Epictetus- why doesn't this work?

[Qoeleth]

The Stoics said that nothing in itself is good or bad, but only our opinion of it makes it so. This is well exemplified in the following quote from the Golden Sayings of Epictetus:

“His son is dead.”
What has happened?
“His son is dead.”
Nothing more?
“Nothing.”

“His ship is lost.”
“He has been haled to prision.”
What has happened?
“He has been haled to prision.”

But that any of these things are misfortunes to him, is an addition which every one makes of his own.

Here is another one from Epictetus’ Handbook:
Remember that what is insulting is not the person who abuses or hits you, but the judgment that these things are insulting. So when someone irritates you, realize that it is your own opinion that has irritated you.

This appears to be absolutely true. There is something of the “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” in this, and the “turn the other cheek” as well.

Yet on another level, it appears foolish. For example, a man gets shot. This, according to a Stoic, in itself is indifferent. And it is his choice whether he considers getting a shot a good or a bad thing. So, the man may choose to regard it as indifferent, and his tranquility is not impaired.

This seems implausible. But why? Do we not control our own opinions?

 

[GEddie]

An event can be objectively good or bad, irrespectively of anybody’s beliefs.

Take your example of getting shot. Your human body’s wholeness is in itself a good thing. Being shot destroys that wholeness, therefore it is objectively bad.

The stoic philosophy seems to come from a position that there is no good apart from one’s beliefs. This would be a priori an atheistic position.

Not to mention that in accordance with it, if you were unconscious, any Kind of harm could be done to you and that would not be wrong because you would have no beliefs about it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Scoobyshme]

Keep in mind that the Greeks also had the Epicureans, who were the opposite of the Stoics. The Epicureans were all about emotion. If you had an emotion, then, according to them, you had to give into it and follow it, regardless.

 

[aquohn]

An event can be objectively good or bad, irrespectively of anybody’s beliefs.

Take your example of getting shot. Your human body’s wholeness is in itself a good thing. Being shot destroys that wholeness, therefore it is objectively bad.

The stoic philosophy seems to come from a position that there is no good apart from one’s beliefs. This would be a priori an atheistic position.

Not to mention that in accordance with it, if you were unconscious, any Kind of harm could be done to you and that would not be wrong because you would have no beliefs about it.

ICXC NIKA

I don’t think this applies to shooting Hitler.

The Stoics have it wrong. It’s not emotions which qualify the action. It’s intention.

If I shot a random person on the street for the heck of it, the action would be wrong, even if the dead person turned out to be Hitler.

If I saved 6 million Jews by killing Hitler as a baby, that would be morally permissible (and even laudable).

Think of it this way. For the first one, what I intended to do (and have done) is shoot a random person, with the secondary effect of killing Hitler (and thereby saving a bunch of Jews).

For the second, what I have done is saved the Holocaust victims, with the secondary effect of killing a baby.

In essence, this is Aquinas’ ‘double effect’ principle, which also applies to self-defense and, as I controversially believe, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nothing material is intrinsically good or evil. Even if Satan himself touches it, the object is not evil. Satan’s touch on it is.

 

[seagal]

This whole idea smacks of “blame the victim” mentality. Yes we can decide whether to let something affect us negatively or not but that doesn’t mitigate the badness. In other words, my reaction doesn’t excuse your behaviour.

There is something of the “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” in this, and the “turn the other cheek” as well.

There is a huge gulf between moral indifference and forgiveness. Turning the other cheek does not imply that you choose to ignore the bad that was done to you. It means that you choose to forgive the bad that was done.

 

[josesiem]

Stoicism takes a larger view of things. Humans are just part of the universe, not the center of it. Therefore a healthy human body is no more good than a healthy mosquito body. From the perspective of the Earth, human beings are a virus and a menace.

Obviously, this view is in contrast to the Christian view which places humans at the center of God’s creation.

See Byron Katie if you wish to see stoicism in action today. She’s a not a stoic per se but she’s very popular and her views match the stoics in many ways.

 

[josesiem]

The Stoics said that nothing in itself is good or bad, but only

Yet on another level, it appears foolish. For example, a man gets shot. This, according to a Stoic, in itself is indifferent. And it is his choice whether he considers getting a shot a good or a bad thing. So, the man may choose to regard it as indifferent, and his tranquility is not impaired.

This seems implausible. But why? Do we not control our own opinions?

I’d say we don’t control our own opinions. To test this out, see if you can change your opinion about something. You’ll find it impossible unless you **will **to see the other side and then you may or may not change your opinion. Can you have the opinion that Muhammad was a prophet of God?

Human beings suffer so much because we consider everything that occurs in the universe in relation to our own particular desires. Stoicism and Buddhism provide the insight that if you remove the desire element, the suffering ceases.

We try to change the universe, the world to fit our particular predilections. Everyone tries to change the world, remake it in their image. We basically spend every waking moment trying to make our lives fit our desires. When one sees the absurdity in this, one may understand that his suffering is due to his insane idea that the world will bend to his will.

Regarding the man getting shot – if it’s Hitler or Bin Laden, it’s celebrated. Clearly, getting shot in and of itself is not “bad” – but thinking makes it so.

 

[Irishgal49]

The Stoics said that nothing in itself is good or bad, but only our opinion of it makes it so. This is well exemplified in the following quote from the Golden Sayings of Epictetus:

“His son is dead.”
What has happened?
“His son is dead.”
Nothing more?
“Nothing.”

“His ship is lost.”
“He has been haled to prision.”
What has happened?
“He has been haled to prision.”

But that any of these things are misfortunes to him, is an addition which every one makes of his own.

Here is another one from Epictetus’ Handbook:
Remember that what is insulting is not the person who abuses or hits you, but the judgment that these things are insulting. So when someone irritates you, realize that it is your own opinion that has irritated you.

This appears to be absolutely true. There is something of the “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” in this, and the “turn the other cheek” as well.

Yet on another level, it appears foolish. For example, a man gets shot. This, according to a Stoic, in itself is indifferent. And it is his choice whether he considers getting a shot a good or a bad thing. So, the man may choose to regard it as indifferent, and his tranquility is not impaired.

This seems implausible. But why? Do we not control our own opinions?

This is the EXACT heart of Buddhist theology. It’s not “evil” in and of itself, it’s our attachment to it and our reaction that is evil. My son is Buddhist and this is the core of their teaching.

The problem is --this denies the reality of evil. In order to talk about theodicy (how can we say God is just in the face of evil we have three assertions)

God is all loving
Evil is real
God is all powerful

In order to assert all three at the same time clarification is required:

God is all loving can be seen several ways:

1. We cannot know the mind of God and therefore what we see as bad, might be for our growth in holiness so God allows suffering so we can grow closer to Him.
2. God doesn’t really care–He wound us up and let us go (Deists)
3. There is not God (Atheists)
4. God is evil and not to be trusted (Protest theology)

Evil is real can be seen in many ways as well:

1. There is no evil --it is our “reaction/attachment” to things/people that makes us perceive it as evil (Buddhism).
2. What we see as evil might be good for our spiritual growth so therefore it’s not evil in the larger picture.
3. We need evil to appreciate the good.
4. Freewill is the cause of evil and God works within it to redeem it and make good come out of it.

God is all powerful can be understood (with our limited reason) many ways also:

1. God has given us free will so He has willingly abdicated some of his power so that we can love Him freely and this enables evil to exist but He is still all-powerful and has it all under control.
2. God is not really all powerful, we all contain a portion of God and when we die that “sliver of God” goes back into God so He is changed by our suffering and this adds to and completes what He does and can do in the face of future suffering (Process theology and some existential theolgians also hold to this)
3. We cannot understand fully how God works and therefore we have to just trust that He has it all under control.

So I guess it’s all in how you are understanding God–and evil. We cannot possibly think as God thinks but there are many ways people have tackled the questions about these topics.

 

[Andromedus]

The Stoics said that nothing in itself is good or bad, but only our opinion of it makes it so.

No, the Stoics meant that there is only one thing which is good and that is virtue and the only thing which is bad/evil is the opposite of virtue. Death, wealth, sickness, friends (etc) are adiaphora, indifferent, and can be both good or bad depending on the circumstances. Virtue is also, according to the Stoics, the only true happiness. However, some Stoics actually thought that some things in the category of adiaphora could be regarded as relative good, Virtue is the absolute good but there is also some less important good things, like having children etc. But Virtue is the absolute goodness and the only thing required of a human.

Yet on another level, it appears foolish. For example, a man gets shot. This, according to a Stoic, in itself is indifferent. And it is his choice whether he considers getting a shot a good or a bad thing. So, the man may choose to regard it as indifferent, and his tranquility is not impaired.

Well, the indifferent part is that he got shot and died but he, the killer, was undoubtedly not virtuous and therefore it was wrong, or I suppose it also depends on why he was shot. The Stoic’s way to a peace of mind and true freedom was through apathy towards the things we cannot change, death is such a thing, so in a way the Stoics view on death was ‘‘everyone will die sooner or later, why make a fuss about it?’’ It could also be said that for them it was more important how you died rather than the fact that you will die.

Keep in mind that the Greeks also had the Epicureans, who were the opposite of the Stoics. The Epicureans were all about emotion. If you had an emotion, then, according to them, you had to give into it and follow it, regardless.

That depends, pleasure was the good thing in the world according to them but they thought that you should abstain from a pleasure if it will cause you pain and discomfort in the end. As an example, if you drink to much wine it might feel nice for some time but when the morning comes you will regret it so don’t drink so much.

 

[GEddie]

Stoicism takes a larger view of things. Humans are just part of the universe, not the center of it. Therefore a healthy human body is no more good than a healthy mosquito body. From the perspective of the Earth, human beings are a virus and a menace.

Obviously, this view is in contrast to the Christian view which places humans at the center of God’s creation.

See Byron Katie if you wish to see stoicism in action today. She’s a not a stoic per se but she’s very popular and her views match the stoics in many ways.

I doubt the “viewpoint of the Earth” had any part in stoicism; this is the fruit of modern nuts who will drag us back into the jungles if not refuted.

“The Earth” is quadrillions of times more powerful than we; but it has no mind. It does not know we are here and will not care when we are gone.

In the area of Chernobyl, clear of human life since 1986, wildlife has happily returned. We couldn’t “menace” the Earth if we wanted to.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Qoeleth]

An event can be objectively good or bad, irrespectively of anybody’s beliefs.

Take your example of getting shot. Your human body’s wholeness is in itself a good thing. Being shot destroys that wholeness, therefore it is objectively bad.

The stoic philosophy seems to come from a position that there is no good apart from one’s beliefs. This would be a priori an atheistic position.

Not to mention that in accordance with it, if you were unconscious, any Kind of harm could be done to you and that would not be wrong because you would have no beliefs about it.

ICXC NIKA

Epictetus is certainly not athiestic. The beginning of his Golden Sayings echoes the beginning of Augustine’s Confessions:
Are these the only works of Providence within us? What words suffice to praise or set them forth? Had we but understanding, should we ever cease hymning and blessing the Divine Power, both openly and in secret, and telling of His gracious gifts? Whether digging or ploughing or eating, should we not sing the hymn to God:—

Great is God, for that He hath given us such instruments to till the ground withal: Great is God, for that He hath given us hands and the power of swallowing and digesting; of unconsciously growing and breathing while we sleep!

Thus should we ever have sung; yea and this, the grandest and divinest hymn of all:—

Great is God, for that He hath given us a mind to apprehend these things, and duly to use them!

What then! seeing that most of you are blinded, should there not be some one to fill this place, and sing the hymn to God on behalf of all men? What else can I that am old and lame do but sing to God? Were I a nightingale, I should do after the manner of a nightingale. Were I a swan, I should do after the manner of a swan. But now, since I am a reasonable being, I must sing to God: that is my work: I do it, nor will I desert this my post, as long as it is granted me to hold it; and upon you too I call to join in this self-same hymn.

Now- are you sure the body being destroyed is ‘objectively’ bad? The order of God would seem to be that bodies are born, then grow, then perish and are destroyed, then return to elements. Is that ‘objectively’ bad?

 

[Qoeleth]

Human beings suffer so much because we consider everything that occurs in the universe in relation to our own particular desires. Stoicism and Buddhism provide the insight that if you remove the desire element, the suffering ceases.

Yes, that is clearly true. But the question is- Is it possible to remove the desires?
To give an example:
If I have no desire to have approval of others, I will not be hurt if others insult or reject me. True. But is it possible to alter oneself to have no desire to have the approval of others?