Epictetus, a revolutionary stoic of his time often makes some strong claims about the idea of stoicism. Stoicism is fundamentally promoting a lifestyle that yields a depleted happiness where everything is bounded by just desires being fulfilled and not enjoying the love and opportunities life brings to live it to the fullest and make life meaningful. Meaningful life is living with passion, happiness, love, and enjoying every moment you have because one only has one life. Being passionless is popular with stoics. The world is in large part affiliated with happiness regarding materialistic success, family love, meaning, why bring it down with selfish thought? I shall argue that I interpret the claims and lifestyle promoted by the stoic is …show more content…
Desires that are in our control include thoughts and reactions. Stoics easily accept evil thoughts and catastrophe in life. The average person would be traumatized by such a thing, but stoics just simply move on with their lives, as if nothing happened with no tied reaction to said event, which is taboo. Stoics make no emotional connection to happiness, death, family, and/or anything else other than the desires they have laid out for themselves, thus making them selfish. For example, Epictetus states on page 204 in section 3 of his book Enchiridion: “If you kiss your child or wife, say to yourself that you are kissing a human being, for then if death strikes it you will not be disturbed” (Epictetus). If a death of a child in a family were to happen, how could an individual be so selfish and emotionless about such a catastrophe? Stoics are selfish because they only care about themselves. They dislike anything that disrupts their way of living. Stoics have to remain peculiarly invulnerable from the outside world. This is where I disagree that stoics are living good lives and are good people. Morally to Epictetus and to stoics, if your loved one dies it is normal to just move on with no emotion because they are just a “human being”, which is completely
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
Everyone knows the story of Hercules, but not everyone knows that it follows the same pattern as most hero stories. Hercules is a story about the son of Zeus. When Hercules was a baby, Pain and Panic, Hades’ evil henchmen, gave him a potion to turn him mortal. It was prophesied that this baby would be the one to defeat Hades and they didn’t want that to come true. Since Hercules was now mortal, he could no longer live on Mount Olympus. A couple on earth took him in so he could grow up as a human. Hercules knew something was different about himself, so when he grew up, he set out to discover who he really was. Even though Hercules is an ancient Greek myth, it still follows Joseph Campbell’s modern basic outline of a hero’s journey.
This paper will offer a commentary on Herodotus’ Histories 2.129-135. Book Two of Histories concerns itself with Egypt; specifically chapters 99-182 detail rulers of Egypt both legendary and actual. Book Two is distinct from the other books in Histories as it is in this book that we predominantly experience Herodotus as an investigator. More precisely it is in Book Two that Herodotus treats first person experience not as direct evidence but as a method of assessing the accounts of others. Chapters 129-135 provide us with the tale of King Mycerinus as recounted by whom Herodotus refers to in 2.127 as simply ‘ÆGYPTIOI’. These Egyptians are referred to at various points in Book Two and at times appear to refer to what might be termed ‘Egyptians in general’ . However, we can make a reasonable assumption in this instance, given what has been stated before at 2.99 and what is stated later at 2.142, that the Egyptians that provide Herodotus with the tale of King Mycerinus are probably priests. It should not be assumed that priests are any more reliable than the lay Egyptian in Histories however; the Egyptian priesthood did not necessarily concern itself with historical accuracy. Indeed the inclusion of priests may simply be a Herodotean literary device designed to reinforce his reader’s credulity.
There have been many attempts at formulating a theory that accounts for our intuitions regarding the harm of death. Most theories attempt to account for this intuition by attributing the harm of death to a deprivation of some sort. That is a person is harmed when she dies because she is deprived of some good thing. This paper is a defense of Epicurius's argument regarding death as a response to deprivation theories.
Stoicism was the belief that emotions were only because of an error in judgment and those that were true intellectuals would be able to forgo all emotion. They felt that all things, including God and the soul were material, because they felt that in order to have true pairs, body and soul, God and the world, that both must be the same substance. (Stoicism [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]) While Epicureanism was the belief that pleasure is the absence of pain and confusion. To truly follow this line of belief, the believer must seek reas...
Responsibility for the Stoics is the very nature of the agents mind. Their mind is responsible for what it assents to- when the external causes are the same but the outcomes differ it is the result of the varying minds between agents. Responsible action is established by judgment between the two minds and the results of their assent (270, Bobzein). The agent that chooses to go to the doctor is considered responsible because they’ve chosen (on account of their character) to go to the doctor and remedy their illness. Alternatively, the other, by comparison, is deemed irresponsible for failing to meet the conditions to sustain their life. Moral responsibility functions in the same...
The mindsets of people in society are often heavily influenced by the conflicts and circumstances that are common within the time-span in which these people lived. In times of war, people may be more patriotic; in times of pestilence, people may be more pious. Whether cynical or optimistic, the understandings of these mindsets allow for a better insight into how theses people lived their lives and the philosophies that guided them. In the case of the philosophers Plato and Epictetus, their philosophies sprang up amidst collapsing cities and exile. Plato and Epictetus’ philosophies differed due to their individual experiences in that Plato believed that all is not what it seemed, while Epictetus believed that what was presented should only matter if they are within an individual’s concern.
I found “Herodotus on the Scythians” to be really cool!! At first, I did think of this reading to have a bit of a slow start, but once I got into the middle of the reading, that was when the Scythian customs began to show. At first, I thought that Herodotus was insulting their culture a bit. For example, when the two elder siblings “agreed together, and made the whole kingdom over to the youngest born” (pg. 130) after the fire extinguished from the gold. Usually, when it comes to kingdoms, one would think that handing it to the eldest sibling would be the right thing to do. Especially since the eldest sibling has the most experience. The fire extinguishing could have happened because of nature and the fire so happened to be cooperative with the youngest brother. What if the youngest
...nothing, fearing nothing, but satisfied with your present activity according to nature, and with heroic truth in every word and sound which you utter, you will live happy'; (Aurelius 514). This perfectly describes the Stoic lifestyle; do what you have to do without any expectations or fears of what is to come, and do it with integrity, then life is happiness.
Happiness is often viewed as a subjective state of mind in which one may say they are happy when they are on vacation with friends, spending time with their family, or having a cold beer on the weekend while basking in the sun. However, Aristotle and the Stoics define happiness much differently. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as “something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action” (NE 1097b20). In this paper, I will compare and contrast Aristotle and the Stoics’ view on human happiness. Aristotle argues that bodily and external goods are necessary to happiness, while Epictetus argues they are not.
In Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates examines the first definition of knowledge that theaetetus gives that knowledge is perception. Socrates gives us many example that both supports and refutes that knowledge is perception. The basic claim from Protagoras is that truth is based on the perception of every man. This means that things are to any person as they seem to that person. Socrates explains to us Protagoras’s view with the cold wind example. He say that through Protagoras theory, the wind is cold to the person that feels cold, and the wind is warm to the person that feels warm. Both “the wind is cold” and “the wind is war” is true according to Protagoras and it is based on the perception of the person. Then we learn from Socrates that if knowledge and truth is based on perception then everything that has perception has his own set of knowledge and truth. Also sense Protagoras not considering himself to be a god, and is on the same level of us then wouldn’t the truth and knowledge he definite in his doctrine only be his own set truth and knowledge for he only knows his own perspective.
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus is one such philosopher. In The Enchiridion he outlined how to live a good life as a stoic. Anything that is not one's own action is out of their control and should be ignored. He lists "Body, property, reputation, and command" as examples.1 He claims they are weak, and do not belong to us. Trying to control them will lead to unhappiness. On the other hand, he believes if you recognize that external things belonging to others, and internal things as yours you will be much better off.2 To Epictetus, proper way to live is to let things come to you, while being reserved. To illustrate this, he uses the example of a dinner party, where you should not reach across the table and take things. Instead you wait till they come to you.3
More specifically, Stoicism is a moral guide for humans. Though nature is absolute and perfect through God, the human thought is the one and only feature of life that is controlled and changed by people. Humans have the ability to reason and to know that everything in life is determined. For every event that they encounter, humans are able to acknowledge the fact that it is a part of their life plan. Therefore, a person can control whether he/she accepts that the action is unchangeable. Many humans think that they have a choice for all that they do and all that happens to them. But in Stoic reality, natures plan has one path with no possible differences. Thus, good is not defined by what a person does; but, by a per...
Many stoic philosophers have taken a different approach to virtue and happiness. Homer and Epicurus for instance argue that happiness through desires and virtue are co-dependent suggesting that men with no desires cannot live happy lives. This slightly counters Seneca’s belief that happiness is a result of virtue.
... and it does make sense. Stoics believed that by mastering their thoughts they could master their feelings. Aurelius gave the example of a man being hurt into an involuntary loss of control by injustice. Then on the other side a man’s desires move him to do wrong of his own volition. Both are emotions and as a stoic you control your feelings to achieve happiness, thus it contradicts itself.