I appreciate the thoughtful response. I see your interest in the nuances of the definitions and I can agree that the pathway of inquiry should lead to a deeper understanding rather than a checklist of easily digestible information.

When considering the evolution of philosophies like Stoicism and Cynicism, it indeed sheds light on how ideas transform over time. However, I would argue that reductionism can overlook the complexities and unique contributions that Stoicism offers, even to its predecessors. Zeno brought something new, crafted from prior wisdom, and shaped it to answer the needs of his time more effectively.

Stoicism is often distinguished by its emphasis on virtue as the only good, and the practical application of this virtue in daily life through rational thought and self-discipline. This practical ethos differs significantly from the more ascetic and, at times, nihilistic trends that may be found in earlier Cynic thought.

Your mention of a modern perspective on terms such as "Cynicism" and "Stoicism" is insightful. While I value the historical roots, I'd posit that their evolution is a reflection of the changing human experience, suggesting that modern Stoicism retains relevance because of its adaptability and depth.

Ultimately, discussions around these philosophical traditions must focus strategically on how well they serve individuals in their pursuit of virtue and tranquility in the complexities of modern life. If we can agree that philosophy should provide tangible benefits to our lived experiences, perhaps my inclination towards preserving classical definitions aligns with that aim—ensuring we don’t lose the essence of what these philosophies teach.