one of the best books I've ever read

[roger]

There's a book that contains probably the greatest practical wisdom of any book I've ever read. It completely blew my mind, and was exactly what I needed to hear.

 

It's called, "The Art of Living," by Epictetus (an ancient Roman philosopher), translated by Sharon Lebell.

 

If you want to take your wisdom to the next level, I can almost guarantee this book will help you do that.

 

edit: at first I put Greek, but he was actually Roman

Edited November 6, 2016 by roger

[Karl]

Ah the stoics.

[Swede]

How funny, I just bought this book off eBay yesterday based on a recommendation elsewhere. I'm looking forward to reading it now. Thanks

[Jeff]

Yes, a simple and elegant book. Possible to read it at many levels...

[Cosmic Soldier]

Spooky! I was recommended this in an email this morning.

[Karl]

I will happily argue that stoic philosophy is horribly flawed, it's saving grace being that it did have a hand in the beginnings of the protection of natural rights.

 

If you agree with stoicism, then really the natural progression is modern religions as they embody pretty much all of stoicism with an addition of free will instead of stoic determinism.

 

The stoics preach apathy pasted into a flowery essence of drops of God.

[SeekerOfHealing]

Stoic philosophy is very practical, it can unlock part of the mind something like zen. When your mind meet with the pointer or "key" it's kind of gain of new or more perception into things which you can work everyday life on another level.

 

I would agree that stoic philosophy as generally flawed but flawed gem is still gem. Stoic philosophy now is not fully discovered with all mysteries, we know only very small things about true stoicism that's why is flawed.

 

I would personally bet that they have different types of states when mind enter while contemplating different pointers of keys to mind.

 

The best verse of Epictetus which can bring down tension of living overall is that when he speaks about putting your will in terms with situation rather then situation to your will. If most people will understand that one sentence and practice it by doing that inside job well we would heave most likely close to heaven.

Edited November 7, 2016 by SeekerOfHealing

[Jeff]

His wisdom speaks best with his own simple words...

 

 

“To know that you do not know and to be willing to admit that you do not know without sheepishly apologizing is real strength and sets the stage for learning and progress in any endeavor.”

Edited November 7, 2016 by Jeff

[Karl]

Stoic philosophy is very practical, it can unlock part of the mind something like zen. When your mind meet with the pointer or "key" it's kind of gain of new or more perception into things which you can work everyday life on another level.

I would agree that stoic philosophy as generally flawed but flawed gem is still gem. Stoic philosophy now is not fully discovered with all mysteries, we know only very small things about true stoicism that's why is flawed.

I would personally bet that they have different types of states when mind enter while contemplating different pointers of keys to mind.

The best verse of Epictetus which can bring down tension of living overall is that when he speaks about putting your will in terms with situation rather then situation to your will. If most people will understand that one sentence and practice it by doing that inside job well we would heave most likely close to heaven.

That's apathy. In other words accepting what is without complaint. The story goes that Epictetus had a master who twisted his leg to the point of fracture, at which point he told his master if he twisted harder that the bone would break. Eventually the bone did snap and Epictetus re-affirmed his contention essentially saying 'I told you so'.

 

Will, therefore is not will as such, but really duty based on determinism-what happens was meant to happen. Allahs will. As we are all part of God anyway according to the stoics we should not fight the flow.

[Jeff]

That's apathy. In other words accepting what is without complaint. The story goes that Epictetus had a master who twisted his leg to the point of fracture, at which point he told his master if he twisted harder that the bone would break. Eventually the bone did snap and Epictetus re-affirmed his contention essentially saying 'I told you so'.

Will, therefore is not will as such, but really duty based on determinism-what happens was meant to happen. Allahs will. As we are all part of God anyway according to the stoics we should not fight the flow.

Karl - Have you read the book? His words speak differently...

 

“Nothing truly stops you. Nothing truly holds you back. For your own will is always within your control. Sickness may challenge your body. But are you merely your body? Lameness may impede your legs. But your are not merely your legs. Your will is bigger than your legs. Your will needn’t be affected by an incident unless you let it.”

[Karl]

Karl - Have you read the book? His words speak differently...

“Nothing truly stops you. Nothing truly holds you back. For your own will is always within your control. Sickness may challenge your body. But are you merely your body? Lameness may impede your legs. But your are not merely your legs. Your will is bigger than your legs. Your will needn’t be affected by an incident unless you let it.”

What is apparent and what is true are very different. Try cutting off your head or getting stabbed in the heart and see if it affects you ?

If you want it to mean that we all have to get on with living, then this isn't something we need a book to tell us really is it ?

 

If you want it to mean that we can evade the consequences of losing our faculties then that is fine, until the universe intrudes on our little apathetic soiree. We can evade thinking about our altered circumstances, but we can't evade the consequences of that evasion.

 

It all depends what you want to take from it. I've read several pieces by Epictetus and I have a broad understanding of his stoic view point. If it's to become a kind of impervious robot unconcerned about ones circumstances and situations then it's going to be trouble.

[Aetherous]

Is Stoicism really about accepting fate? Or is it about this:



We could also replace "worry" with "complain".

Edited November 7, 2016 by Aetherous

[Karl]

The perfect stoic is immunised against all circumstances and situations. Indeed this is how we use the word stoicism today. Essentially everything is determined in Gods grand plan, so, to rebel against it is to rebel against God. To the stoic, losing an arm, losing your son or gaining a million pounds is all the same.

 

It is virtue for the sake of virtue. It means that one goes with whatever happens, completely unconcerned and accepting. This is perfect apathy to all situations equally.

[Jeff]

What is apparent and what is true are very different. Try cutting off your head or getting stabbed in the heart and see if it affects you ?

If you want it to mean that we all have to get on with living, then this isn't something we need a book to tell us really is it ?

 

If you want it to mean that we can evade the consequences of losing our faculties then that is fine, until the universe intrudes on our little apathetic soiree. We can evade thinking about our altered circumstances, but we can't evade the consequences of that evasion.

 

It all depends what you want to take from it. I've read several pieces by Epictetus and I have a broad understanding of his stoic view point. If it's to become a kind of impervious robot unconcerned about ones circumstances and situations then it's going to be trouble.

 

 

Where are you getting this "cutting off your head or getting stabbed in the heart" and saying it doesn't effect you stuff with Epictetus?  He is much more about doing your best, whatever the situation may be... More like accept reality and don't give up...

 

“A half-hearted spirit has no power. Tentative efforts lead to tentative outcomes. Average people enter into their endeavors headlong and without care.”

 

“Although we can’t control which roles are assigned to us, it must be our business to act our given role as best we possibly can and to refrain from complaining about it. Where ever you find yourself and in whatever circumstances, give an impeccable performance.”

 

More on the point of dealing with the realities of life...

 

“We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them.”

 

Never give up...

 

“Every difficulty in life presents us with an opportunity to turn inward and to invoke our own submerged inner resources. The trials we endure can and should introduce us to our strengths.”

 

 

[Karl]

Where are you getting this "cutting off your head or getting stabbed in the heart" and saying it doesn't effect you stuff with Epictetus?  He is much more about doing your best, whatever the situation may be... More like accept reality and don't give up...

 

“A half-hearted spirit has no power. Tentative efforts lead to tentative outcomes. Average people enter into their endeavors headlong and without care.”

 

“Although we can’t control which roles are assigned to us, it must be our business to act our given role as best we possibly can and to refrain from complaining about it. Where ever you find yourself and in whatever circumstances, give an impeccable performance.”

 

More on the point of dealing with the realities of life...

 

“We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them.”

 

Never give up...

 

“Every difficulty in life presents us with an opportunity to turn inward and to invoke our own submerged inner resources. The trials we endure can and should introduce us to our strengths.”

 

Interpretation is the key Jeff. I'm used to these arguments and therefore the premises being communicated. If you believe that it means 'never give up and accept reality' then fine, but then what is meant by 'reality' to a stoic. It's the same with 'reason' it doesn't always mean what you think it does, so it must be viewed in context.

 

'Although we can't control the roles to which we are assigned' is about determination and God assigning us roles to which we must respond dutifully. In other words we make a virtue of virtue, not for gain, but because it is demanded of us by God. Stoics curl themselves up into there own spirits shunning the world by accepting everything that happens as Gods will.

 

However, you take from it whatever bits you find inspirational, but be aware that stoicism is a philosophy, it isn't a buffet in which you can choose the things you like, it's an integrated philosophy which means accepting certain tenets without fully understanding what they mean can give a bad case of mental indigestion when trying to integrate them.

[rex]

Is Stoicism really about accepting fate? Or is it about this:

 

We could also replace "worry" with "complain".

From this quote which you posted a while ago (yes, i saved it), I'd say it's also about taking adversity on the path.

 

Be like the jutting rock against which waves are constantly crashing, and all around it the frothing foam of the waters then settles back down. “Oh, I am so unfortunate that this has happened to me.” Not at all, but rather “How fortunate I am that, even though this has happened to me, I continue uninjured, neither terrified by the present, nor in fear of the future.” So such a thing could happen to anyone, but not just anyone would persevere unharmed. So why is this considered bad fortune rather than good fortune? And do you think something to be wholly unfortunate for a man when it is not even a defect in his nature? And would that which is not contrary to the plan of his nature seem to you a defect in his nature? What then? You have already learned this plan; does what has happened to you prevent you from being just, great-souled, self-controlled, considerate, deliberate, honest, modest, independent, and all other such qualities which, when present, allow us to realize our true nature? For the remainder of your life, whenever anything causes pain for you, make use of this principle: “This is not unfortunate. Indeed, to bear such things nobly is good fortune.”

 

Needleman, Jacob; Piazza, John (2008-01-10). The Essential Marcus Aurelius (Tarcher Cornerstone Editions) (p. 38). Tarcher. Kindle Edition.

 

There are parallels here with this: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/dodrupchen-III/transforming-suffering-and-happiness

[Jeff]

Interpretation is the key Jeff. I'm used to these arguments and therefore the premises being communicated. If you believe that it means 'never give up and accept reality' then fine, but then what is meant by 'reality' to a stoic. It's the same with 'reason' it doesn't always mean what you think it does, so it must be viewed in context.

 

'Although we can't control the roles to which we are assigned' is about determination and God assigning us roles to which we must respond dutifully. In other words we make a virtue of virtue, not for gain, but because it is demanded of us by God. Stoics curl themselves up into there own spirits shunning the world by accepting everything that happens as Gods will.

 

However, you take from it whatever bits you find inspirational, but be aware that stoicism is a philosophy, it isn't a buffet in which you can choose the things you like, it's an integrated philosophy which means accepting certain tenets without fully understanding what they mean can give a bad case of mental indigestion when trying to integrate them.

 

 

Karl,

 

I have provided specific counter points to your position in the actual writings of Epictetus and you have provided no such quotes to support what you are saying.  Additionally, in your posts, you are making generic statements about "stoics" and some determinism regarding God.  Why not simply actually read the words in "The Art of Living" and not bring some generic prejudice to a discussion about the book?

 

I am not a stoic or prejudiced to think that way... I am just one who likes the book and would recommend everyone read it impartially with an open mind...

 

Regards,

Jeff

Edited November 7, 2016 by Jeff

[Karl]

Karl,

 

I have provided specific counter points to your position in the actual writings of Epictetus and you have provided no such quotes to support what you are saying.  Additionally, in your posts, you are making generic statements about "stoics" and some determinism regarding God.  Why not simply actually read the words in "The Art of Living" and not bring some generic prejudice to a discussion about the book?

 

I am not a stoic or prejudiced to think that way... I am just one who likes the book and would recommend everyone read it impartially with an open mind...

 

Regards,

Jeff

No such quotes ? I quoted Epictetus in regard to 'none of us control the roles to which we are 'assigned' and showed that this is divine determinism. That you have to make the best of whatever God 'assigns' you and not struggle against it.

 

How you go about ingesting that bit of pithy substance is up to you. I would suggest that it tells you that you have no free will and any attempt to try and shrug off 'the assignment' is the cause of suffering, so, better to be apathetic and simply accept the role with good grace and get through life without trying to change anything.

 

I thought that was clear enough from that one paragraph ?

 

I don't say not to read it, only to read all books with discrimination.

[Jeff]

No such quotes ? I quoted Epictetus in regard to 'none of us control the roles to which we are 'assigned' and showed that this is divine determinism. That you have to make the best of whatever God 'assigns' you and not struggle against it.

 

How you go about ingesting that bit of pithy substance is up to you. I would suggest that it tells you that you have no free will and any attempt to try and shrug off 'the assignment' is the cause of suffering, so, better to be apathetic and simply accept the role with good grace and get through life without trying to change anything.

 

I thought that was clear enough from that one paragraph ?

 

I don't say not to read it, only to read all books with discrimination.

He is simply stating that some things are beyond your control... Do you control all? Have full control of the universe?

 

"Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible."

 

Also, he is completely opposed to your position on being apathetic...

 

“Now is the time to get serious about living your ideals. How long can you afford to put off who you really want to be? Your nobler self cannot wait any longer. Put your principles into practice – now. Stop the excuses and the procrastination. This is your life! You aren’t a child anymore. The sooner you set yourself to your spiritual program, the happier you will be. The longer you wait, the more you’ll be vulnerable to mediocrity and feel filled with shame and regret, because you know you are capable of better. From this instant on, vow to stop disappointing yourself. Separate yourself from the mob. Decide to be extraordinary and do what you need to do – now.”

 

Finally, one last one specifically related to our discussion...

 

"It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows."

- EPICTETUS, Discourses

Edited November 8, 2016 by Jeff

[Brian]

Haven't you figured out yet, Jeff, that anyone who hasn't swallowed Objectivism is delusional, has abandoned reason, and is disqualified from the discussion?

 

Paint him into a corner (such as by demonstrating that he's had to abandon logic to cling to his belief system) and he'll simply end the discussion himself but will honestly belief you did because he projects his blinders on others.

 

Rather sad, really, but predictable. Perhaps he'll wake up one day and see the cage he's crawled into! I still have hope.

[Karl]

He is simply stating that some things are beyond your control...  Do you control all?  Have full control of the universe?

 

"Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible."[/size]

 

Also, he is completely opposed to your position on being apathetic (as my quotes have shown above). 

 

“Now is the time to get serious about living your ideals. How long can you afford to put off who you really want to be? Your nobler self cannot wait any longer. Put your principles into practice – now. Stop the excuses and the procrastination. This is your life! You aren’t a child anymore. The sooner you set yourself to your spiritual program, the happier you will be. The longer you wait, the more you’ll be vulnerable to mediocrity and feel filled with shame and regret, because you know you are capable of better. From this instant on, vow to stop disappointing yourself. Separate yourself from the mob. Decide to be extraordinary and do what you need to do – now.”

 

Finally, one last one specifically related to our discussion...

 

"It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." 

- [/size]EPICTETUS, [/size]Discourses

 

That's an interpretation Jeff, my reading of it comes directly from stoic philosophy and so I'm relating to it in that context. As I said, it's up to everyone to make a judgement.

 

I'm certainly not in control of the universe. As I have said many time 'to transform nature, man must first obey nature'. Nature applies to man as to every other thing in the universe. Mans nature is to reason because he has to. He is a volitional entity with a volitional consciousness.

 

You are wrong, but you are reading in the context that you see it with regard to apathy. This is why I mentioned Gods will, a deterministic universe of which man is a small piece of God, like a finger serves the body (in stoic parlance). Mans reason is applied only to doing his duty and therefore achieving happiness by that duty. This is virtue for virtues sake and not for any other kind of gain.

 

Everything is directed towards the soul, the internal spiritual and so this is what is meant by 'the nobler self', but if you wish to read into it a less rigorous outward kind of achievement then that's up to you.

 

I could produce several quotes which would be unambiguous if you need confirmation of my interpretation, however if you read it in the sense you are taking it then that's fine by me, it's your reading of it and you must integrate it. It's rather like me trying to tell you about a wine and the matching food, it's my interpretation from experience, so if you find the wine suits your taste with something different, then that's your choice.

[Karl]

Haven't you figured out yet, Jeff, that anyone who hasn't swallowed Objectivism is delusional, has abandoned reason, and is disqualified from the discussion?

Paint him into a corner (such as by demonstrating that he's had to abandon logic to cling to his belief system) and he'll simply end the discussion himself but will honestly belief you did because he projects his blinders on others.

Rather sad, really, but predictable. Perhaps he'll wake up one day and see the cage he's crawled into! I still have hope.

Except that isn't what I'm doing. I'm interpreting what is being said in a philosophical sense. So, you can either accept that interpretation or not, I don't particularly care either way and that isn't in any sense pushing anyone towards objectivism-which, by the way, I would expect anyone reading objectivist philosophy to read with discrimination.

[Jeff]

That's an interpretation Jeff, my reading of it comes directly from stoic philosophy and so I'm relating to it in that context. As I said, it's up to everyone to make a judgement.

 

 

 Karl, take a look at your above opening statement. You are basically saying that you are not reading the words with an open mind, but in particular you are reading them with a built in prejudice of what you think they say based on your belief system around stoic philosophy.  Please just read the book and what it says, not what some book reviewer said it says. 

 

 

 

I could produce several quotes which would be unambiguous if you need confirmation of my interpretation, however if you read it in the sense you are taking it then that's fine by me, it's your reading of it and you must integrate it. It's rather like me trying to tell you about a wine and the matching food, it's my interpretation from experience, so if you find the wine suits your taste with something different, then that's your choice.

 

Your analogy is exactly the problem. You are mixing food and wine, and then trying to say what you like after it is already digested. When you go for a wine tasting, you clean your palate.  You have some water or maybe a piece of white bread to clear your mouth of other distractions.  Then the wine (or words) can be tested on its own for smell and taste.

 

It is simple, just taste the wine... Don't get caught up in the preconceptions of a what goes with some full meal...

[Brian]

Except that isn't what I'm doing. I'm interpreting what is being said in a philosophical sense. So, you can either accept that interpretation or not, I don't particularly care either way and that isn't in any sense pushing anyone towards objectivism-which, by the way, I would expect anyone reading objectivist philosophy to read with discrimination.

That isn't what you are doing yet. I've seen this movie before, though, and recommended cutting to the chase.

[Karl]

That isn't what you are doing yet. I've seen this movie before, though, and recommended cutting to the chase.

There is no chase, interpret the writing as you see fit Brian. Ive presented my interpretation of the underlying philosophy. You can accept it or not. :shrug: If I'm asked to compare against objectivism then sure I would, but that's not what this thread is about, except where Jeff asked me specifically about my own beliefs regarding control of the universe and so I have to answer that as an objectivist.