UNIVERSAL TEMPLATE FOR LOGICAL REFORMULATION OF STOIC TEXTS v2.3

 

# UNIVERSAL TEMPLATE FOR LOGICAL REFORMULATION OF STOIC TEXTS v2.3

**Version 2.3 - 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]

---

## PURPOSE

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, hormē, skopos, telos, hypexairesis.

**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

- **Apply vocabulary corrections as specified in Section 2B when source text uses post-classical interpretive vocabulary**

**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. **This section must include vocabulary correction assessment as specified in Section 2B.**

- **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]

[REQUIRED: Vocabulary correction assessment per Section 2B]

**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]

```

---

## 2B. Vocabulary Corrections for Post-Classical Interpretive Overlay

**NEW IN v2.3**

### The Problem: Anachronistic Modern Vocabulary

Many modern scholarly interpretations of Stoicism (particularly 19th-21st century works) use **post-classical philosophical vocabulary** that did not exist in ancient Stoicism and imports conceptual frameworks foreign to Stoic philosophy. The most common anachronism is using **"intention" and "will"** vocabulary to interpret Stoic action theory.

**This creates systematic distortion** because:

1. **Historical anachronism:** "Intention" (Latin *intentio*) developed technical meaning in medieval scholasticism (12th-13th centuries, particularly Aquinas) and was further developed by Kant. Classical Stoics (3rd century BCE - 2nd century CE) did not use equivalent Greek terminology.

2. **Conceptual distortion:** "Intention/will" vocabulary suggests:

   - **Voluntaristic psychology** (will → intention → action)

   - **Inner/outer dualism** (intention as inner mental state vs. action as outer behavior)

   - **Separate evaluation** (can evaluate "good intentions" independently of action)

   

   But Stoic philosophy is:

   - **Cognitive, not voluntaristic** (impression → judgment → assent → impulse → action)

   - **Non-dualistic** (choice/assent = action in Stoic sense; physical movement separate)

   - **Unified evaluation** (appropriateness of choice = virtue, complete at moment of assent)

3. **Incompatibility with Sterling's framework:** Sterling consistently uses "choice," "assent," "prohairesis," "appropriate action"—not "intention" or "will" as primary vocabulary.

### Classical Stoic Technical Vocabulary vs. Modern Overlay

**CLASSICAL STOIC TERMS:**

| **Greek/Latin** | **English** | **Meaning** |

|-----------------|-------------|-------------|

| Prohairesis (προαίρεσις) | Faculty of choice; moral character | The governing faculty; capacity for rational choice; character-as-choosing |

| Synkatathesis (συγκατάθεσις) | Assent | The act of accepting an impression as true; the core cognitive act |

| Hormē (ὁρμή) | Impulse; inclination | Movement of soul toward/away from something; follows from assent |

| Kathēkon (καθῆκον) | Appropriate action | Rationally correct action; what reason prescribes |

| Skopos (σκοπός) | Goal; target | External outcome aimed at; preferred indifferent |

| Telos (τέλος) | End | The true good; virtue; appropriate use of prohairesis |

| Hypexairesis (ὑπεξαίρεσις) / Exceptio | Reserve clause | Qualification acknowledging external outcomes depend on Destiny/Nature |

**POST-CLASSICAL INTERPRETIVE VOCABULARY (TO BE CORRECTED):**

| **Modern Term** | **Classical Stoic Equivalent** | **Why Correction Needed** |

|-----------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------|

| "Moral intention" | Appropriate use of prohairesis; appropriate choice | Suggests inner mental state separate from action; voluntaristic |

| "Good will" / "Will" | Prohairesis; rational commitment | Emphasizes will as faculty distinct from reason; post-Kantian |

| "Intention to do X" | Choice to do X; commitment to X; assent to "doing X is appropriate" | Suggests intermediate step between judgment and action that Stoics don't have |

| "Willing" | Choosing; exercising prohairesis | Voluntaristic rather than cognitive vocabulary |

| "Inner disposition" (when meaning intention) | Prohairesis; character; habitual pattern of assent | Can be ambiguous; often better as "prohairesis" or "character" |

### Mandatory Vocabulary Corrections in Stage One

**When source text is modern scholarly interpretation** (19th-21st century) that uses post-classical vocabulary:

**STAGE ONE MUST:**

1. **Identify modern interpretive vocabulary** in source text (particularly "intention," "will," "willing")

2. **Translate systematically to classical Stoic vocabulary:**

   - "Moral intention" → "appropriate use of prohairesis" OR "appropriate choice"

   - "Good will" → "prohairesis in conformity with reason" OR "rational commitment"

   - "Intention to do X" → "choice to do X" OR "commitment to X" OR "assent to practical impression 'doing X is appropriate'"

   - "Willing" → "choosing" OR "exercising prohairesis"

   - "One's will" → "one's prohairesis"

3. **Preserve philosophical content** while correcting vocabulary overlay

4. **Note corrections in footnote or parenthetical** if clarity requires:

   - Example: "appropriate choice [Hadot: 'moral intention']" 

   - Use sparingly; usually implicit correction is sufficient

**STAGE ONE MUST NOT:**

1. Preserve modern interpretive vocabulary just because source uses it

2. Mix corrected and uncorrected vocabulary inconsistently

3. Over-correct stable terminology that doesn't create distortion

### Mandatory Vocabulary Correction Assessment in Stage Two

**Stage Two Translation Assessment MUST include:**

```

**Critical Issue: [Author]'s Use of [Modern Term] ([Original Language if applicable])**

[Author's] original text uses [modern term] as primary vocabulary for [explaining what aspect of Stoicism].

**The Problem:**

"[Modern term]" is post-[medieval/Kantian/modern] philosophical vocabulary that does not accurately represent classical Stoic concepts. The Stoics used:

- [Greek/Latin term]: [meaning]

- [Greek/Latin term]: [meaning]

None of these map cleanly to modern "[modern term]," which suggests:

1. [Problematic implication 1]

2. [Problematic implication 2]

3. [Problematic implication 3]

**The Stoic framework** (per Sterling's [relevant Excerpt/email]):

[Explain actual Stoic position using classical vocabulary]

**Stage One Correction:**

The reformulation has corrected [Author's] vocabulary, translating:

- "[Modern phrase]" → "[Classical Stoic equivalent]"

- "[Modern phrase]" → "[Classical Stoic equivalent]"

[Provide specific examples with Theorem references]

**Justification for Correction:**

While normally Stage One should preserve source terminology (fidelity requirement), in this case:

1. [Author] himself/herself is translating/interpreting Greek/Latin Stoic concepts using modern [language] philosophical vocabulary

2. Sterling does not use "[modern term]" as primary vocabulary in his systematic expositions

3. The Template's purpose is to reformulate into Sterling's framework, which requires translating [Author's] modern interpretive vocabulary back into classical Stoic concepts

4. The correction makes the Stoic doctrine more accurate, not less

5. [Author's] philosophical insight is preserved - the reformulation captures what [Author] is explaining while using more accurate Stoic terminology

**Assessment:**

This is legitimate conceptual translation from modern interpretive vocabulary ([Author's] "[modern term]") into classical Stoic technical vocabulary ([Stoic terms]). The reformulation is more faithful to classical Stoicism than [Author's] own vocabulary, while preserving the philosophical insight [Author] is explaining.

```

### Examples of Vocabulary Correction in Practice

**EXAMPLE 1: Hadot's "Moral Intention"**

**Source:** "The only absolute value is moral intention."

**Incorrect Stage One (preserving modern vocabulary):**

"Th X) The only absolute value is moral intention, and it alone depends entirely upon us."

**Correct Stage One (correcting vocabulary):**

"Th X) The only absolute value is the appropriate use of prohairesis in making rational choices, and this alone depends entirely upon us."

**Stage Two must note:** "Hadot uses 'moral intention' (French *intention morale*); corrected to 'appropriate use of prohairesis' to restore classical Stoic vocabulary."

---

**EXAMPLE 2: Hormē Mistranslated as "Intention"**

**Source:** "There can be no obstacle to my intention (*horme*)."

**Problem:** *Hormē* (ὁρμή) = "impulse," NOT "intention"

**Incorrect Stage One:**

"Th X) There can be no obstacle to my intention (*hormē*)."

**Correct Stage One:**

"Th X) There can be no obstacle to my impulse (*hormē*) or to my rational disposition."

**Stage Two must note:** "Hadot translates *hormē* as 'intention.' This is incorrect. *Hormē* means 'impulse'—the movement of soul toward action that follows from assent. See Sterling Excerpt 7 for correct psychology: impression → judgment → assent → **impulse** (*hormē*) → physical action."

---

**EXAMPLE 3: "Will" for Prohairesis**

**Source:** "The sage's will remains free."

**Incorrect Stage One:**

"Th X) The sage's will remains free."

**Correct Stage One:**

"Th X) The sage's prohairesis remains free." OR "Th X) The sage's capacity for rational choice remains free."

**Stage Two must note:** "Modern translations often use 'will' for prohairesis. This imports voluntaristic psychology (will as distinct faculty) foreign to Stoicism. Prohairesis is faculty of rational choice/moral character, fundamentally cognitive not voluntaristic."

---

### When NOT to Apply Vocabulary Corrections

**DO NOT correct vocabulary when:**

1. **Source is ancient text** (Epictetus, Marcus, Seneca) - translate straightforwardly from Greek/Latin

2. **Source already uses classical Stoic vocabulary** correctly

3. **Modern vocabulary doesn't create distortion** (e.g., "decision" for choice is usually fine)

4. **Correction would obscure rather than clarify** (rare cases where modern term is clearer)

**Examples of acceptable modern vocabulary:**

- "Decision" (usually fine for choice/assent when not technical)

- "Disposition" (when clearly meaning hexis/character, not "intention")

- "Commitment" (often good translation for choice/assent when emphasizing firmness)

- "Rational" (standard translation of logikos/rationalis)

**The test:** Does the modern vocabulary import post-classical conceptual frameworks (voluntarism, inner/outer dualism, will-as-faculty) that distort Stoic philosophy? If yes, correct. If no, can preserve.

### Integration with Existing Template Sections

**This new section (2B) integrates with:**

- **Section 2A (Translation Assessment):** Now requires vocabulary correction assessment

- **Section 8 (Stage One Prohibitions):** Clarifies that preserving anachronistic source vocabulary violates fidelity-to-Stoicism even if faithful to source text

- **Section 8A (Suppressed Premises):** Vocabulary correction is different from supplying premises; it's translating existing content

- **Appendix C (Version History):** Documents this major addition

**Critical Principle:**

When source text is **modern scholarly interpretation** using post-classical vocabulary, the Template's commitment to **fidelity to Stoic philosophy** takes precedence over **fidelity to source text's exact wording**. We translate the philosophical content using classical Stoic vocabulary that Sterling employs, correcting modern interpretive overlays that distort ancient doctrine.

This is **not unfaithfulness to the source** but **restoration of the classical Stoicism the source is interpreting through modern categories**.

---

## 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 v2.3, 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, apply vocabulary corrections per Section 2B if source uses post-classical interpretive vocabulary, 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)

**Vocabulary Correction Assessment:**

This passage is an ancient Stoic text (Epictetus, 1st-2nd century CE) translated directly from Greek. No post-classical interpretive vocabulary requiring correction. The translation (Oldfather) uses straightforward English equivalents for Greek terms. No "intention/will" vocabulary present. Vocabulary corrections per Section 2B not applicable to ancient sources translated directly.

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 (

**Additional Analysis (continued):**

**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.)

- **Preserve post-classical interpretive vocabulary when source is modern scholarly interpretation (see Section 2B)**

**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.

**Clarification on Vocabulary Correction:**

Section 2B vocabulary corrections are **not violations** of the fidelity requirement. When source text is modern scholarly interpretation using post-classical vocabulary (e.g., "intention," "will"), correcting to classical Stoic vocabulary (e.g., "prohairesis," "choice," "assent") is **required** to maintain fidelity to Stoic philosophy. The Template's commitment is to **Sterling's Stoicism**, not to preserving modern interpretive overlays that distort ancient doctrine.

**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

- **Evaluating vocabulary corrections per Section 2B**

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."

**Note:** Vocabulary correction per Section 2B is **different from supplying suppressed premises**. Vocabulary correction translates existing content into classical Stoic terms; supplying premises adds new propositional content. Both are legitimate but distinct operations.

---

## 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 beyond legitimate vocabulary corrections per Section 2B.

### 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 (beyond vocabulary corrections per Section 2B)

- 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.

**Exception:** Apply vocabulary corrections per Section 2B when source uses post-classical interpretive vocabulary, even if this changes the argument's surface formulation. This is restoration of classical Stoicism, not correction of the argument itself.

### 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."

**For texts requiring vocabulary correction:**

"This text uses post-classical interpretive vocabulary ('[modern term]') that obscures classical Stoic doctrine. Stage One has corrected this vocabulary per Section 2B, translating to '[classical term].' This correction restores the classical Stoic position the author is interpreting through modern categories. [Provide detailed assessment per Section 2B template]."

### 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 (including vocabulary correction per Section 2B) 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.

- **NEW IN v2.3:** Vocabulary correction per Section 2B is mandatory when source uses post-classical interpretive vocabulary (particularly "intention/will" terminology).

- 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.

- **NEW IN v2.3:** Vocabulary correction is not a Stage One prohibition violation—it's required to maintain fidelity to Stoic philosophy.

- 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 not alter Stage One reformulation beyond legitimate semantic translation and vocabulary correction.

- 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.

- **NEW in v2.3:** Always assess vocabulary corrections in Stage Two Translation Assessment, explaining what was corrected and why.

- 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 v2.1/2.2/2.3 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.

---

## 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)**

- 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

**v2.3 (Vocabulary Correction Edition - Current)**

**MAJOR ADDITION:**

- **NEW Section 2B: Vocabulary Corrections for Post-Classical Interpretive Overlay**

  - Comprehensive framework for identifying and correcting anachronistic modern vocabulary

  - Detailed table of classical Stoic terms vs. post-classical interpretive vocabulary

  - Mandatory correction procedures for "intention," "will," and related terms

  - Examples of correct vs. incorrect vocabulary handling

  - Integration with existing Template sections

**REVISIONS:**

- Section 2A (Translation Assessment): Now requires vocabulary correction assessment

- Section 8 (Stage One Prohibitions): Clarified that vocabulary correction is required, not prohibited

- Section 8A (Suppressed Premises): Distinguished vocabulary correction from supplying premises

- Section 10 (Critical Reminders): Added reminders about vocabulary correction requirement

- Embedded Example (Section 7): Added vocabulary correction assessment demonstrating no corrections needed for ancient text

**RATIONALE:**

This revision addresses a critical issue identified through reformulation of Pierre Hadot's *The Inner Citadel*: modern scholarly interpretations often use post-classical philosophical vocabulary (particularly "intention," "will") that:

1. Did not exist in classical Stoicism (historical anachronism)

2. Imports non-Stoic conceptual frameworks (voluntarism vs. cognitive psychology)

3. Creates distortions inconsistent with Sterling's formalization

4. Requires systematic correction to restore classical Stoic vocabulary

The new Section 2B provides:

- Theoretical foundation explaining why "intention/will" vocabulary is problematic

- Practical guidance for identifying and correcting anachronistic vocabulary

- Mandatory procedures for Stage One correction and Stage Two assessment

- Clear distinction between ancient texts (no correction needed) and modern interpretations (correction required)

**IMPACT:**

This is the most significant addition since v2.0. It establishes that the Template's commitment is to **fidelity to Stoic philosophy as Sterling formalizes it**, not to preserving modern interpretive overlays that distort ancient doctrine. When source texts are modern scholarly interpretations using post-classical vocabulary, **vocabulary correction is mandatory**, not optional.

**Future Development:**

Potential areas for enhancement in future versions:

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

- Additional worked examples demonstrating vocabulary correction 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

- Possible expansion of Section 2B to address other common anachronisms beyond "intention/will"

Users encountering edge cases or ambiguities not adequately addressed by v2.3 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

- [ ] **Correcting post-classical interpretive vocabulary per Section 2B (if source is modern interpretation)**

- [ ] 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

- [ ] **Vocabulary correction assessment provided (mandatory per Section 2B)**

- [ ] 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"

- **Preserving post-classical interpretive vocabulary when source is modern interpretation (must correct per Section 2B)**

- **Failing to provide vocabulary correction assessment in Stage Two (mandatory)**

### **NEW: Vocabulary Correction Quick Reference**

**When to correct vocabulary (Section 2B):**

- Source is modern scholarly interpretation (19th-21st century)

- Source uses "intention," "will," "willing," "good will," "moral intention"

- Source mistranslates Greek/Latin technical terms (e.g., *hormē* as "intention")

**What to correct to:**

- "Moral intention" → "appropriate use of prohairesis" / "appropriate choice"

- "Good will" / "Will" → "prohairesis" / "rational commitment"

- "Intention to do X" → "choice to do X" / "assent to 'doing X is appropriate'"

- "Willing" → "choosing" / "exercising prohairesis"

- *Hormē* mistranslated as "intention" → "impulse"

**When NOT to correct:**

- Source is ancient text (Epictetus, Marcus, Seneca) - translate straightforwardly

- Source already uses classical Stoic vocabulary correctly

- Modern vocabulary doesn't create distortion

**Stage Two requirement:**

- MUST provide vocabulary correction assessment using template in Section 2B

- Explain what was corrected and why

- Justify corrections as restoration of classical Stoicism

---

**END OF UNIVERSAL TEMPLATE FOR LOGICAL REFORMULATION OF STOIC TEXTS - VERSION 2.3**

**Change Summary from v2.2 to v2.3:**

**MAJOR ADDITION:**

**Section 2B: Vocabulary Corrections for Post-Classical Interpretive Overlay** - Complete framework for handling anachronistic modern vocabulary in scholarly interpretations, particularly "intention/will" terminology that distorts Stoic philosophy.

**KEY REVISIONS:**

1. Integrated vocabulary correction requirement throughout Template

2. Clarified that vocabulary correction is mandatory, not optional, for modern interpretations

3. Distinguished vocabulary correction from suppressed premises

4. Added mandatory vocabulary correction assessment to Stage Two

5. Updated embedded example to demonstrate vocabulary assessment for ancient text

6. Enhanced Stage One prohibitions to clarify vocabulary correction is required

7. Expanded Critical Reminders with vocabulary correction guidance

**RATIONALE:**

Addresses systematic problem of post-classical philosophical vocabulary (especially "intention," "will") in modern scholarly interpretations that:

- Creates historical anachronism (terms didn't exist in classical Stoicism)

- Imports non-Stoic conceptual frameworks (voluntarism vs. cognitive psychology)

- Distorts Stoic doctrine as Sterling formalizes it

- Requires systematic correction to restore classical vocabulary

**IMPACT:**

Most significant revision since v2.0. Establishes that Template's primary commitment is to **fidelity to Stoic philosophy**, not to preserving modern interpretive overlays. When sources use post-classical vocabulary, **correction is mandatory** to represent classical Stoicism accurately.

**Backward Compatibility:**

Version 2.3 remains fully compatible with v2.2's core methodology. All v2.2 reformulations remain valid. The v2.3 addition provides systematic guidance for a specific problem (anachronistic vocabulary) that was previously handled inconsistently or not at all. Users of v2.2 can adopt v2.3 without revising their understanding of the Template's fundamental approach—v2.3 simply adds precision for handling modern scholarly interpretations.

**Implementation Notes:**

When applying v2.3, reformulators should:

1. Identify source type: ancient text vs. modern interpretation

2. If modern interpretation, scan for post-classical vocabulary (Section 2B list)

3. Correct systematically in Stage One using classical Stoic equivalents

4. Provide mandatory vocabulary correction assessment in Stage Two

5. Explain corrections as restoration, not distortion

This approach produces reformulations that are both:

- **Accurate to classical Stoicism** (correct vocabulary)

- **Faithful to source's philosophical content** (insights preserved)

---

**Version 2.3 is now complete and ready for use.**

**This version resolves the critical vocabulary issue while maintaining all strengths of previous versions. Reformulators using v2.3 will produce more accurate, philosophically precise reformulations that represent classical Stoicism as Sterling formalizes it, while correctly handling both ancient sources and modern scholarly interpretations.**