While I’m no expert on stoicism, I’ve found that most people rely on little more than the dictionary definition of the word when it comes to their understanding of the philosophy. But stoicism is much more than, for example, the ability to “endure pain or hardship without showing feelings or complaining.” As with any philosophy, there were several well known stoic philosophers – perhaps the most well known being Marcus Aurelius – but one of my favorites has always been Epictetus. Epictetus was born into slavery and, moreover, was either born with a lame leg or had been crippled by his master. In either case, when he speaks about performing one’s duty and accepting one’s fate, it tends to carry a little more weight than, say, if he had been born an Emperor or a King. His teachings were compiled by one his pupils, Arrian, into a text called the Discourses of Epictetus. Arrian also compiled a sort of “public digest” of this work, which came to be known as The Enchiridion, or more simply, “The Handbook.” The purpose of this digest was to give people practical philosophical advice about how to live their lives – advice, I think, which applies even today. It is this shorter work which I’d like to examine more fully for The Spearhead.
The very first lines quickly establish one of the most important themes of the work:
Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
He goes on to explain what he’s getting at, but it could be summarized as thus: it is natural for us to regard things as “within our control” which really, in fact, are not. An easy example would be your motor vehicle. We feel as though we are in control of the vehicle because we sit behind the steering wheel and pedals, through which we can exert our influence and “control” the acceleration or turning of the car. Really though, our control is limited – any number of mechanical glitches, roadside conditions, and so on, could cause us very quickly to “lose control” of that car and end up in an accident (perhaps a fatal one). Epictetus would call you foolish if you ever thought you were in control of the car to begin with – it is something we can influence, but not control. He would go so far as to say our bodies are the same way – we cannot “control” whether or not we contract a disease, or if we are born with a disorder, or anything else. We can exert influence over our bodies – for example, by dieting and exercising properly – but they are never fully in our control. By and large, the only things we truly control in this world are our thoughts and our actions.
His next point is a simple one, yet one rarely taken to heart:
Remember that following desire promises the attainment of that of which you are desirous; and aversion promises the avoiding that to which you are averse. However, he who fails to obtain the object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object of his aversion wretched.
Stated more simply, he is saying that failing to achieve what you desire (or failing to avoid that which you do not) leads to disappointment and even misery. He goes on to say that, then, it would make sense to limit those things which you would like to avoid to things it is in your control to avoid. If, however, you are looking to avoid death or sickness or poverty, you’re likely to be wretched, because ultimately such things are beyond your control to avoid.
It would take far too much time to continue to do a point by point selection, so I’m going to jump ahead and pick some of my more favorite quotations to work with. I had to skip over many juicy quotations before settling upon this one:
Remember that you must behave in life as at a dinner party. Is anything brought around to you? Put out your hand and take your share with moderation. Does it pass by you? Don’t stop it. Is it not yet come? Don’t stretch your desire towards it, but wait till it reaches you. Do this with regard to children, to a wife, to public posts, to riches, and you will eventually be a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods. And if you don’t even take the things which are set before you, but are able even to reject them, then you will not only be a partner at the feasts of the gods, but also of their empire. For, by doing this, Diogenes, Heraclitus and others like them, deservedly became, and were called, divine.
The advice here is easy enough to understand without my comment, but is helpful especially in curtailing desires you can’t fulfill. If, for example, you have it in your mind to find a good wife to marry and to start a family – and these are the only things you think you would want to do – you are, as Epictetus would predict, likely to be miserable. But if you were to behave as Epictetus describes above towards finding a wife and starting a family – basically, be patient until the opportunity presents itself – the situation would likely be less exasperating. (Though, I don’t know how many readers of The Spearhead are looking to get married anymore…)
The last quote, along with this next one, run very contrary to “contemporary wisdom:”
Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If it is his pleasure you should act a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your business, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is another’s.
I’m not sure what it’s like internationally, but here in America, we are generally raised with this idea that we can all be whatever it is we choose to be, and so long as we really put our hearts into it, we should be able to achieve our dreams. I think most reasonable people recognize this is hogwash, and yet the myth persists. Epictetus would call anyone who thought like that a fool. He’d subscribe to the school of thought which says we are all born with a certain set of traits, talents, abilities, and deficits, and that these are relatively unchanging. He uses the metaphor of a drama, but I’ve always liked the metaphor of a poker game – we all get dealt a hand, and a lot of life boils down to the luck of the draw (ever heard the term, genetic lottery?) – but the way you play your cards is up to you. Fate can be a cruel mistress but getting worked up about it isn’t going to make you any happier.
The next quote is practically tailor made for people who get upset with my website:
Remember, that not he who gives ill language or a blow insults, but the principle which represents these things as insulting. When, therefore, anyone provokes you, be assured that it is your own opinion which provokes you. Try, therefore, in the first place, not to be hurried away with the appearance. For if you once gain time and respite, you will more easily command yourself.
This quote certainly applies to the zealots in the politically correct camp, as well, who would like to see public discourse dominated by their sterilized approach to discussion. The problem with “offensive” speech is that the only way to determine whether or not it was offensive is to take a poll and see if anyone is offended. As for the people who are offended? Epictetus would tell them that the problem is within themselves. As I like to say – grow up, get a haircut and then a job, and then get back to me. Far too often, I find that people who are offended by what I have to say are people who have lived a cloistered lifestyle with little exposure to viewpoints outside their own.
For the final few quotations, I’m selecting some interesting ones on gender relations. The first of these is thus:
As far as possible, before marriage, keep yourself pure from familiarities with women, and, if you indulge them, let it be lawfully. But don’t therefore be troublesome and full of reproofs to those who use these liberties, nor frequently boast that you yourself don’t.
PUAs be damned! Or not quite, according to Epictetus – he doesn’t advocate their approach as one you should take, but he doesn’t think it should be condemned either. To be fair, he was living in the times of Marriage 1.0 (or, probably more accurately, Marriage 0.1). Unfortunately, this advice isn’t elaborated on much, but it was interesting nonetheless – it seems as though the stoics recognized marriage as a powerful building block of society, writing though he was during the period of Roman decline (as chosen by John Bagot Glubb).
Though Epictetus wasn’t a prophet, he accurately described a facet of the modern, Western woman:
Women from fourteen years old are flattered with the title of “mistresses” by the men. Therefore, perceiving that they are regarded only as qualified to give the men pleasure, they begin to adorn themselves, and in that to place ill their hopes. We should, therefore, fix our attention on making them sensible that they are valued for the appearance of decent, modest and discreet behavior.
It’s all about hypergamy with the modern women – the “alpha cock carousel” as it is called – which is symptomatic of not being raised to be valued for “the appearance of decent, modest, and discreet behavior.” I like particularly that Epictetus used “the appearance” of these behaviors, because (seems to me) he still wanted a woman who could perform in bed.
I’ll wrap this up by addressing a possible criticism of stoicism – many people feel as though stoicism is a very fatalist philosophy which encourages you to resign to your fate and do nothing to try to improve your station. I think this is a mischaracterization. The problem is that stoicism is first trying to disabuse you of your foolish notions of what is and is not in your control before it can teach you how to best go about exerting your control and influence. In that regard – and particularly in introductory pieces – stoicism will often tell you to avail yourself of all desires and so on. This is because it is a step one. If you want, think of it like Tyler Durden from Fight Club – “It’s only when you’ve lost everything, that you’re free to do anything.”
J. Durden aka Dr. Deezee is the Chief Architect of the Internet Hate Machine and first heard the word “stoic” when his seventh grade teacher described him as such.
