jbmorgan86's review against another edition
3.0
Stoicism has always been an appealing branch of philosophy to me. It meshes closely with both my Christian beliefs and my own personality. Therefore, I am making an exploratory journey into Stoicism. This was the first document that I read. The Enchiridion is divided up into 53 sections. Most of these are pithy proverbs (though a bit are longer). There is a lot of wisdom here:
"In every affair consider what precedes and follows, and then undertake it. Otherwise you will begin with spirit; but not having thought of the consequences, when some of them appear you will shamefully desist. "I would conquer at the Olympic games." But consider what precedes and follows, and then, if it is for your advantage, engage in the affair. You must conform to rules, submit to a diet, refrain from dainties; exercise your body, whether you choose it or not, at a stated hour, in heat and cold; you must drink no cold water, nor sometimes even wine. In a word, you must give yourself up to your master, as to a physician. Then, in the combat, you may be thrown into a ditch, dislocate your arm, turn your ankle, swallow dust, be whipped, and, after all, lose the victory. When you have evaluated all this, if your inclination still holds, then go to war. Otherwise, take notice, you will behave like children who sometimes play like wrestlers, sometimes gladiators, sometimes blow a trumpet, and sometimes act a tragedy when they have seen and admired these shows. Thus you too will be at one time a wrestler, at another a gladiator, now a philosopher, then an orator; but with your whole soul, nothing at all. Like an ape, you mimic all you see, and one thing after another is sure to please you, but is out of favor as soon as it becomes familiar. For you have never entered upon anything considerately, nor after having viewed the whole matter on all sides, or made any scrutiny into it, but rashly, and with a cold inclination. Thus some, when they have seen a philosopher and heard a man speaking like Euphrates (though, indeed, who can speak like him?), have a mind to be philosophers too. Consider first, man, what the matter is, and what your own nature is able to bear. If you would be a wrestler, consider your shoulders, your back, your thighs; for different persons are made for different things. Do you think that you can act as you do, and be a philosopher? That you can eat and drink, and be angry and discontented as you are now? You must watch, you must labor, you must get the better of certain appetites, must quit your acquaintance, be despised by your servant, be laughed at by those you meet; come off worse than others in everything, in magistracies, in honors, in courts of judicature. When you have considered all these things round, approach, if you please; if, by parting with them, you have a mind to purchase apathy, freedom, and tranquillity. If not, don't come here; don't, like children, be one while a philosopher, then a publican, then an orator, and then one of Caesar's officers. These things are not consistent. You must be one man, either good or bad. You must cultivate either your own ruling faculty or externals, and apply yourself either to things within or without you; that is, be either a philosopher, or one of the vulgar."
Of course, there is a lot of "wisdom" that just seems like foolishness in the modern era:
"With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies."
"In every affair consider what precedes and follows, and then undertake it. Otherwise you will begin with spirit; but not having thought of the consequences, when some of them appear you will shamefully desist. "I would conquer at the Olympic games." But consider what precedes and follows, and then, if it is for your advantage, engage in the affair. You must conform to rules, submit to a diet, refrain from dainties; exercise your body, whether you choose it or not, at a stated hour, in heat and cold; you must drink no cold water, nor sometimes even wine. In a word, you must give yourself up to your master, as to a physician. Then, in the combat, you may be thrown into a ditch, dislocate your arm, turn your ankle, swallow dust, be whipped, and, after all, lose the victory. When you have evaluated all this, if your inclination still holds, then go to war. Otherwise, take notice, you will behave like children who sometimes play like wrestlers, sometimes gladiators, sometimes blow a trumpet, and sometimes act a tragedy when they have seen and admired these shows. Thus you too will be at one time a wrestler, at another a gladiator, now a philosopher, then an orator; but with your whole soul, nothing at all. Like an ape, you mimic all you see, and one thing after another is sure to please you, but is out of favor as soon as it becomes familiar. For you have never entered upon anything considerately, nor after having viewed the whole matter on all sides, or made any scrutiny into it, but rashly, and with a cold inclination. Thus some, when they have seen a philosopher and heard a man speaking like Euphrates (though, indeed, who can speak like him?), have a mind to be philosophers too. Consider first, man, what the matter is, and what your own nature is able to bear. If you would be a wrestler, consider your shoulders, your back, your thighs; for different persons are made for different things. Do you think that you can act as you do, and be a philosopher? That you can eat and drink, and be angry and discontented as you are now? You must watch, you must labor, you must get the better of certain appetites, must quit your acquaintance, be despised by your servant, be laughed at by those you meet; come off worse than others in everything, in magistracies, in honors, in courts of judicature. When you have considered all these things round, approach, if you please; if, by parting with them, you have a mind to purchase apathy, freedom, and tranquillity. If not, don't come here; don't, like children, be one while a philosopher, then a publican, then an orator, and then one of Caesar's officers. These things are not consistent. You must be one man, either good or bad. You must cultivate either your own ruling faculty or externals, and apply yourself either to things within or without you; that is, be either a philosopher, or one of the vulgar."
Of course, there is a lot of "wisdom" that just seems like foolishness in the modern era:
"With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies."
hyperionamadeus's review against another edition
3.0
This book contains some genuinely interesting insights, my favorite being that we should view all of life's temporary pleasures, including the company of beloved friends and family who will later die, as loaned items from the creator. Epictetus is acutely aware of the pain that death causes those who are left behind, and mentions this danger several times.
However, on the whole, I found his views a bit extreme and oversimplified. I can see some powerful advice in this work that many would benefit from, but I can't help but feel skeptical of his version of the Stoic system taken as a whole.
However, on the whole, I found his views a bit extreme and oversimplified. I can see some powerful advice in this work that many would benefit from, but I can't help but feel skeptical of his version of the Stoic system taken as a whole.
raoul_g's review against another edition
3.0
This relatively short book is a compilation of discourses of the stoic philosopher Epictetus.
What you can find here is stoicism as with all its good and not-so-good aspects. Following are two examples:
"In every affair consider what precedes and follows, and then undertake it. Otherwise you will begin with spirit; but not having thought of the consequences, when some of them appear you will shamefully desist."
This makes sense to me and I think this is a good principle to live by.
"If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies."
This is rather macabre and exemplifies the apathetic spirit of stoicism. This apathy is not always obvious, and sometimes the stoic sayings sound really meaningful:
"Don’t demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well."
Well, it kind of sounds good, but the underlying philosophy is a nihilistic one: What stoicism demands is total detachment and the annihilation of desire because these are the sources of disappointment (it is similar in Buddhism). The problem with this is, that this level of detachment can only be reached if nothing matters anymore, otherwise we will always desire to uphold and sustain what matters to us. Meaningful relationships can only exist against this backdrop of mattering, and love is not possible if there is no attachment to another person (even if this can cause suffering).
The price stoicism demands for a live unaffected by harm and disappointments is the life itself, or at least the life in any meaningful sense.
There are also some bits that show some humor, though Epictetus argues that it is not good to try to make people laugh. Well, I guess if they just smirk as I did in reaction to the following passage, that's alright:
"If anyone tells you that such a person speaks ill of you, don’t make excuses about what is said of you, but answer: 'He does not know my other faults, else he would not have mentioned only these.' "
Even though I'm not a big fan of stoic philosophy, I can say that on the whole this was an enjoyable read.
What you can find here is stoicism as with all its good and not-so-good aspects. Following are two examples:
"In every affair consider what precedes and follows, and then undertake it. Otherwise you will begin with spirit; but not having thought of the consequences, when some of them appear you will shamefully desist."
This makes sense to me and I think this is a good principle to live by.
"If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies."
This is rather macabre and exemplifies the apathetic spirit of stoicism. This apathy is not always obvious, and sometimes the stoic sayings sound really meaningful:
"Don’t demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well."
Well, it kind of sounds good, but the underlying philosophy is a nihilistic one: What stoicism demands is total detachment and the annihilation of desire because these are the sources of disappointment (it is similar in Buddhism). The problem with this is, that this level of detachment can only be reached if nothing matters anymore, otherwise we will always desire to uphold and sustain what matters to us. Meaningful relationships can only exist against this backdrop of mattering, and love is not possible if there is no attachment to another person (even if this can cause suffering).
The price stoicism demands for a live unaffected by harm and disappointments is the life itself, or at least the life in any meaningful sense.
There are also some bits that show some humor, though Epictetus argues that it is not good to try to make people laugh. Well, I guess if they just smirk as I did in reaction to the following passage, that's alright:
"If anyone tells you that such a person speaks ill of you, don’t make excuses about what is said of you, but answer: 'He does not know my other faults, else he would not have mentioned only these.' "
Even though I'm not a big fan of stoic philosophy, I can say that on the whole this was an enjoyable read.
ostrava's review against another edition
5.0
I was decently pleased by The Manual this time around. Many of the teachings resonated with me and I feel in a better mood for it, with the teachings being nice, tonifying and recomforting.
Part of my original criticism seemed to be aimed against its conformism, and though I do find Epictetus a bit too "traumatized" by life to be of better help, he can be quite... consistent. I value consistency, clarity and bluntness these days.
Or maybe I woke up more of a stoic today, who knows...
Part of my original criticism seemed to be aimed against its conformism, and though I do find Epictetus a bit too "traumatized" by life to be of better help, he can be quite... consistent. I value consistency, clarity and bluntness these days.
Or maybe I woke up more of a stoic today, who knows...