 One might think, however, that this theoretical tightening comes at a cost. The advantage of Piso’s originally looser pluralism is that it accords with the views about value of those who, as Cicero puts it, have never come across a philosopher even in a painting (5.80). Piso is allowed to reiterate the criticism – indicating its importance for Cicero – that the Stoics adopt one set of terms in real life and another in the lecture room (5.89). But when Piso asks disapprovingly whether philosophers should speak in a different way from human beings (5.89), it is hard to avoid the thought that in his case the terminology of the street now dresses a more rigid substance. In becoming full-fledged theory, his discourse is in danger of losing what made it distinctive and attractive as an account of the good human life.