Reading Group on Stoicism (Post #5)

 Epictetus The Discourses (Book II)

Epictetus Book II

Here is a summary of book II of Epictetus’s Discourses (book I summary is here).  The chapter titles are as follows:

Chapter 1 That confidence is not inconsistent with caution

Chapter 2 Of Tranquillity

Chapter 3  To those who recommend persons to philosophers

Chapter 4  Against a person who had once been detected in adultery

Chapter 5 How magnanimity is consistent with care

Chapter 6  Of indifference

Chapter 7 How we ought to use divination

Chapter 8 What is the nature of the good

Chapter 9  That when we cannot fulfill that which the character of a man promises, we assume the character of a philosopher

Chapter 10  How we may discover the duties of life from names

Chapter 11  What the beginning of philosophy is

Chapter 12  Of disputation or discussion

Chapter 13  On anxiety

Chapter 14 To Naso

Chapter 15 To or against those who obstinately persist in what they have determined

 

Book II begins with what I see as one of the distinctive strengths of stoicism as form of virtue epistemology- it’s nuance and dept of insight.  It is common for us to see the moral landscape through simple dichotomies- that certain beliefs, dispositions or actions are either good or bad.  EP addresses the issue of confidence and caution, which might appear as contradictory dispositions/attitudes, but he maintains they are not.  The alleged paradox can be resolved by having caution and care about things within our control, and confidence in the things beyond our control as they cannot really harm us. 

For EP, the “bad consists in a bad exercise of the will” and thus “caution ought only to be used where things are dependent on the will”.  He makes an analogy with deer being hunted and fleeing hunter’s arrows only to run into their nets:

We are then in the condition of deer; when they flee from the huntsmen's feathers in fright, whither do they turn and in what do they seek refuge as safe? They turn to the nets, and thus they perish by confounding things which are objects of fear with things that they ought not to fear. Thus we also act: in what cases do we fear? In things which are independent of the will. In what cases, on the contrary, do we behave with confidence, as if there were no danger? In things dependent on the will. 

EP then applies this insight to death itself.  He claims “Confidence then ought to be employed against death, and caution against the fear of death. “  We will all die, that is a certainty and cannot be changed.  Thus we should not fret about death itself.  But what we should be concerned about is our fear of death.  This is a product of our “will”.  We do not need to have so much anxiety around the fear of death.  If we come to accept that death is a certainty, and thus a question of “when?” vs “if?”, we can adopt the more helpful mindset of living now and making the most of the opportunities we still have for today. 

This issue raises one I have brought to the fore before with respect to how advances in public health and medicine complicate the stoic’s attitude about death.  Of course death is inevitable.  But we can influence the risks of both disease and death.  During the time of EP our ability to reduce these risks were much more constrained, hence why life expectancy did not exceed age 30.  But we have more than doubled that life expectancy, thanks in part to having caution about specific causes of death- like drinking contaminated water, being exposed to infectious viruses, traffic fatalities, the adverse health consequences of smoking, obesity, diet and physical activity.  Perhaps there can be a 21st century reformulation of EP’s insight here, that some reasonable degree of caution with respect to our physical and mental health should be pursued, but at the same time an acceptance that, inevitably, even our best efforts will not stop (by merely delay) the onset of disease, frailty and, eventually death. 

Chapter 4 has some interesting reflections on infidelity.  EP claims that man is formed for fidelity, and that someone who commits adultery sacrifices not only modesty and sanctity, but the overthrowing of “neighbourhood, and friendship and the community”.  This strikes me as anachronistic and a function of the hierarchal tenets of the original versions of stoicism.  In this period I assume relationships were more about duty than romantic love, and thus a violation of this duty was seen as an afront to the moral fabric of society as a whole.  A more compassionate and nuanced perspective is provided in this book- which details the 17 different reasons people have affairs:

See-if affair

Ejector-seat affair

Heating-up your marriage affair

Distraction affair

Breakout-into-self affair

I just need to indulge myself affair

Let’s-kill-this-relationship-and-see-if-if-it-comes-back-to-life-affair

Unmet needs affair

Having-experiences-I-missed-out-on affair

Do I still have it? Affair

Surrogate-therapy affair

Trading-up affair

Accidental affair

Revenge affair

Mid-life crisis affair

Sexual-panic affair

Midmarriage-crisis affair

The motivations, moral character, and potential adverse societal impact of these different reasons for infidelity can vary quite considerably (some might have a more lasting impact on the animosity among parents after divorcing, making co-parentnig more challenging).  So I would reject the quick and sweeping generalizations EP makes in book II chapter 4, though I suspect norms and expectations around familial duties and spousal roles have changed significantly since the time of EP. 

I was really intrigued by EP’s chapter 10 titled “How we may discover the duties of life from names”.  Here EP notes we have many identities which are bound up in our different names.  I am a man, a father, a brother, an uncle, a colleague and a citizen (and in the past I use also be a son, grandson and husband). 

EP remarks:

… you are a citizen of the world, and a part of it, not one of the subservient, but one of the principal parts, for you are capable of comprehending the divine administration and of considering the connection of things. What then does the character of a citizen promise? To hold nothing as profitable to himself; to deliberate about nothing as if he were detached from the community, but to act as the hand or foot would do, if they had reason and understood the constitution of nature, for they would never put themselves in motion nor desire anything, otherwise than with reference to the whole. Therefore the philosophers say well, that if the good man had foreknowledge of what would happen, he would cooperate toward his own sickness and death and mutilation, since he knows that these things are assigned to him according to the universal arrangement, and that the whole is superior to the part and the state to the citizen. But now, because we do not know the future, it is our duty to stick to the things which are in their nature more suitable for our choice, for we were made among other things for this.

Sometimes the duties and obligations of our identities conflict.  Work commitments, for example, may conflict with parental duties.  Either you are a diligent worker and feel like a negligent parent, or vice versa.  Or the duties as a citizen or human being might require sacrifices that conflict with familial duties are some reasonable degree of self-regarding concern.  To function as a feasible and reasonable personal ethic I think stoicism must offer some insightful advice on how to reasonably balance the different moral demands that are placed upon us.  But I did not see how EP could help us navigate through these issues. 

In Chapter 11 EP asserts that intellectual humility is the first act of philosophy- “The beginning of philosophy to him at least who enters on it in the right way and by the door, is a consciousness of his own weakness and inability about necessary things.”  It might be a useful group exercise for everyone to reflect on humility as a personal epistemic virtue.  Over time have you become more or less humble, as you have acquired more life experience.  Is there a specific belief that you have changed your mind on?  Something that the younger you had some very strong convictions about but now you hold an opposing or more nuanced view.  Think of an example you would be comfortable sharing with the group.

EP continues by highlighting the causes of disagreement, he remarks:  “Observe, this is the beginning of philosophy, a perception of the disagreement of men with one another, and an inquiry into the cause of the disagreement”.  Think of some significant social issue that people disagree about, it might be something pertaining to climate change, or vaccination passports, or fiscal or immigration policies.  Think of your position on this issue.  And then try, in the most compassionate and authentic fashion, to articulate the strongest opposing argument to your own convictions.  This “playing the devil’s advocate” role and keeping an open mind about considering different premises- empirical and normative- or weighing concerns (risks/benefits) differently is the “nuts and bolts” of real policy disagreement.  Sadly in popular debates and the media disagreement is often portrayed as between “the experts vs the idiots”, but this framing seldom leads to any genuine understanding of opposing perspectives, and with it a reasonable compromise.

Chapter 13 covers a very topical issue given the pandemic- the prevalence of anxiety. 

“When I see a man anxious, I say, "What does this man want? If he did not want something which is not in his power, how could he be anxious?" For this reason a lute player when he is singing by himself has no anxiety, but when he enters the theatre, he is anxious even if he has a good voice and plays well on the lute; for he not only wishes to sing well, but also to obtain applause: but this is not in his power. 

Let’s take some time to unpack anxiety.  Some degree of anxiety can be healthy and productive, helping us to perform better and focus.  For example, the anxiety a student might feel before an exam or a single person before a first date.  But taken too far, anxiety can be a destructive force, leading a person to ruminate endlessly in their head about something they cannot control (e.g. “will my date like me?”) and avoiding the actions needed to lean into, and work through, their anxiety (e.g. cancelling the date at the last minute vs risking rejection). 

EP notes how confidence is the antidote to anxiety.  He gives the example of a musician. If someone lacks musical skills they would be anxious about performing for others.  But to someone who has practiced and is competent as a musician, they will not be anxious.  Carrying that example over to the dating example, a person who is truly happy and accepting of who they are (i.e. their sense of self-esteem is not contingent upon a stranger liking them), and has some experience dating will not have anxiety about going on a first date.  They know that no one “rejects them’, but rather they just might not be the right match.  And that’s ok, you date people to find the right match (something that cannot be achieved without experiencing some mismatches).  The bottom line- action (and the experience and competence that comes with it) is the way to redress anxiety. 

Summarizing then a few of the topics that might be interesting for the group to focus on from Book 2 include:

1.      EP’s resolution of the so-called “paradox” of caution/confidence (and how that applies to death).

2. What different moral duties and obligations arise from your “different identities” (e.g. partner, parent, co-worker, citizen, human being) and how do you manage potential conflicts between these duties/obligations when they arise?

3.       humility- as you gain more life experience and insight have you become more or less humble?  What core conviction/belief have you changed your mind on?

4. Disagreement exercise:  think of some societal predicament there is strong disagreement about, and try to think of the most compelling counter-points to the position you take.

 5. Reflect on the prevalence of anxiety in society today.  How can we, both personally and in our culture more generally, reduce the burden and toll anxiety inflicts on so many people?  Do you think stoicism can be of real help for this problem?   

Should be a stimulating discussion!

Cheers,

Colin