Epictetus - The Art of Living

Post by **jacob** » Sat May 12, 2012 10:28 pm

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Living-Classi ... 061286052/
Easier than reading Enchiridion directly.

J_ · Post by J_ » Sun May 13, 2012 10:15 am

Thanks for sharing, she made it read like a modern book. And, reading a classic like this makes me realise, that now, 2300 years later, everybody still starts anew with the same quest of understanding yourself.

jzt83 · Post by **jzt83** » Sun May 13, 2012 1:05 pm

Read that book numerous times. It's basically 90% of all self-help books that have ever existed rolled into one small book.

jennypenny · Post by **jennypenny** » Sun May 13, 2012 2:30 pm

The book isn't available for my Nook, so I had to read Enchiridion. This is the kind of work I could discuss for hours, but two things really struck me:
-- Our relationship to objects is different than our relationship to humans. Our relationships with other people can fundamentally change who we are. Their voices can echo in our heads long after they are gone.
-- I think (healthy) stoicism is a mindset between coveting something and expecting nothing. Wanting specific things makes you a slave to those things (affecting the free will cherished by stoics), but expecting that you'll never receive anything seems hopeless.*
I understand the beliefs and appeal of stoicism. I sometimes wonder if people hide behind stoicism out of fear of loss or grief. Epictetus seems to be trying to avoid sorrow by avoiding the joy that precedes it.
*In Christianity, despair is considered a sin. It's sinful to covet something (car, job, person), but to expect God won't provide anything is hopeless and therefore, sinful. In my mind, Epictetus seems to have given up hope and crossed that fine line between stoicism and despair.

jzt83 · Post by **jzt83** » Sun May 13, 2012 3:02 pm

Stoic philosophy seems very aspergery and very denial-oriented. It says, accept your lot and realize your emotional attachments are merely illusions that cause grief. But taken to the extreme, one should just be happy living in a wine barrel and living like a dog.

Post by **jacob** » Sun May 13, 2012 3:20 pm

@jennypenny, jzt83 - Stoicism advices to avoid attachment to anything that does not naturally have one. The fundamental basis is virtue... which here means living in accordance with natural laws (which here essentially means reason and what we today understand as laws of science... this part of the philosophy is very close to serving the purpose of what God does in Christianity. To wit, while God is what drives the world in Christianity, reason is what drives it in stoicism. Reason=laws of nature. Humans are the only one's capable of reason, thus humans are the only one's capable of being spiritual. Being spiritual is essentially humanity's purpose. If you view stoicism as the spiritual quest towards being ever more sensible and reasonable, you got it!). So if you are virtuous, that is, in accordance with nature, you should not feel attached to something which is beyond your control, viz. you should not feel like there is an attachment/dependence when in fact there's no attachment there. That would be: "How other people think about you(*)", "Whether you lost something you didn't really posses, e.g. your car got stolen or you lost a finger in a band saw".
It doesn't mean outright denial to avoid. Rather: "Oh, I got promoted to emperor and got this big palace. That's nice. Ah, I just lost my title and palace and got ostracized. When is lunch?"
(*) This and some other things unfortunately do seem to be somewhat under one's control. Compare the following plays on the interwebs.
========

A: Jacob returned to work because he ran out of money.

Jacob: This is wrong. Long explanation ...

A: Oh, okay, I see.

B: I see too.

========

versus

A: Jacob returned to work because he ran out of money.

(Jacob tries to ignore this assclown)

B: Wow, how come he never said that on the blog.

A: I'm guessing ...

========
Similarly
========

I can probably keep my gold from getting stolen if I put of fences and worry about it constantly.

========

versus

========

The gold was never really anyone's to begin with, so if I lose it, live and let live.

========
I can certainly see why being the honey badger has the advantage of never worrying about anything. On the other hand, it seems like a spiritual ideal ...

jennypenny · Post by **jennypenny** » Sun May 13, 2012 3:44 pm

“while God is what drives the world in Christianity, reason is what drives it in stoicism”

I agree with this. If you think of God as Reason, Enchiridion reads like Proverbs.
“you should not feel attached to something which is beyond your control”

With objects, I agree. With people, I think this is where I get tripped up with stoicism. I think this misstates the object of stoicism (if you use your goal of being more reasonable/spiritual/sensible). The goal is really to feel attachment to all humans, not just the small circle of people with whom you’ve chosen a relationship. To understand and accept your attachment to them just because we are all human *even though they are beyond your control* is the most reasonable approach. I think our inability to work together on everything from climate issues to financial problems stems from people denying the “attachment” to others instead of embracing it.
edit: OMG that video is funny. (Glad I didn't watch it yesterday, my kids got me King Cobra sushi for my mother's day dinner last night.)

jzt83 · Post by **jzt83** » Sun May 13, 2012 3:56 pm

Sorry, I was thinking about cynicism and possibly buddhism. I often get cynicism and stoicism confused with each other.

Post by **jacob** » Sun May 13, 2012 4:15 pm

@jennypenny - Goodwill towards humanity and love of fellow human beings is not excluded from stoicism. I guess attachment is the wrong word ... maybe dependency ... or even better expecting something that's beyond control? E.g. feel free to love X but don't make your own happiness dependent on whether X responds to that love. Hence, one show love as a self-less act of giving ... not in a conditional and reciprocal sense. Loving is then something one does for someone else's sake (and ultimately for one's own sake <- as in altruism is really egoism with altruism being a value) not something one does in order for someone else to respond in a particular manner.

Hoplite · Post by **Hoplite** » Sun May 13, 2012 5:31 pm

Attachment is probably the wrong word. Pages of sophistry designed to convince someone that their missing finger wasn't really attached in the first place sounds like the unabridged version of "Tis but a scratch."

Post by **jacob** » Sun May 13, 2012 5:44 pm

In short then: "Don't be upset over things that you can't change."
Now to find out what those things are ...

jennypenny · Post by **jennypenny** » Sun May 13, 2012 6:00 pm

"Don't be upset over things that you can't change."

Hmmm, that sounds like the serenity prayer. In New Math's style, I guess...

Christianity - God = Stoicism
P.S. I'm still going to try and change things

Dragline · Post by **Dragline** » Sun May 13, 2012 6:08 pm

The first part of it re "control" always reminds me of Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer. Short version: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."
The wisdom is the tricky part. While you might be able to completely define what you control and don't at a particular point in time in a kind of static model, life is not like that -- its more dynamic and stochastic, leading to the necessity of making adjustments as we go.
As for that advice, Emerson also reminds us:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."
Of course, Pythagoras was reputed to be the leader of a murderous cult. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlBA9_3zj9w
Now off to my twelve-step program . . .
fyi, there is s "Kindle-friendly formatted" version of Enchridion here for a buck: http://www.amazon.com/Enchiridion-Conte ... 184&sr=8-4

Hoplite · Post by **Hoplite** » Sun May 13, 2012 6:12 pm

The things that can't be changed usually find me, not the other way around. But how you react can be within your control; subordinating emotions rather than cauterizing them.

Post by **jacob** » Sun May 13, 2012 6:20 pm

@Dragline - I need to put that quote on my NomoPomo-truncheon.

KevinW · Post by **KevinW** » Sun May 13, 2012 9:29 pm

I don't think stoicism says you shouldn't try to change anything. Instead it says, go ahead and try, but don't expect anything will necessarily happen beyond your own attempts.
E.g. you can control whether you vote and how you do, but you can't control the outcome of an election or what the winner does once they're elected.

C40 · Post by **C40** » Mon May 14, 2012 12:20 am

Looking forward to reading this.
When I'm driving and looking for something on the radio, I find myself stopping to listen to the Christian channels - when they aren't going on and on about God, they give some very good advice that could be straight from one of the Stoic philosophers.

ExpatERE · Post by **ExpatERE** » Tue May 15, 2012 12:03 pm

I've really enjoyed this thread guys, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Catanduva · Post by **Catanduva** » Tue May 15, 2012 2:13 pm

I really like these subjects too. Stoicism and Cynicism are the two schools of philosophy that i like more.

J_ · Post by J_ » Sun May 20, 2012 6:27 pm

For a followup of the Stoics: I recommend Spinoza's Ethics. It builds on Plato, Aristotle and the ancient (and modern) Stoics. The best introduction I found (and just read) is: Spinoza's Ethics an Introduction by Steven Nadler published in 2006 (paperback at amazon).
To me Spinoza was a kind of Jacob, young bright and very to the point. Refused once a lifelong legacy of a stipendium, because it was too much for his needs (later he accepted a smaller amount according to his needs).

Just like Jacob his message was against the popular way of life, not only with regard to consuming, but also with regard to become free of superstition, religion and too much government.

But one of the most enlightenment aspects is his analyse of the trappings of our emotions and to free yourself from them by gathering knowledge.
He dared not to publish his book during his lifetime, a colleague of him, who wrote about same topic was put in jail. All Spinoza's books were almost immediately forbidden by the governments and the roman church.
Glad that we in the free world can read everything we want. And write to each other in posts like these.