I love Epictetus — he reminds me of many tough yet tender people in my life. One thing I struggle with is presenting his thought to others unfamiliar with Stoicism, especially his more stark statements (like treating the loss of a child or spouse like the loss of a cup) — if you pair that reading with the part of the discourses where Epictetus enjoins a father to stay by his ailing daughter’s bedside, it becomes clear that Epictetus is not remotely a sociopath, but simply very blunt about how easily even the people we love can depart from us. But it’s tough to convey that in a pithy way
Christopher, yes, that's a tough one. I usually explain it in terms of Stoic providence, analogous to the notion that a Christian *should* be happy when his loved ones ascend to Heaven. Though I've observed that Christians rarely behave that way.
Can someone believe that something “bad” happened in their life but still maintain they can be virtuous and achieve Stoic eudaemonia (a life worth living)?
Example reactions
1: This work situation is awful (ordinary person)
2: This work situation does not impact my virtue so it’s not bad (Stoic)
3: This work situation does not impact my virtue so it’s not bad but I would prefer it wasn’t this way so it’s rational to feel sad about it.
I have always been puzzled by why people get out of sorts when Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius remind us that those we love could be gone by tomorrow.
As if the very thought of their demise has a hand in the outcome and we are ushering in the actuality as a consequence of this reminder of the impermanence of life.
Just as when we reflect on our own death regularly is not a morbid off balance way of thinking.
Nor is it a dwelling upon an unhappy event that will eventually occur — and that it appears as a negative unhealthy approach to life.
Because the main purpose is to remind us to live immediately and eudaimonically — since time is our most precious asset.
In other words they are sharing to us a different perspective that empowers us and gives us the impetus to love and care by devoting our energy to this moment in front of us or this person in front of us that we have a deep bond with in order to accentuate and appreciate that very love itself.
We are sort of prudish to fall for the admonition about death lurking in the background as a detrimental way of thinking.
Because it is actually a calling to us to go forth with the exuberance of life by reminding us that all of it will disappear into the sands of time.
Yes! The only questions are whether in person or online, and when. Working on it. The next in person seminar will be in Paris in January, on Seneca’s and Plutarch’s treatment of anger. The next online one will be in February, a general intro to Stoicism based on the three big Romans.
Good read! Epictetus is my favorite Stoic. I find his (student’s) writings to be the most philosophically powerful, and I like his blunt demeanor (he’s the one I usually go to when thinking about what a Stoic would say about a given situation - I picture him as a “tough love” kinda guy!). Seneca is very enjoyable too, but more, perhaps, informal? Epictetus’ actual character also strikes me as more Socratic/sage-like than Seneca.
I always found it funny that I enjoyed reading Discourses more than Marcus’ Meditations - I feel like that would be a very hot take to people. 😅
Epictetus......An amazing human being.....thanks for sharing......reminds me of the wisdom of Ajahn Chah.....straight to the heart......
I love Epictetus — he reminds me of many tough yet tender people in my life. One thing I struggle with is presenting his thought to others unfamiliar with Stoicism, especially his more stark statements (like treating the loss of a child or spouse like the loss of a cup) — if you pair that reading with the part of the discourses where Epictetus enjoins a father to stay by his ailing daughter’s bedside, it becomes clear that Epictetus is not remotely a sociopath, but simply very blunt about how easily even the people we love can depart from us. But it’s tough to convey that in a pithy way
Christopher, yes, that's a tough one. I usually explain it in terms of Stoic providence, analogous to the notion that a Christian *should* be happy when his loved ones ascend to Heaven. Though I've observed that Christians rarely behave that way.
Can someone believe that something “bad” happened in their life but still maintain they can be virtuous and achieve Stoic eudaemonia (a life worth living)?
Example reactions
1: This work situation is awful (ordinary person)
2: This work situation does not impact my virtue so it’s not bad (Stoic)
3: This work situation does not impact my virtue so it’s not bad but I would prefer it wasn’t this way so it’s rational to feel sad about it.
I think three is still reasonably Stoic. Certainly Seneca would describe it that way.
I have always been puzzled by why people get out of sorts when Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius remind us that those we love could be gone by tomorrow.
As if the very thought of their demise has a hand in the outcome and we are ushering in the actuality as a consequence of this reminder of the impermanence of life.
Just as when we reflect on our own death regularly is not a morbid off balance way of thinking.
Nor is it a dwelling upon an unhappy event that will eventually occur — and that it appears as a negative unhealthy approach to life.
Because the main purpose is to remind us to live immediately and eudaimonically — since time is our most precious asset.
In other words they are sharing to us a different perspective that empowers us and gives us the impetus to love and care by devoting our energy to this moment in front of us or this person in front of us that we have a deep bond with in order to accentuate and appreciate that very love itself.
We are sort of prudish to fall for the admonition about death lurking in the background as a detrimental way of thinking.
Because it is actually a calling to us to go forth with the exuberance of life by reminding us that all of it will disappear into the sands of time.
Precisely, it really is puzzling.
Hi Massimo! Are you still thinking about offering a course on the Discourses?
Yes! The only questions are whether in person or online, and when. Working on it. The next in person seminar will be in Paris in January, on Seneca’s and Plutarch’s treatment of anger. The next online one will be in February, a general intro to Stoicism based on the three big Romans.
Thanks for the update!
Good read! Epictetus is my favorite Stoic. I find his (student’s) writings to be the most philosophically powerful, and I like his blunt demeanor (he’s the one I usually go to when thinking about what a Stoic would say about a given situation - I picture him as a “tough love” kinda guy!). Seneca is very enjoyable too, but more, perhaps, informal? Epictetus’ actual character also strikes me as more Socratic/sage-like than Seneca.
I always found it funny that I enjoyed reading Discourses more than Marcus’ Meditations - I feel like that would be a very hot take to people. 😅
I’m in complete agreement!
That’s an unusual analogy!
Epictetus’ words reverberated through me like a cherry bomb in a cymbal factory.
So funny but certainly conveys the point. I tried to visualize a cherry bom in a cymbal factory and it seems that Monty Python is playing in my head.