I have to admit, when I first started reading the Encheiridion , I was more than a little disconcerted. As an American, his lessons are in direct conflict with everything I’ve been so carefully trained to believe. The American dream tells me I can carve out any role for myself I could ever desire as long as I work hard enough. Epictetus, on the other hand, says we’re mere actors in a play, our parts chosen by another (59). Again, American culture (even outside of stereotypical fitness circles) shouts out “no pain, no gain” (or at least no great rewards without great risk) as truth, while Epictetus maintains that placing the security of your peace of mind in something outside your control is nothing less than an invitation for misfortune. And death? In American society, there are few things that can beat it for depth of tragedy and intensity of fear. As much as possible, we simply hide death away in the back corner of consciousness. But for Epictetus? Death is just another necessary part of the order of the universe to be accepted. It has no more sway over our lives than we allow it. It’s truly a challenge to find a single point on which Epictitus and the majority of American society could agree.
After 53 of these Stoic proclamations, I definitely had the feeling my culture was under attack, but Epictetus’ calm confidence had such a mystique, I had to give his claims a second (and third and fourth) look. Despite all our dreams of success and honor and prestige (and all those claims that we can truly achieve them if we just work hard enough), so few ever make it to “the top” and achieve those goals. The majority are destined for disappointing lives filled with strife for things they will never obtain. Even those who do win this game of life don’t always find that contentment they imagine. There is always more to be desired, more passions to attempt to fulfill. If our current aspirations are not leading us towards contentment and are unlikely to ever do so, even if fulfilled, what’s the problem with simply accepting our role in the universe as it is instead of the way we, in our limited human view of things, think it should be? Why can’t we just sincerely try to control what we can (specifically, our reactions to all life throws at us) and ignore the rest? Certainly, this level of self-control would be tough to cultivate, but wouldn’t the peace of mind it could bring be an incredible reward?
So here’s your chance, your personal invitation to crush my newfound Stoic calm. Help me see all the inherent problems and weaknesses of Epictetus and his Stoics. And by the way, don’t worry about offending me. Anything you might say could only make me thankful that you don’t know enough of my other bad characteristics to mention them too (65). And now… Let the criticism begin!
Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteI'm also impressed by the Stoic calm you discussed. My main criticism is that Stoicism takes practical suggestions too far. Here are a few examples.
Epictetus tells the reader to "ask what capacity you have for dealing with it" in the face of strife (Good Life, page 57). This is great advice, but he goes too far by saying that one should remain patient even in the face of abuse. In such situations, I don't feel that retaining the Stoic calm is worth it.
Here is another example: "You can be invincible if you do not enter any contest in which victory is not up to you." This is an interesting idea to ponder, but Epictetus continues to say that "you yourself will want neither to be a general or a magistrate or a consul, but to be free" (page 59). Always following this advice could lead one to miss many good opportunities.
Lastly, I see the value in becoming emotionally detached about losing things (page 55). But Epictetus's claim that this principle should apply even to the death of family members seems repugnant.
Admittedly Stoic principles can lead to some pretty extreme conclusions, but I don't think you can compromise on those principles and still be a Stoic. If all things that happen are in line with the reason of nature as a Stoic would believe, how would you distinguish between times where it is appropriate to control your emotions and times when you allow them free reign? It seems like a precarious line to draw, especially if you are defining these boundaries during or after the tragedy when your emotions would surely affect your capacity for judgement.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in regards to repugnant, I don't see much support for such a label outside of our specific societal standards for grief and mourning. A Stoic could just as easily claim that extravagant mourning for a family member is repugnant.