An important thing to remember when reading ancient western sources is that their culture is significantly different from our own, which can color our view of t

An important thing to remember when reading ancient western sources is that their culture is significantly different from our own, which can color our view of the language they use. Honor and shame are pre-eminent, for example, Isocrates: > Pursue the enjoyments which are of good repute; for pleasure attended by honor is the best thing in the world, but pleasure without honor is the worst. > Strive by all means to live in security, but if ever it falls to your lot to face the dangers of battle, seek to preserve your life, but with honor and not with disgrace; for death is the sentence which fate has passed on all mankind, but to die nobly is the special honor which nature has reserved for the good In many modern cultures you rarely see much talk about honor. We tend to be much more concerned with personal satisfaction or internal moral standards. Honor is dynamic and relational. It is the esteem granted by one's community; the respect of others. The reverse is shame, not a personal moral failing to your own standards (which we would likely call guilt), but a failing in the eyes of your community. Shame is a strange word, in that to have shame is good (meaning you are aware of the standards of your community and careful to stay within them), but to be shamed is the worst thing that can happen to you. I'm not saying these concepts don't exist in our culture today, they do, perhaps most prominently when we celebrate courage on the battlefield, but in the Ancient world (and in may cultures in the world today), these concepts were much more important. To give a sense of the kinds of things that result from this: - Defending the honor of your community is extremely important. Honor challenges happen all the time - and to simply refuse to engage, is itself a kind of response - one where you "lose face". On the flip side, winning the challenge can enhance your place in society. - Relationships were structured around honor/shame dynamics through the use of patronage. A patron would be someone of means, with access to wealth, property, opportunities for advancement, and the patron would in return receive loyalty and an increase in their reputation. Think "The Godfather". This give and take, debt and payment, was fundamental. Seneca: > We are to speak of benefits, and to define a matter which is the chief bond of human society; [...] Men must be taught to be willing to give, willing to receive, willing to return; and to place before themselves the high aim, not merely of equalling, but even of surpassing those to whom they are indebted, both in good offices and in good feeling; because the man whose duty it is to repay, can never do so unless he out-does his benefactor - Kinship was extremely important. In general you were devoted to the well-being and status of your family, and were skeptical of outsiders. Honor is inherited, and your status is enhanced if your Father is an important figure in society. However this also means your status is diminished if members of your family (or tribe) commit shameful acts. All that to say, I think the premise of this article is incorrect. The classical tradition is very much concerned with the social ramifications of behavior in ways a 21st century American would likely find quite distasteful.