Scan barcode
A review by seanius
Discourses, Fragments, Handbook by Christopher Gill, Epictetus, Robin Hard
4.0
A substantial body of the teachings of Epictetus, mostly as recorded by his student Arrian. A challenging read in form, in content and in tone (Epictetus was an outspoken and very direct teacher - during the reading of this text, you will often be addressed with such honours as ‘wretch’, ‘slave’, 'fool' and ‘idiot’! The Greek 'Moron' also makes an appearance). The Fragments and Handbook are more digestible in size if not in content, although unfortunately they appear at the end of the book, after the lengthy and repetitive Discourses.
Epictetus' Stoic teachings seem more severe than the later Seneca, perhaps because Seneca was wealthy and powerful and thus compromised in his ideals - but perhaps also because Seneca was a practical Roman and not an idealistic Greek. Marcus Aurelius on other hand, could almost be seen as a posthumous student of Epictetus, humbly attempting to apply his doctrine of self restraint. Other writers influenced by Epictetus are too numerous to mention here.
At the risk of hubris, yet with the intention of improving my own understanding, I will try to summarise what I learned from this book. Epictetus’ main teaching seems to be to know what is within one’s power and what is not, and then think and act accordingly, whilst still respecting social norms and relationships. What we have in our control is small but powerful: whether to assent to impressions (“how important is this?”), what judgements or thoughts to host about those impressions, and then how to act according to those judgements. All else are externals, even the body. This seems an extreme position to take, and even Epictetus does not pretend to have fully succeeded in practicing this way of life, or even to know of such a person, except perhaps Socrates or Cato or such heroes of old, who lived and died by their word.
There appear to be some overlaps with Buddhist philosophy: avoiding attachment to externals or temporary phenomena such as social status or love or possessions or relationships. Also the recommendations to exercise restraint in passion and consumption, and care in thoughts and what one pays attention and importance to. However, Epictetus does not give much attention to meditation as a practice, nor the focus on the breath nor the practice of yoking the body (‘yoga’) - this is something missing from Stoicism - there is an over emphasis on Reason and the conscious mind, with a neglect of the wisdom of the body. This is a classic error, repeated later by Descartes, of separating mind from body, when any human that has experienced intense pain or ecstasy cannot deny they are an embodied mind.
Another weakness of the Stoic approach to life is its apparent dedication to poverty, mediocrity and a kind of lifeless, disengaged and sterile way of life (perhaps this too could be said of Buddhism?). When I read the great mad romantic Nietzsche, there is a kind of honest fire there burning: free expression of the individual, both good and bad, and a healthy redefinition of the good as being strong and successful in life - this kind of life-affirming energy seems to have a vitality and potency that Stoicism lacks. Of course, Nietzsche's teachings have their own weaknesses, the most apparent being the lack of friendship or compassion - the results of which can be seen in any history of the 20th Century (though perhaps this was his accurate Vision and not his Desire?).
A weakness of the book itself is that it does not give much space to critical analysis of the philosophy, whilst there is much commentary on the little we know of Epictetus and the origins of the texts. Classic criticisms of this severe Stoicism are several and perhaps more useful than such biographical speculations. These classic critiques include: its apparent heartlessness (for example when dealing with the grief of others), its impracticality (even Epictetus describes aims rather than achievable goals) and, perhaps unfairly given the aforementioned qualification, its apparent hypocrisy (although this criticism seems more easily leveled in Seneca’s direction, the wealthy slave and land owner, than that of Epictetus, the simple-living teacher in exile).
However, perhaps a full discussion of Epictetus’s teachings of Stoic philosophy are beyond the scope or intention of this book - and require further reading, thinking and discussion in itself.
Essential reading for anyone interested in Stoic philosophy.
Epictetus' Stoic teachings seem more severe than the later Seneca, perhaps because Seneca was wealthy and powerful and thus compromised in his ideals - but perhaps also because Seneca was a practical Roman and not an idealistic Greek. Marcus Aurelius on other hand, could almost be seen as a posthumous student of Epictetus, humbly attempting to apply his doctrine of self restraint. Other writers influenced by Epictetus are too numerous to mention here.
At the risk of hubris, yet with the intention of improving my own understanding, I will try to summarise what I learned from this book. Epictetus’ main teaching seems to be to know what is within one’s power and what is not, and then think and act accordingly, whilst still respecting social norms and relationships. What we have in our control is small but powerful: whether to assent to impressions (“how important is this?”), what judgements or thoughts to host about those impressions, and then how to act according to those judgements. All else are externals, even the body. This seems an extreme position to take, and even Epictetus does not pretend to have fully succeeded in practicing this way of life, or even to know of such a person, except perhaps Socrates or Cato or such heroes of old, who lived and died by their word.
There appear to be some overlaps with Buddhist philosophy: avoiding attachment to externals or temporary phenomena such as social status or love or possessions or relationships. Also the recommendations to exercise restraint in passion and consumption, and care in thoughts and what one pays attention and importance to. However, Epictetus does not give much attention to meditation as a practice, nor the focus on the breath nor the practice of yoking the body (‘yoga’) - this is something missing from Stoicism - there is an over emphasis on Reason and the conscious mind, with a neglect of the wisdom of the body. This is a classic error, repeated later by Descartes, of separating mind from body, when any human that has experienced intense pain or ecstasy cannot deny they are an embodied mind.
Another weakness of the Stoic approach to life is its apparent dedication to poverty, mediocrity and a kind of lifeless, disengaged and sterile way of life (perhaps this too could be said of Buddhism?). When I read the great mad romantic Nietzsche, there is a kind of honest fire there burning: free expression of the individual, both good and bad, and a healthy redefinition of the good as being strong and successful in life - this kind of life-affirming energy seems to have a vitality and potency that Stoicism lacks. Of course, Nietzsche's teachings have their own weaknesses, the most apparent being the lack of friendship or compassion - the results of which can be seen in any history of the 20th Century (though perhaps this was his accurate Vision and not his Desire?).
A weakness of the book itself is that it does not give much space to critical analysis of the philosophy, whilst there is much commentary on the little we know of Epictetus and the origins of the texts. Classic criticisms of this severe Stoicism are several and perhaps more useful than such biographical speculations. These classic critiques include: its apparent heartlessness (for example when dealing with the grief of others), its impracticality (even Epictetus describes aims rather than achievable goals) and, perhaps unfairly given the aforementioned qualification, its apparent hypocrisy (although this criticism seems more easily leveled in Seneca’s direction, the wealthy slave and land owner, than that of Epictetus, the simple-living teacher in exile).
However, perhaps a full discussion of Epictetus’s teachings of Stoic philosophy are beyond the scope or intention of this book - and require further reading, thinking and discussion in itself.
Essential reading for anyone interested in Stoic philosophy.