Epictetus, the Stoic philosopher, is one of the most influential ancient thinkers. Epictetus believed the purpose of moral philosophy was to help show people the way to lead better lives. He believed that some things in this world are un-controllable and some things are controllable; some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Epictetus believed our opinions, impulses, desires, aversions, or whatever is our own doing is up to us; however, our bodies, our possessions, our reputations, or whatever is not our own doing, is not up to us. He also believed that we should not try and control the world, but accept it and make the best out of every situation. Epictetus’ aim was to live well, to secure happiness and to offer different solutions as to how life was to be lived. I will attempt to summarize some of Epictetus’ disciplines in a way that will give a simple view on how one should live their life; and also try to interpret his views into modern day living so that through their application ones life will become simplified and therefore enhanced.
In the Handbook by Epictetus, he presents his views on the way we should live our lives and stresses the many faults of men. In his view we all seem to make our personal lives much more difficult than necessary. He presents thoughts on a wide range of subjects, including ethics, logic, theology and physiology. One of his disciplines concerns our impulses to act or not to act in regard to our relations with family. He also discusses our motivations and answers the question as to what we should do as an individual to successfully fulfill the role of a sociable human being. Epictetus’ ethical view on appropriate actions regarding family are specifically discussed in ...
... middle of paper ...
...ry were true, and if we were to come to a fork in the road, what use would it be to choose the right or the left path if our decision was determined and we had no power of decision. I find these teachings of Epictetus disturbing and hard to believe in. With his point of view, people can never be held responsible for their actions because they are considered appropriate.
I believe that life is given to us as a gift and what we do with it is for the most part in our control. Even though I don’t always agree with the teaching of Epictetus, I understand that he is trying to teach us through his views and disciplines, how important it is to understand and think about the consequences of our actions before we proceed forward and act. We should always criticize our own thoughts in order to become happy and successful; our thoughts are something we do have control over.
This man had spent the better part of a year reading and rereading the Handbook of Epictetus, throughout that book the message is similar to one of the topics Sherman touches on, “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us,”(pg 2). Basically the circumstances maybe beyond our control, but ultimately what affects us is our judgements and the way we react. She makes a great point that we underutilize our ability to control ourselves when we let external things drive our happiness and that is the difference in so many people's lives, they wager their happiness and satisfaction on factors that should not ultimately
At first glance, I was immediatly inclined to argue in epictetus' favor, because it pains
I believe that due to morals other religions and the natural act of someone dying proves to be enough not to agree with Epictetus’. Based on other people’s religious beliefs and their moral values I do not think Epictetus’ views on death and grieving apply to everyone. Someone who believes in a certain religion is going to follow what that religion calls for when it comes to dealing with death. On the other hand, some may also have set values that call for accepting the death as is and follow the grieving process. I feel that the grieving process is not someone’s choice. I think that grieving is an instinct. The first thing that came to my mind when I lost a loved one was, no way this is real and why me. I believe that everyone grieves to a certain extent because of the instinct that his or her mind
Intellectuals are philosophers, are writers, are artists. They are all those people who work with their minds by questioning the events that touch them and that are touched by them. To recall a Plato's famous allegory, we can say that intellectuals are those who are able to look beyond the shadows and never take concepts for granted. However, some questions as what their role is and, more specifically, whether they should be engaged in politics are still unanswerable. Over the years answers and behaviors towards the engaged culture have been various and we can assume that the intellectuals who cannot separate the two live their lives actively for they want to be part of the events that surround them and let awareness win over apathy. On the contrary, we can assume that those who let apathy win are the intellectuals that look at politics and culture as two different and specific concepts and live a solitary life far from society. However, this is not an appropriate judgment because it would be difficult to consider to which extent solitude can be regarded as cowardliness and to which extent action can be regarded as consciousness.
Now that's done. Epicurius's argument is essentially that there is no point at which we are harmed by death, and therefore death is not bad. Specifically, he formulates his argument in the following way:
Responsibility is key to living a life that is one's own. In the play, "Oedipus Rex," by Sophocles, The tragic protagonist, Oedipus, was afflicted with a harsh sense of guilt once he learned that he has killed his father and married his mother. The play presents this appalling outcome through a prophecy that leads the audience to assume that Oedipus, like the rest of humanity, has little control over their destinies. People of the time when the play was first written, as well as many Christians today believe that God has a plan for everyone, but they are still responsible for the choices they make. In a life of uncertainty, people must try not to be afraid of what may lie ahead and press forward. Many tough decisions must be made that will develop aspects of their characters along these paths, which were separately designed for specific people. In this sense, life can be thought of as a maze. In Oedipus's case, he was given a hint about one of the paths within his maze.
Epicurus was admittedly a Hedonist, and this philosophy has had a huge influence on his work. Especially so on his death argument. Hedonism is, “the doctrine that pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself for a person, pain the only thing that is bad in itself for a person.”
Epicureanism, founded by Epicurus, and Stoicism, founded by Zeno of Citium, gave the Greeks an attempt to have meaning in their lives. Although the two philosophies competed with each other, they had similarities along with their differences. As Hicks briefly describes, “Both schools sought by devious paths one and the same goal” (v). Epicureanism and Stoicism conceived the universe in different ways, which ultimately led to more differences than similarities between the two philosophies. However, the two schools coincided in their views of life’s purpose – achieving happiness throughout life.
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
Stoicism is a philosophical school of thought that asserts virtue as the one true good that can produce eudemonia, the Stoic term for happiness or living well. This good is accessible to all, by means of using impressions properly and behaving in accordance with god and nature. Virtue is a good achieved through both internal and external sources. The Stoics associated virtue with the venerated status of sage, which can be achieved only when the soul is unwaveringly consistent with true human nature. But what is human nature? Unlike many philosophical theories that focus on the role of emotions in human nature, the Stoics thought human nature to be closely tied to rationality. The Stoics believed that it was human nature to seek out good and happiness, and that all wrong choices are made in the pursuit or avoidance of a wrongfully perceived value. These errors in rationale and perception contribute to the formation of false beliefs, which causes non-virtuous or vicious behavior. Determinism, or the acceptance of living in accord with events outside of our control is a key feature of Stoic theory. This strict determinism allows Stoics to distance themselves from encumbering emotional reactions that are often associated with negative or positive outcomes. A stoic would attempt to dissuade a non-sage from engaging in emotions because they lack the capacity of assenting strictly to kataleptic impressions because emotions negatively effect their beliefs. In order to behave in accordance with this logic it requires a rejection of common emotions. Ordinary emotions such as pleasure and fear are considered false impression, which contribute to a bad mental state. In order to avoid assenting to false impressions one must gain a rational und...
The current inquiry considers some of the chief notions of the Stoics, but more specifically it focuses upon one important question: what does it mean to follow nature for the Stoics? To answer this question, the testimonies of several of the Stoics are pooled and examined together in the end. Not only does this inquisition illustrate chief attributes of Stoicism, but those attributes are eventually evaluated in light of their coherence as well.
In the world there are two distinct types of things. There are things that exist external to us, such as one's reputation or a relationship. We do not have direct control over these things since they exist outside of us. Then there are internal things that we do have control over, like out desires, or things we dislike. The internal things can be controlled, while the external can be harder to control. Some philosophers even believe that the external things cannot be controlled, and attempting to control them will just bring unhappiness.
As a worldview, Stoicism is a philosophical approach to help people to cope with times of great stress and troubles. In order to give comfort to humanity, the Stoics agree with the Pantheistic view that God and nature are not separate. Instead, the two forces are one. By believing that God is nature, humans have a sense of security because nature, like God, is recognized as rational and perfect. The perfection of nature is explained through the Divine, or natural, Law. This law gives everything in nature a predetermined plan that defines the future based on past evens (cause and effect). Because the goal for everything in nature is to fulfill its plan, the reason for all that happens in nature is because it is a part of the plan. It is apparent that, because this law is of God, it must be good. The Divine Law is also universal. Everything on the planet has a plan that has already been determined. There are no exceptions or limitations to the natural law. The world in the Stoics’ eyes is flawless, equal, and rational.
To live with shame or die in honor. Herodotus proposes this ultimatum through the stories of Gyges and Adrastus. We live under the ideal of integrity, but what keeps a man in the bound of ethics? To some, it's the promise of a heavenly afterlife, to others it’s a fear of breaking societal norms. The conundrum presents itself in everyday modern life. A soldier can flee under fire, but what keeps him there, what keeps his boots dug in the ground while bullets fly past him? The soldier risks his life because dignity plays a critical component to a good life. Herodotus exposes such thinking through two characters in book 1 of his histories, Gyges and Adrastus.
What are the three principles that Epicurus and Lucretius are arguing for in these passages?