With respect, I would like to offer a counterpoint to the position taken here. I will do this in two parts by pointing out the problem with using metaphors to make arguments and to challenge the assertion that identifying as a Stoic is less than forthright for a Prokopton.
Metaphors can be useful in introducing complex ideas to an uninitiated audience, however, they come with risks, particularly if they are not discarded to eventually engage directly with the new concept, i.e., the logic of the metaphor can lead to erroneous conclusions by overextension. In this article, a metaphor for credentialization from an industry that utilizes this structure to ensure public safety is used as a template for individuals to identify their philosophical leanings. Within Stoicism, there are Prokopton of various levels of competency and there is the Sage. The logic of the electrical worker metaphor is extended to suggest that a hierarchy in one justifies a hierarchy in the other. I would suggest that this is an example of ‘metaphor creep’. Identifying our beliefs should not require us to express a degree of competency. For example, an Existentialist, a Buddhist or a Stoic are categories that broadly and usefully identify who we are. Specificity follows; an Existentialist in search of meaning, a Theravada Buddhist or a Stoic Prokopton. There is nothing dishonest or misleading for a committed Stoic Prokopton to identify as a Stoic. To identify in this way is the beginning of a conversation where the lifelong project of virtue ethics can be shared with those who may have asked the question in the first place; ‘So what do you believe?’
Yep, I agree with where you have gone here Tanner. I never refer to myself as a Stoic, just a student of Stoicism.
The electrician analogy helped a lot to frame this.
Yes, we are all Prokoptons on the path to becoming a Stoic, though that is not the goal. The goal is to improve one's character.
With respect, I would like to offer a counterpoint to the position taken here. I will do this in two parts by pointing out the problem with using metaphors to make arguments and to challenge the assertion that identifying as a Stoic is less than forthright for a Prokopton.
Metaphors can be useful in introducing complex ideas to an uninitiated audience, however, they come with risks, particularly if they are not discarded to eventually engage directly with the new concept, i.e., the logic of the metaphor can lead to erroneous conclusions by overextension. In this article, a metaphor for credentialization from an industry that utilizes this structure to ensure public safety is used as a template for individuals to identify their philosophical leanings. Within Stoicism, there are Prokopton of various levels of competency and there is the Sage. The logic of the electrical worker metaphor is extended to suggest that a hierarchy in one justifies a hierarchy in the other. I would suggest that this is an example of ‘metaphor creep’. Identifying our beliefs should not require us to express a degree of competency. For example, an Existentialist, a Buddhist or a Stoic are categories that broadly and usefully identify who we are. Specificity follows; an Existentialist in search of meaning, a Theravada Buddhist or a Stoic Prokopton. There is nothing dishonest or misleading for a committed Stoic Prokopton to identify as a Stoic. To identify in this way is the beginning of a conversation where the lifelong project of virtue ethics can be shared with those who may have asked the question in the first place; ‘So what do you believe?’