Friday, October 29, 2021

Reading Group on Stoicism (Post #4)

 

Epictetus The Discourses (Book I)


The Philosophy Meetup Group is continuing its reading group meetings on Stoicism, turning next to Epictetus, a Greek philosopher of the 1st and early 2nd centuries.  His original name  is not known, Epiktētos is the Greek word meaning “acquired” as Epictetus was a slave in the Roman empire as a boy. He became a freeman as an adult.

Epictetus (hereafter referred to as EP) refers to himself as "lame", some commentators speculate this refers to a leg injury afflicted on him by his slave owner when he was young, while other commentators suggest EP may have developed infirmity later in his life. He never wrote anything himself, his writings are the notes of his pupil Arrian.

Like with the reading group on Marcus Aurelius, I have not read any of the works of EP before. His work is something I have been meaning to read for a number of year now. Here is how A.A. Long summarizes the experience of learning about EP:

Epictetus is a thinker we cannot forget, once we have encountered him, because he gets under our skin. He provokes and he irritates, but he deals so trenchantly with life's everyday challenges that no one who knows his work can simply dismiss it as theoretically invalid or practically useless. In times of stress, Epictetans have attested, his recommendations make their presence felt.

Book 1 is composed of the following 16 chapters and titles:

Chapter 1:  Of the things which are in our Power, and not in our Power.

Chapter 2:  How a Man on every occasion can maintain his Proper Character.

Chapter 3:  How a man should proceed from the principle of God being the father of all men to the rest.

Chapter 4:  Of progress or improvement

Chapter 5:  Against the academics

Chapter 6:  Of providence

Chapter 7:  Of the use of sophistical arguments, and hypothetical, and the like

Chapter 8:  That the faculties are not safe to the uninstructed

Chapter 9:  How from the fact that we are akin to God a man may proceed to the consequences.

Chapter 10:  Against those who eagerly seek preferment at Rome.

Chapter 11:  Of natural affection.

Chapter 12:  Of contentment.

Chapter 13:  How everything may he done acceptably to the gods

Chapter 14:  That the deity oversees all things.

Chapter 15:  What philosophy promises.

Chapter 16:  Of providence

Unlike Marcus Aurelius, who I found to be an easy author to follow as his Meditations were short “sound bites” on repeated themes, I found book I of EP’s Discourses a much more challenging read.  Sometimes there were very short passages that packed in profound wisdom and insight, and other times there were some lengthy passages I found perplexing and somewhat vexing.  Many examples deal with historical figures and stories which require having some knowledge about them to understand his point.  Like I did with MA, I will highlight just a few parts of EP’s writings that resonated with me, and offer some examples and critical comments to help stimulate some discussion and debate for the group.

I will begin with what I think is the foundational premise of EP’s stoicism, and stoicism more generally- this foundational premise has an epistemic and attitudinal component.  I am skipping ahead slightly into Book II (chapter 5), where EP states:

Thus in life also the chief business is this: distinguish and separate things, and say, "Externals are not in my power: will is in my power. Where shall I seek the good and the bad? Within, in the things which are my own. 

I would like to identify two distinct theses in EP’s foundational Stoic premise, what I will call the “epistemic claim” and the “attitudinal claim”:

Epistemic claim:  In life things fall into one of two categories- things within our control, and things beyond our control.

Attitudinal claim:  because I have not yet beyond Book I yet I am hesitant to state what I think EP’s attitudinal claim is, but I am confident one is there.  So far I think it is something like the following (I will refine this premise in further weeks as I read Books II and III):  normative values of good and bad arrive only from things within our control.  Ruminating about, having anger or anxiety about things beyond our control is folly/vice/self-inflicted and unnecessary suffering.

I see great potential, but also significant limitations, in this foundational Stoic premise.  First, I will note the “truisms” inherent in the epistemic claim. 

There are certainly things that are not within my control.  Here is a compelling list of things that certainly meet that description:

The weather- I cannot control if the weather tomorrow will be sunny and warm, or rainy and cold.

Natural disasters- I cannot control earthquakes, hurricanes, or tsunamis.

Luck:  when I roll the dice or pick the lottery numbers, I cannot control the outcome, it is pure chance.

 And there are things that are clearly within my control, such as:

           What clothes I will wear today to work.

           What I order on the lunch menu from the restaurant I am at.

            If I go to the gym today.

When life events are divided into this simplistic two-dimensional categorization, EP’s attitudinal prescription (the details of which I still need to discover) might sound very sage.  A person laying in bed ruminating “I hope tomorrow is sunny” is exerting energy stressing about something they cannot control.  At best this is wasteful, at worst it is detrimental to one’s wellbeing.  “Just let tomorrow unfold as it is meant to be” EP might say.  By contrast the person who wakes up in bed and says “today I will go to the gym” is focusing on something within their control, namely their motivation to improve their physical and mental health. So this is a good example of a healthy investment of one’s psychological energy- it is focused on something within our control that can benefit us.

The problem I have with this foundational Stoic premise, which I highlighted before with MA, is two-fold:

#1.  Many things in life fall between the category of “within our control” and “beyond our control”.  Many things are “somewhat” within our control.  Some examples:

 

Health- my health is “somewhat” in my control.  I can help reduce my risks of disease by exercising and eating a balanced diet.  But I cannot control aging and other many health developments. 

 

Wealth- my own personal financial position is “somewhat” within my control.  I can save money or overspend on things I cannot control.  But at the same time I cannot control inflation or global recessions.

 

Friendships- my group of friends is “somewhat” within my control.  I can vet and select the people I spend most of my time with.  But at the same time the pool of “available friends” is also influence by factors like where I live (large or small pool of candidates), my work schedule might limit the hours I am free to meet new people (e.g. shift work), etc. 

I highlight these “ambiguous” categories to reveal the constraint the foundational Stoic premise places on practical reason.  If someone gets the epistemic premise wrong concerning what is and is not within their control, then this could adversely impact their wellbeing.  For example, if someone believes “I cannot control my health” then they may decide there is no reason to stop smoking, wear a seat belt or get a vaccine because “health outcomes are beyond their control”.  Conversely the person who believes their health is 100% within their control will face a difficult life journey as they age and inevitably face health challenges.  The most health conscious diet and lifestyle choices will not, sadly, immunize a person from developing cancer or the other health maladies of late life.

#2.  The second problem with the life outlook of the foundational Stoic premise is is that it is overly individualistic.  There are things I, as an individual, cannot control but that we, collectively as a society, could influence (perhaps even “control”).  I as an individual person cannot influence climate change, but we as a society could.  I as an individual person cannot do much to abate persistent societal injustices (e.g. discrimination, inequality, etc.), but collectively we as a society could.  Stoicism does not seem to offer an emancipatory social/public ethic.  Perhaps the focus on god and providence provides EP with an “out” to my concern, but at the moment I think this is a significant shortcoming of Stoicism.

Why does this critique of EP matter?  Well, if everyone lived by this foundational Stoic creed we would not have planes, developed economies or public health.  Over 2000 years ago the following things were true: 

“Humans cannot fly, that is beyond our control”.

“Severe poverty is a fact of life, eliminating poverty is beyond our control”. 

“Plagues are a fact of life, we cannot protect populations from the high mortality count of infectious diseases”.

But today these claims are all untrue.  And they are untrue because some creative and ambitious thinkers were convinced that something they were told they could not do they did!  Let us call this the “progressive inspiration” (PI).  PI presents a challenge to the epistemic premise of Stoicism because it prescribes we have humility with respect to what we label “within” and “beyond” our control.  Self-driving cars, editing the human genome and putting people on the Moon are all examples of PI in action.  None would have been achieved by persons who had internalized the Stoic sentiment.   

Having said the above, I do think there is significant benefits to be reaped, even if only partially and provisionally, from the Stoic's foundational premise- “do not sweat the small things/things-you-cannot influence in life”.  A great deal of human suffering stems from contraventions of this sage prescription.

Now on to other parts of Book I.  In the first chapter of Book I he notes the primacy of reason:

The rational faculty… is the only faculty that we have received which examines itself, what it is, and what power it has, and what is the value of this gift, and examines all other faculties: for what else is there which tells us that golden things are beautiful, for they do not say so themselves? Evidently it is the faculty which is capable of judging of appearances. What else judges of music, grammar, and other faculties, proves their uses and points out the occasions for using them? Nothing else.

            EP then makes what I took to be one of his most profound statements, concerning the acceptance of death.  He remarks:  “I must die. If now, I am ready to die. If, after a short time, I now dine because it is the dinner-hour; after this I will then die. How? Like a man who gives up what belongs to another.”  This attitude of surrender is also one that I think can be helpfully empowering, but also fatalistic and imprudent.  We will all die, and in certain circumstances we should accept that our demise is imminent.  But in other circumstances there are actions we can take to reduce mortality risks (in the immediate and distant future)- wearing seatbelts when driving, quite smoking, look both ways when crossing the street, connect with other humans, etc.  So the acceptance of death should not be equated with an indifference towards life. I am not saying EP is expressing indifference (afterall he is prioritizing eating lunch), but I think stoicism does conflict with long-term planning, which includes health risk mitigation. 

Chapter 2 is on character, of which I will highlight two passages which illuminate EP’s emphasis on self-discipline, insight and values.  EP provides the example of a slave and holding a chamber pot for their master to urinate in.

But the rational and the irrational appear such in a different way to different persons, just as the good and the bad, the profitable and the unprofitable. For this reason, particularly, we need discipline, in order to learn how to adapt the preconception of the rational and the irrational to the several things conformably to nature. But in order to determine the rational and the irrational, we use not only the of external things, but we consider also what is appropriate to each person. For to one man it is consistent with reason to hold a chamber pot for another, and to look to this only, that if he does not hold it, he will receive stripes, and he will not receive his food: but if he shall hold the pot, he will not suffer anything hard or disagreeable. But to another man not only does the holding of a chamber pot appear intolerable for himself, but intolerable also for him to allow another to do this office for him. If, then, you ask me whether you should hold the chamber pot or not, I shall say to you that the receiving of food is worth more than the not receiving of it, and the being scourged is a greater indignity than not being scourged; so that if you measure your interests by these things, go and hold the chamber pot. "But this," you say, "would not be worthy of me." Well, then, it is you who must introduce this consideration into the inquiry, not I; for it is you who know yourself, how much you are worth to yourself, and at what price you sell yourself; for men sell themselves at various prices.

            There are many points in this lengthy passage worth noting.  Firstly, I think EP is emphasizing the importance of having insight and self-knowledge.  For some slaves their dignity will not feel violated by holding their master’s chamber pot, but for others it will.  This perhaps suggests that EP’s stoicism does permit of an emancipatory ethic, and progressive change thus lays with those who decide to stand up for the values they will not compromise on. 

Secondly, I think the example also suggests that we cannot defer to the advice of others on how we should live, for they may hold values that are incongruent with those we hold.  A stoic strives to live authentically with the values they cherish most, not simply with the duties and values society prescribes they obey.   Reason, rather than custom or tradition, ought to serve as our moral compass.

If the example of holding a master’s chamber pot was not offputting enough for you, EP also considers a rather morbid example of an injured athlete who would have to castrate himself in order to survive.  EP claims:

In this way an athlete also acted who was in danger of dying unless his private parts were amputated. His brother came to the athlete, who was a philosopher, and said, "Come, brother, what are you going to do? Shall we amputate this member and return to the gymnasium?" But the athlete persisted in his resolution and died. When some one asked Epictetus how he did this, as an athlete or a philosopher, "As a man," Epictetus replied, "and a man who had been proclaimed among the athletes at the Olympic games and had contended in them, a man who had been familiar with such a place, and not merely anointed in Baton's school. Another would have allowed even his head to be cut off, if he could have lived without it. Such is that regard to character which is so strong in those who have been accustomed to introduce it of themselves and conjoined with other things into their deliberations.

            What to make of this intriguing example?  I take this example to be about living in accordance with your values (in this case, the value of being an man and competitor vs merely surviving as a eunuch who would be less competitive as an Olympian).  The example suggests that there are values more important than surviving, and thus we should embrace a life authentic to those values.

            Chapter 4 is entitled “Of progress or improvement”, and I take it that the themes of growth and development in Stoicism is a major appeal for many people (including myself).  EP claims:

He who is making progress, having learned from philosophers that desire means the desire of good things, and aversion means aversion from bad things; having learned too that happiness and tranquillity are not attainable by man otherwise than by not failing to obtain what he desires, and not falling into that which he would avoid; such a man takes from himself desire altogether and defers it, but he employs his aversion only on things which are dependent on his will. For if he attempts to avoid anything independent of his will, he knows that sometimes he will fall in with something which he wishes to avoid, and he will be unhappy. Now if virtue promises good fortune and tranquillity and happiness, certainly also the progress toward virtue is progress toward each of these things. For it is always true that to whatever point the perfecting of anything leads us, progress is an approach toward this point.

            It may be helpful for us to reflect on this issue of progress further.  What events or experiences have been catalysts of progress or improvement in your own life?  And how did you progress?  What lessons did you learn?

One personal example from my own life has been the death of both my parents over the past 3 years.  I was very close to both parents, and the loss impacted me deeply.  But the grieving experience also helped me to grow.  I learned how to shift my connection with my parents from a “relationship of experience” to a “relationship of memory”.  Regulating my emotions in this sphere of life helped me learn how to apply the same attitude and skills to other things.  Acceptance and gratitude become my allies during time of pain and suffering.  I learned to be present with my grief, and to observe how attending to my feelings, and expressing them, helped me to cope with the fear of missing loved ones who had always been present and supportive in my life.  My feelings of “persistent loss and fear” were gradually abated and replaced by gratitude and memory.  In some respects I feel more close to my parents now than ever.  And this stems, I believe, from the fact that I realize how fortunate I was to have shared half a century together with such loving and caring parents.  I always had gratitude for my parents, but now that they are deceased this gratitude has intensified and is more present with me on a daily basis. 

The remaining chapters of Discourses deal with topics like providence, god, etc. which did not engage me as much, and thus I have nothing to add on those chapters.  But group members that wish to bring up those topics for discussion should certainly do so.  Posting a comment on the meetup page in advance about a particular passage or theme in advance of our meeting would be helpful.

In conclusion, a few topics we might consider:

#1.  The division between “things within our control” and “things beyond our control” [and how this applies to us as individuals vs collectively as a society]

#2.  The primacy of reason and philosophy.

#3.  Acceptance of death- how far should this go?

#4. What events or experiences have been catalysts of progress or improvement in your own life?  And how did you progress?  What lessons did you learn?

Cheers,

Colin