Discourses and Selected Writings by Epictetus
Are everyone’s opinions correct? How can they be, when some conflict?
[15] ‘All right, not all are correct. But ours are.’
Well, why ours instead of the Syrians’ or Egyptians’ – why mine rather than those of any person picked at random?
‘No reason.’
Therefore, the fact that someone holds this or that opinion will not suffice to make it true, any more than we are inclined to trust a person’s word in dealing with weights and measures. In both cases, we have developed an objective standard instead. [16] So is there no standard for our case beyond opinion? Is it only humanity’s most important values that are going to remain vague and subjective? [17] There must be one. So let’s hunt for it; and once we’ve found it, let’s commit to never making a single move without reference to it. [18] I conceive this discovery as the antidote to the madness that results from exclusive reliance on opinion as the criterion of truth. And from then on, starting with the familiar preconceptions, clearly defined, we will proceed to apply them to particular objects and events in a methodical manner.
[19] Name me a subject for discussion now.
‘Pleasure.’
[20] All right, put it to the test, lay it on the scales. For something to be good, it must be something we can rely on and trust.
‘I agree.’
Well, can we trust anything that comes and goes?
‘No.’
[21] And is pleasure constant?
‘No.’
Then take it out of the scale and banish it from the realm of goods.
[22] But if you’re none too sharp and missed it the first time, let’s try a different test. Something good should be a source of pride, correct?
‘Yes.’
And can one really take pride in a momentary pleasure? Please don’t say yes, or I will think you barely deserve to be regarded on the same level as draft animals.
[23] That is the way things are weighed and disagreements settled – when standards are established. [24] Philosophy aims to test and set such standards. [25] And the wise man is advised to make use of their findings right away.
II 12 On the art of argumentation
[1] The philosophers of our school have told us precisely what we need to learn in order to know how to practise logical argument. But when it comes to practising it correctly in a book ii particular situation – there we have no experience at all. [2] Just give us a random person to engage in dialogue and we won’t know what to do with him. After asking the person a few questions, if we don’t get the kinds of answer we expect, we throw up our hands and resort to ridicule or verbal abuse, saying, ‘He’s not a philosopher, it just isn’t possible to engage him in dialogue.’
[3] Well, when a guide meets up with someone who is lost, ordinarily his reaction is to direct him on the right path, not mock or malign him, then turn on his heel and walk away. [4] As for you, lead someone to the truth and you will find that he can follow.27 But as long as you don’t point it out to him, don’t make fun of him; be aware of what you need to work on instead.
[5] Consider how Socrates behaved. He would compel whomever he spoke with to voice their views, and one interlocutor was enough. Which is why he could say, ‘Everyone else can go hang, I am only interested in what the person I’m talking to has to say. No one’s vote counts with me except that of my partner in dialogue.’28 [6] Socrates would lay out the implications of their views so incisively that, regardless of who they were, they would all admit an inconsistency and back off from it:
[7] ‘Is a man racked by envy happy?’
‘Not at all, they’re miserable.’∗
‘Miserable over something bad? But whoever heard of envy for something bad?’
[8] Thus he made him say that envy is pain provoked by something good.
‘I mean, would someone be envious over something he cared nothing for?’
‘Obviously not.’29
[9] That is what Socrates would do: he would quit only after he had fleshed out an idea and explored its implications. He wouldn’t just say, ‘Define envy for me,’ then, when his discourses interlocutor had ventured on a definition, say, ‘Wrong: your definiens is not extensionally equivalent to the definiendum’ – [10] technical terms which are incomprehensible and off – putting for the layman, and which we can’t resist using for that very reason. [11] As for using language that would enable even a non-philosopher, depending on his view, to answer with a simple yes or no – well, we don’t know how to engage anyone on that level. [12] And what happens is that we realize that we can’t do it and give up the attempt – those of us with any discretion, anyway. [13] Most people are impulsive, however, and, having committed to the thing, they persist, just making more confusion for themselves and others until it all ends in mutual recrimination.
[14] Now that is the first thing Socrates was known for – never turning dialogue into dispute, never introducing rudeness or invective, although he would put up with the insults of others in order to avoid a fight. [15] And if you want to know how effective he was, read Xenophon’s Symposium; you will see how many fights he is credited there with resolving. [16] Among the poets, too, one of the highest forms of compliment is conveyed in the line:
He could cut short a quarrel, however great, with his diplomacy.30
[17] But nowadays engaging in logical dialogue is just not a very safe business, in Rome especially. Because of course you can’t do it off in a corner somewhere. You may find yourself approaching a senator, someone with money, and asking him: ‘Do you know, sir, to whom you have entrusted the care of your horses?’
[18] ‘I do.’
‘Is it some random person with no knowledge of horses?’
‘Of course not.’
‘What about your money and clothes?’
‘I don’t hand them over to just anyone either.’
[19] ‘And as to your body, you’ve already found someone to entrust with its care?’
‘Naturally.’
‘An expert, obviously, in either exercise or medicine?’
‘Yes.’
[20] ‘Are these the things you value most, or have you got something better than them all?’
‘And what would that be?’
‘The faculty that uses all of them, and assigns each their place and value.’
‘You mean the soul?’
[21] ‘Good guess; that’s precisely what I mean.’
‘Absolutely, I think that is far and away a more precious possession than the others you mentioned.’
[22] ‘So, then, tell me the steps you’ve taken to care for the soul. As intelligent as you are, and as politically prominent, surely you would not casually look on and allow the most prized of your possessions to be neglected and go to ruin.’
‘No, of course not.’
[23] ‘Well, if you have looked after it personally, did you learn how from another person, or discover the means yourself?’
[24] At this point you run the risk of him saying, ‘What business is that of yours, sir? What are you to me?’ Pester him further, and he is liable to punch you in the nose. [25] I myself was once keen for this sort of discourse, until I met with just such a reception.
II 13 On nerves
[1] Whenever I see a person suffering from nervousness, I think, well, what can he expect? If he had not set his sights on things outside man’s control, his nervousness would end at once. [2] Take a lyre player: he’s relaxed when he performs alone, but put him in front of an audience, and it’s a different story, no matter how beautiful his voice or how well he plays the instrument. Why? Because he not only wants to perform well, he wants to be well received – and the latter lies outside his control.
[3] He is confident as far as his knowledge of music is concerned – the views of the public carry no weight with him there. His anxiety stems from lack of knowledge and lack of practice in other areas. Which are what? [4] He doesn’t know what an audience is, or what approval from an audience amounts to. A
[6] I can start by calling him a stranger and say, ‘This person has no idea where he’s living, and for all his time in residence here still doesn’t know the laws of the country or its customs. He does not know what is permitted and what is not. Furthermore, he has never taken the trouble to call on a lawyer who will tell him, and explain how things operate here. [7] He won’t sign a contract without knowing how to draft one properly, or hiring somebody who does. He isn’t casual about signing for loans or offering guarantees. But when it comes to desire, aversion, impulse, plans and projects, he applies himself to all of these without benefit of legal counsel. [8] How do I know? He wants what he cannot have, and does not want what he can’t refuse – and isn’t even aware of it. He doesn’t know the difference between his own possessions and others’. Because, if he did, he would never be thwarted or disappointed.
Or nervous.
Just think: [9] we aren’t filled with fear except by things that are bad; and not by them, either, as long as it is in our power to avoid them. [10] So, if externals are neither good nor bad, while everything within the sphere of choice is in our power and cannot be taken away by anyone, or imposed on us without our compliance – then what’s left to be nervous about? [11] We agonize over our body, our money, or what the emperor is going to decree – never about anything inside us.
I mean, do we worry whether we are going to make an error in judgement? No, because it is under our control. Or having book ii an unnatural urge? No again. [12] So if you see someone pale with nerves, be like a doctor who diagnoses liver trouble based on a patient’s yellow skin. Say, ‘This man’s desire and aversion are unhealthy, they aren’t functioning properly, they’re infected. [13] Because nothing else can account for his change in colour, his shivering, his chattering teeth, and “this constant fretting and shifting from foot to foot”.’31
[14] All of which explains why Zeno was not nervous about his meeting with Antigonus.32 What Zeno valued Antigonus had no power over, and as a philosopher he cared nothing for the things that the king did command. [15] It was Antigonus who was anxious before their meeting. Naturally – he wanted to make a good impression, which was beyond his control. Zeno, for his part, had no wish to please the king; no expert needs validation from an amateur. [16] So what do I need your approval for? You don’t know the measure of a man, you haven’t studied to learn what a good or a bad person is, and how each one gets that way. No wonder you’re not a good person yourself.
[17] ‘How do you make that out?’
It is not in a good person’s nature to grieve, complain or whine; they don’t go pale, tremble and say, ‘What kind of hearing or reception will he give me?’ [18] Idiot, that’s his concern – don’t concern yourself with other people’s business. It’s his problem if he receives you badly.
‘True.’
And you cannot suffer for another person’s fault. So don’t worry about the behaviour of others.
[19] ‘All right, but I worry about how I will talk to him.’
Can’t you talk to him any way you like?
‘I’m afraid that I may say something gauche.’
[20] Look, when you are about to spell the name ‘Dion’, are you afraid that you will slip up?
‘No.’
And why not? It’s because you have practice in writing the name.
‘True.’
And you would have the same confidence reading it.
‘Yes.’
The reason is that any discipline brings with it a measure of strength and confidence in the corresponding arts. [21] Now, you have practice speaking. What else did they teach you at school?
‘Syllogisms and changing arguments.’33
But why, if not to be accomplished in conversation? And by accomplished I mean refined, assured, intelligent, not easily flustered or refuted – and fearless, on top of all that.
‘Agreed.’
[22] Well, then, you are in the position of a soldier on horseback who is about to face a mere foot soldier, on ground that you have gone over and he has not. And still you’re nervous?
‘But he can literally kill me!’
[23] Well, then, speak the truth, you sorry specimen, don’t put on airs and call yourself a philosopher. Face up to who your betters are. As long as you have this attachment to the body, be ready to submit to anyone or anything of superior physical force.
[24] As for speaking, Socrates must have practised the art, look at his answer to the Thirty Tyrants, his defence before the jury, his conversations in jail.34 Diogenes too had practised how to speak, witness the free and easy way he talked to Alexander, Philip, the pirates and the person to whom the pirates sold him as a slave.35∗ [26] As for you, go back to your work and don’t ever leave it. Settle back in your alcove, think up new syllogisms, and share them with your friends. [27] You are plainly not cut out for the role of public leader.
II 14 To Naso36
[1] A visitor from Rome, together with his son, was present at one of his lectures when Epictetus said, ‘This is the way I teach’ – then abruptly stopped talking. [2] The man pleaded with him to go on, but Epictetus said: The learning process is boring to anyone completely new to, and unfamiliar with, a skill. [3] Now, the skill’s finished product leaves no doubt as to its utility, most are even pleasing or attractive. [4] It is not exciting, for instance, to follow the progress of a shoemaker in his art, but shoes are not only useful, they are usually aesthetically pleasing to a degree. [5] Or the training of a carpenter – it is very tedious for people who are not carpenters to watch, but the finished cabinetry justifies the effort. [6] Music makes my point most obviously: attend a music lesson, and you will think it involves the most monotonous training of all. But the results please and entertain everyone.
[7] In our school, we picture the philosopher’s goal more or less as follows: bring the will in line with events, so that nothing happens contrary to our wishes and, conversely, nothing fails to happen that we want to happen. [8] Pursue it, and the reward is that neither desire nor aversion will fail in their aims; and we will fill all our roles in society – as son, father, brother, citizen, man, woman, neighbour, fellow voyager, ruler or ruled – without conflict, fear or rancour.
[9] That is how we picture the philosopher’s goal. The next step is finding how to make it reality. [10] Becoming a carpenter or pilot, we realize, requires some formal training. Is it unreasonable to suppose that it will take more than just the desire to be good or bad – that the student of philosophy will also have to learn a few things of his own? So we look for some guidance. [11] Philosophers say that the first thing to learn is that God exists, that he governs the world, and that we cannot keep our actions secret, that even our thoughts and inclinations are known to him. [12] The next thing to learn about is the divine nature, because we will have to imitate the gods if we intend to obey them and win their favour. [13] If the divine nature is trustworthy, then we should be trustworthy; if it is free, then we should be free; likewise if it is benevolent and forgiving. All our thoughts and behaviour should be shaped on the divine model.
[14] So where to begin? If you are prepared for it, I would say that you need to begin by understanding the meaning of words.
‘Are you implying that at present I don’t?’
I am.
[15] ‘Then how come I use them?’
You use them the way illiterates use written signs, or the way cattle make use of their senses; in other words, it’s possible to use them without fully understanding what they mean.
[16] But if you think you really do underst
[17] ‘But I’m a grown man who’s already been through the wars; exams at my age are an imposition.’
[18] Don’t I know it. And after all, you’re not here because you think you lack for anything; what could you even imagine that you need? You’re rich, you have children, a wife probably, and a sufficiency of slaves; the emperor knows you, you have many friends in Rome, you see to your civic duties, and know how to reward your friends and get even with your enemies. [19] What more could you want? Well, what if I were to show you that all that’s missing are the keys to happiness? That your life to date has been devoted to everything except what it ought to be? And what if I were to crown it off by saying that you don’t know what God is, or man, or what good and bad are, [20] and – if that’s not too much to endure – that you don’t know who you are, either? Could you put up with me, take the criticism, and remain? [21] Hardly; you would be out of here in a huff and a hurry.
And yet I won’t have done you any harm – any more than a mirror is to blame when it shows a plain person what they look like; or a doctor is mean if he tells a patient, ‘Look, you may think this is insignificant, but you’re really sick; no food for you today, only water.’ No one thinks, ‘How rude!’ [22] But say to someone, ‘Your desires are unhealthy, your powers of book ii aversion are weak, your plans are incoherent, your impulses are at odds with nature and your system of values is false and confused,’ – and off they go alleging slander.
[23] Our condition can be compared to a festival.37 Cattle are brought in to be sold, and most of the people attend to either buy or sell; but there a few who come simply to see how and why the festival is organized, who put it on, and for what purpose.