary to reason/virtue" (legitimate interpretation of para phusin in Stoic context)

- "unfortunate/misfortune" → emotional disturbance arising from false value judgment (warranted by broader Stoic theory)

These translations are philosophically appropriate and preserve the text's meaning while making its Stoic structure explicit.

**Essential Omissions:**

None. The passage contains no omissions that distort what it does present or create logical gaps in its argument.

**Scope Limitations (Not Deficiencies):**

- **Preferred indifferents and kathēkonta:** The text focuses on the discipline of desire (directing desire/aversion correctly) rather than on the discipline of action (how to engage with externals through rational selection of preferred indifferents). Sterling Excerpt 9, Theorems 24-29 would naturally extend this teaching by explaining that virtue consists in rationally pursuing preferred indifferents while remaining indifferent to outcomes. The absence of this doctrine does not distort what the passage does teach.

- **Full psychology of impressions and assent:** The passage mentions "choice and refusal" (Theorem 8) but does not elaborate the complete sequence found in Sterling Excerpt 7: impression arises → evaluation → assent/rejection → impulse/emotion. This fuller account would strengthen the passage but is not necessary for its pedagogical purpose.

- **Positive dimension of eudaimonia (Joy):** The passage emphasizes negative freedom (elimination of misfortune, freedom from disturbance) but does not explicitly discuss Joy or other eupatheiai as positive affective states accompanying virtue. Sterling Excerpts 4, 6, and 9 (Section Three) address this positive dimension.

**Contradictions:**

None. The text is fully consistent with Sterling's systematic formalization.

**Classification:**

**Fully consistent with Sterling's formalization.** This passage represents authentic Stoic teaching that aligns perfectly with Sterling's core principles. Its focused scope (discipline of desire) does not constitute incompleteness but appropriate pedagogical limitation.

**Additional Analysis:**

**Logical Validity:**

The argument is valid throughout. Each Ergo follows necessarily from stated premises. The structure moves systematically from the causal connection between value beliefs and emotions (Theorems 1-2), through the distinction between internals and externals (Theorem 3), to practical guidance on directing desire/aversion (Theorems 4-8), concluding with the promise of eudaimonia (Theorems 9-10).

**Pedagogical Strategy:**

The passage exemplifies Epictetus's method: start with consequences (misfortune from false desire), identify the cause (false value judgment about externals), provide the remedy (redirect desire/aversion to internals), and conclude with the benefit (freedom and happiness). This matches Sterling's logical structure in Excerpt 9, particularly Section Two (Negative Happiness).

**Relationship to Sterling's System:**

This passage corresponds primarily to Sterling Excerpt 9, Section Two (Negative Happiness), Theorems 3-14, which demonstrate that eliminating false value beliefs eliminates unhappiness. Epictetus provides the practical instruction; Sterling provides the systematic logical exposition.

**Textual Grounding:**

The reformulation adheres closely to Oldfather's translation while translating concepts into Stoic technical vocabulary. The most significant interpretive move—identifying "things within your control, which it would be excellent for you to desire" with virtue, correct judgment, and rational use of prohairesis (Theorem 7)—is strongly warranted by the broader context of the Enchiridion and Epictetus's consistent teaching.

**Conclusion:**

This passage from Enchiridion 2 is orthodox Stoic teaching that exemplifies Sterling's core formalization. It focuses on the discipline of desire (one aspect of Stoic practice) and executes that focus perfectly, without distortion or error. The absence of preferred indifferents, full psychology of assent, and discussion of Joy reflects pedagogical focus rather than doctrinal incompleteness. 

When supplemented with Sterling Excerpt 9, Sections Three and Four (positive happiness and virtue as rational action), this passage forms part of the complete Stoic system. It serves as an excellent foundation for Stoic practice, particularly for beginners learning to redirect desire and aversion away from externals.

---

## 8. Stage One Prohibitions: Preventing Interpolation and Confabulation

**These prohibitions apply strictly to Stage One (Systematic Reformulation) only. They do not apply to Stage Two (Critical Evaluation).**

The purpose of these prohibitions is to prevent the addition of faulty source material from memory or interpretation, ensuring that Stage One reformulations are grounded exclusively in user-supplied, verifiable text.

The model must never **in Stage One**:

- Add opinions about what the text "really means" beyond what is warranted by semantic translation into Stoic framework

- Introduce concepts not present in or clearly implied by the source text

- Explain why Epictetus or other Stoics believed something (save for Stage Two)

- Compare the passage to other philosophical schools (save for Stage Two)

- Offer historical context or biographical information (save for Stage Two)

- Include phrases like "Here Epictetus argues..." or "This shows that..." (pure reformulation only)

- Work from memory of other versions or translations of the passage

- Quote or reproduce copyrighted material from external sources (web searches, modern commentaries, etc.)

**Clarification on Quoting:**

You may and should quote the user-supplied source text when necessary to demonstrate textual grounding. The prohibition against quoting applies only to copyrighted external materials (web search results, modern scholarly works, etc.), not to the source text the user has provided for reformulation.

**Stage Two Exemption:** 

Critical evaluation in Stage Two is not subject to these prohibitions. In Stage Two, the reformulator should actively engage in:

- Identifying contradictions with Stoic doctrine

- Explaining why certain claims are non-Stoic

- Comparing the text to Sterling's systematic formalization

- Noting omissions of essential doctrines or scope limitations

- Providing philosophical analysis and categorization

- Assessing whether Stage One translations were appropriate

This two-stage structure ensures both systematic philosophical analysis (Stage One) and critical evaluation (Stage Two).

---

## 8A. Suppressed Premises: Strict Criteria

Supplying suppressed premises is permitted in Stage One only under the following strict conditions:

**A premise may be supplied as "suppressed" only when ALL of the following are true:**

1. **Logical necessity:** The argument is formally invalid without the premise (the conclusion does not follow from stated premises alone).

2. **Textual implication:** The premise is clearly presupposed by the text's own language or immediate argumentative context (e.g., an anaphoric reference, elliptical construction, or obvious gap in stated reasoning).

3. **Minimal doctrinal addition:** The premise can be stated using only:

   - Terms already present in the source text, or

   - Stoic technical terms that directly translate concepts present in the source text, or

   - Fundamental Stoic principles that are universally accepted background assumptions in Stoic texts (e.g., "only virtue is good" in a text that discusses virtue and good without explicitly stating their identity)

4. **Explicit marking:** Any supplied premise must be clearly marked with the notation: *[Suppressed premise made explicit]*

**Examples of Legitimate Suppressed Premises:**

Source: "If you judge externals good, you will be disturbed."

Supplied premise: "Externals are not in your control." *[Suppressed premise made explicit]*

Justification: The argument requires this connection; the Stoic technical framework presupposes it; the source text's structure implies it.

**Examples of Illegitimate Additions (NOT Suppressed Premises):**

Source: "Control your thoughts."

Do NOT add: "Thoughts belong to prohairesis, which alone is in our control." *[This imports doctrine not implied by the source's simple instruction]*

Instead: Translate "control your thoughts" as "exercise prohairesis over impressions" only if the source context warrants this interpretation.

**When in Doubt:** If uncertain whether a premise meets all four criteria, do NOT supply it in Stage One. Instead, note in Stage Two: "The argument would be strengthened by the addition of [premise], which is fundamental to Stoic doctrine but not explicitly stated in this passage."

---

## 9. Handling Texts That Contradict Sterling's Principles

When the supplied source text contradicts Sterling's systematic formalization, follow this procedure:

### Recognition

A Sterling-literate reformulator will immediately recognize contradictions with Sterling's Nine Excerpts. This recognition should inform Stage Two evaluation but must not alter Stage One reformulation.

### Stage One Response

**Always reformulate the text's actual argument, even if it contradicts Stoic doctrine.** Do not:

- Correct non-Stoic claims to make them Stoic

- Omit contradictory passages

- Reinterpret the text to force compatibility with Sterling beyond what semantic translation warrants

- Add qualifying language like "some interpreters say" or "this may be non-Stoic"

Stage One must represent the source text's argument in Sterling's logical form, regardless of philosophical adequacy.

### Stage Two Response

In Stage Two evaluation, explicitly identify and analyze contradictions:

**For ancient Stoic texts with variations from Sterling:**

"This passage reflects a variation in Stoic teaching. While Sterling's core formalization (Excerpt X) holds [principle], this text suggests [variation]. This may represent [Seneca's/Marcus's/early Stoic] emphasis on [aspect] rather than a contradiction of fundamental doctrine."

**For modern texts contradicting Sterling:**

"This text contradicts Sterling's systematic formalization at the following points: [list specific contradictions with Excerpt citations]. While it uses Stoic vocabulary, the argument presented is incompatible with orthodox Stoic doctrine as Sterling formalizes it. Classification: [Incomplete/Contradictory/Non-Stoic]."

**For texts with logical inconsistencies:**

"This text contains internal contradictions: Theorem X asserts [claim A], while Theorem Y asserts [claim B], and these cannot both be true. The source text itself is logically inconsistent and cannot be reformulated into a coherent system without interpretive decisions beyond semantic translation."

### When to Decline Reformulation

Decline reformulation only when:

1. The text contains logical contradictions so severe that reformulation would produce manifest incoherence

2. The user has requested reformulation "as Stoic doctrine" but the text grossly contradicts multiple Sterling criteria

In such cases, explain:

"This text contradicts Sterling's formalization at points X, Y, and Z [with specifics]. It cannot be reformulated as orthodox Stoic doctrine. I can reformulate it as 'a philosophical argument using Stoic-influenced language' or 'popular Stoicism' if you wish, but it should not be presented as representing core Stoic teaching."

### Charitable Interpretation (Use Sparingly)

When a text is genuinely ambiguous and could be interpreted either as compatible or incompatible with Sterling, prefer the interpretation most consistent with Stoic doctrine—but note the ambiguity in Stage Two:

"This passage is ambiguous. It could mean [non-Stoic interpretation] or [Stoic interpretation]. Given the Stoic context, the reformulation assumes [Stoic interpretation], though the text itself does not make this explicit."

**Critical Principle:** Semantic translation into Stoic framework is legitimate reformulation; doctrinal correction that alters the source's actual claims is not. Stage Two is where philosophical judgment about adequacy operates.

---

## 10. Critical Reminders

- The Template performs transformative reformulation: translating source texts into Sterling's systematic framework, not neutral paraphrase.

- Translation into Stoic technical vocabulary is core methodology when semantically warranted by source content.

- The two-stage structure is mandatory: always produce both systematic reformulation (Stage One) and critical evaluation (Stage Two).

- Stage One prohibitions prevent LLM confabulation and ensure fidelity to supplied source text; they do not forbid critical analysis in Stage Two.

- Sterling's Nine Excerpts serve dual functions: (1) providing formal methodology for Stage One, and (2) providing evaluative standards for Stage Two.

- A Sterling-literate reformulator will recognize contradictions with Stoic principles; such recognition should inform Stage Two evaluation but must never alter Stage One reformulation beyond legitimate semantic translation.

- When in doubt about whether conceptual translation is warranted, use the source term in Stage One and discuss the conceptual mapping in Stage Two.

- Suppressed premises may be supplied only when meeting all four strict criteria in Section 8A.

- Complete Template use requires both stages: reformulation without evaluation is incomplete, as is evaluation without reformulation.

- Universalization should preserve particulars when they serve essential rhetorical or exemplary functions.

- **NEW in v2.2:** Distinguish between essential omissions (that distort) and scope limitations (that don't). Use the Scope Assessment to evaluate texts fairly according to their intended focus.

- Following all of these instructions will produce rigorous, philosophically informed logical reformulations that illuminate Stoic texts through Sterling's systematic framework.

---

## Appendix A: Implementation Notes

### For Use in Claude Interface

When using this Template in the Claude.ai interface or API, outputs may be formatted as artifacts for easy reference and export. The reformulation should be structured as a single response containing both Stage One and Stage Two sections.

### For Use with Other LLMs or by Human Scholars

This Template can be adapted for use with other language models or by human scholars:

- Remove or ignore references to Claude-specific features

- Adjust the level of detail in instructions based on the capabilities of the system or individual using the Template

- The core two-stage methodology and Sterling-based evaluation criteria remain applicable across all implementations

### For Portability

This Template is designed to be platform-agnostic in its core methodology. Implementation-specific details should be adjusted to fit the working environment while preserving the essential two-stage structure and fidelity to Sterling's systematic framework.

---

## Appendix B: Removed Content

The following sections were present in v2.0 but have been removed in v2.1/2.2 as out-of-scope:

- Design Principles for Visual Artifacts (HTML, React, Three.js guidance)

- Variable naming conventions for code

- UI/UX and animation guidance

- Artifact creation mechanics specific to Claude's interface

These topics are unrelated to logical reformulation of Stoic texts and were mistakenly included from general system instructions. Users needing guidance on these topics should consult appropriate technical documentation.

---

**END OF UNIVERSAL TEMPLATE FOR LOGICAL REFORMULATION OF STOIC TEXTS - VERSION 2.2**

**Change Summary from v2.1 to v2.2:**

**Major Revisions:**

1. **Scope Assessment (NEW):** Added systematic evaluation of text's scope (Comprehensive/Focused/Fragment) to distinguish essential omissions from scope limitations

2. **Revised Omission Analysis:** Now distinguishes "Essential Omissions" (problematic) from "Scope Limitations" (not deficiencies)

3. **Enhanced Symbol System:** Added "—" symbol for criteria outside text's scope, complementing ✓, ⚠, ✗

4. **Restructured Stage Two Output Format:** Now includes separate sections for "Essential Omissions" and "Scope Limitations" to prevent conflation of distortion with limited focus

5. **Updated Embedded Example:** Revised Enchiridion 2 evaluation to demonstrate proper use of Scope Assessment, correctly treating preferred indifferents as scope limitation rather than omission

**Minor Improvements:**

6. Clarified that scope limitations should be noted in "Additional Analysis" or under dedicated "Scope Limitations" heading, not listed as deficiencies

7. Enhanced guidance on fair evaluation: texts should be assessed relative to their stated or evident scope, not against comprehensive coverage standards

8. Improved consistency between classification categories and omission/scope analysis

**Rationale for v2.2:**

This revision addresses the core issue identified in the Marcus Aurelius reformulation evaluation, where preferred indifferents were incorrectly marked as an "omission" when they were actually outside the text's scope. The new Scope Assessment framework ensures that:

- Focused texts (addressing one aspect of Stoicism) are not penalized for not being comprehensive

- Essential omissions (that create distortion) are clearly distinguished from scope limitations (that don't)

- Evaluations are fair and proportionate to each text's evident purpose

- The Template produces consistent, defensible assessments across diverse Stoic texts

**Backward Compatibility:**

Version 2.2 remains fully compatible with v2.1's core methodology. All v2.1 reformulations remain valid; the v2.2 enhancements simply provide more precise evaluation criteria for Stage Two. Users of v2.1 can adopt v2.2 without needing to revise their understanding of the Template's fundamental approach.

**Implementation Notes:**

When applying v2.2, reformulators should:

1. Begin Stage Two with Scope Assessment before evaluating consistency criteria

2. Use the "—" symbol for any criterion clearly outside the text's scope

3. Reserve ⚠ for criteria that are within scope but incompletely or ambiguously addressed

4. List only genuine distortions under "Essential Omissions"

5. Be generous in recognizing legitimate scope limitations—most short passages will focus on specific aspects rather than attempting comprehensive coverage

This approach produces evaluations that are both rigorous (identifying genuine problems) and fair (not penalizing texts for appropriate focus).

---

## Appendix C: Version History

**v2.0 (Initial Revised Edition)**

- Introduced two-stage methodology (Pure Reformulation + Critical Evaluation)

- Established seven Sterling criteria for evaluation

- Created prohibition system to prevent LLM confabulation

- Developed systematic reformulation guidelines

**v2.1 (Clarification Edition)**

- Clarified transformative nature of reformulation (not neutral paraphrase)

- Refined universalization guidelines

- Tightened suppressed premises criteria (Section 8A)

- Clarified quoting prohibition scope

- Removed out-of-scope UI/design content

- Enhanced translation guidance

- Corrected structural numbering

**v2.2 (Scope Assessment Edition - Current)**

- Added Scope Assessment framework (Comprehensive/Focused/Fragment)

- Distinguished Essential Omissions from Scope Limitations

- Enhanced symbol system with "—" for out-of-scope criteria

- Restructured Stage Two output format

- Updated embedded example to demonstrate proper scope evaluation

- Resolved fair evaluation issue from Marcus Aurelius reformulation

**Future Development:**

Potential areas for enhancement in future versions:

- Expanded guidance on handling fragmentary texts from non-Epictetan sources

- Additional worked examples demonstrating scope assessment with various text types

- Refinement of translation principles for Latin Stoic sources (Seneca, Cicero)

- Integration guidance for texts combining multiple Stoic themes

- Enhanced criteria for evaluating modern adaptations and popularizations

Users encountering edge cases or ambiguities not adequately addressed by v2.2 should document them for potential inclusion in future revisions.

---

## Appendix D: Quick Reference Guide

### Stage One Checklist

- [ ] Working only from user-supplied text (not memory)

- [ ] Translating concepts into Stoic vocabulary where warranted

- [ ] Using Th/proposition/Ergo structure

- [ ] Maintaining logical validity (all Ergos follow from premises)

- [ ] Making explicit causal chain elements present in source

- [ ] Supplying suppressed premises only when all four criteria met

- [ ] No commentary, only reformulation

### Stage Two Checklist

- [ ] Scope Assessment completed (Comprehensive/Focused/Fragment)

- [ ] All seven Sterling criteria evaluated with appropriate symbols

- [ ] Translation assessment provided

- [ ] Essential Omissions listed (only genuine distortions)

- [ ] Scope Limitations noted separately (not as deficiencies)

- [ ] Contradictions identified with Sterling citations

- [ ] Classification assigned (five-category system)

- [ ] Additional Analysis provided

- [ ] Conclusion summarizes overall assessment

### Symbol Key

- ✓ = Present and correct

- ⚠ = Partial, implicit, or needs clarification

- ✗ = Contradicted or denied

- — = Outside text's scope

### Classification Categories

1. Fully consistent with Sterling's formalization

2. Compatible with minor variations

3. Incomplete (creates distortion)

4. Contradictory (denies principles)

5. Non-Stoic (incompatible philosophy)

### Common Pitfalls to Avoid

- Treating scope limitations as essential omissions

- Imposing comprehensive coverage standards on focused texts

- Adding suppressed premises without meeting all four criteria

- Working from memory instead of supplied text

- Using ⚠ for criteria that are simply outside scope (use — instead)

- Listing doctrinally compatible absences as omissions

- Confusing "not discussed" with "contradicted"

---

**Version 2.2 is now complete and ready for use.**

**Key Improvement:** This version resolves the evaluation precision issue while maintaining all the strengths of v2.1. Reformulators using v2.2 will produce more accurate, fair, and defensible evaluations that distinguish between texts with genuine doctrinal problems and texts with appropriate but limited scope.