Poverty, on the other hand, does not change the disposition of the temperate man for the worse[988] There is nothing distressing or painful about it,[989] for Crates and Diogenes were poor and yet passed their life in ease.[990] It is no harder to endure old age in poverty than in wealth, but all depends upon the disposition.[991] Poverty deprives the life of no positive good, but furnishes the opportunity of gaining good,[992] since it is conducive to the contemplative life of philosophy, while wealth is an obstacle to this.[993] It is the poor, rather than the wealthy, who have leisure.[994] They are also obliged to be strong (καρτερεῖν), while the wealthy become effeminate, since they have no impetus to work.[995] Thus poverty, when accompanied with justice, should be more highly honored than wealth.[996] The author concludes that it is therefore best to despise wealth and turn to the life of philosophy, for this develops generosity instead of stinginess, and contentment instead of insatiety. Such a life uses what is on hand, and lives content with present blessings (τοῖς παροῦσι).[997] The marked contrast between this ascetic philosophy of poverty and the saner teaching of Plato, who was as much opposed to poverty as to excessive wealth, is patent. STOICS The Stoics were the natural descendants in thought of the Cynics, whom they resemble closely in their attitude toward external goods. According to their definition, a good must have an unconditioned value (_absolutum_, αὐτελές). Whatever exists merely for the sake of something else, or is of value only in comparison to something else, is not a good.[998] A similar doctrine was held concerning evil. Thus spiritual goods were counted to be the only true wealth,[999] and he who had the right attitude toward all,[1000] and used all rightly, was thought to be the spiritual owner of all.[1001] Zeno, the founder of the school,[1002] classified both wealth and poverty among the so-called “indifferents” (ἀδιάφορα),[1003] as neither good nor evil _per se_. Like the Cynics, he eulogized poverty, though not to such an extreme degree.[1004] He went with them only so far as to insist that wealth and poverty have no value, except in relation to the proper spiritual attitude.[1005]