Introductiion
Epictetus (c. AD 50 – 135) was a Greek-speaking Stoic philosopher. He
was born a slave at Hierapolis, Phrygia (present day Pamukkale, Turkey) and
lived in Rome until his banishment, when he went to Nicopolis in northwestern
Greece for the rest of his life. His teachings were written down and published
by his pupil Arrian in his Discourses and Enchiridion.
………………………..
Concerning each of those things that are alluring or have any usefulness
or you are fond of, remember to say, what type it is, even beginning from the
smallest things: If you are fond of a pot, that, “I am fond of a pot.” For if it breaks you will not suffer. If you kiss your very own little child or
wife, that you are kissing a human: because if they die, you will not suffer.
Epictetus, Enchiridion I.3
ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστου τῶν ψυχαγωγούντων ἢ χρείαν παρεχόντων ἢ στεργομένων μέμνησο ἐπιλέγειν, ὁποῖόν ἐστιν, ἀπὸ τῶν σμικροτάτων ἀρξάμενος: ἂν χύτραν στέργῃς, ὅτι ‘χύτραν στέργω.’ κατεαγείσης γὰρ αὐτῆς οὐ
ταραχθήσῃ: ἂν παιδίον σαυτοῦ καταφιλῇς ἢ
γυναῖκα, ὅτι ἄνθρωπον καταφιλεῖς: ἀποθανόντος γὰρ
οὐ ταραχθήσῃ.
Epictetus has thus far lead us to believe that things either are or are
not in our control, and that the former only properly belong to the domain of
our concerns. Chiefly, if not
exclusively among those “things” in our power, are our mental states: hupolepsis–
plan; horme– desire; oreksis– volition; and ekklisis– avoidance (the opposite
of choice).
The practical takeaway amounts to this: If I love a thing I am to tell
myself that I love a thing. But what
exactly does this mean? Epictetus has
just introduced three categories of “things” as they relate to us: the
alluring, the useful and those things we are fond of. A pot then, we are to remind ourself, fits
into one of these three categories.
Epictetus places it into the “fond of” category.* Note, not uncoincidentally, that it is we who
are to remind ourselves. If we told
other people or vice versa, about this self-reflective protocol, we would in
fact be transgressing Epictetus’ injunction to concern ourselves only with what
is in our power. If anything is not in
our power, it is certainly the thoughts of other men. For our own part however, conjuring up the
thought, or perhaps even audibly voicing the words, “I am fond of a pot” is not
necessarily supposed to sef-consciously evoke the brute absurdity of the
utterance. What I understand Epictetus
to be doing is that when we say, “I am fond of a cup” we are to mentally
categorize the object, the cup, into one of the three previous categories. Either it is alluring, useful or loved. It is the third, and after this recognition
we are to note that if either of the two elements out our control, ourself
(including our body) or the cup, is taken out of the equation, whether through
destruction, theft, or injury, then we are immediately dealing with a concern
not properly our own. We can and must
engage only with that in our control. A
destroyed pot, out of our control, is by definition something we should not
concern ourselves with. We should not
say of a non-existing pot, “I am fond of a pot” just as we could not say, “I am
fond of a pot” if we ourselves were to cease to be.
*(“Be fond of”, translated in three different places above, is here from
the verb stergo, a term not normally associated with erotic love nor love for a
friend, but often concerns the mutual love of parents and children.)
Concerning each of those things that are alluring or have any usefulness
or you are fond of, remember to say, what type it is, even beginning from the
smallest things: If you are fond of a pot, that, “I am fond of a pot.” For if it breaks you will not suffer. If you kiss your very own little child or
wife, that you are kissing a human: because if they die, you will not suffer.
Epictetus, Enchiridion I.3
ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστου τῶν ψυχαγωγούντων ἢ χρείαν παρεχόντων ἢ στεργομένων μέμνησο ἐπιλέγειν,
ὁποῖόν ἐστιν, ἀπὸ τῶν σμικροτάτων ἀρξάμενος: ἂν χύτραν στέργῃς, ὅτι ‘χύτραν
στέργω.’ κατεαγείσης γὰρ αὐτῆς οὐ ταραχθήσῃ: ἂν παιδίον σαυτοῦ καταφιλῇς ἢ γυναῖκα,
ὅτι ἄνθρωπον καταφιλεῖς: ἀποθανόντος γὰρ οὐ ταραχθήσῃ.
On my last post on Epictetus, I discussed the therapeutic protocol one
is to undertake when encountering an “object” in the world. It is unclear thus far if Epictetus intends
for this mental procedure to be a comprehensive categorization of everything in
the world which one could desire. But it
does, consistent with the all-inclusive calculus of a Stoic, include the
seemingly least important (pots) all the way up to the most important “objects”
(wives and children).
An interpreter could choose to focus on the subjective element of the
choice in Epictetus: It is I, this self, that is choosing to love this
pot. And we could, in accord with this
view, draw conclusions about foisting our choices promiscuously upon a new
object of choice, after the old one has been taken from us. I do not believe
this is Epictetus’ view.
Against our expectations of a philosopher who said, in the slanderous
paraphrase of the Bard, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking
makes it so”* Epictetus makes it quite clear that we are to focus on “what” our
object is (ὁποῖόν ἐστιν). So when it
comes to forefending the grief associated with the loss of a wife, we are to
remember that she IS a human, but we merely THINK she is our wife. We must disabuse ourselves of erroneous
dispositions about the actual world, not, as goes the Stoic caricature,
mentally grunt it away.
M.A.D Moore
No comments:
Post a Comment