What do you think?
Rate this book
Discourses and Selected Writings
Epictetus, a Greek Stoic and freed slave, ran a thriving philosophy school in Nicopolis in the early second century AD. His animated discussions were celebrated for their rhetorical wizardry and were written down by Arrian, his most famous pupil. Together with the Enchiridion, a manual of his main ideas, and the fragments collected here, The Discourses argue that happiness lies in learning to perceive exactly what is in our power to change and what is not, and in embracing our fate to live in harmony with god and nature. In this personal, practical guide to the ethics of Stoicism and moral self-improvement, Epictetus tackles questions of freedom and imprisonment, illness and fear, family, friendship and love, and leaves an intriguing document of daily life in the classical world.
In the introduction that accompanies his lively new translation, Robert Dobbin discusses Epictetus' life, his place in the Stoic tradition, his influence on world philosophies and his relevance in the modern day. This edition also includes a bibliography, notes and a glossary of names.
In the introduction that accompanies his lively new translation, Robert Dobbin discusses Epictetus' life, his place in the Stoic tradition, his influence on world philosophies and his relevance in the modern day. This edition also includes a bibliography, notes and a glossary of names.
276 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 108
About the author
Epictetus
830 books1,921 followersEpictetus was a Greek Stoic philosopher. He was probably born a slave at Hierapolis, Phrygia (present day Pamukkale, Turkey), and lived in Rome until his exile to Nicopolis in northwestern Greece, where he lived most of his life and died. His teachings were noted down and published by his pupil Arrian in his Discourses. Philosophy, he taught, is a way of life and not just a theoretical discipline. To Epictetus, all external events are determined by fate, and are thus beyond our control, but we can accept whatever happens calmly and dispassionately. Individuals, however, are responsible for their own actions which they can examine and control through rigorous self-discipline. Suffering arises from trying to control what is uncontrollable, or from neglecting what is within our power. As part of the universal city that is the universe, human beings have a duty of care to all fellow humans. The person who followed these precepts would achieve happiness.
Other language versions:
Epictète
Epícteto
Epiktet
Other language versions:
Epictète
Epícteto
Epiktet
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 510 reviews
December 14, 2016
But to begin with, keep well away of what is stronger than you. If a pretty girl is set against a young man who is just making a start on philosophy, that is no fair contest.
Epictetus forms one part of the triad of classic stoic authors, along with Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.
Born a slave, sent into exile, never rich nor powerful, he certainly had more need of the stoic philosophy than Aurelius, an emperor, or Seneca, a senator. His course of life was closer to that of Socrates. Like Plato’s hero (and unlike Plato himself), Epictetus did not trouble himself with questions of logic, epistemology, or metaphysics. His concern was ethics; his aim was to learn how to live the best possible life. Also like Socrates, he did not write anything down himself. All of “his” works were set to paper by his pupil, Arrian.
In character, too, he is far removed from either Aurelius or Seneca. Aurelius’s voice is intimate and frank; he speaks as a friend. Seneca is sophisticated, suave, and cosmopolitan; he is easy to imagine as a witty dinner guest. Epictetus is like a sassy staff-sergeant. His mode is vituperation; he is a teacher who will mock and chide you into shape. The basic idea of his philosophy could hardly be simpler. His goal is only to instill this idea into your mind so deeply that it reforms your whole character.
What is his philosophy? The basic message is this. The external world is ultimately outside of our control. We cannot determine whether we will be rich or poor, whether our loved ones will die, whether we will be banished, imprisoned, or executed, whether we will be favored or persecuted by the emperor, whether we will get sick, whether other people will like us, or a thousand other things. The outside world—the world outside our minds—will always be able to overpower us, outmaneuver us, and surprise us.
Only the internal world is within our control. This is what Epictetus calls the “realm of choice.” We cannot choose our circumstances, but we can choose how we react to those circumstances. We cannot, for example, prevent ourselves from being robbed; but we can choose not to place value in our jewelry, and so maintain peace of mind in the event of a robbery. Everything, even our lives and our loved ones, only has value because we give it value with our minds. You can laugh at your own executioner if you don’t regard execution as an evil. This power—the power to change our attitude towards the external world—Epictetus regards as the ultimate and quintessential human faculty. This is the power of choice, and constitutes human freedom.
‘He has been taken off to prison.’—What has happened? He has been taken off to prison. But the observation ‘Things have gone badly for him’ is something that each person adds for himself.
He is unwaveringly concerned with the practical rather than the theoretical. This book is full of castigation for philosophy students who consider themselves successful when they can satisfactorily summarize and refute a logical argument. Logic is just a plaything, Epictetus says, and all this argument is entirely besides the point. How will you react when you’re in a ship that’s being tossed about in a storm? How will you react if you’re banished or if your loved one dies? How will you face death? Remember, he says, that books are ultimately just another external good, like money or power, and by prizing them, like any external good, we simply make ourselves victims of circumstances.
Epictetus’s stoicism is more explicitly deistic than Seneca’s or Aurelius’s. He regards all humans as children of God (Zeus), whom he pictures as running every detail of the universe. Thus a large part of his philosophy consists of acting in accordance with God. If you want to live in Rome, but circumstances prevent it, don’t whine and moan, but accept that God has other plans for you. If you go bankrupt and end up a beggar, accept this new role and play your part in the grand design. To reject God’s plan is foolish impiety. It is to overlook all of the blessing bestowed on you—not least life itself—and focus on one small part of the universe that you find unpleasant: “So because of one miserable leg, slave, you’re going to cast reproaches against the universe?” (Epictetus was lame in one leg.)
Although sometimes Epictetus pictures Zeus as a personal god, for the most part it is easy to see his Zeus as merely a personalization of the universe. In any case, Epictetus’s conception of death is entirely materialistic. There is no afterlife; death is the end of existence. But it is only an end from your point of view. The materials of your body will be released and used for other things. Indeed, says Epictetus, we really do not possess anything. Everything—our house, our family, our body itself—is just on a loan from the universe. If Zeus asks for it back, we would be rude to refuse.
Books like these can easily become moralizing and unpleasant; but this one is saved by Epictetus's rollicking humor and puckish wit. Epictetus is often shown discoursing with a pupil, upbraiding, reprimanding, scolding, chiding, and finally encouraging. His style is distinguished by its relentless use of rhetorical questions. For a philosopher, he can be rather cheeky:
I must die; so must I die groaning too? I must be imprisoned; so must I grieve at that too? I must depart into exile; so can anyone prevent me from setting off with a smile, cheerfully and serenely?
The only thing that makes this book occasionally unpleasant to read is its repetitiveness. The same ideas are put forward in a hundred different ways; the same theme is returned to again and again. There is little plan or order to the sections. There is no grand unifying scheme, merely a succession of chapters haphazardly arranged. I should admit, however, that this repetition can be partly excused by the need of a moralist to firmly instill his principles: “One should know that it isn’t easy for a person to arrive at a firm judgment unless, day after day, he states and hears the same principles, and at the same time applies them to his life.”
There are theoretical troubles, too. I could not entirely agree with his division of the universe into things falling within or without the sphere of choice. Surely it is more accurate to think of a scale, or a gradation, of things more or less within our power. We can minutely influence an election, we can somewhat influence our friends, we can usually control our bodies, and we can almost always control our attitude. Thus, instead of saying “Only worry about things within the sphere of choice,” it would be more accurate to say “Only worry about things insofar as your choices can affect them.” And then, even so, in practice it is so often difficult to tell whether we are fulfilling our duties to the best of our abilities.
This is related to another theoretical weakness. The stoics make much ado about living in harmony with nature (or Zeus). And yet, how can anyone act otherwise? If we are a part of nature, and bound by her laws, how can any of our actions be out of sync with nature? Let’s say, for example, that you get banished from Rome. Epictetus advises you to accept your fate as God’s will and make a new life. To protest your fate would be to act against nature. But what if it’s Zeus’s (or whoever’s) will that you protest? And how can Epictetus know that, by protesting, you won’t be readmitted to the capital? Maybe your protest will be an event in the history of Rome and change the practice of banishment forever?
By this I am led to another potential shortcoming in Epictetus’s system: fatalism. If everyone is entirely responsible for their own peace of mind, and if circumstances play no role in human happiness, then there is no reason to help anybody or to try to improve the world: “If anyone suffers misfortune, remember that he suffers it through his own fault, since God created all human beings to enjoy happiness, to enjoy peace of mind.” Again, in this situation I think Epictetus’s hard division between things outside or within our control blinds him to the dialogue between attitude and circumstances that comprise human life and happiness.
The modern use of the word “stoic”—someone imperturbable, unemotional, unfeeling—is not entirely accurate as regards the original stoics. Seneca was witty, cosmopolitan, and certainly not unfeeling. Yet in Epictetus we see this stereotype borne out more accurately. The majority of these dialogues is concerned with avoiding disturbance and maintaining peace of mind. Epictetus is constantly warning his pupils what not to do, what actions, people, and things to avoid in order to be properly philosophical. Very little is said about the joys of life. Indeed, unlike Seneca, who was a fan of Epicurus, Epictetus repeatedly denounces Epicureans without seeming to understand their doctrine.
These criticisms are minor when I consider that this book is easily one of the greatest books on the art of living that I have yet read. So often Epictetus seems to be speaking directly to me, with frightening relevance. He is not interested in any of my excuses, but shames me into virtue with his sharp-tongued and good-natured scolding. And it is, perhaps, unfair to criticize the theory of a philosophy whose end is practice. For my part, Epictetus is easily the most powerful of the three classic stoic authors, one who I will be sure to return to when life tosses me about.
January 24, 2022
"Why do you read anyway - for the sake of amusement or mere erudition? Those are poor, fatuous pretexts. Reading should serve the goal of attaining peace; if it doesn't make you peaceful, what good is it?"
Epictetus' Discourses and Selected Writings read like a self-improvement book, but an ancient one, written two millennia ago in the Roman Empire. Epictetus (c.55-135 CE) was a Greek freedman and quite an articulate Stoic philosopher, although these Discourses where written and published by his student Arrian.
Epictetus' emphasis is solely on mental health and how to maintain and improve its fitness. First we must be persistent in alleviating ourselves of feelings, or better yet, perceptions of jealousy, anxiety, anger, and fear. Easier said than done! But how do we achieve this state of emotional stability and inner tranquility? We have to expect and prepare ourselves for disappointment and remain indifferent to things that are not in our power and are beyond our control. We must detach ourselves from all material things and practice self-control in order not to succumb to desires while looking down upon any material things and all externals that are outside of our sphere of influence.
Epictetus also discusses the correct way to evaluate and utilize our impressions and the importance of the will. He especially praises the philosophies and philosophers, Socrates and Diogenes, but criticizes and mocks Epicurus. This tells me I should read Epicurus as a GR friend already recommended.
Stoicism feels like an applied philosophy that teaches those that wish to follow it to continually "persist and resist" the pains and pleasures in any and most extreme circumstances in order to reach true freedom and happiness all in harmony with nature and belief in God.
Epictetus' Discourses and Selected Writings read like a self-improvement book, but an ancient one, written two millennia ago in the Roman Empire. Epictetus (c.55-135 CE) was a Greek freedman and quite an articulate Stoic philosopher, although these Discourses where written and published by his student Arrian.
Epictetus' emphasis is solely on mental health and how to maintain and improve its fitness. First we must be persistent in alleviating ourselves of feelings, or better yet, perceptions of jealousy, anxiety, anger, and fear. Easier said than done! But how do we achieve this state of emotional stability and inner tranquility? We have to expect and prepare ourselves for disappointment and remain indifferent to things that are not in our power and are beyond our control. We must detach ourselves from all material things and practice self-control in order not to succumb to desires while looking down upon any material things and all externals that are outside of our sphere of influence.
Epictetus also discusses the correct way to evaluate and utilize our impressions and the importance of the will. He especially praises the philosophies and philosophers, Socrates and Diogenes, but criticizes and mocks Epicurus. This tells me I should read Epicurus as a GR friend already recommended.
Stoicism feels like an applied philosophy that teaches those that wish to follow it to continually "persist and resist" the pains and pleasures in any and most extreme circumstances in order to reach true freedom and happiness all in harmony with nature and belief in God.
October 26, 2017
Read The Enchiridion. Breezy Stoic tonics for daily living. Surprisingly Buddhistic. Star rating refers to that section only.
April 19, 2016
I gave Marcus Aurelius' Mediations a five star rating only because the writing was more clear. However Aurelius was inspired by Epictetus and that is why I chose to read this book. I really enjoyed the read. It had a very powerful effect on the way I viewed life. If you are seeking to change your perspective or you're looking to grow,, this is a good starting book for you. I most enjoyed discussions on family, friendship, and integrity. I also enjoyed the enchiridion at the very end.
November 6, 2019
If I had to recommend one of the classic Stoic authors to someone new to the subject, it would be Epictetus. Many contemporary works on Stoicism are largely restatements of what Epictetus said with greater force and clarity thousands of years ago. Marcus Aurelius himself was greatly influenced by Epictetus, as confirmed in the Meditations.
This edition includes the Discourses (the four books that survived of the original eight), some fragments, and the Handbook. These were all written by Epictetus’s student Arrian, as Epictetus never wrote anything down himself. The Discourses are purported to be the literal transcription of Epictetus’s lectures while the Handbook is a summary of the ethical precepts found within the Discourses. The Handbook is the quickest route to practicing Stoicism right away, and should probably be read first before diving into the Discourses.
The underlying theme of the Handbook is progressive ethical self-improvement through daily practice. Through the concept of dichotomy of control, the Stoic learns to use reason to manage desire, handle adversity, and build character. While Stoicism cannot be “mastered,” with continual practice and reflection the Stoic can achieve tranquility and intellectual freedom while coming to see that virtue is the only true good within our complete control.
If I was setting about to learn Stoicism over again, I would read Epictetus first before moving on to Marcus Aurelius and Seneca and then to the more modern works. And this particular edition is probably the best modern translation available.
This edition includes the Discourses (the four books that survived of the original eight), some fragments, and the Handbook. These were all written by Epictetus’s student Arrian, as Epictetus never wrote anything down himself. The Discourses are purported to be the literal transcription of Epictetus’s lectures while the Handbook is a summary of the ethical precepts found within the Discourses. The Handbook is the quickest route to practicing Stoicism right away, and should probably be read first before diving into the Discourses.
The underlying theme of the Handbook is progressive ethical self-improvement through daily practice. Through the concept of dichotomy of control, the Stoic learns to use reason to manage desire, handle adversity, and build character. While Stoicism cannot be “mastered,” with continual practice and reflection the Stoic can achieve tranquility and intellectual freedom while coming to see that virtue is the only true good within our complete control.
If I was setting about to learn Stoicism over again, I would read Epictetus first before moving on to Marcus Aurelius and Seneca and then to the more modern works. And this particular edition is probably the best modern translation available.
July 10, 2021
Epictetus was a leading figure in stoicism in the II century AD. More than Marcus Aurelius, he is more qualified to teach about misfortune and bad starts, since he himself was a slave. But it is strange how much one can identify easier with Marcus Aurelius more than Epictetus. Perhaps it is the very direct style in which the Discourses were written, or rather reported by his student Arrian, with which he tried to put us in the presence of Epictetus, in order to feel the intensity and seriousness with which he exhorted his students to the practice of Philosophy as a way of life, not only a theoretical discipline.
Faithful to the teachings of stoicism since Zeno of Citium, Epictetus places a huge emphasis on the free will of the individual, and the correct use of impressions. Nothing is bad or good in itself unless we decide it is so. In order to lead a peaceful life with satisfaction, contentment and happiness one should separate what is in his control from what is not, think constantly of what he values the most, and focus on it. This way he can stop being tormented by what he calls externals. If scrutinized enough, a lot of what we hold as fundamental to human happiness may show us a different side. Most of the time they don’t belong to us in the first place, like our bodies, our health and our social class. These are parameters which were there from the start, and one wonders if a king is less tormented than a peasant, maybe they only differ in what kind of torments they suffer. Humans call misfortune what is also often a part of the cycle of Nature. It is absurd to oppose it, be afraid of it or try to avoid it. Decay and death are as natural as growth and birth. It is even absurd to be bothered by it.
The main purpose of the stoic teaching is to live a life free from fear and anxiety. To achieve this one needs a rigorous training of the faculty of the will and its appreciation of impressions. The knowledge of what is really a vice or a virtue is essential. It seems that to achieve a certain degree of inner peace one should train himself to practice beliefs and habits which most humans indulge in and find very difficult to adhere to, like detachment from material objects, indifference towards blame or praise, acceptance of one’s lot. Epictetus often cites the example of athletes or craftsmen, as if such attitudes are not innate to humans, but acquired through a long apprenticeship. Without this training in the art of life, it is only the existence of slaves which one should expect. It is slavery to worthless objects, petty people, false opinions and vain struggles.
When reading Marcus Aurelius one feels more empathy towards stoics. Here is a man of an unreachable status, and a rare caliber of virtue, but who struggles to put these principles into action, he reminds himself constantly of his failures and exhorts himself to put more effort in the matter. Epictetus sounds very different. He seems to penetrate your inner soul with his gaze, and sees your utter inability to practice stoicism. He spends so much time talking about those would-be erudites who only read to brag about what they know in conversation, without ever having the courage to put it in practice. He knows that deep down you still envy your ex-classmates who had better jobs, better cars, your good looking colleagues, the seemingly perfect life of your superiors, he knows that you still blame fortune for not giving you this opportunity or that, anxious about what others think of you, fearing to fail to meet the social expectations of your group. You are as far as one can be from stoic teachings, yet with insolence you lie to yourself and pretend to be on the right path. Epictetus’s gaze is intimidating, it calls us back to reality, and makes us ask if we are really ready and able to transform our minds the way stoics do. When we think of our daily lives, and how much time we are slaves of envy, jealousy, anger, dissatisfied desires and disappointed expectations, stoicism seems like an ideal which is still far ahead.
Faithful to the teachings of stoicism since Zeno of Citium, Epictetus places a huge emphasis on the free will of the individual, and the correct use of impressions. Nothing is bad or good in itself unless we decide it is so. In order to lead a peaceful life with satisfaction, contentment and happiness one should separate what is in his control from what is not, think constantly of what he values the most, and focus on it. This way he can stop being tormented by what he calls externals. If scrutinized enough, a lot of what we hold as fundamental to human happiness may show us a different side. Most of the time they don’t belong to us in the first place, like our bodies, our health and our social class. These are parameters which were there from the start, and one wonders if a king is less tormented than a peasant, maybe they only differ in what kind of torments they suffer. Humans call misfortune what is also often a part of the cycle of Nature. It is absurd to oppose it, be afraid of it or try to avoid it. Decay and death are as natural as growth and birth. It is even absurd to be bothered by it.
The main purpose of the stoic teaching is to live a life free from fear and anxiety. To achieve this one needs a rigorous training of the faculty of the will and its appreciation of impressions. The knowledge of what is really a vice or a virtue is essential. It seems that to achieve a certain degree of inner peace one should train himself to practice beliefs and habits which most humans indulge in and find very difficult to adhere to, like detachment from material objects, indifference towards blame or praise, acceptance of one’s lot. Epictetus often cites the example of athletes or craftsmen, as if such attitudes are not innate to humans, but acquired through a long apprenticeship. Without this training in the art of life, it is only the existence of slaves which one should expect. It is slavery to worthless objects, petty people, false opinions and vain struggles.
When reading Marcus Aurelius one feels more empathy towards stoics. Here is a man of an unreachable status, and a rare caliber of virtue, but who struggles to put these principles into action, he reminds himself constantly of his failures and exhorts himself to put more effort in the matter. Epictetus sounds very different. He seems to penetrate your inner soul with his gaze, and sees your utter inability to practice stoicism. He spends so much time talking about those would-be erudites who only read to brag about what they know in conversation, without ever having the courage to put it in practice. He knows that deep down you still envy your ex-classmates who had better jobs, better cars, your good looking colleagues, the seemingly perfect life of your superiors, he knows that you still blame fortune for not giving you this opportunity or that, anxious about what others think of you, fearing to fail to meet the social expectations of your group. You are as far as one can be from stoic teachings, yet with insolence you lie to yourself and pretend to be on the right path. Epictetus’s gaze is intimidating, it calls us back to reality, and makes us ask if we are really ready and able to transform our minds the way stoics do. When we think of our daily lives, and how much time we are slaves of envy, jealousy, anger, dissatisfied desires and disappointed expectations, stoicism seems like an ideal which is still far ahead.
December 24, 2018
Me: Epictetus, why is life so difficult? Why can’t I get what I want? Why are people so immature? Why can I never seem to be satisfied?
Epictetus: Because you are a damned fool! *smacks you over the head with his cane.* Seek virtue within not in external things! There will you find peace!
Epictetus: Because you are a damned fool! *smacks you over the head with his cane.* Seek virtue within not in external things! There will you find peace!
February 9, 2017
These times in which we now live demand normal daily functioning, combined with active resistance to viciously regressive political forces, in a chaotic atmosphere of propaganda and violence. For some this state of being is nothing new, but for white left-wingers in the UK and US, I suspect it’s largely novel and shocking. Personally, I find the current state of things (which I dread to think of as a new normal) horrifying and depressing, as I discussed in this review. Amongst other coping mechanisms, I’m finding thoughtful non-fiction helpful. Stoic philosophy seemed appropriate in part because it is one of the roots of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). This ancestry was often evident while I read; Epictetus demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of psychology many centuries before such a discipline existed.
It was interesting to read Epictetus as an atheist. Central to his Stoic teaching is the need to resign yourself, ideally in a joyful spirit, to all that outside your control. Epictetus assigns this realm to God/the gods/Zeus, effectively interchangeable terms. When applying this to myself, I experimented with reading God as fate, destiny, chaos, and simply the universe. Since I don’t specifically believe in a preordained fate or destiny, I was most comfortable interpreting what’s outside my control broadly as ‘shit that happens’. I don’t think that anyone or anything is in control, but things happen nonetheless. If anything, I think this atheist reading strengthens Epictetus’ arguments. If there is no God deciding your way in life, all the more reason to carefully contemplate your impressions and actions. Railing against the chaos of the universe is no more helpful than condemning the capriciousness of God or gods.
I went through Epictetus at approximately half my usual reading speed, as I am unaccustomed to philosophy and wanted to understand it as best I could. The experience was rewarding. Epictetus has much to say about freedom and a good life that resonates today. It’s tempting to see Stoicism as passive and fatalistic, but I came to consider that a function of modern individualism and impatience. Epictetus makes it clear that Stoic philosophy is not something you read in a book, or a fashion choice (he specifically complains about hipsters dressing ‘philosophically’!), but an integral part of daily life. To simplify, he seems to say that you should live a good life insofar as you can: consider all your behaviour carefully, be content with what you have, accept that all things are fleeting, and quietly set a good example rather than evangelising. This, it seems, will bring you true freedom and happiness. The term Stoic has become synonymous with uncomplaining suffering, which isn’t really what Epictetus advocates. He suggests that you aim not to suffer at all, to accept what is outside your control and be happy about the little that is within it. He does accept this is very difficult, perhaps impossible for many, and he struggles himself. Which doesn’t mean, he argues, that everyone shouldn’t aspire to it:
Diogenes the Cynic and Socrates are the two most often cited by Epictetus as good examples to follow, both men he describes as humble, ascetic, and unafraid to speak unwanted truths to power. I found this comment arresting:
In addition to personal ethical endeavour, Epictetus talks of humans (just men, inevitably) as citizens, going to so far as to lecture on how antisocial it is not to keep yourself clean. I liked this part:
Stoicism thus refutes passivity, as it makes clear that the good citizen should be prepared to stand up for what is good and right, if necessary dying for it. Discourse 2.10 asks you to ‘consider who you are’ and then lists the three most important answers: a human being, a citizen of the world, a son, and a brother. Each of these roles requires certain standards of behaviour; Epictetus is arguing for civic virtue as well as personal disregard of material possessions and other worldly benefits.
The elements of CBT can be found most specifically in two dialogues: 3.8 on training yourself to deal with impressions (the cognitive) and 2.18 on the cultivation of habits (the behavioural). Both of these approaches are very helpful in dealing with distress: the first involves stepping back from your feelings to analyse and try to alter them, the second cultivating behaviours that calm your mind. Epictetus is aspiring beyond the alleviation of distress, of course, towards true freedom and happiness. He describes the former vividly:
That certainly seems like something worth aspiring to. Perhaps more immediately applicable was the commentary on reading in discourse 4.4, in which Epictetus points out that reading should be for a purpose: to help you live better. Thus time spent outside books is an opportunity to put into practise all that you’ve read. I think he has a good point there, although I greatly enjoy a bit of escapist reading. I also sympathise with his dislike of having a body, which is after all a real drag:
Interjections like this prevent the reader becoming tired of Epictetus’ lecturing style, which often sounds a lot like browbeating to the unaccustomed ear. I found the whole book both thought-provoking and accessible, undoubtedly aided by the relative informality of the translation style. (The notes at the end were terribly stolid, however.) There is definitely something to be said for Stoicism, for focusing on what you can do rather than what you can’t, for cultivating a healthy mind (and leaving the body to itself), for disregarding material things and accepting that nothing lasts. I was reminded of the recently-read novel Stoner, which concerns a man with definite Stoic tendencies but much more concern for his family roles than any wider civic responsibility.
I will end this rambling review with my two favourite quotes from the book, the first found in the Handbook:
The second, a delightfully gothic epigram, I found amongst the Fragments:
Am I alone in finding that curiously comforting? I recommend Epictetus as a boost to mental fortitude when the daily news seems determined crush your peace of mind.
It was interesting to read Epictetus as an atheist. Central to his Stoic teaching is the need to resign yourself, ideally in a joyful spirit, to all that outside your control. Epictetus assigns this realm to God/the gods/Zeus, effectively interchangeable terms. When applying this to myself, I experimented with reading God as fate, destiny, chaos, and simply the universe. Since I don’t specifically believe in a preordained fate or destiny, I was most comfortable interpreting what’s outside my control broadly as ‘shit that happens’. I don’t think that anyone or anything is in control, but things happen nonetheless. If anything, I think this atheist reading strengthens Epictetus’ arguments. If there is no God deciding your way in life, all the more reason to carefully contemplate your impressions and actions. Railing against the chaos of the universe is no more helpful than condemning the capriciousness of God or gods.
I went through Epictetus at approximately half my usual reading speed, as I am unaccustomed to philosophy and wanted to understand it as best I could. The experience was rewarding. Epictetus has much to say about freedom and a good life that resonates today. It’s tempting to see Stoicism as passive and fatalistic, but I came to consider that a function of modern individualism and impatience. Epictetus makes it clear that Stoic philosophy is not something you read in a book, or a fashion choice (he specifically complains about hipsters dressing ‘philosophically’!), but an integral part of daily life. To simplify, he seems to say that you should live a good life insofar as you can: consider all your behaviour carefully, be content with what you have, accept that all things are fleeting, and quietly set a good example rather than evangelising. This, it seems, will bring you true freedom and happiness. The term Stoic has become synonymous with uncomplaining suffering, which isn’t really what Epictetus advocates. He suggests that you aim not to suffer at all, to accept what is outside your control and be happy about the little that is within it. He does accept this is very difficult, perhaps impossible for many, and he struggles himself. Which doesn’t mean, he argues, that everyone shouldn’t aspire to it:
”And you, are you free?” the man asks.
By the gods, I want to be and pray to be, but I’m not yet able to look my masters in the face, I still attach value to my poor body, and take care to keep it whole and sound, despite the fact that it isn’t so. But I can show you a free man, to save from having to search any longer for an example. Diogenes was free.
Diogenes the Cynic and Socrates are the two most often cited by Epictetus as good examples to follow, both men he describes as humble, ascetic, and unafraid to speak unwanted truths to power. I found this comment arresting:
Only, consider at what price you’re willing to sell your power of choice. If nothing else, make sure, man, that you don’t sell it cheap. But what is great and exceptional is perhaps the province of others, of Socrates and people of that kind.
In addition to personal ethical endeavour, Epictetus talks of humans (just men, inevitably) as citizens, going to so far as to lecture on how antisocial it is not to keep yourself clean. I liked this part:
...If you consider yourself as a human being and as a part of some whole, it may be in the interest of the whole that you should now fall ill, now embark on a voyage and be exposed to danger, now suffer poverty, and perhaps even die before your time. Why do you resent this, then? Don’t you know that in isolation a foot is no longer a foot, and that you likewise will no longer be a human being? What, then, is a human being? A part of a city, first of all that which is made up of gods and human beings, then that which is closest to us and which we call a city, which is a microcosm of the universal city.
Stoicism thus refutes passivity, as it makes clear that the good citizen should be prepared to stand up for what is good and right, if necessary dying for it. Discourse 2.10 asks you to ‘consider who you are’ and then lists the three most important answers: a human being, a citizen of the world, a son, and a brother. Each of these roles requires certain standards of behaviour; Epictetus is arguing for civic virtue as well as personal disregard of material possessions and other worldly benefits.
The elements of CBT can be found most specifically in two dialogues: 3.8 on training yourself to deal with impressions (the cognitive) and 2.18 on the cultivation of habits (the behavioural). Both of these approaches are very helpful in dealing with distress: the first involves stepping back from your feelings to analyse and try to alter them, the second cultivating behaviours that calm your mind. Epictetus is aspiring beyond the alleviation of distress, of course, towards true freedom and happiness. He describes the former vividly:
So accordingly, that person who doesn’t allow himself to be overpowered by pleasure, or by suffering, or by glory, or by wealth, and who is capable, whenever he thinks fit, of spitting his entire miserable body into some tyrant’s face and taking his leave - to what can such a man still be a slave, to whom can he still be subject?
That certainly seems like something worth aspiring to. Perhaps more immediately applicable was the commentary on reading in discourse 4.4, in which Epictetus points out that reading should be for a purpose: to help you live better. Thus time spent outside books is an opportunity to put into practise all that you’ve read. I think he has a good point there, although I greatly enjoy a bit of escapist reading. I also sympathise with his dislike of having a body, which is after all a real drag:
At any rate, we love our body and take care of it, the most unpleasant and foulest of all things. [...] In truth, it is amazing that we should love something for which we have to perform so many services day after day. I stuff this sack here, and then I empty it; what could be more tedious? But I have to serve God; and for that reason, I stay here and put up with having to wash this poor wretched body of mine, and feed it, and shelter it.
Interjections like this prevent the reader becoming tired of Epictetus’ lecturing style, which often sounds a lot like browbeating to the unaccustomed ear. I found the whole book both thought-provoking and accessible, undoubtedly aided by the relative informality of the translation style. (The notes at the end were terribly stolid, however.) There is definitely something to be said for Stoicism, for focusing on what you can do rather than what you can’t, for cultivating a healthy mind (and leaving the body to itself), for disregarding material things and accepting that nothing lasts. I was reminded of the recently-read novel Stoner, which concerns a man with definite Stoic tendencies but much more concern for his family roles than any wider civic responsibility.
I will end this rambling review with my two favourite quotes from the book, the first found in the Handbook:
Never say about anything, ‘I’ve lost it,’ but rather, ‘I’ve given it back’. Your child has died? It has been given back. Your wife has died? She has been given back. ‘My farm has been taken from me’. Well, that too has been given back. ‘Yes, but the man who took it is a rogue’. What does it matter to you through what person the one who gave it to you demanded it back? So long as he entrusts it to you, take care of it as something that isn’t your own, as travellers treat an inn.
The second, a delightfully gothic epigram, I found amongst the Fragments:
You’re a little soul carrying a corpse around.
Am I alone in finding that curiously comforting? I recommend Epictetus as a boost to mental fortitude when the daily news seems determined crush your peace of mind.
November 23, 2020
Epictetus's stoicism in a nutshell-list:
1) You are in control of/responsible for your judgement, impulse, desire, aversion and mental faculties. The virtuous person knows they have power over these things and can practice discernment in how they perceive and take on the world through their own filtered mind.
2) You are not in control of your body, material possessions, your reputation, status, death—all of which he calls "externals". When you try to control the incontrollable, you will only face disappointment, anger, sadness, anxiety, fear and suffering. It is ultimately like Tolstoy's Ivan Ilych wailing in pain in his deathbed, as if such tantruming could fend off death's arrival. ("I must die, but must I die bawling?")
3) Impressions and judgements rule our minds. Our thoughts run rampant in our minds and are the causes of all our discontent and suffering. Contrary to common belief, if a thief steals your wallet and you feel bad, it is not the thief that is the cause of that feeling of badness, it is your judgement that is. "Oh, how unfair this is!" you say. Yet, as Epictetus would say, that wallet never truly belonged to you. Nothing belongs to you. Things are simply returned to the void in which they first arrived. The buddhist perspective on non-attachement is felt strongly in Epictetus's words. ("It is not events that disturb people, it is their judgement concerning them.")
4) When faced with an obstacle in life, ask yourself: 'Is this something that is in my control? Or it is something external to myself?' If the former, you can choose how it affects you. If the latter, it is none of your concern. Needless suffering plagues people who think those externals are their responsibility. By clinging too much to all outside of one's self, the loss of such externals only causes unnecessary pain to the individual.
5) The virtuous philosopher that is led by their principles knows that nothing or no one external to themselves can truly harm them; no one has that power. The only one who can truly harm you is, of course, yourself. ("Another person will not hurt you without your co-operation; you are hurt the moment you believe yourself to be.")
6) Acceptance of our lot in this existence is the key to learning inner peace and freedom. We ultimately fear our eventual death. Yet all our fears are nothing but 'hobgoblins', masks we wear that enslave us, with our own selves acting as slavemaster. If we take off these masks of fear and pain and suffering, what we can find is our own emancipation. ("Choose to be either free or a slave, enlightened or a fool, a thoroughbred or a nag. Either resign yourself to a life of abuse till you die, or escape it immediately.")
Personally, I got a lot out of this collection, but mainly from the 30-page final section 'The Enchiridion', which is a miniature bible of staggeringly clear and concise gems of Stoic thoughts; I found that I could extract its wisdom easily and apply it to my own life philosophy effortlessly. And one would think that, in our age of anxiety and mental health crises, Stoicism is more relevant than ever. It certainly has provided me with the mental fortitude necessary to take on (or not take on) all that life throws at you without additional suffering.
1) You are in control of/responsible for your judgement, impulse, desire, aversion and mental faculties. The virtuous person knows they have power over these things and can practice discernment in how they perceive and take on the world through their own filtered mind.
2) You are not in control of your body, material possessions, your reputation, status, death—all of which he calls "externals". When you try to control the incontrollable, you will only face disappointment, anger, sadness, anxiety, fear and suffering. It is ultimately like Tolstoy's Ivan Ilych wailing in pain in his deathbed, as if such tantruming could fend off death's arrival. ("I must die, but must I die bawling?")
3) Impressions and judgements rule our minds. Our thoughts run rampant in our minds and are the causes of all our discontent and suffering. Contrary to common belief, if a thief steals your wallet and you feel bad, it is not the thief that is the cause of that feeling of badness, it is your judgement that is. "Oh, how unfair this is!" you say. Yet, as Epictetus would say, that wallet never truly belonged to you. Nothing belongs to you. Things are simply returned to the void in which they first arrived. The buddhist perspective on non-attachement is felt strongly in Epictetus's words. ("It is not events that disturb people, it is their judgement concerning them.")
4) When faced with an obstacle in life, ask yourself: 'Is this something that is in my control? Or it is something external to myself?' If the former, you can choose how it affects you. If the latter, it is none of your concern. Needless suffering plagues people who think those externals are their responsibility. By clinging too much to all outside of one's self, the loss of such externals only causes unnecessary pain to the individual.
5) The virtuous philosopher that is led by their principles knows that nothing or no one external to themselves can truly harm them; no one has that power. The only one who can truly harm you is, of course, yourself. ("Another person will not hurt you without your co-operation; you are hurt the moment you believe yourself to be.")
6) Acceptance of our lot in this existence is the key to learning inner peace and freedom. We ultimately fear our eventual death. Yet all our fears are nothing but 'hobgoblins', masks we wear that enslave us, with our own selves acting as slavemaster. If we take off these masks of fear and pain and suffering, what we can find is our own emancipation. ("Choose to be either free or a slave, enlightened or a fool, a thoroughbred or a nag. Either resign yourself to a life of abuse till you die, or escape it immediately.")
Personally, I got a lot out of this collection, but mainly from the 30-page final section 'The Enchiridion', which is a miniature bible of staggeringly clear and concise gems of Stoic thoughts; I found that I could extract its wisdom easily and apply it to my own life philosophy effortlessly. And one would think that, in our age of anxiety and mental health crises, Stoicism is more relevant than ever. It certainly has provided me with the mental fortitude necessary to take on (or not take on) all that life throws at you without additional suffering.
September 9, 2019
After finishing Aristotle, I decided to delve into Hellenistic philosophy. During the second and first centuries B.C. Greek philosophy was divided into three main currents: (1) the Sceptics (Plato's Academy turned doubtful about the possibility of any knowledge); (2) Epicureanism (who preached atharaxia - the quieting of the mind through cultivating (in a reasonable fashion) indulging in bodily pleasures); and (3) the Stoics (who preached apathia - the quieting of the mind through become indifferent to the outside world and solely focusing on our internal world, the soul).
The Stoic school, while developed in the third century B.C. (through Zeno, Cleanthes, etc.), is mostly known through former slave Epictetus and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius - sort of illustrating the broad scope its doctrines and its attractiveness to all sorts of people. Then, there's Seneca - intellectual precursor to both Epictetus and Aurelius.
Although each philosopher in the long Stoic tradition undoubtedly has his own peculiar insights to offer and his own unique perspective on the common doctrines, I hereby decide to quit my quest into it. I just now put down Epictetus' Discourses, and earlier glanced through Seneca's Letters, and I have to admit - I don't have the patience for this. All these works are collections of short sayings of miniature essays, and while each fragment is interesting, they have so much overlap that after reading ten of them, the repitition begins to bother me.
The key ideas of Stoicism are very easy to summarize and don't require a detailed reading of all these works - especially so since Stoicism preaches a practical wisdom - as opposed to all the theoretical discussing in ethics (like, e.g. Aristotle and his Peripatetic school). This means that these works are full of dull everyday situations, which at times convey interesting details about the Greco-Roman world during the first two centuries A.D., but more often end up in mundane, almost superficial 'wisdoms'. I'd go as far as to claim the whole of Stoicism is kind of supperficial - it's common sense writ large.
In short: the whole of Nature is equivalent to God, which is Reason personified. All ordering in Nature is hence lawful, i.e. God's laws, and any resistance against Nature and her ways is futile. This means that human beings have to accept Nature's indifference towards them, and accept their fate. But if one thinks this is determinism in a fancy jacket, one's wrong - Stoicism recognizes individual freedom for human beings, as opposed to plants and animals. Why? Because we are particles of God, and thus are equiped with reason as well, albeit not as perfect as His Reason.
Reason is the key to freedom: our inner world is the only world that should concern us, while the outer world, the world of the senses is nothing but temptation and potential pain. To live the good life, one starts with learning logic. This then serves as an instrument with which to distinguish good from bad, and true opinion from false opinion. How? It forms certain and distinct preconceptions, which then can serve as measuring rod to evaluate all our sense impressions - this way we can learn to recognize truth and to see that good consists in a quiet mind (apathia).
And as opposed to many of the then current ethics (like Aristotelean, Skeptic and Epicurean ethics), and in line with Socratic conceptions of virtue as knowledge, the Stoic ethics consists in practice, not theory. Only through acting like a Stoic is one a philosopher; all contemplation and theorizing about ethics is futile, since as soon as the class closes, one has to practice what he's learned. And thus we end up with a sort of self-help book avant la lettre. As a matter of fact, in the introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of Epictetus' Discourses, Robbert Dobbin writes that Stoicism (and Epictetus especially) inspired many a twentieth century psychologist in developing some version of rational cognitive theory.
And it is fairly easy too see how this connection can be made: Epictetus teaches that all our concern should be focused on our own soul, and that all involvement with the outer world is not only futile, but negatively interfering with leading a good life. When we care about what possession we have, what others think of us, what desires we want to pursue, we set ourselves on a course to unhappiness, since all these things, in ultimo, have no impact whatsoever on how we feel. We think they do, but this is a mistake, which can only be detected through the use of a well-trained reasonable mind. Through applying reason we learn to realize that what others do and feel is their problem, what we do and feel ours. And that only that which is in my power concerns me.
Epictetus has many examples of everyday life in his speeches, as well as many myths and metaphors. For example, when we have a bad father, we should not complain about this. We have a father and this social role, like all the social roles we perform, comes with a particular sets of duties - we should listen to him, honour him and not badmouth him to others. That he's bad should not bother us, it should bother him, since it is he who degenerates himself. Again, Epictetus mentions his oil lamp being stolen, and pitying the thief who did this, since now he has forfeited his honesty as a person. No revenge or even bad feelings - he just plans to buy a cheaper, less attractive lamp (for thieves, that is). And finally, he mentions the prescribed behaviour for someone boarding a ship. Seek out a decent ship, hire a decent captain and a decent crew, board the ship and simply wait. If a storm kicks in and the ship drowns, be indifferent - you have done all that was in your power, now you will die but that's beyond your concern. He evens illustrates your final moments: you're drwoning in the ocean, but as soon as you start fearing swallowing up the whole ocean and panicking, you realize there's only three good swallows of water and you're dead - what a relief!
I find this way of thinking interesting yet also otherworldly - it smacks too much of asceticism and christian slave morality. Adopting a Stoic ethics means turning the other cheek to every indignity and offense you suffer from others. Instead of learning from it and preventing a similar thing from happening again (through strengthening yourself, punishing the offender, or whatever), you pity the man who did it since he degenerates himself by his acts. He is simply mistaken, ignorant - if only he knew... Also, you perform your social roles like a robot, not considering the emotional attachments of you to others. Both points make Stoic ethics hard to implement - it's simply inhuman (humans are not simply reasonable minds, they are social animals first and foremost) and it's immensely vulnerable to cheaters and immoralists.
Somewhere in book 2, Epictetus criticizes the Academics and Epicureans of contradictions and, ultimately, self-refutation. Skeptics claim nothing can be known, but yet this proposition if proclaimed to be a general truth - how do they know? Epicureanism claim only individual pleasures should be sought, yet Epicurus himself busied himself with teaching and writing many books to inform others - why bother? As a matter of fact, Epictetus brilliantly remarks, a true Epicurean should teach his students Stoicism, since then he can, being a closet-Epicurean, have all the fun for himself. The teaching Epicurean is a contradiction in terms - he creates other Epicureans who then compete with him for pleasures.... But if everyone in his environment close themselves off from the world, he can then do what he wants.
But isn't Stoicism open to a similar rejection? If you retreat from the world into your own soul, and don't care what others do with your body because you know they can't reach you - the real you (your will) anyway - you are in effect rolling out the red carpet for immoral people to abduct, abuse and ultimately kill others, including yourself. What is the good of an ethics of self-annihilation? Can an ethical system even be said to be coherent and consistent if it leads inevitably to self-annihilation? I guess only on the condition that you believe in the existence of an immortal soul - cut this metaphysical notion from the system and becomes self-contradictory. And as far as I can tell almost all ancient Stoics rejected the notion of an afterlife. It is easy to see how Stoicism could inspire Christian monks, though, since they could simply become ascetics in the believe that in suffering and even dying on purpose they approached Jesus Christ in his sufferings (the 'Imitatio Christi') - but this option is not open to the ethics of Seneca, Epictetus and Aurelius, making their ethics kind of unreasonable...
Anyway, those are just the musings of a questioning mind while reading fragment after fragment of a seemingly absurd practical philosophy.
The important part (for me) is: Stoicism first and foremost is a code of ethics, but one shouldn't overlook the Stoic conception of Nature (as God); the fundamental importance of Logos and its corollary Natural Laws (a well-ordered, law-given Nature - macrocosmos and microcosmos); as well as the huge importance of logic as an instrument to distinguish both true from false and right from wrong. I think those few key concepts and doctrines can be grasped just fine by having some background knowledge and reading some 150 pages or so of Stoic texts (mostly fragments).
I feel there's simply not much for me to gain here anymore, and I was kind of disappointed in the dull and repetitious style of Epictetus' Discourses - perhaps Marcus Aurelius' Meditations or Seneca's Letters are a better read. (I'm not picking them up anytime soon, though).
The Stoic school, while developed in the third century B.C. (through Zeno, Cleanthes, etc.), is mostly known through former slave Epictetus and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius - sort of illustrating the broad scope its doctrines and its attractiveness to all sorts of people. Then, there's Seneca - intellectual precursor to both Epictetus and Aurelius.
Although each philosopher in the long Stoic tradition undoubtedly has his own peculiar insights to offer and his own unique perspective on the common doctrines, I hereby decide to quit my quest into it. I just now put down Epictetus' Discourses, and earlier glanced through Seneca's Letters, and I have to admit - I don't have the patience for this. All these works are collections of short sayings of miniature essays, and while each fragment is interesting, they have so much overlap that after reading ten of them, the repitition begins to bother me.
The key ideas of Stoicism are very easy to summarize and don't require a detailed reading of all these works - especially so since Stoicism preaches a practical wisdom - as opposed to all the theoretical discussing in ethics (like, e.g. Aristotle and his Peripatetic school). This means that these works are full of dull everyday situations, which at times convey interesting details about the Greco-Roman world during the first two centuries A.D., but more often end up in mundane, almost superficial 'wisdoms'. I'd go as far as to claim the whole of Stoicism is kind of supperficial - it's common sense writ large.
In short: the whole of Nature is equivalent to God, which is Reason personified. All ordering in Nature is hence lawful, i.e. God's laws, and any resistance against Nature and her ways is futile. This means that human beings have to accept Nature's indifference towards them, and accept their fate. But if one thinks this is determinism in a fancy jacket, one's wrong - Stoicism recognizes individual freedom for human beings, as opposed to plants and animals. Why? Because we are particles of God, and thus are equiped with reason as well, albeit not as perfect as His Reason.
Reason is the key to freedom: our inner world is the only world that should concern us, while the outer world, the world of the senses is nothing but temptation and potential pain. To live the good life, one starts with learning logic. This then serves as an instrument with which to distinguish good from bad, and true opinion from false opinion. How? It forms certain and distinct preconceptions, which then can serve as measuring rod to evaluate all our sense impressions - this way we can learn to recognize truth and to see that good consists in a quiet mind (apathia).
And as opposed to many of the then current ethics (like Aristotelean, Skeptic and Epicurean ethics), and in line with Socratic conceptions of virtue as knowledge, the Stoic ethics consists in practice, not theory. Only through acting like a Stoic is one a philosopher; all contemplation and theorizing about ethics is futile, since as soon as the class closes, one has to practice what he's learned. And thus we end up with a sort of self-help book avant la lettre. As a matter of fact, in the introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of Epictetus' Discourses, Robbert Dobbin writes that Stoicism (and Epictetus especially) inspired many a twentieth century psychologist in developing some version of rational cognitive theory.
And it is fairly easy too see how this connection can be made: Epictetus teaches that all our concern should be focused on our own soul, and that all involvement with the outer world is not only futile, but negatively interfering with leading a good life. When we care about what possession we have, what others think of us, what desires we want to pursue, we set ourselves on a course to unhappiness, since all these things, in ultimo, have no impact whatsoever on how we feel. We think they do, but this is a mistake, which can only be detected through the use of a well-trained reasonable mind. Through applying reason we learn to realize that what others do and feel is their problem, what we do and feel ours. And that only that which is in my power concerns me.
Epictetus has many examples of everyday life in his speeches, as well as many myths and metaphors. For example, when we have a bad father, we should not complain about this. We have a father and this social role, like all the social roles we perform, comes with a particular sets of duties - we should listen to him, honour him and not badmouth him to others. That he's bad should not bother us, it should bother him, since it is he who degenerates himself. Again, Epictetus mentions his oil lamp being stolen, and pitying the thief who did this, since now he has forfeited his honesty as a person. No revenge or even bad feelings - he just plans to buy a cheaper, less attractive lamp (for thieves, that is). And finally, he mentions the prescribed behaviour for someone boarding a ship. Seek out a decent ship, hire a decent captain and a decent crew, board the ship and simply wait. If a storm kicks in and the ship drowns, be indifferent - you have done all that was in your power, now you will die but that's beyond your concern. He evens illustrates your final moments: you're drwoning in the ocean, but as soon as you start fearing swallowing up the whole ocean and panicking, you realize there's only three good swallows of water and you're dead - what a relief!
I find this way of thinking interesting yet also otherworldly - it smacks too much of asceticism and christian slave morality. Adopting a Stoic ethics means turning the other cheek to every indignity and offense you suffer from others. Instead of learning from it and preventing a similar thing from happening again (through strengthening yourself, punishing the offender, or whatever), you pity the man who did it since he degenerates himself by his acts. He is simply mistaken, ignorant - if only he knew... Also, you perform your social roles like a robot, not considering the emotional attachments of you to others. Both points make Stoic ethics hard to implement - it's simply inhuman (humans are not simply reasonable minds, they are social animals first and foremost) and it's immensely vulnerable to cheaters and immoralists.
Somewhere in book 2, Epictetus criticizes the Academics and Epicureans of contradictions and, ultimately, self-refutation. Skeptics claim nothing can be known, but yet this proposition if proclaimed to be a general truth - how do they know? Epicureanism claim only individual pleasures should be sought, yet Epicurus himself busied himself with teaching and writing many books to inform others - why bother? As a matter of fact, Epictetus brilliantly remarks, a true Epicurean should teach his students Stoicism, since then he can, being a closet-Epicurean, have all the fun for himself. The teaching Epicurean is a contradiction in terms - he creates other Epicureans who then compete with him for pleasures.... But if everyone in his environment close themselves off from the world, he can then do what he wants.
But isn't Stoicism open to a similar rejection? If you retreat from the world into your own soul, and don't care what others do with your body because you know they can't reach you - the real you (your will) anyway - you are in effect rolling out the red carpet for immoral people to abduct, abuse and ultimately kill others, including yourself. What is the good of an ethics of self-annihilation? Can an ethical system even be said to be coherent and consistent if it leads inevitably to self-annihilation? I guess only on the condition that you believe in the existence of an immortal soul - cut this metaphysical notion from the system and becomes self-contradictory. And as far as I can tell almost all ancient Stoics rejected the notion of an afterlife. It is easy to see how Stoicism could inspire Christian monks, though, since they could simply become ascetics in the believe that in suffering and even dying on purpose they approached Jesus Christ in his sufferings (the 'Imitatio Christi') - but this option is not open to the ethics of Seneca, Epictetus and Aurelius, making their ethics kind of unreasonable...
Anyway, those are just the musings of a questioning mind while reading fragment after fragment of a seemingly absurd practical philosophy.
The important part (for me) is: Stoicism first and foremost is a code of ethics, but one shouldn't overlook the Stoic conception of Nature (as God); the fundamental importance of Logos and its corollary Natural Laws (a well-ordered, law-given Nature - macrocosmos and microcosmos); as well as the huge importance of logic as an instrument to distinguish both true from false and right from wrong. I think those few key concepts and doctrines can be grasped just fine by having some background knowledge and reading some 150 pages or so of Stoic texts (mostly fragments).
I feel there's simply not much for me to gain here anymore, and I was kind of disappointed in the dull and repetitious style of Epictetus' Discourses - perhaps Marcus Aurelius' Meditations or Seneca's Letters are a better read. (I'm not picking them up anytime soon, though).
September 15, 2021
This is relatively disappointing, coming directly from a reading of Seneca. But I don’t think that’s because Epictetus is a poorer stoic compared to Seneca. Instead, I have come to think that Seneca’s masterful prose really concealed the flaws of Stoic philosophy as a whole. Seneca’s thought is also (on the surface) less deistic, and more amor fati which given my agnostic biases, appeals to me. In Epictetus and his crude dialectic thought that is ultimately dependent on his god, however, many of the issues I have against Stoic philosophy shine through.
Unlike Seneca, who gives at least some due credence to the imperfectness of this world and ourselves, Epictetus has this tone of “stop whining lol” (there’s really no more accurate way of saying this). He keeps emphasising people to stop finding fault in what cannot be changed. While that is true from a logical perspective, why should people mute themselves in this act of self-control when they lose nothing from their complaints? Epictetus’ remarks only make sense when our complaints completely ruin our peace of mind. But in my experience, I believe we can retain our peace while complaining as well. See: how complaining about politicians or the weather brings people together.
More concerning, however, is how Epictetus completely rejects the concept of bodily autonomy by keeping what affects our body outside our realm of choice. This is fitting for a dictatorial society with slavery. While I agree with him that the various things that can affect our body (ultimately resulting in death) may be out of our control, Epictetus falters in simplifying the realm of choice as a binary - you either have control over something, or you don’t, according to him. I would say that we have partial control over most things in our life, but total control over none. The degree of partial control, of course, varies. However, he is right in arguing that we have absolutely no control over our mortality - exercising and eating healthy does absolutely nothing other than reduce probabilities.
Epictetus’ stoicism implies submission to the collective, to the government, and to religion. His conception of a human being itself requires the individual being defined in relation to the city, and then to the “universal city” (the kingdom of god). It is obvious that Epictetus influenced early Christianity here, and sounded the death-knell for individualism, until it would be rediscovered after the Enlightenment.
It was also disappointing to see the ad hominem attacks against Epicurus, in a ridiculously small span of time since Lucretius had written his beautiful De rerum natura. Epictetus portrays Epicureans as the immoral perverts they would be remembered as by posterity. Had he gone deeper into Epicurean thought, he could have seen the asceticism that shines through in that philosophy, and recognised that despite their philosophical differences, Epicureanism and Stoicism are not so different in praxis. Instead, Epictetus makes fun of people who “eat bread day after day”, yet “have the gall” to question the existence of the gods.
Wherever Epictetus says “act according to nature”, be sure that he means “act according to status quo”. This is surprising because the manner in which Epictetus turned his life around from being a slave to a philosopher with his own school would make one wonder if his philosophy contains a critique of slavery. I could not find anything like that though. Instead, his philosophy could generate complacency in the acceptance of injustice. He leaves our lot up to god: these very thoughts have prevented equality for millenniae.
This is not to say that everything is bad in this book. I did enjoy the “sphere of choice” exercise: think whether all judgments you pass are within the sphere of choice or not; whether you can actually do anything about your complaints or about anything you hear. It is something people could learn from in this era of 24/7 news, social media, yada yada. I don’t really follow the news and I am not on social media, so I’m good for now.
Unlike Seneca, who gives at least some due credence to the imperfectness of this world and ourselves, Epictetus has this tone of “stop whining lol” (there’s really no more accurate way of saying this). He keeps emphasising people to stop finding fault in what cannot be changed. While that is true from a logical perspective, why should people mute themselves in this act of self-control when they lose nothing from their complaints? Epictetus’ remarks only make sense when our complaints completely ruin our peace of mind. But in my experience, I believe we can retain our peace while complaining as well. See: how complaining about politicians or the weather brings people together.
More concerning, however, is how Epictetus completely rejects the concept of bodily autonomy by keeping what affects our body outside our realm of choice. This is fitting for a dictatorial society with slavery. While I agree with him that the various things that can affect our body (ultimately resulting in death) may be out of our control, Epictetus falters in simplifying the realm of choice as a binary - you either have control over something, or you don’t, according to him. I would say that we have partial control over most things in our life, but total control over none. The degree of partial control, of course, varies. However, he is right in arguing that we have absolutely no control over our mortality - exercising and eating healthy does absolutely nothing other than reduce probabilities.
Epictetus’ stoicism implies submission to the collective, to the government, and to religion. His conception of a human being itself requires the individual being defined in relation to the city, and then to the “universal city” (the kingdom of god). It is obvious that Epictetus influenced early Christianity here, and sounded the death-knell for individualism, until it would be rediscovered after the Enlightenment.
It was also disappointing to see the ad hominem attacks against Epicurus, in a ridiculously small span of time since Lucretius had written his beautiful De rerum natura. Epictetus portrays Epicureans as the immoral perverts they would be remembered as by posterity. Had he gone deeper into Epicurean thought, he could have seen the asceticism that shines through in that philosophy, and recognised that despite their philosophical differences, Epicureanism and Stoicism are not so different in praxis. Instead, Epictetus makes fun of people who “eat bread day after day”, yet “have the gall” to question the existence of the gods.
Wherever Epictetus says “act according to nature”, be sure that he means “act according to status quo”. This is surprising because the manner in which Epictetus turned his life around from being a slave to a philosopher with his own school would make one wonder if his philosophy contains a critique of slavery. I could not find anything like that though. Instead, his philosophy could generate complacency in the acceptance of injustice. He leaves our lot up to god: these very thoughts have prevented equality for millenniae.
This is not to say that everything is bad in this book. I did enjoy the “sphere of choice” exercise: think whether all judgments you pass are within the sphere of choice or not; whether you can actually do anything about your complaints or about anything you hear. It is something people could learn from in this era of 24/7 news, social media, yada yada. I don’t really follow the news and I am not on social media, so I’m good for now.
Read
December 21, 2023Just like in the case of Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations," I won't even dare rate it. It's an immortal classic that will never grow old - not getting familiar with it is a mistake to be fixed.
Nevertheless, it's very different from the aforementioned "Meditations" - it feels rougher, more anecdotal - most likely because it was not written by Epictetus himself but noted by his pupil. Obviously, I did not read the original version but relied on Polish translation & sometimes it felt ... quite odd - yes, I assume that the language used was antiquated & having a 1:1 translation fit for a modern reader is a challenge in itself, but I wouldn't say the translator did a perfect job in this case.
The core of the doctrine obviously stays the same, but there are differences (obviously) - it was inevitable, e.g., keeping in mind the social status of both gentlemen (MA & E). Epictetus dedicated a lot of space (words?) to the dichotomy of control (what we could and can't control); his teachings are also more "down-to-earth" (practical) as I guess they came from situations when he was asked directly about something by one of his students.
Personally, I think I enjoyed "Meditations" more, not because they've given me more food for thought - but because they feel more fluent and organized - there's a natural flow of thought processed. Which, of course, doesn't mean I regret any second I've spent on "Discourses".
OK, next in line - Seneca!
Nevertheless, it's very different from the aforementioned "Meditations" - it feels rougher, more anecdotal - most likely because it was not written by Epictetus himself but noted by his pupil. Obviously, I did not read the original version but relied on Polish translation & sometimes it felt ... quite odd - yes, I assume that the language used was antiquated & having a 1:1 translation fit for a modern reader is a challenge in itself, but I wouldn't say the translator did a perfect job in this case.
The core of the doctrine obviously stays the same, but there are differences (obviously) - it was inevitable, e.g., keeping in mind the social status of both gentlemen (MA & E). Epictetus dedicated a lot of space (words?) to the dichotomy of control (what we could and can't control); his teachings are also more "down-to-earth" (practical) as I guess they came from situations when he was asked directly about something by one of his students.
Personally, I think I enjoyed "Meditations" more, not because they've given me more food for thought - but because they feel more fluent and organized - there's a natural flow of thought processed. Which, of course, doesn't mean I regret any second I've spent on "Discourses".
OK, next in line - Seneca!
June 28, 2018
A difficult but powerful perspective to be found here; what this book seems to promise is
the secret to invincibility. But it's not what most people at first thought would expect or even for that matter want. Out the window go the traditional definitions of evil. Suffering is thought very little of here; it's not even given a consolation in any sort of afterlife. There is an overwhelming faith here in the abilities of the mind not to eliminate but to stand above and resist to the waves of misery inevitably found in human life.
Key to success is limiting our concerns to what we're in control over and often it's not a lot. Sometimes all we're left with is our response and attitude to the circumstances. It's easy to strawman stoicism as advocating a petrified lifestyle in which one simply sits down and let's the world pass them by but I didn't find that here. Epictetus advocates using reason to discover one's calling, and one's limits, which don't have to be removed from the world, but the foundation must remain reason, and it's power over the senses. Attacked is the hedonism of the Epicureans and the nihilism of the Skeptics. Epictetus believes in reason as that which mortals share with God.
There is a lot of passionate prose here about fortitude, determination, heroism in the face of adversity, about the value of a person not coming from their possessions, or natural born abilities, but rather from their character in the face of suffering, and the payoff of patiently facing it all and, bringing good out of the bad.
Fittingly enough I failed a job interview in the middle of reading this and while the book's ideals were very clearly floating around my mind, they did not seem to offer a solution to the disappointment, despair and envy I went through in subsequent weeks. Nonetheless I kept reading this and contemplating it and perhaps my recovery was hastened.
I still agree with a lot of what Epictetus says, but my ironic lapse helped me see that it's not enough to read him, but rather to put these methods into practice and preparation, even when, our lives seem at peace. He advocates testing one's endurance, and strengthening oneself against the impressions that can bother us so much. It's a harsh effort, and as a crippled slave in ancient Rome,
Epictetus most likely knew more about suffering than moderns. It will be a lifelong challenge with many falls along the way, but the payoff is appealing. Back to my petty concerns, I would consider that during the next interview it would be best to remember beforehand very sincerely that there's nothing I can do to guarantee acceptance, and that all I can do is give it my all and fail gracefully, because it seems that jobs, possessions, relationships, and health are not enough by themselves to bring us peace of mind, and that accepting loss may be one of the most important abilities that any human being can learn.
the secret to invincibility. But it's not what most people at first thought would expect or even for that matter want. Out the window go the traditional definitions of evil. Suffering is thought very little of here; it's not even given a consolation in any sort of afterlife. There is an overwhelming faith here in the abilities of the mind not to eliminate but to stand above and resist to the waves of misery inevitably found in human life.
Key to success is limiting our concerns to what we're in control over and often it's not a lot. Sometimes all we're left with is our response and attitude to the circumstances. It's easy to strawman stoicism as advocating a petrified lifestyle in which one simply sits down and let's the world pass them by but I didn't find that here. Epictetus advocates using reason to discover one's calling, and one's limits, which don't have to be removed from the world, but the foundation must remain reason, and it's power over the senses. Attacked is the hedonism of the Epicureans and the nihilism of the Skeptics. Epictetus believes in reason as that which mortals share with God.
There is a lot of passionate prose here about fortitude, determination, heroism in the face of adversity, about the value of a person not coming from their possessions, or natural born abilities, but rather from their character in the face of suffering, and the payoff of patiently facing it all and, bringing good out of the bad.
Fittingly enough I failed a job interview in the middle of reading this and while the book's ideals were very clearly floating around my mind, they did not seem to offer a solution to the disappointment, despair and envy I went through in subsequent weeks. Nonetheless I kept reading this and contemplating it and perhaps my recovery was hastened.
I still agree with a lot of what Epictetus says, but my ironic lapse helped me see that it's not enough to read him, but rather to put these methods into practice and preparation, even when, our lives seem at peace. He advocates testing one's endurance, and strengthening oneself against the impressions that can bother us so much. It's a harsh effort, and as a crippled slave in ancient Rome,
Epictetus most likely knew more about suffering than moderns. It will be a lifelong challenge with many falls along the way, but the payoff is appealing. Back to my petty concerns, I would consider that during the next interview it would be best to remember beforehand very sincerely that there's nothing I can do to guarantee acceptance, and that all I can do is give it my all and fail gracefully, because it seems that jobs, possessions, relationships, and health are not enough by themselves to bring us peace of mind, and that accepting loss may be one of the most important abilities that any human being can learn.
October 6, 2019
for years i've searched for ways to trick myself into cleaning my house. reading the great stoic philosophers is the only thing i've found that works
October 6, 2014
The main point of the Discourses can be summed up in a couple sentences: If it is under your control, change it. If it's not under your control, don't worry about it.
There's more--a lot more--of course, but nearly everything comes back to that. Epictetus keeps referring to the Reason, which is the essential central aspect of humanity, the one thing that makes you you. Therefore, that is what is under an individual's control and what they should work on, and everything else should be endured. Death comes at the will of the gods, so fearing death is pointless. A tyrant can destroy a man's body, but so can a fever, and they should both be given the same regard. Desiring and detesting anything is problematic because it means that anyone who possesses those things gains power over you, so don't do it. Do not hope or fear the future except insofar as you are able to change it. It actually reminded me a lot of Buddhism in its insistence on avoiding attachment to the world.
He draws a distinction between Externals, those things that are beyond one's controls, and Internals, which are primarily one's thoughts and opinions. Even the body isn't included in Internals, because there are a lot of example conversations about why you shouldn't fear death or pain, because an accident could happen or a tyrant could arrest you and you have no control over those. The Will, or Reason (capitals in original), are the main aspect of a man that is under his control, and Reason is held up as pretty much the defining force of humanity and the highest good. He even uses that as a way of proving that the gods are benevolent--reason is good, and the essence of the gods is reason, therefore the gods are good.
Except, well, Epictetus is completely wrong. Reason is not inviolate, and as anyone who's read Thinking, Fast and Slow knows, humans are only "rational" in comparison to the other animals around us. I wonder how Epictetus would have reacted to research showing that emotions are absolutely necessary to being able to make decisions at all considering his view of Reason as the essential self, separated from the body and from all of the good and bad that the world buffets us with?
A lot of his philosophy is also based on an understanding of theism that falls pretty flat nowadays. For example, his proof that the gods exist is that the seasons change and flowers bloom and so on, except that we obviously have other explanations for all of those. That's a problem for the Discourses, because the moral basis for enduring the difficulties of life is that life is how the gods want it to be, and the gods are good, therefore control what you can and endure all else and bow to the will of the gods.
Despite these problems, there's so much good advice in here that I think it's definitely worth four stars. There's an argument about convictions and how important it is to maintain one's convictions in the face of adversity, but also an acknowledgement that convictions are only worth maintaining if they are moral and correct and dogged persistence in being wrong is not virtue but vice. I feel like that's something modern America needs to learn, considering how willing we are to dig into people's pasts and hold up comments written decades ago as proof of someone's moral turpitude. Either they still believe it, in which case they're terrible, or they no longer believe it, in which case they're an untrustworthy flip-flopper. The only way to win is to have never been wrong about anything, which is ludicrous.
That also brings me to another part of Epictetus' philosophy that I love--that we should treat moral deficiency and ignorance the way we treat physical disability. Abusing a blind person just because they're blind is obviously terrible, and so is abusing an ignorant person because they're ignorant, or an immoral person because they're immoral. Act well and provide an example, help them overcome their disability if they're open to it, and otherwise don't worry about it because, well, see above about Internals vs. Externals.
The whole book resonated with me even knowing what I do about human reason (or lack thereof). It's true that consciousness may be an illusion and we may be meat puppets jerked around by unconscious forces beyond our control...but you know, even if that's true, it's better to act like it's not true, in much the same way that the best outcomes come from assuming one's own life is totally under control but other people's lives are buffeted by the whims of chance, thus producing both compassion and personal dynamism. The kind of personal detachment Epictetus advocates is really attractive to me, and the majority of his advice is great even if some of the premises are dodgy or flat-out wrong. Modern life would be a lot better if more Stoicism made its way into the mainstream.
There's more--a lot more--of course, but nearly everything comes back to that. Epictetus keeps referring to the Reason, which is the essential central aspect of humanity, the one thing that makes you you. Therefore, that is what is under an individual's control and what they should work on, and everything else should be endured. Death comes at the will of the gods, so fearing death is pointless. A tyrant can destroy a man's body, but so can a fever, and they should both be given the same regard. Desiring and detesting anything is problematic because it means that anyone who possesses those things gains power over you, so don't do it. Do not hope or fear the future except insofar as you are able to change it. It actually reminded me a lot of Buddhism in its insistence on avoiding attachment to the world.
He draws a distinction between Externals, those things that are beyond one's controls, and Internals, which are primarily one's thoughts and opinions. Even the body isn't included in Internals, because there are a lot of example conversations about why you shouldn't fear death or pain, because an accident could happen or a tyrant could arrest you and you have no control over those. The Will, or Reason (capitals in original), are the main aspect of a man that is under his control, and Reason is held up as pretty much the defining force of humanity and the highest good. He even uses that as a way of proving that the gods are benevolent--reason is good, and the essence of the gods is reason, therefore the gods are good.
Except, well, Epictetus is completely wrong. Reason is not inviolate, and as anyone who's read Thinking, Fast and Slow knows, humans are only "rational" in comparison to the other animals around us. I wonder how Epictetus would have reacted to research showing that emotions are absolutely necessary to being able to make decisions at all considering his view of Reason as the essential self, separated from the body and from all of the good and bad that the world buffets us with?
A lot of his philosophy is also based on an understanding of theism that falls pretty flat nowadays. For example, his proof that the gods exist is that the seasons change and flowers bloom and so on, except that we obviously have other explanations for all of those. That's a problem for the Discourses, because the moral basis for enduring the difficulties of life is that life is how the gods want it to be, and the gods are good, therefore control what you can and endure all else and bow to the will of the gods.
Despite these problems, there's so much good advice in here that I think it's definitely worth four stars. There's an argument about convictions and how important it is to maintain one's convictions in the face of adversity, but also an acknowledgement that convictions are only worth maintaining if they are moral and correct and dogged persistence in being wrong is not virtue but vice. I feel like that's something modern America needs to learn, considering how willing we are to dig into people's pasts and hold up comments written decades ago as proof of someone's moral turpitude. Either they still believe it, in which case they're terrible, or they no longer believe it, in which case they're an untrustworthy flip-flopper. The only way to win is to have never been wrong about anything, which is ludicrous.
That also brings me to another part of Epictetus' philosophy that I love--that we should treat moral deficiency and ignorance the way we treat physical disability. Abusing a blind person just because they're blind is obviously terrible, and so is abusing an ignorant person because they're ignorant, or an immoral person because they're immoral. Act well and provide an example, help them overcome their disability if they're open to it, and otherwise don't worry about it because, well, see above about Internals vs. Externals.
The whole book resonated with me even knowing what I do about human reason (or lack thereof). It's true that consciousness may be an illusion and we may be meat puppets jerked around by unconscious forces beyond our control...but you know, even if that's true, it's better to act like it's not true, in much the same way that the best outcomes come from assuming one's own life is totally under control but other people's lives are buffeted by the whims of chance, thus producing both compassion and personal dynamism. The kind of personal detachment Epictetus advocates is really attractive to me, and the majority of his advice is great even if some of the premises are dodgy or flat-out wrong. Modern life would be a lot better if more Stoicism made its way into the mainstream.
February 16, 2024
5/5 again on the second read. perhaps I will elaborate later. perhaps not.
February 28, 2020
One of the three pillars of stoic writing
Epictetus was a freed slave
Aurelius was one of the most powerful men of his time and Seneca was one of the wealthiest of his. Epictetus was at the other end of the spectrum
Arrian recorded and published Epictetus’ informal lectures and conversations on ethics, in eight books, of which four books and some fragments survive. These are the Discourses; Arrian also wrote a summary of main themes, the Manual
When we are frustrated, angry or unhappy, never hold anyone except ourselves – that is, our judgments – accountable
Being attached to many things, we are weighed down and dragged along with them
Make the best use of what is in our power, and treat the rest in accordance with its nature
You’re an actor in a play, which will be as the author chooses, act even that part with all your skill
In each action that you undertake, consider what comes before and what follows after
Man, the rational animal, can put up with anything except what seems to him irrational; whatever is rational is tolerable
Goal of education is to bring our preconception of what is reasonable and unreasonable in alignment with nature
What good is your education if you are not to put it in practice?
The masses are wrong to say that only freeborn men are entitled to an education; believe the philosophers instead, who say that only educated people are entitled to be called free
You can’t hope to make progress in areas where you have made no application
Because you think of yourself as no more than a single thread in the robe, whose duty it is to conform to the mass of people – just as a single white thread seemingly has no wish to clash with the remainder of the garment. But I aspire to be the purple stripe, that is, the garment’s brilliant hem. However small a part it may be, it can still manage to make the garment as a whole attractive
When someone caught in an argument hardens to stone, there is just no more reasoning with them
Bring on whatever difficulties you like, Zeus; I have resources and a constitution that you gave me by means of which I can do myself credit whatever happens
Be confident in everything outside the will, and cautious in everything under the will’s control
Whenever externals are more important to you than your own integrity, then be prepared to serve them the remainder of your life
So in life our first job is to divide and distinguish things into two categories: externals I cannot control, and the choices I make with regard to them I do control. Where will I find good and bad? In me, in my choices. Don’t ever speak of good or bad, advantage or harm, and so on, of anything that is not your responsibility.
Socialize with men of good character, in order to model your life on theirs, whether you choose someone living or someone from the past
Surrounded as we are by such people – so confused, so ignorant of what they’re saying and of whatever faults they may or may not have, where those faults came from and how to get rid of them – I think we too should make a habit of asking ourselves: Could it be that I’m one of them too? What illusion about myself do I entertain? How do I regard myself – as another wise man, as someone with perfect self-control? Do I, too, ever make that boast about being prepared for whatever may happen? If I don’t know something, am I properly aware that I don’t know it?
A person is not going to undertake to learn anything that they think they already know
If you consort with someone covered in dirt you can hardly avoid getting a little grimy yourself
Freedom is not achieved by satisfying desire, but by eliminating it
Work day and night to attain a liberated frame of mind
So choose: either regain the love of your old friends by reverting to your former self or remain better than you once were and forfeit their affection
It is not events that disturb people, it is their judgements concerning them
Take a moment before reacting, and you will find it is easier to maintain control
Keep the prospect of death, exile and all such apparent tragedies before you every day – especially death – and you will never have an abject thought, or desire anything to excess
Because we’re the only animals who not only die but are conscious of it even while it happens, we are beset by anxiety
If you’re wrong to do it, then you should shrink from doing it altogether; but if you’re right, then why worry how people will judge you?
When someone is properly grounded in life, they shouldn’t have to look outside themselves for approval
Never identify yourself as a philosopher or speak much to non-philosophers about your principles; act in line with those principles. At a dinner party, for instance, don’t tell people the right way to eat, just eat the right way
Remain silent for the most part, or say only what is essential, and in few words
Exclude everything that is for show or luxury
That’s how Socrates got to be the person he was, by depending on reason to meet his every challenge
Nothing important comes into being overnight; even grapes and figs need time to ripen. If you say that you want a fig now, I will tell you to be patient. First, you must allow the tree to flower, then put forth fruit; then you have to wait until the fruit is ripe. So if the fruit of a fig tree is not brought to maturity instantly or in an hour, how do you expect the human mind to come to fruition, so quickly and easily?
The true man is revealed in difficult times. So when trouble comes, think of yourself as a warrior
What would have become of Hercules, do you think, if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar – and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges? Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules
We should discipline ourselves in small things, and from there progress to things of greater value
Every habit and faculty is formed or strengthened by the corresponding act – walking makes you walk better, running makes you a better runner. If you want to be literate, read, if you want to be a painter, paint. So if you like doing something, do it regularly; if you don’t like doing something, make a habit of doing something different
Epictetus was a freed slave
Aurelius was one of the most powerful men of his time and Seneca was one of the wealthiest of his. Epictetus was at the other end of the spectrum
Arrian recorded and published Epictetus’ informal lectures and conversations on ethics, in eight books, of which four books and some fragments survive. These are the Discourses; Arrian also wrote a summary of main themes, the Manual
When we are frustrated, angry or unhappy, never hold anyone except ourselves – that is, our judgments – accountable
Being attached to many things, we are weighed down and dragged along with them
Make the best use of what is in our power, and treat the rest in accordance with its nature
You’re an actor in a play, which will be as the author chooses, act even that part with all your skill
In each action that you undertake, consider what comes before and what follows after
Man, the rational animal, can put up with anything except what seems to him irrational; whatever is rational is tolerable
Goal of education is to bring our preconception of what is reasonable and unreasonable in alignment with nature
What good is your education if you are not to put it in practice?
The masses are wrong to say that only freeborn men are entitled to an education; believe the philosophers instead, who say that only educated people are entitled to be called free
You can’t hope to make progress in areas where you have made no application
Because you think of yourself as no more than a single thread in the robe, whose duty it is to conform to the mass of people – just as a single white thread seemingly has no wish to clash with the remainder of the garment. But I aspire to be the purple stripe, that is, the garment’s brilliant hem. However small a part it may be, it can still manage to make the garment as a whole attractive
When someone caught in an argument hardens to stone, there is just no more reasoning with them
Bring on whatever difficulties you like, Zeus; I have resources and a constitution that you gave me by means of which I can do myself credit whatever happens
Be confident in everything outside the will, and cautious in everything under the will’s control
Whenever externals are more important to you than your own integrity, then be prepared to serve them the remainder of your life
So in life our first job is to divide and distinguish things into two categories: externals I cannot control, and the choices I make with regard to them I do control. Where will I find good and bad? In me, in my choices. Don’t ever speak of good or bad, advantage or harm, and so on, of anything that is not your responsibility.
Socialize with men of good character, in order to model your life on theirs, whether you choose someone living or someone from the past
Surrounded as we are by such people – so confused, so ignorant of what they’re saying and of whatever faults they may or may not have, where those faults came from and how to get rid of them – I think we too should make a habit of asking ourselves: Could it be that I’m one of them too? What illusion about myself do I entertain? How do I regard myself – as another wise man, as someone with perfect self-control? Do I, too, ever make that boast about being prepared for whatever may happen? If I don’t know something, am I properly aware that I don’t know it?
A person is not going to undertake to learn anything that they think they already know
If you consort with someone covered in dirt you can hardly avoid getting a little grimy yourself
Freedom is not achieved by satisfying desire, but by eliminating it
Work day and night to attain a liberated frame of mind
So choose: either regain the love of your old friends by reverting to your former self or remain better than you once were and forfeit their affection
It is not events that disturb people, it is their judgements concerning them
Take a moment before reacting, and you will find it is easier to maintain control
Keep the prospect of death, exile and all such apparent tragedies before you every day – especially death – and you will never have an abject thought, or desire anything to excess
Because we’re the only animals who not only die but are conscious of it even while it happens, we are beset by anxiety
If you’re wrong to do it, then you should shrink from doing it altogether; but if you’re right, then why worry how people will judge you?
When someone is properly grounded in life, they shouldn’t have to look outside themselves for approval
Never identify yourself as a philosopher or speak much to non-philosophers about your principles; act in line with those principles. At a dinner party, for instance, don’t tell people the right way to eat, just eat the right way
Remain silent for the most part, or say only what is essential, and in few words
Exclude everything that is for show or luxury
That’s how Socrates got to be the person he was, by depending on reason to meet his every challenge
Nothing important comes into being overnight; even grapes and figs need time to ripen. If you say that you want a fig now, I will tell you to be patient. First, you must allow the tree to flower, then put forth fruit; then you have to wait until the fruit is ripe. So if the fruit of a fig tree is not brought to maturity instantly or in an hour, how do you expect the human mind to come to fruition, so quickly and easily?
The true man is revealed in difficult times. So when trouble comes, think of yourself as a warrior
What would have become of Hercules, do you think, if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar – and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges? Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules
We should discipline ourselves in small things, and from there progress to things of greater value
Every habit and faculty is formed or strengthened by the corresponding act – walking makes you walk better, running makes you a better runner. If you want to be literate, read, if you want to be a painter, paint. So if you like doing something, do it regularly; if you don’t like doing something, make a habit of doing something different
September 19, 2023
3.75 Stars.
I give this rating not for the ideas in the work, but because of the writing style. Everything in this book was written by his student Arian and its all just basically a transcription of the conversations that took place in the school. So, there’s not very many liberties taken to make it textually appealing if that makes sense. So, it is more of a problem with my critical reading and analysis skills than the book. However, I would definitely recommend book 4 of the Discourses and the “Enchiridion” at the end of the book which is basically a 30 page summary of the core lessons taught throughout the book. Looking back, reading the Enchiridion first before reading the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius would have helped me take even more out of the Meditations which ,alone, is a solid 6/5 stars and will make my future reads of it really nice. All in all, I took some really great lessons from this book and I will definitely return to certain parts in the future.
I give this rating not for the ideas in the work, but because of the writing style. Everything in this book was written by his student Arian and its all just basically a transcription of the conversations that took place in the school. So, there’s not very many liberties taken to make it textually appealing if that makes sense. So, it is more of a problem with my critical reading and analysis skills than the book. However, I would definitely recommend book 4 of the Discourses and the “Enchiridion” at the end of the book which is basically a 30 page summary of the core lessons taught throughout the book. Looking back, reading the Enchiridion first before reading the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius would have helped me take even more out of the Meditations which ,alone, is a solid 6/5 stars and will make my future reads of it really nice. All in all, I took some really great lessons from this book and I will definitely return to certain parts in the future.
April 13, 2021
There are things that are under our control and things that are not - focusing on the former is the key to freedom, virtue and happiness.
While this sentence summarises most of Stoic philosophy, Discourses builds tens of variations around the theme, which can honestly border on the tedious. The didactic style of a lecturer offers less practical knowledge compared to the works of Marcus Aurelius or Seneca. Epictetus' perfect philosopher is very much the vagabond sage modeled on Socrates and Diogenes who has denounced all material and social ties and lives purely for virtue.
Especially wearying are the chapters on gods. Epictetus was one of the few authors to escape the Christian censorship and it is eminent why: the virtue models and ethics he constructs are reminiscent of official church doctrine. Proof of gods is assumed trivial due to the complexity of the world around us. In the same manner, the sole purpose of beasts and nature is to serve humans - the master animal. While this sounds naive today, it's an interesting perspective on the attempts of early man to understand complex dynamics.
I liked Enchiridion more as it's somewhat close to Meditations - a practical guide on good living. Read Discourses only if you want to get hardcore with Stoicism. It's not bad but if it were written today, would get edited to 20% of the length due to redundancy🙂
While this sentence summarises most of Stoic philosophy, Discourses builds tens of variations around the theme, which can honestly border on the tedious. The didactic style of a lecturer offers less practical knowledge compared to the works of Marcus Aurelius or Seneca. Epictetus' perfect philosopher is very much the vagabond sage modeled on Socrates and Diogenes who has denounced all material and social ties and lives purely for virtue.
Especially wearying are the chapters on gods. Epictetus was one of the few authors to escape the Christian censorship and it is eminent why: the virtue models and ethics he constructs are reminiscent of official church doctrine. Proof of gods is assumed trivial due to the complexity of the world around us. In the same manner, the sole purpose of beasts and nature is to serve humans - the master animal. While this sounds naive today, it's an interesting perspective on the attempts of early man to understand complex dynamics.
I liked Enchiridion more as it's somewhat close to Meditations - a practical guide on good living. Read Discourses only if you want to get hardcore with Stoicism. It's not bad but if it were written today, would get edited to 20% of the length due to redundancy🙂
May 6, 2009
I just read Epictetus with a small group and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. In my totally dilettantish opinion, after only 1 reading – I found the Discourses rambling and repetitive, and Epictetus too much of a scold – but with interruptions of actual genius. On the other hand, the short Enchiridion (or "handbook") at the end is a gem of bitter wisdom. Epictetus's stoicism is a philosophy for the desperate moments of life, but in such moments it holds up pretty well. (Cf. "Courage Under Fire" or "The World of Epictetus" by James Bond Stockdale, easily available on the internet - each of which is an excellent introduction to and recommendation for Epictetus. Who knew?)
November 22, 2022
Toată filosofia lui Epictet care ne-a rămas și a fost reunită în această Opera Omnia este o elaborare a primei idei din Manualul:
Dintre lucruri, unele depind de noi, altele nu depind de noi. Depind de noi: opinia, impulsul, dorința, aversiunea și, într-un cuvânt, toate câte reprezintă propriile noastre fapte. Nu depind de noi trupul, averea, părerile pe care le au alții despre noi, funcțiile publice și, într-un cuvânt, toate câte nu reprezintă propriile noastre fapte.
December 12, 2017
A prominent figure among the Stoic school of thought, Epictetus deals with several subjects such as the correct use of impressions, desire and aversion, the importance of logic in governing one's own life, and many others. The most important one among all is making "the best use of what's in our power" , while remaining completely indifferent to things beyond our control.
A very enlightening read. Recommended to everyone.
A very enlightening read. Recommended to everyone.
January 13, 2019
Humbly, I can’t review a 2,000-year-old book of the great philosophers as if it’s just an ordinary read. I’ve learned a lot and Remembered how good it feels to read simple yet complicated truths again.
Along with Marcus Aurelius, this book is another step in my journey through the wonderful world of the stoic philosophy.
the book is translated superbly and way more accessible than I’d ever imagined.
Along with Marcus Aurelius, this book is another step in my journey through the wonderful world of the stoic philosophy.
the book is translated superbly and way more accessible than I’d ever imagined.
October 26, 2015
A classic of Stoic philosophy. A self-help book before there were self-help books. Some great stuff, although it's a bit repetitive, which will be largely due to its origins in lecture notes by a devoted pupil.
July 2, 2022
despite being a heavy read, this was woke af. i’ve learnt so much from someone who existed 1900 years ago.
August 22, 2023
We owe our knowledge of the teachings of Epictetus to one of his many devoted students, Arrian, who faithfully compiled the sage’s words into the Discourses and the Enchiridion after his retirement. Betraying some apprehension at the dissemination of the heretofore personal trove of notes and recollections from which the Discourses were composed, the Stoic alumnus who would achieve his own fame as the author of antiquity’s most complete biography of Alexander the Great nonetheless acknowledged that the very premises of his philosophy would have precluded Epictetus from concerning himself with how his message was received – even if so many of his hearers found him impossible to forget.
The life of Epictetus (c. 55-135 AD) was a bit of a paradox. Hailing from the Anatolian city of Hierapolis, he spent his childhood enslaved in Rome. His personal name, in fact, is unknown; epíktētos is a Greek word which simply means “acquired” – it designates a piece of property. His owner, Epaphroditus, was himself a former slave who rose to become a secretary in the imperial courts of Nero and Domitian. In his life of bondage, everything external and objective about Epictetus was outside of his own control. Every part of his body, from head to toe, was the utensil of his master; every action he undertook only with his master’s approval. Yet serving this master at the court of Nero gave Epictetus a window into the personal lives of men who occupied the highest echelons of Roman power; and the young slave seems to have wondered whether their respective stations in life were not the opposite of what they appeared to be.
While the exterior world of Epictetus belonged wholly to others, his mind and will were unassailably his own. The ruling class, by contrast, had unfettered access to splendid fashions, sumptuous feasts, gold, wine, women, sport, slaves, and palatial latifundia – in short, complete freedom of action in their exterior lives. But in their relentless desire for self-gratification in external things, did the minds of these superficially regal and autonomous men not become enslaved to these very objects of egoistic longing? By placing their identity in wealth, acclaim, power, sex, and luxury, did they not make themselves hostage to things that were objectively perishable, alienable, and morally neutral, and for which their desire manifested itself subjectively as greed, vanity, lust, gluttony, anger, envy, and other destructive passions? The practice of distinguishing between mind or reason on the one hand—our share of divinity and the seat of our selfhood—and morally-indifferent “externals” on the other—not altogether different from the Vedantic concept of viveka: discrimination between self and non-self—became the kelson of Epictetus’s entire ethical system and made him a natural Stoic.
Despite his titular enslavement, Epictetus was given leave to study under the most prominent Stoic philosopher of the day: Musonius Rufus. Emancipated some time after the death of Nero, Epictetus devoted himself completely to philosophy. Teaching in Rome until 95, when the emperor Domitian ordered the expulsion of all philosophers from Italy under suspicion of political subversiveness, he then founded his own school at Nicopolis, on the Adriatic coast of Greece: a Roman colony and ideal site for the expatriated sons of the Italian aristocracy. There his reputation swelled, making Epictetus one of the most sought-after ethical teachers in the empire. Even the emperor Hadrian, one of Domitian’s more philosophically-inclined successors, paid an honorary visit to Nicopolis. Retiring in old age, the hitherto solitary Epictetus adopted an orphan child and hired a woman to serve as a surrogate mother, living out his days with this makeshift family.
The core of Epictetus’s thought is very simple: virtue and happiness consist in our ability to distinguish between what is and is not within our control. The categories of “good” and “bad” do not apply to the external things which impose themselves upon us; our faulty perception to the contrary is what makes us ensnared, immiserated, and prone to vice. “Good” and “bad” lie in reason and will: they are determined by our response to these external stimuli—“impressions”—and the uses we make of them.
While other animals are entirely subject to their instincts, humanity has a unique capacity for deliberation and choice. Between stimulus and response is a space for rational consideration: a space in which, if sufficiently cultivated, we may respond to the vicissitudes of life and the inscrutable will of God by living purposefully in harmony with nature. Epictetus advises his students on how to respond to impressions in a way that strengthens our reason and judgment as an athlete strengthens his body:
Reason is our “spark” of divinity, making us “a particle of God himself.” Our empirical selves—our bodies and impulses—are woven into the fabric of nature. As such, they are not as central to the world as we are typically inclined to imagine, but are merely so many small threads in a much larger tapestry, just as subject to its indifferent processes as everything else. The true self is a divine, spiritual, immortal reality; yet our pervasive ignorance of this fact leads us to identify ourselves with externals, hopelessly seeking to preserve ourselves by grasping at things which inevitably change and perish. Epictetus reflects upon this paradox:
When we see clearly the distinction between the mind and the world, understanding that the self resides in the former, even the fate of our own bodies becomes a mere “external,” a matter of indifference to us. Epictetus shows us just how far he is willing to take this principle in one of a number of striking passages:
This aporia between spirit (or reason) and flesh is also, of course, a prominent theme of the near-contemporaneous writings of the New Testament. Epictetus defines the true philosopher as one who, “Even in this body of death his mind is focused on communion with God. [2.19.27]” It is just this sort of person who Saint Paul aspires to become, lamenting his captivity to the flesh:
Epictetus excoriates his hearers for attaching themselves to base and vulgar things, unwittingly desecrating the God who resides within them:
Just as Paul scolds the Corinthians for desecrating their own bodies, not knowing that the body is a temple of the Spirit of God for those who are united with God in Christ:
These are just two examples of the many conceptual and idiomatic parallels between the Stoic (and Cynic) writings of the first and second centuries and their Jewish and Christian counterparts.
It should be noted here that Epictetus, like many Hellenistic thinkers of both the so-called pagan and Jewish worlds of this period, was more-or-less a monotheist. He believed in a single God who created all things and sustained them in being; the absolute reality which all of today’s major theistic traditions would recognize as God in the fullest sense of the word. He applied to this God the name of Zeus, but the Zeus of Epictetus was markedly different from the Zeus of Homer and Hesiod; just as the YHWH of Hellenistic Judaism was distinct from the tutelary storm deity of that name who emerged from Edom and either supplanted or merged with El as the supreme god of the Judahite and Israelite pantheon of the early centuries of the first millennium BC. Epictetus believed in “the gods” as well as God, but these were lesser beings, categorically distinct from the transcendent Divinity; just as a similar distinction applied between the God of Hellenistic Jews and the intermediate “archons” and “powers” who either interceded with God or tried to thwart Him by staking out their own cosmic fiefdoms. Any hermeneutic that draws a hard line between the “paganism” of Epictetus and the monotheism of such Hellenistic Jewish figures as, say, Philo of Alexandria or Paul of Tarsus is ultimately arbitrary. The Greek and Jewish worlds were part of the same conceptual ecosystem, and their “monotheization” happened in tandem.
If there is only one God, and each human being is in some sense a “son of God,” united with Him by his or her very nature, it follows from this that all people share a fundamental kinship: one that transcends the lesser, conventional demarcations of polis and ethnos. This is the foundation for Stoic cosmopolitanism, to which Epictetus gives beautiful expression:
The Stoic social ethos begins with the recognition of each man as “your own brother, who has Zeus as his ancestor and is a son born of the same seed as yourself, with the same high lineage. [1.13.3]” Just as, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna reveals to Arjuna his true spiritual nature precisely so that he may perform his social duties within this mortal, embodied life without fear and apprehension, so too does the Stoic sage, once detached from the externalities of his body and world, return to these mundane responsibilities with a newfound sense of purpose and inner peace, serving out his time in this life like a soldier at his post, transforming every “thus it was” into a “thus I willed it,” singing hymns of gratitude to the Author of all things:
Epictetus does not care at all if anyone should despise his Discourses, since in uttering them he was clearly aiming at nothing except moving the minds of his audience towards what is best. So if these Discourses achieve that much, they will have exactly the effect that a philosopher’s words, in my opinion, ought to have. But if not, the reader should realize that, when Epictetus spoke them, his audience could not help but experience just what he intended them to feel. If the Discourses on their own do not achieve this, then perhaps I am to blame or it simply cannot be helped.
The life of Epictetus (c. 55-135 AD) was a bit of a paradox. Hailing from the Anatolian city of Hierapolis, he spent his childhood enslaved in Rome. His personal name, in fact, is unknown; epíktētos is a Greek word which simply means “acquired” – it designates a piece of property. His owner, Epaphroditus, was himself a former slave who rose to become a secretary in the imperial courts of Nero and Domitian. In his life of bondage, everything external and objective about Epictetus was outside of his own control. Every part of his body, from head to toe, was the utensil of his master; every action he undertook only with his master’s approval. Yet serving this master at the court of Nero gave Epictetus a window into the personal lives of men who occupied the highest echelons of Roman power; and the young slave seems to have wondered whether their respective stations in life were not the opposite of what they appeared to be.
While the exterior world of Epictetus belonged wholly to others, his mind and will were unassailably his own. The ruling class, by contrast, had unfettered access to splendid fashions, sumptuous feasts, gold, wine, women, sport, slaves, and palatial latifundia – in short, complete freedom of action in their exterior lives. But in their relentless desire for self-gratification in external things, did the minds of these superficially regal and autonomous men not become enslaved to these very objects of egoistic longing? By placing their identity in wealth, acclaim, power, sex, and luxury, did they not make themselves hostage to things that were objectively perishable, alienable, and morally neutral, and for which their desire manifested itself subjectively as greed, vanity, lust, gluttony, anger, envy, and other destructive passions? The practice of distinguishing between mind or reason on the one hand—our share of divinity and the seat of our selfhood—and morally-indifferent “externals” on the other—not altogether different from the Vedantic concept of viveka: discrimination between self and non-self—became the kelson of Epictetus’s entire ethical system and made him a natural Stoic.
Despite his titular enslavement, Epictetus was given leave to study under the most prominent Stoic philosopher of the day: Musonius Rufus. Emancipated some time after the death of Nero, Epictetus devoted himself completely to philosophy. Teaching in Rome until 95, when the emperor Domitian ordered the expulsion of all philosophers from Italy under suspicion of political subversiveness, he then founded his own school at Nicopolis, on the Adriatic coast of Greece: a Roman colony and ideal site for the expatriated sons of the Italian aristocracy. There his reputation swelled, making Epictetus one of the most sought-after ethical teachers in the empire. Even the emperor Hadrian, one of Domitian’s more philosophically-inclined successors, paid an honorary visit to Nicopolis. Retiring in old age, the hitherto solitary Epictetus adopted an orphan child and hired a woman to serve as a surrogate mother, living out his days with this makeshift family.
The core of Epictetus’s thought is very simple: virtue and happiness consist in our ability to distinguish between what is and is not within our control. The categories of “good” and “bad” do not apply to the external things which impose themselves upon us; our faulty perception to the contrary is what makes us ensnared, immiserated, and prone to vice. “Good” and “bad” lie in reason and will: they are determined by our response to these external stimuli—“impressions”—and the uses we make of them.
So in life our first job is this, to divide and distinguish things into two categories: externals I cannot control, but the choices I make with regard to them I do control. Where will I find good and bad? In me, in my choices. Don’t ever speak of ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘advantage’ or ‘harm’, and so on, of anything that is not your responsibility. (2.5.4-5)
While other animals are entirely subject to their instincts, humanity has a unique capacity for deliberation and choice. Between stimulus and response is a space for rational consideration: a space in which, if sufficiently cultivated, we may respond to the vicissitudes of life and the inscrutable will of God by living purposefully in harmony with nature. Epictetus advises his students on how to respond to impressions in a way that strengthens our reason and judgment as an athlete strengthens his body:
Don’t let the force of the impression when first it hits you knock you off your feet; just say to it, ‘Hold on a moment; let me see who you are and what you represent. Let me put you to the test.’ Next, don’t let it pull you in by picturing to yourself the pleasures that await you. Otherwise it will lead you by the nose wherever it wants. Oppose it with some good and honorable thought, and put the dirty one to rout. Practice this regularly, and you’ll see what shoulders, what muscles, what stamina you acquire. (2.18.24-26)
Reason is our “spark” of divinity, making us “a particle of God himself.” Our empirical selves—our bodies and impulses—are woven into the fabric of nature. As such, they are not as central to the world as we are typically inclined to imagine, but are merely so many small threads in a much larger tapestry, just as subject to its indifferent processes as everything else. The true self is a divine, spiritual, immortal reality; yet our pervasive ignorance of this fact leads us to identify ourselves with externals, hopelessly seeking to preserve ourselves by grasping at things which inevitably change and perish. Epictetus reflects upon this paradox:
If we could completely subscribe, as we should, to the view that we are all primary creatures of God, and that God is father of both gods and men, I don’t believe that we would ever think mean or lowly thoughts about ourselves. If the emperor adopts you, no one will be able to put up with your pretension; but knowing that you are the son of God, shouldn’t your pride be that much greater?
In fact, though, we react quite differently. Two elements are combined in our creation, the body, which we have in common with the beasts; and reason and good judgement, which we share with the gods. Most of us tend toward the former connection, miserable and mortal though it is, whereas only a few favour this holy and blessed alliance. (1.3.1-3)
When we see clearly the distinction between the mind and the world, understanding that the self resides in the former, even the fate of our own bodies becomes a mere “external,” a matter of indifference to us. Epictetus shows us just how far he is willing to take this principle in one of a number of striking passages:
If a tyrant threatens me at court, I say, ‘What is he threatening?’ If he says, ‘I will put you in chains,’ I say, ‘He is threatening my hands and feet.’ If he says, ‘I will behead you,’ I say, ‘He is threatening my neck.’ If he says, ‘I will throw you into prison,’ I say, ‘He is threatening my entire body’; if he threatens exile, I say the same. ‘Well, then, aren’t you threatened, even a little?’ If I feel that these things are nothing to me, then no. (1.29.5-7)
This aporia between spirit (or reason) and flesh is also, of course, a prominent theme of the near-contemporaneous writings of the New Testament. Epictetus defines the true philosopher as one who, “Even in this body of death his mind is focused on communion with God. [2.19.27]” It is just this sort of person who Saint Paul aspires to become, lamenting his captivity to the flesh:
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Romans 7:21-24)
Epictetus excoriates his hearers for attaching themselves to base and vulgar things, unwittingly desecrating the God who resides within them:
You [are]…a particle of God himself; there is a bit of God within you. Why don’t you know of this relation, and of your origins? When you eat, bear in mind who it is exactly you are feeding. When you have sex, reflect on who you are during the act. In conversation, exercise, discourse – do you remember that it is God you are feeding, God you are exercising? You carry God around with you and don’t know it, poor fool. Don’t imagine I am talking about some external deity made of silver or gold. You carry the living God inside you and are blind to the fact that you desecrate him with your dirty words and dirty thoughts – none of which you would dare repeat if there were even a mere statue of a god near by. God himself is there within, seeing and overhearing everything you do and say – and do you care? You pariah, you have no sense of your own heritage. (2.8.11-14)
Just as Paul scolds the Corinthians for desecrating their own bodies, not knowing that the body is a temple of the Spirit of God for those who are united with God in Christ:
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:15-20)
These are just two examples of the many conceptual and idiomatic parallels between the Stoic (and Cynic) writings of the first and second centuries and their Jewish and Christian counterparts.
It should be noted here that Epictetus, like many Hellenistic thinkers of both the so-called pagan and Jewish worlds of this period, was more-or-less a monotheist. He believed in a single God who created all things and sustained them in being; the absolute reality which all of today’s major theistic traditions would recognize as God in the fullest sense of the word. He applied to this God the name of Zeus, but the Zeus of Epictetus was markedly different from the Zeus of Homer and Hesiod; just as the YHWH of Hellenistic Judaism was distinct from the tutelary storm deity of that name who emerged from Edom and either supplanted or merged with El as the supreme god of the Judahite and Israelite pantheon of the early centuries of the first millennium BC. Epictetus believed in “the gods” as well as God, but these were lesser beings, categorically distinct from the transcendent Divinity; just as a similar distinction applied between the God of Hellenistic Jews and the intermediate “archons” and “powers” who either interceded with God or tried to thwart Him by staking out their own cosmic fiefdoms. Any hermeneutic that draws a hard line between the “paganism” of Epictetus and the monotheism of such Hellenistic Jewish figures as, say, Philo of Alexandria or Paul of Tarsus is ultimately arbitrary. The Greek and Jewish worlds were part of the same conceptual ecosystem, and their “monotheization” happened in tandem.
If there is only one God, and each human being is in some sense a “son of God,” united with Him by his or her very nature, it follows from this that all people share a fundamental kinship: one that transcends the lesser, conventional demarcations of polis and ethnos. This is the foundation for Stoic cosmopolitanism, to which Epictetus gives beautiful expression:
If what philosophers say about the kinship of God and man is true, then the only logical step is to do as Socrates did, never replying to the question of where he was from with, ‘I am Athenian,’ or ‘I am from Corinth,’ but always, ‘I am a citizen of the world.’ . . . [A]nyone who knows how the whole universe is administered knows that the first, all-inclusive state is the government composed of God and man. He appreciates it as the source of the seeds of being, descending upon his father, his father’s father – to every creature born and bred on earth, in fact, but to rational beings in particular, since they alone are entitled by nature to govern alongside God, by virtue of being connected with him through reason. So why not call ourselves citizens of the world and children of God? And why should we fear any human contingency? If being related to the emperor or any of the other great ones at Rome is enough to live without fear, in privilege and security, shouldn’t having God as our creator, father and defender protect us even more from trouble and anxiety? (1.9.1, 4-7)
The Stoic social ethos begins with the recognition of each man as “your own brother, who has Zeus as his ancestor and is a son born of the same seed as yourself, with the same high lineage. [1.13.3]” Just as, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna reveals to Arjuna his true spiritual nature precisely so that he may perform his social duties within this mortal, embodied life without fear and apprehension, so too does the Stoic sage, once detached from the externalities of his body and world, return to these mundane responsibilities with a newfound sense of purpose and inner peace, serving out his time in this life like a soldier at his post, transforming every “thus it was” into a “thus I willed it,” singing hymns of gratitude to the Author of all things:
If we had sense, there is nothing better we could do with our time than praise God and proclaim his good works, whether in public or private. . . . Well, since most of you are blind, I suppose there has to be someone who fills this role, and will praise God on others’ behalf. And what is a lame old man like myself good for, anyway, except singing God’s praises? If I were a nightingale or a swan, I would sing the song either of them was born to sing. But I am a rational being, so my song must take the form of a hymn. That is my job, which I will keep to as long as I am permitted; and I invite any and all of you to join me. (1.16.15, 19-21)
February 10, 2024
If you are interested in Stoicism or were drawn in by Ryan Holiday’s content, start here.
I begin this work understanding the key pillars and propositions put forth by Stoicism, but found Epictetus to be *the source* of not only practical applications of such values, but also highly explanatory.
Much of the topics discussed in the Discourses and Enchiridion are rooted in reason. Epictetus views reason as the determining factor of whether any situation or action is worthy of a value judgment (good or bad, desirable or not). Birthed out of this foundation in rationality and conscious decision-making, is a primary stoic belief that we should only be concerned with what is in our power and be indifferent to nature or anything outside of our influence. “We are responsible for some things, while there are others for which we cannot be held responsible.” (Enchiridion, Chapter 1)
Without going into a prolix explanation, this attitude towards life is one that he guided many leaders, genius thinkers, and admirable individuals throughout history. Simply put: focus on what’s in your control and don’t worry about what’s not in your control. A simple suggestion with immensely valuable consequences in a world full of capricious events. This belief is applied to various examples within Epictetus’ lectures but I do find a bit of a contradiction.
Stoicism preaches indifference or acceptance of nature, destiny, fate. Yet at the same time, such a principle of rationality relies on intentional action as a result of our own free will. Stoicism seems to battle with this indeterminate position between determinism and free will, much like most of philosophy to be fair. It’s worth noting nonetheless. Do you believe we are at the whims of nature or do we have the ability to change our fortunes? “Make the best use of what is in our power, and treat the rest in accordance with its nature. And what is its nature? However God decides.” (Discourses, Book I, Section 1) Perhaps there isn’t much contradiction and the Stoics simply believe that much of life is determined with sprinkles of freedom, but the question of free will’s existence certainly plays a role in the effectiveness of Stoicism.
Epictetus seems to be inconsistent on this question. On the one hand, he argues we should stick to our nature, accept our circumstances (whether it be poor life, slave, bad family members, disability, etc) but also advocates that we should control ourselves by purposely avoid pleasures, being cognizant about who we spend time with, and intentionally apply the virtues we hold dear. “Make it your goal never to fail in your desires or experience things you would rather avoid; try never to err in impulse and repulsion; aim to be perfect also in the practice of attention and withholding judgement.” (Discourses, Book I, Section 4)
Despite the potential contradiction, I think we can put that aside and still derive value from the lessons put forth. Stoic values of moderation/self-restraint/honesty, acceptance of an irrational world, and encouragement of reason all lend a hand to a happier, more fulfilling life. It’s an ideal philosophy of life to live by, especially when merged with concepts from existentialists like Sartre, Nietzsche, and Camus. Some of their ideas will go against the Stoics, but I believe individuals should be eclectic and create their own fusion of philosophical systems rather than submitting to a singular perspective anyway.
Overall, if you want Stoicism — read this. It’s essential and I found it more direct and enlightening than Aurelius or Seneca.
I begin this work understanding the key pillars and propositions put forth by Stoicism, but found Epictetus to be *the source* of not only practical applications of such values, but also highly explanatory.
Much of the topics discussed in the Discourses and Enchiridion are rooted in reason. Epictetus views reason as the determining factor of whether any situation or action is worthy of a value judgment (good or bad, desirable or not). Birthed out of this foundation in rationality and conscious decision-making, is a primary stoic belief that we should only be concerned with what is in our power and be indifferent to nature or anything outside of our influence. “We are responsible for some things, while there are others for which we cannot be held responsible.” (Enchiridion, Chapter 1)
Without going into a prolix explanation, this attitude towards life is one that he guided many leaders, genius thinkers, and admirable individuals throughout history. Simply put: focus on what’s in your control and don’t worry about what’s not in your control. A simple suggestion with immensely valuable consequences in a world full of capricious events. This belief is applied to various examples within Epictetus’ lectures but I do find a bit of a contradiction.
Stoicism preaches indifference or acceptance of nature, destiny, fate. Yet at the same time, such a principle of rationality relies on intentional action as a result of our own free will. Stoicism seems to battle with this indeterminate position between determinism and free will, much like most of philosophy to be fair. It’s worth noting nonetheless. Do you believe we are at the whims of nature or do we have the ability to change our fortunes? “Make the best use of what is in our power, and treat the rest in accordance with its nature. And what is its nature? However God decides.” (Discourses, Book I, Section 1) Perhaps there isn’t much contradiction and the Stoics simply believe that much of life is determined with sprinkles of freedom, but the question of free will’s existence certainly plays a role in the effectiveness of Stoicism.
Epictetus seems to be inconsistent on this question. On the one hand, he argues we should stick to our nature, accept our circumstances (whether it be poor life, slave, bad family members, disability, etc) but also advocates that we should control ourselves by purposely avoid pleasures, being cognizant about who we spend time with, and intentionally apply the virtues we hold dear. “Make it your goal never to fail in your desires or experience things you would rather avoid; try never to err in impulse and repulsion; aim to be perfect also in the practice of attention and withholding judgement.” (Discourses, Book I, Section 4)
Despite the potential contradiction, I think we can put that aside and still derive value from the lessons put forth. Stoic values of moderation/self-restraint/honesty, acceptance of an irrational world, and encouragement of reason all lend a hand to a happier, more fulfilling life. It’s an ideal philosophy of life to live by, especially when merged with concepts from existentialists like Sartre, Nietzsche, and Camus. Some of their ideas will go against the Stoics, but I believe individuals should be eclectic and create their own fusion of philosophical systems rather than submitting to a singular perspective anyway.
Overall, if you want Stoicism — read this. It’s essential and I found it more direct and enlightening than Aurelius or Seneca.
January 17, 2021
I am going to mix in some other anecdotes as I write this review...Epictetus was a slave who gained his freedom in Rome after Nero was assassinated , he opened a School of Philosophy in Nicopolos Greece.
His Discourses are long winded, repetitious, but full of practical metaphors.
He was serious minded but gregarious and funny
His Teaching is pithy and Practical---"Now a Carpenter does not come to you and say, I have come to philosophize on carpentry, he hands you a contract and builds a House-so do you likewise in life , eat like a man, sleep like a man, endure insults, rear children, and love your Wife...."
On those desiring to become Teachers: "Such and such gives lectures, I wish to give lectures and have admiration too--Wretch you cannot give lectures in off-hand and random fashion, proper living must be adopted, adversities overcome, sacrifices to the gods, proper ablutions made, the discouri must be consulted....."
and finally a parallel form Dr. Milton Erickson on enduring externals: " My dad died at 97 1/2 planting fruit trees, he was looking forward to the future"
"Live life and live it to the fullest, and put as much humor into it as possible" Dr. Erickson
and finally from Seneca:
"Everyday acquire something that will fortify you against old-age, death, loss, and other ills as well;
My dear Lucillius Make this your business in life: Learn to share the Joy of a Soul Happy and Confident, lifted above every circumstance " Seneca Epistles
"All is well with the Commander "........
Farewell
His Discourses are long winded, repetitious, but full of practical metaphors.
He was serious minded but gregarious and funny
His Teaching is pithy and Practical---"Now a Carpenter does not come to you and say, I have come to philosophize on carpentry, he hands you a contract and builds a House-so do you likewise in life , eat like a man, sleep like a man, endure insults, rear children, and love your Wife...."
On those desiring to become Teachers: "Such and such gives lectures, I wish to give lectures and have admiration too--Wretch you cannot give lectures in off-hand and random fashion, proper living must be adopted, adversities overcome, sacrifices to the gods, proper ablutions made, the discouri must be consulted....."
and finally a parallel form Dr. Milton Erickson on enduring externals: " My dad died at 97 1/2 planting fruit trees, he was looking forward to the future"
"Live life and live it to the fullest, and put as much humor into it as possible" Dr. Erickson
and finally from Seneca:
"Everyday acquire something that will fortify you against old-age, death, loss, and other ills as well;
My dear Lucillius Make this your business in life: Learn to share the Joy of a Soul Happy and Confident, lifted above every circumstance " Seneca Epistles
"All is well with the Commander "........
Farewell
January 10, 2023
This is a manual for Business Ethics 101. The following metaphor is not original to me, but imagine your life as placed on a wheel with spokes. If you focus your life in the center, the hub, then when the wheel turns, as it must, you will be moved, to be sure, but you won’t be thrown over the place.
Epictetus exhorts the reader to develop a strong inner life. This goes beyond merely getting your priorities right. It means being proactive and never reactive. It even includes a calculus for business decisions. Know your worth.
Epictetus does not paint a rosy picture for the reader. Having been a slave in a cruel world, he knows how the world can be. He does not think it will ever get any better. If Stoicism has sometimes been accused of being resigned to despair, that criticism might have some justification with Epictetus.
He does give us the basics of a Stoic worldview. There is the standard Stoic line on rationality. Man is midway between beasts and God. From the former he has a body, the latter a mind.
Purpose
Man’s good is a type of moral purpose, or “a disposition of the will with respect to appearances” (1.8).
On the Gods
When Epictetus uses the term “God,” he can mean the gods, Jupiter, and/or a guardian spirit within us. He believes our souls are “parts and portions of God.” We also have a guardian genius with us.
As a good Stoic, Epictetus assumes some form of pantheism, albeit not an extreme kind. All things are united as one (I:14). He does not mean some form of Eastern pantheism. His point, so it seems, is to find a reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth. In fact, “our bodies are intimately linked with the earth’s rhythms.” We do not have to accept his mild pantheism, but that statement is not wrong.
Epistemology
“Impressions” is the key word in Epictetus’s epistemology. It is not always clear what an impression is. Notwithstanding that, they come to us in four ways: “things are and appear to be; or they are not, and do not appear to be, or they are, but do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be” (I.27.1).
The mind forms “ideas that correspond with the impressions” (I.14.8). That seems accurate enough, but Epictetus takes it a step further with his definition of reason: a collection of individual impressions (I.20.5). That does not seem right.
Education
The goal of education is to bring our will in alignment with God’s reality and governance (I.12.15). As long as we understand that Epictetus does not mean the same thing by “God” as one normally does, it is a true enough statement.
One strength in his approach is that there is not a sharp line between epistemology, education, and ethics. Epistemology and education dovetail with his use of the term “impressions.” We all have preconceptions. Our reason makes use of “impressions.” Getting an education, therefore, is “learning to apply natural preconceptions to particular cases as nature prescribes, and distinguishing what is in our power from what is not” (I.22.9). That last clause connects education with ethics. The wise man understands what he can and cannot control.
Ethics
The goal of virtue is “a life that flows smoothly” (12). Even though he does not use the term, he means that we should reach a state of apatheia. We can only do this by having “correct judgments about externals,” as externals are the only things outside of our control (I.29.24).
Analysis
If one wants to read a primary source on Stoicism, this is as good as any. Epictetus, perhaps in line with his own philosophy of limitations, never gets to the substance of the issue. These are more conversations than logical analyses, and they should be judged as such. It even seems that Epictetus commits a logical fallacy. He writes: “God is helpful. Whatever is good is also helpful. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that the divine nature and the nature of the good correspond” (II.8.1). The conclusion is certainly true, but Epictetus committed the fallacy of the undistributed middle premise.
Conclusion
Epictetus lacks the nobility of Marcus Aurelius and the poetic grandeur of Lucretius. In some ways, however, he is more accessible than both.
Epictetus exhorts the reader to develop a strong inner life. This goes beyond merely getting your priorities right. It means being proactive and never reactive. It even includes a calculus for business decisions. Know your worth.
Epictetus does not paint a rosy picture for the reader. Having been a slave in a cruel world, he knows how the world can be. He does not think it will ever get any better. If Stoicism has sometimes been accused of being resigned to despair, that criticism might have some justification with Epictetus.
He does give us the basics of a Stoic worldview. There is the standard Stoic line on rationality. Man is midway between beasts and God. From the former he has a body, the latter a mind.
Purpose
Man’s good is a type of moral purpose, or “a disposition of the will with respect to appearances” (1.8).
On the Gods
When Epictetus uses the term “God,” he can mean the gods, Jupiter, and/or a guardian spirit within us. He believes our souls are “parts and portions of God.” We also have a guardian genius with us.
As a good Stoic, Epictetus assumes some form of pantheism, albeit not an extreme kind. All things are united as one (I:14). He does not mean some form of Eastern pantheism. His point, so it seems, is to find a reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth. In fact, “our bodies are intimately linked with the earth’s rhythms.” We do not have to accept his mild pantheism, but that statement is not wrong.
Epistemology
“Impressions” is the key word in Epictetus’s epistemology. It is not always clear what an impression is. Notwithstanding that, they come to us in four ways: “things are and appear to be; or they are not, and do not appear to be, or they are, but do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be” (I.27.1).
The mind forms “ideas that correspond with the impressions” (I.14.8). That seems accurate enough, but Epictetus takes it a step further with his definition of reason: a collection of individual impressions (I.20.5). That does not seem right.
Education
The goal of education is to bring our will in alignment with God’s reality and governance (I.12.15). As long as we understand that Epictetus does not mean the same thing by “God” as one normally does, it is a true enough statement.
One strength in his approach is that there is not a sharp line between epistemology, education, and ethics. Epistemology and education dovetail with his use of the term “impressions.” We all have preconceptions. Our reason makes use of “impressions.” Getting an education, therefore, is “learning to apply natural preconceptions to particular cases as nature prescribes, and distinguishing what is in our power from what is not” (I.22.9). That last clause connects education with ethics. The wise man understands what he can and cannot control.
Ethics
The goal of virtue is “a life that flows smoothly” (12). Even though he does not use the term, he means that we should reach a state of apatheia. We can only do this by having “correct judgments about externals,” as externals are the only things outside of our control (I.29.24).
Analysis
If one wants to read a primary source on Stoicism, this is as good as any. Epictetus, perhaps in line with his own philosophy of limitations, never gets to the substance of the issue. These are more conversations than logical analyses, and they should be judged as such. It even seems that Epictetus commits a logical fallacy. He writes: “God is helpful. Whatever is good is also helpful. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that the divine nature and the nature of the good correspond” (II.8.1). The conclusion is certainly true, but Epictetus committed the fallacy of the undistributed middle premise.
Conclusion
Epictetus lacks the nobility of Marcus Aurelius and the poetic grandeur of Lucretius. In some ways, however, he is more accessible than both.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 510 reviews