Reading Group on Stoicism (Post #6)

 

Epictetus The Discourses (Books III and IV)

This is my last blog entry for the Stoicism reading group, completing Epictetus’s Discourses, Books III and IV (Book I notes here, Book II notes here).  The end of the teaching semester has me pressed for time so my notes and reflections are briefer than I would have liked.  The last two Books are pretty dense, and I just didn’t have the time to devote to a more expansive and detailed engagement on the final two Books.  What follows is a few of the things that stood out to me as topics worth discussing as a group, along with a few critical reflections I have on EP’s central normative prescriptions.

Chapter 1 of Book III begins with EP noting what he thinks we should not care about- our clothes and appearance-, though he seems to have different (gendered) views about this for men and women. 

You possess the rational faculty as a peculiar thing: adorn and beautify this; but leave your hair to him who made it as he chose. Come, what other appellations have you? Are you man or woman? "Man." Adorn yourself then as man, not as woman. Woman is naturally smooth and delicate; and if she has much hair (on her body), she is a monster and is exhibited at Rome among monsters. And in a man it is monstrous not to have hair; and if he has no hair, he is a monster; but if he cuts off his hairs and plucks them out, what shall we do with him? where shall we exhibit him? and under what name shall we show him? "I will exhibit to you a man who chooses to be a woman rather than a man." What a terrible sight! There is no man who will not wonder at such a notice. Indeed I think that the men who pluck out their hairs do what they do without knowing what they do. Man what fault have you to find with your nature? That it made you a man? What then? was it fit that nature should make all human creatures women? and what advantage in that case would you have had in being adorned? for whom would you have adorned yourself, if all human creatures were women? ….

In Chapter 2 he then turns to what we should care about.

Chapter 2:  three things in which a man ought to exercise himself who would be wise and good.   

(1) concerns the desires and the aversions, that a man may not fail to get what he desires, and that he may not fall into that which he does not desire.

(2) second concerns the movements (toward) and the movements from an object, and generally in doing what a man ought to do, that he may act according to order, to reason, and not carelessly.

(3) The third thing concerns freedom from deception and rashness in judgement, and generally it concerns the assents.

When it comes to our desires and aversions, perhaps the group could reflect on the top things they desire and have an aversion to.  Have you learned any valuable lessons about succeeding in having your desires satisfied or avoiding your aversions?  What works and what doesn’t work?

Chapter 3 is concerned with the business of the wise.  EP remarks:

The material for the wise and good man is his own ruling faculty: and the body is the material for the physician and the aliptes; the land is the matter for the husbandman. The business of the wise and good man is to use appearances conformably to nature: and as it is the nature of every soul to assent to the truth, to dissent from the false, and to remain in suspense as to that which is uncertain; so it is its nature to be moved toward the desire of the good, and to aversion from the evil; and with respect to that which is neither good nor bad it feels indifferent.

In Chapter 8 EP suggests how the Stoic mindset could immunize us from painful thoughts.  This point is perhaps my most significant disagreement I have with EP’s philosophy of stoicism.  He remarks:

As we exercise ourselves against sophistical questions, so we ought to exercise ourselves daily against appearances; for these appearances also propose questions to us. "A certain person son is dead." Answer: the thing is not within the power of the will: it is not an evil. "A father has disinherited a certain son. What do you think of it?" It is a thing beyond the power of the will, not an evil. "Caesar has condemned a person." It is a thing beyond the power of the will, not an evil. "The man is afflicted at this." Affliction is a thing which depends on the will: it is an evil. He has borne the condemnation bravely." That is a thing within the power of the will: it is a good. If we train ourselves in this manner, we shall make progress; for we shall never assent to anything of which there is not an appearance capable of being comprehended. Your son is dead. What has happened? Your son is dead. Nothing more? Nothing. Your ship is lost. What has happened? Your ship is lost. A man has been led to prison. What has happened? He has been led to prison. But that herein he has fared badly, every man adds from his own opinion. "But Zeus," you say, "does not do right in these matters." Why? because he has made you capable of endurance? because he has made you magnanimous? because he has taken from that which befalls you the power of being evil? because it is in your power to be happy while you are suffering what you suffer; because he has opened the door to you, when things do not please you? Man, go out and do not complain.

            Suppose, for example, a father who finds himself in the situation EP describes, he receives news that his son is dead, killed in an automobile accident.  His response “That is not within my control!  Therefore it is not evil”.  Perhaps EP’s stance on this is responding to theological rationalizations of such tragic events; to the parent who causes themselves unnecessary anguish by asking “Why would god do this to me (or to my son)?”  That I can agree with.  Such tragic events are part of life, there is not some divine plan or intention behind them.  But I think EP’s Stoic mantra of “things outside of our power do not disturb us” is neither possible nor desirable/healthy.  EP is basically encouraging avoidance and compartmentalization.  Yes this may (in the short-term) help someone avoid unpleasant emotions like grief, but I do not think this is a healthy mindset to aspire to adopt.  This may be a rational and even adaptive mindset to appropriate if one had endured the emotional pain and misery of slavery (as EP did).  But I do not think it is an appropriate mindset to adapt for people today. 

His stance on this issue is most stark in the concluding chapter (18) of book III titled “That we ought not to be disturbed by any news”, where he says “When anything shall be reported to you which is of a nature to disturb, have this principle in readiness, that the news is about nothing which is within the power.”   For me, bad news is still bad news, regardless of it being within my power.  By definition “bad news” concerns events that have already transpired, and thus they necessarily are “beyond my current ability to control”.   But that does not diminish the appropriateness and importance of responding with grief and disappointment.  Obviously a persistent state of misery and suffering ruminating about bad in the world is not healthy.  But between EP’s emotional avoidance and an excessively ruminating mindset lays what I think is the healthy route of emotional healing from loss.  And the healing process involves more than simply saying “Not within my control? Then not worth expelling emotional energy on!” 

Chapter 12 deals with exercise, and again I found myself disagreeing with EP on this issue:

We ought not to make our exercises consist in means contrary to nature and adapted to cause admiration, for, if we do so, we, who call ourselves philosophers, shall not differ at all from jugglers. For it is difficult even to walk on a rope; and not only difficult, but it is also dangerous. Ought we for this reason to practice walking on a rope, or setting up a palm tree, or embracing statues? By no means. Everything, which is difficult and dangerous is not suitable for practice; but that is suitable which conduces to the working out of that which is proposed to us as a thing to be worked out. To live with desire and aversion, free from restraint. And what is this? Neither to be disappointed in that which you desire, nor to fall into anything which you would avoid. Toward this object, then, exercise ought to tend.

My source of disagreement is that I think some dangerous and difficult exercise (dangerous and difficult up to a point!) is consistent with nature.  From an evolutionary perspective such behaviours and actions help with the development of many skills that helped confer improve the survival of individuals and communities.  So I think we need jugglers, as well as philosophers, but we also need some juggling philosophers!   

In Chapter 16 EP addresses the issue of who we socialize with.  I agree with the point that who one spends most of their time with will influence their behaviour and mental energy, etc. and thus we should be selective to some degree.  But EP’s comments struck me as elitist and misguided in the priority it places on being embedded in an “uber-philosophical” environment.

If a man has frequent intercourse with others, either for talk, or drinking together, or generally for social purposes, he must either become like them, or change them to his own fashion. For if a man places a piece of quenched charcoal close to a piece that is burning, either the quenched charcoal will quench the other, or the burning charcoal will light that which is quenched. Since, then, the danger is so great, we must cautiously enter into such intimacies with those of the common sort, and remember that it is impossible that a man can keep company with one who is covered with soot without being partaker of the soot himself. For what will you do if a man speaks about gladiators, about horses, about athletes, or, what is worse, about men? "Such a person is bad," "Such a person is good": "This was well done," "This was done badly." Further, if he scoff, or ridicule, or show an ill-natured disposition? Is any man among us prepared like a lute-player when he takes a lute, so that as soon as he has touched the strings, he discovers which are discordant, and tunes the instrument? such a power as Socrates had who in all his social intercourse could lead his companions to his own purpose? How should you have this power? It is therefore a necessary consequence that you are carried about by the common kind of people.

Book 4 turns to a very important issue in political philosophy- freedom.  There is plenty that could be said on this topic (is freedom “freedom from interference” (negative liberty) or “self-determination” (positive freedom)), but unfortunately I do not have the time to needed to devote a more serious engagement with EP’s views on this topic.  I will complete this post by simply noting his opening comments on freedom:

He is free who lives as he wishes to live; who is neither subject to compulsion nor to hindrance, nor to force; whose movements to action are not impeded, whose desires attain their purpose, and who does not fall into that which he would avoid. Who, then, chooses to live in error? No man. Who chooses to live deceived, liable to mistake, unjust, unrestrained, discontented, mean? No man. Not one then of the bad lives as he wishes; nor is he, then, free. And who chooses to live in sorrow, fear, envy, pity, desiring and failing in his desires, attempting to avoid something and falling into it? Not one. Do we then find any of the bad free from sorrow, free from fear, who does not fall into that which he would avoid, and does not obtain that which he wishes? Not one; nor then do we find any bad man free.

Some topics to consider for our final group discussion on EP include:

1.      When it comes to your own desires and aversions, have you learned any valuable lessons about succeeding in having your desires satisfied, or avoiding your aversions?  What works and what doesn’t work?

2.      What are your thoughts on the following principle of EP?: “When anything shall be reported to you which is of a nature to disturb, have this principle in readiness, that the news is about nothing which is within the power.”

3.      What is freedom?  Do you consider yourself free?  Is our society actually a “free society”?  What are the biggest threats to human freedom in the 21^st century?

Cheers,

Colin