Characterizes Epicurean, Stoic, Platonic, Aristotelian, and Christian philosophy, seeking to demonstrate the latter encompasses the best traits of the first four. The Epicurean view is to look for happiness in one’s appetites and passions, to find pleasure in what you’ve got. Its shortcoming is the greatest pleasures come from enduring struggle: there’s no development of character. Stoicism resolves to control temperament no matter the external effects. It founders on the suffering of others (i.e., the problem of evil). Further, the Stoic tends to be concerned with the universal rather than the local, where altruism ought to begin. Platonism seeks the perfection of virtue through subordinating parts to the whole, the lower to the higher. Appetites are to obey reason, spirit to be steadfast but secondary to the ruling of right reason. Family and property are subordinate to character development and the state’s role in creating virtue. Half of the Republic is given to education, outlining lifelong pursuit of proper subordination. Platonism fails in supposing universals are obtainable by all. The Aristotelian approach emphasizes sense of proportion, the ‘golden mean’, which is relative to context, and so locates personal virtue in the ability to choose the best alternative. One develops by displaying the courage of resolve, resilience in failure, and progress toward the objective: these are the basis of physical skill, mental power, moral virtue, and personal excellence. Friendship, based on shared interests, is the ideal evidence of virtue obtained. Aristotle failed, however, in blithely excluding more than half the populace (i.e., slaves) and was also too austere. The Christian exhibits love for everyone, universal fellowship, which is both a more exacting standard and also more realistic because it promotes focus on sympathy for those below. Over half of Hyde’s work is given to a refined ‘muscular Christianity’. There is no discussion of the distinction between philosophy qua philosophy and religion as philosophy; thus there is no discussion of the consequences of theology, mystery, or ceremony for Christian life.