Discourses and Selected Writings

Epictetus argues that since humans are “the rational animal” (8) they instinctively hate anything that is irrational or unreasonable. Even when someone dies by suicide, that course of action may appear reasonable or rational. This is because “standards of reasonableness and unreasonableness vary from one person to the next” (8). The purpose of education is to bring those standards “in alignment with nature” (8).

The process of aligning those standards “involves weighing the value of externals” (8) in relation to our own values and character. For example, a person might be willing to work as a bathroom attendant in order to pay for shelter and food, but another person might find such work too humiliating to consider. Epictetus gives examples of people who chose even death over indignity.

However, it is impossible to know what our character and values are until we are faced with a situation that puts them to the test. Epictetus suggests that not everyone is as capable of being as firm in their character as someone like the philosopher Socrates. Nonetheless, for Epictetus this does not mean that one should not strive toward moral “greatness” (11).

No one should “think mean or lowly thoughts about [them]selves” because all humans can claim God as their “father” (11). Every human is a combination of an animal body and divine reason. Many people, sadly, surrender to their bodies and become like animals.

Philosophy teaches that, in order to progress, people must desire only good things and embrace virtue. Further, it is virtue that leads to “happiness” and “a good flow of life” (12). Progress toward virtue means focusing on one’s character rather than externals, consistently following one’s principles, and trying to make one’s character align with “nature” (14). It is especially important to overcome externals, like the inevitability of old age and death, because they “lie outside our power” and “are not man’s proper concern” (14).

Like the body, the “soul” can experience “deadening” (15) in two ways. One is in the intellect, and the other is in honor. Those who have deadened both their honor and intellect have become skeptical of everything to the point they see no difference between dream and reality. Epictetus compares such people to those born with intellectual disabilities, except skeptics are respected in society. On the contrary, Epictetus describes skeptics as those whose “sense of honor and truthfulness has been excised” and their reason “brutalized” (16).

Epictetus argues for providence, the idea that the divine personally intervenes in the world. He sees proof for this in the fact that God created colors and visible objects at the same time God gave humans the ability to see. This is an example of the “universal accommodation of things to one another” (16-17). More evidence of this is that, unlike animals, humans can not only gain impressions of objects, but are able to “add and subtract impressions to form various kinds of mental combinations” (17).

Humanity is also different from animals in that humans are not just satisfied with eating and producing offspring. Humans also exist to “look upon and appreciate God’s works” (18). While humans do face difficulties, God has also given them the virtues needed to overcome such problems, like “fortitude, courage and patience” (18). Giving the example of the hero Hercules and his labors, Epictetus also suggests that humans face challenges in order to improve themselves and show their virtues and strengths. He goes on to condemn those who “sit crying and complaining” for lacking trust in God and not using the “resources” and “character” (19) granted by God to overcome their troubles.

The ability to make good arguments “has a bearing on morals” (21) because it shows how a virtuous person will act in any hypothetical situation. Further, reason and argument are how one determines true things from false things. This is true even in the case of hypothetical arguments. At the same time, there is a danger in failing to use reason to evaluate an argument, or in making an argument just to already support a preexisting position.

Still, logic and rhetoric, such as the use of syllogisms, can be misused accidentally or deliberately. It thus follows that having a talent at persuasion and logic does not mean that one will become a moral person. In fact, having such skills might simply make someone conceited. Instead, a moral philosopher must also have the “right kind of moral character” (23).

Since there is a “kinship” people should follow the example of Socrates and say, “I am a citizen of the world” (24) rather than from a specific country. In fact, knowing that we are related to God should give people even more freedom “from trouble and anxiety” (25) than even being related to the emperor of Rome. The fact that someone can fall into a desperate state does not reduce the significance of our relationship to God. Even if one is reduced to a state of poverty, one can become self-sufficient, the same way wild animals are self-sufficient.

One counterpoint to this line of thought is, if humans are part of the divine, then why shouldn’t people die by suicide to escape from life’s troubles and “go home” (26)? Epictetus answers by comparing life to an agreement and a time of “service” (26) with God. Instead, people should see their inevitable release from life as a reason not to be burdened with envy, desire, and fear. Socrates is an example of a philosopher who examined life this way. Further, even if we do not have material goods, one can develop the truly important things, such as “greatness of soul and nobility” (27), by themselves.

Epictetus complains that philosophers and young men are not as “active” (28) as ambitious old men seeking advancement in Rome, even though the work of philosophy is more important than the work of politics.

Epictetus recounts a debate he had with a father. The father said he was “miserable” (29) because he could not bear seeing his daughter ill, but he believed that such a reaction was natural to all fathers. Epictetus argues against this. Even if a majority of people or a culture believes something is normal does not mean that it is right. Also, if something does not seem rational, then it is not natural.

People believe that the gods do not exist or that they either do not intervene in earthly affairs, only manage the heavens, or only help humanity in general and not individual people. In contrast, Socrates believed that the divine was aware of everything that every individual human does.

Epictetus goes on to argue that, while freedom is “good and valuable” (35), freedom along with every art and science has to align with a standard. He argues, “Getting an education means learning to bring our will in line with the way things happen—which is to say, as the ruler of the universe arranged” (35). This suggests that the gods arranged the world in a way that demonstrates they are concerned with every individual human being.

Even if someone is born to a bad family or has a physical disability, this does not disprove the benevolence and concern of the gods. No matter their circumstances, everyone is gifted with independence and not being to blame for their body or for their family or material possessions. This is also why no one should take on responsibility for factors outside of their control by developing anxiety or envy.

Asked about how one can eat food “in a manner pleasing to the gods,” Epictetus answers that it must be done “in moderation, with restraint and self-control” (37). Moderation also includes how one treats enslaved persons who serve you badly, since enslaved persons are also “kinsmen, brothers by nature, fellow descendants of Zeus” (37).

Someone debates Epictetus on how one knows that every individual is “supervised” (38) by God. Epictetus answers that the fact that plants and celestial bodies follow regular patterns indicates that the divine in the heavens directs matters on earth. Then there is the fact that human minds are “capable of reflecting in detail on God and his government” (38). Epictetus argues that God has created a “guardian” or “private deity” (39) for each individual. Like people who swear an oath of loyalty to the emperor, individuals must swear a similar oath to their personal deity that they will not “find fault with God and his gifts” (39).

In response to someone’s question on how he can have a better relationship with his brother, Epictetus answers that philosophy cannot guarantee that people can change outside circumstances. The person can only try to have philosophy change his brother’s view of him. When the person next asks how they can “stay true” to their “nature” (40), Epictetus replies that, like a fig or a grape, a person’s mind changes slowly, not quickly.

Animals do not need housing, clothing, or shoes but humans do. Epictetus sees this as evidence that animals are made to serve humanity. More proof that the divine has created and guides humanity is that beards exist to distinguish men from women and nature provides milk, cheese, wool, and grass. In return, humanity exists to praise the divine.

Reason can only be examined by itself because “there is nothing superior to reason” (43). This is why the Stoics make logic the most important subject for study. Logic can even be used to judge “abstract matters” (43).

Epictetus then suggests that logic can be used to understand “the will of nature” (44), a topic that he admits he struggles to fully comprehend. Arguing against the philosopher Chrysippus and the idea that nature itself has a will, Epictetus argues that interpreters of omens are not reading into the will of nature, but the will of God as expressed through nature.

As for the will of the individual, it cannot be truly “coerced or compelled” (45). It is itself a part of the divine. Even if someone is threatened with death, they are not truly deprived of a free will.

Epictetus argues that one should not be angry even with thieves because they are motivated by their immediate desires and “are confused about what is good and what is bad” (45). Such people are already suffering from confusion over what is good and should not also be subjected to someone’s hate. If one does not prioritize material things, then that person would not become angry at those who wrong them.

Giving a personal example of when a lamp belonging to him was stolen, Epictetus reasons that if someone loses a belonging, then at least that belonging used to be in their possession. Being able to master one’s feelings over the loss of a belonging, or learn not to complain over a small inconvenience, will mean that a person will be able to handle more important crises, such as being imprisoned or threatened with death.

In a pretend debate with a tyrant, Epictetus points out to the tyrant that their power is limited because they cannot grant people metaphysical things like “uncurbed desire” (48). The tyrant claims to have respect, but Epictetus asserts that tyrants only receive that respect from people who want to use them for their own goals, and that such people do not actually respect the tyrant “as a human being” (48).

When the tyrant threatens to have Epictetus killed, he counters that makes the tyrant something like a “virus or infection” (48). To someone who has strong resolve, punishments from a tyrant mean nothing because the tyrant cannot truly take away someone’s free will. When someone does grovel to a tyrant or to a lackey, that person is only looking after their self-interest. This in and of itself is not wrong, because even the gods act in their self-interest and actions committed out of self-interest can benefit the wider community.

The purpose of reason is to “make the correct use of impressions” (51). Reason itself is “a collection of individual impressions” (51). Since reason is made from both impressions and their use, reason can understand itself.

Philosophy’s “first and most important duty” is “to test impressions” (51). By doing so, one can learn how to distinguish and avoid impressions that are false. However, Epictetus describes it as a long and difficult process. He also rejects the view of the philosopher Epicurus, who argued that reason and the sense of what is good only originates with the body and nothing divine.

In Epictetus’s view, if someone’s desires are aligned properly with nature, they should not care about the respect of others. A philosopher who wants fame and acclaim is hypocritical because they are trying to be accepted by the very people the philosopher believes are not acting in accordance with nature.

Each individual and each culture has different “preconceptions” (53). Some preconceptions, however, can be based on mistaken or false understandings. Education helps people learn how to “apply natural preconceptions to particular cases as nature prescribes” (54) while avoiding false preconceptions.

However, for Epictetus it is important not to hold preconceptions that view anything outside our power as truly good. For example, if someone views their health as good and loses their health through no fault of their own, then they will also lose their happiness. On the other hand, if one views ownership of land as a good, then they can justify stealing land from others. Another problem with identifying one’s good with external circumstances is that it leads one to hating God if those circumstances go wrong.

Epictetus argues against Epicurus’s point that the wise should not have children or be involved in politics. Epicurus argues that either activity would invite forces into someone’s life that are completely outside that person’s control and will cause unhappiness. Epictetus rejects this and is especially appalled by Epicurus’s suggestion that the wise should abandon any children they have. He argues that the example of how animals take care of their young proves that Epicurus’s advice is unnatural.

People suffer difficult circumstances in order to become better. Epictetus compares God to an athletic trainer and life difficulties to the training a wrestler goes through. Citing the philosopher Diogenes, Epictetus argues that one should not worry about reputation since it is the “empty noise of fools” (57), nor should people fear pain, death, or poverty. Using another allegory of a person as a spy, Epictetus argues that, like a spy who is caught and punished by the emperor, one’s character and free will still cannot be taken away.

Epictetus is asked for “specific instructions” (58) on how to live without fear of external factors and with the knowledge that every person is in control of their own values. He answers that people are born with such instructions already. These instructions include that people have absolute control over their own moral qualities.

However, it is easier to believe this philosophy in good times rather than bad times. Epictetus compares living through difficult circumstances to waiting for one’s turn in a game or to eat. If circumstances really are difficult, Epictetus teaches, “Always remember—the door is open” (60).

To focus on one’s body or material things is, Epictetus insists, to “make a slave of [one]self” (61). People also make their own difficulties. In response to the complaint that “[p]hilosophers speak in paradoxes” (61), Epictetus responds it is no different than a surgeon who has to operate on someone’s eye in order to heal their vision.

Philosophers begin with logic because, unlike with discussions of “practical matters…there is nothing to distract us” (62). Philosophy itself starts with “an awareness of one’s own mental fitness” (63). With this awareness, students of philosophy are able to avoid subjects that are too difficult for them.

People develop impressions in four ways: “[T]hings are and appear to be; or they are not, and do not appear to be; or they are, but do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be” (64). To be educated means being able to judge impressions correctly and to be able to address anything that causes confusion or difficulties, including a person’s own habits. Such habits can be fought by their “opposite” (64). One such example is how people can combat sophistry with “rational argument” (64).

Likewise, death should not be seen as an evil. Instead, Epictetus describes death as something “necessary and [which] cannot be avoided” (64). In cases where people are subjected to difficult and bad circumstances, they cannot change the circumstance, but only end up blaspheming against the gods in their frustration. In order to remain pious, accepting bad circumstances is the only option. In addition, Epictetus also says that one must address hardship and despair by accepting “convention,” although he also admits that the “person who is trembling, upset and inwardly broken in spirit needs to spend his time differently” (65).

It is natural for the human mind to accept anything that appears to be a fact and to reject what does not seem to be a fact. Still, there are cases where one can be “in error” (66). Epictetus gives the example of the mythological figure Medea, who chooses to kill her children to have revenge on their father. He argues that she is motivated by incorrect impressions and is deserving of “pity” (66). All tragedies, even wars, begin with mistaken impressions, not with “the actions of others” (68), and everyone is capable of forming false impressions and acting upon them.

A person’s “character” (69) determines whether they will act in good or evil ways in response to outside factors. This is because that character shapes our ability to form the correct impressions in response to circumstances. It means that rulers and governments can only control our bodies, not our reason. Philosophy cannot change one’s circumstances, but it can help people improve their character and remain steadfast before negative circumstances.

Such knowledge only comes with education in philosophy. Due to this, “we need to make allowances for people without the benefit of education” (74).

If one is persecuted by authorities, Epictetus advises them to remember that God is above any authority and that God is the one whose laws everyone should be concerned about following.