Living in Exile (from "Away from Home" in "Musonius Rufus on How To Live")

From Musonius Rufus on How To Live:

"Away From Home

Thrasea was in the habit of saying, 'I would rather be executed today than banished tomorrow.' Rufus said to him - 'If you choose exile as the heavier punishment, what a stupid choice! But if as the lighter, who gave you the choice? Aren't you willing to train yourself to be satisfied with your lot?'

Why should anyone that isn't ignorant be oppressed by exile?

It doesn't deprive us of water, earth, air, or the sun and the other planets, or even of the society of others, for everywhere, in every way, there is opportunity for association with them. So what if we're kept from a certain part of the earth, from association with some people - what is so terrible about that? . . . As Socrates said, surely the universe is the common fatherland of all? . . . The reasonable don't value or despise any place as the cause of their happiness or unhappiness - they make the whole matter depend upon themselves while considering themselves citizens of the city of God - made up of men and Gods. Euripides speaks in harmony with this:
'As all the heavens are open to the eagle's flight
So the earth is, for a noble man, his fatherland.'"

This train of thought from Musonius Rufus speaks to me particularly, as I am myself living in exile. My patria, my "fatherland," is the great state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, but since month of Quintilis in the consulship of P. Ullerius and C. Equitius (A.U.C. MMDCCLXIV, or Anno Domine 2011) I have been living in exile in the deserts of Arizona. I can see the truth in what so many of the ancients maintained, all the way back to Homer, that "nothing is sweeter than one's own fatherland," nevertheless like Socrates I have always considered myself a "citizen of the world."

The trick, for me at least, is that while one cannot allow one's happiness to depend upon one's circumstances, including the place in which one happens to live, one can still enjoy and take delight in one's fatherland. I shall always delight in my own patria, and may return to dwell there one day, but at present I am content where I am.

"Energetic, hard-working and intelligent people, no matter where they go, fare well and live without want. We don't feel 'without' things unless we wish to live luxuriously:
'For what do mortals need beside two things,
The bread of Demeter and a drink of the Water-carrier,
Which are nearby and have been made to nourish us?'
Let me add that those who are worth anything manage well obtaining the necessities of life in exile, and some acquire great fortunes!"

While this has indeed been my personal experience, the fact is that for some people, even the bare requirements of living are beyond their means to acquire, and the opportunity to come by them honestly does not exist. It is entirely too facile to blithely state, "Oh, well, those who are willing to work hard will always fare well enough." Our societies must work to become more just, to open more opportunities to everyone, so that this may be true. But it is not true . . . not yet . . .

"I have been deprived of my country, not my ability to endure exile.

I would like to tell you the reflections which I use for my own benefit (to make exile more bearable). It seems to me that exile does not strip you entirely, not even of the things which the average person calls goods . . . But even if you are deprived of some or all of them, you are still not deprived of the things which are truly good:
* courage
* justice
* self-control
* understanding
nor any of the other virtues which bring honour and benefit - show a person to be praiseworthy - or when absent, cause harm and dishonor. Since this is true, if you are that good person and have their virtues, exile won't harm or degrade you, because present inside of you are the virtues which are most able to sustain you. But if you are bad, it is the evil that harms you - not exile; and the misery you feel in exile is the result of evil, not exile. It is from this you must hasten to secure release, rather than from exile. I used to repeat these things to myself, and I say them to you now. If you are wise, you won't consider exile a thing to be dreaded, since others bear it easily. Evil, however, makes wretched every man in whom it is present."

This is indeed my own experience as well.

"Leadership" (from "Musonius Rufus on How To Live")

From Musonius Rufus on How To Live:

"LEADERSHIP

You will earn the respect of all if you begin by earning the respect of yourself. Don't expect to encourage good deeds in people conscious of your own misdeeds.

How can we condemn tyrants, when we are much worse - we have the same impulses as theirs, but lack the opportunity to indulge them.

Rulers don't live long after they become used to defending themselves before their subjects with 'it is my will' rather than 'it is my duty'. Towards the ruled, you should aim to be regarded with awe, not fear. Reverence accompanies one, bitterness the other.

. . .

With the exception of philosophy, there is no study that develops self-control. It teaches you to be above pleasure and greed - admire thrift and avoid extravagance - it trains you to have a sense of shame, and to control your tongue - it produces discipline, order, and courtesy - in general, appropriate action. When these qualities are present in an ordinary person, they impart dignity and self-command - if present in a king they make him more godlike and worthy of reverence.

Courage breeds the fearless, the intrepid, the bold - so how else would you acquire these characteristics other than by having a firm conviction that death and hardships are not evils? For these are the things that unbalance and frighten you - philosophy is the only teacher that they are not evils. If kings ought to possess courage (and they should more than anyone else) - they must study philosophy - since they cannot become courageous by any other means.

. . .

It is of the greatest importance for the good king to be:
* Faultless and perfect in word and action (if he is to be a 'living law' as he seemed to the ancients)
* Ensuring good government and harmony
* Suppressing lawlessness and dissension
* A true imitator of Zeus - like him, father of his people

How could anyone be this king if they were not endowed with a superior nature, given the best possible education, and are possessing all the virtues of humanity?"

There is a lot of emphasis here on the "king", and in particular the idea that a good king is a philosopher, and idea certainly as old as Plato - the ideal "philosopher-king" described in Plato's Republic. Still, much of it is applicable to any leadership position. If one would lead well, one must be wise. The love and study of wisdom is essential to good leadership.

"Resilience" (from "Musonius Rufus on How To Live")

From Musonius Rufus on How To Live:

"If you want to be healthy, you should spend your life taking care of yourself. Unlike hellebore, reason shouldn't be cast out after the illness is cured - let it remain in the soul to guard your judgment. The power of reason shouldn't be compared to medicines, but to healthy foods - it introduces a good frame of mind into those where it becomes habitual. However, when the emotions are at their greatest heat, wise words and warnings barely have any effect at all. They are like the scents that revive those fallen in a fit, yet don't cure the disease.

To help us cheerfully endure those hardships which we may expect to suffer because of virtue and goodness, it is useful to recall what hardships people will endure for immoral reasons . . .

Anyone will admit how much better it is instead of
* struggling to win someone else's wife - struggle to discipline your desires?
* enduring hardship for the sake of money - train yourself to want little?
* troubling to be famous - take trouble to reducing your thirst for fame?
* trying to injure an envied person - ask how to stifle envy?
* slaving, as sycophants do, to win false friends - undergo suffering to possess true friends?

In general, hard work and hardship are a necessity for all - both those who seek the better ends and for those who seek the worse - it is ridiculous that those who are pursuing the better are not much more eager in their efforts than those who have small hope of reward for all their pains . . .

If we were to measure what is good by how much pleasure it brings, nothing would be better than self-control - if we were to measure what is to be avoided by its pain, nothing would be more painful than lack of self-control.

. . .

It is true that all of us who have participated in philosophic discussion have heard and appreciated that pain, death, poverty, or anything else free from wrong are not evil - similarly that wealth, life, pleasure, or anything else which does not contribute to virtue isn't a good.

. . . .

[T]he person who is in training must habituate themselves not to love pleasure, not to avoid hardship, not to be infatuated with living, not to fear death, and in the case of goods or money not to place receiving above giving."

Some pretty basic Stoic thoughts, but well-expressed!

"Live Well Today" (from "Musonius Rufus on How To Live"

"It isn't possible to live well today unless you think of it as your last day."

~ Gaius Musonius Rufus

Epictetus On Our Own Interest

http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/06/epictetus-our-own-interst//

On "Law" (from "Musonius Rufus on How To Live")

"To scheme how to bite back the biter, and to return evil for evil is the act of a wild beast - not a human capable of reasoning that most wrongs are done through ignorance and misunderstanding, from which humans will cease as soon as they are taught. To accept injury without a spirit of savage resentment 0 to show ourselves merciful toward those who wrong us - being a source of good hope to them - is characteristic of a benevolent and civilized way of life. How much better is the philosopher who conducts themselves so as to feel forgiveness for anyone who wrongs them, rather than to behave as if ready to defend themselves with lawyers and indictments - while in reality they are behaving inappropriately, contrary to their own teaching. To be sure - a good person can never be wronged by a bad."

"The Good" (from "Musonius Rufus on How to Live")

"'If you do a good thing through your hard work, the work passes - the good remains. If you gain pleasure through dishonour, the pleasure will pass, but the dishonour remains.'


'We begin to lose our hesitation to do immoral things when we lose our hesitation to speak of them.'

'If you choose to hold on to what is right, don't despair in difficult circumstances - reflect on how many things have already happened in your life in ways that you didn't wish, and yet they have turned out for the best. There is no more shameful inconsistency than to think of how weak your body is during the stress of pain, yet to forget this when enjoying pleasure.'"

An Introduction to Musonius Rufus's Stoicism

From Musonius Rufus on How to Live by Ben White:

     "Of everything that exists, God has put some in our control, some not. He has put the noblest and most excellent thing in our control (the reason He himself is happy), that is, the power of using our impressions.

     When correctly used, it means serenity, cheerfulness, constancy - justice and law and self-control - virtue overall. All other things He has not put in our control. Thus we ought to emulate the mind of God - dividing up things like this - we ought to completely claim the things in our control - entrust what isn't to the universe: gladly give it whatever it asks for - our children, our country, our body, anything."

~ Gaius Musonius Rufus

From "Greeks to Geeks" on Bullying . . .

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Epictetus: 'If evil be spoken of you and it be true, correct yourself, if it be a lie, laugh at it.'

Epictetus: 'If you hear that someone is speaking ill of you, instead of trying to defend yourself you should say, 'He obviously does not know me very well, since there are so many other faults he could have mentioned!"'

Epictetus: 'It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting.'"

"Stoicism and Work: We Can Work It Out" (from "Greeks to Geeks"

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Stoicism and Work: We Can Work It Out

After relationships our careers are possibly the next biggest part of our daily lives, even if you just think of the sheer number of hours we spend each year working . . .

Epictetus: 'Nothing great is created suddenly, any more than a bunch of grapes or a fig. If you tell me that you desire a fig, I answer you that there must be time. Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen.'

Patience is a virtue when considering work and your career, allow time to pass and things to develop. So often we give up on ventures too early, or rush into things without proper planning leading to problems down the road. Give yourself plenty of time when preparing for some work, or when starting a new job to allow things to settle.

Epictetus: 'Practice yourself, for heaven's sake, in little things, and thence proceed to greater.'

Try not to rush ahead or put yourself in positions where you will be out of your depth in your work. Sometimes we have to, but in general, it's best, when possible, not to . . .

. . . Doing your work well, whatever it is, is a virtue itself. Taking pride in your job, your duty, is an endearing quality and it shows respect for whatever has been placed before you. There's an old Buddhist saying regarding duty, or Dharma, that goes 'What is in your way, becomes your way'. The point is that there are lessons and challenges in every situation that you find yourself in. By all means strive and endeavor to find your ideal job or career, but do not begrudge your current situation, even though it may not be perfect. Be appreciative of whatever positives there may be, take pride in your work, and play your role well . . ."

I have been there and done that, having worked some FAR less than ideal jobs . . .

"Stoicism and Relationships: In Sickness and in Health" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Stoicism and Relationships: In Sickness And In Health

Relationships make up a huge part of our life on Earth, sure there are the obvious ones like familial relationships, romantic relationships, work, friends, neighbors etc. But as well as those the fact is that every time you engage in a conversation with someone on the street, a police officer, or a shopkeeper that too is a relationship. Any time you are relating with another is a relationship . . .

There are two main Stoic points that should be remembered in any relationship, the first is that you do not, and cannot even if you wanted to, control the thoughts or actions of another person, people will do what people will do, you can offer advice, or tell them what you'd prefer, but in the end they are their own being . . . The second point is to have full respect and unconditional love of your friends and family, while reserving opinions and judgment for their actions only . . .

Remember that a relationship is made up of a series of deals, or agreements, 'I will do this, as long as you do that', when someone breaks one of these agreements the two (or more), the people involved, must look at the damage and decide whether to continue together, or what new agreements need to be put in place to continue the relationship. Try not to get caught up in believing that these agreements are more than what they are, to begin believing that they are sacred pacts or promises (never make a promise that is determined by forces outside of your control), or that there is good and evil involved, there is not . . ."

From Aulus Gellius I.VI

From Aulus Gellius' Noctes Atticae (I.VI):

"Verba Metelli haec sunt: 'Di immortales plurimum possunt; sed non plus velle nobis debent quam parentes. At parentes, si pergunt liberi errare, bonis exheredant. Quid ergo nos ab immortalibus dissimile ius expectemus, nisi malis rationibus finem faciamus? Is demum deos propitious esse aecum est, qui sibi adversarii non sunt. Dii immortales virtutem adprobare, non adhibere, debent'."

"These are the words of Metellus: 'The immortal are able to do much, but they ought not to be more indulgent to us than our parents. But parents, if their children persist in doing wrong, disinherit them. What different justice, then, should we expect from the immortal gods, unless we should make an end to our evil ways? Those alone may justly claim the favor of the gods who are not their own worst enemies. The immortal gods ought to support virtue, not supply it'."

"Stoic Warriors" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Stoic Warriors: Making the Best of a Bad Situation

Epictetus: 'If you wish your children, and your wife, and your friends to live forever, you are stupid; for you wish to be in control of things which you cannot, you wish for things that belong to others to be your own. So likewise, if you wish your servant to be without fault, you are a fool; for you wish vice not to be vice, but something else. But, if you wish to have your desires undisappointed, this is in your own control. Exercise, therefore, what is in your control. He is the master of every other person who is able to confer or remove whatever that person wishes either to have or to avoid. Whoever, then, would be free, let him wish nothing, let him decline nothing, which depends on others, else he must necessarily be a slave.'

You may be thinking, 'That's all well and good, going about telling people not to care about what they don't control, but is that even possible? It's so hard! It couldn't possibly actually work, could it? It can and does work . . ."

Healey goes on to give examples from the life of Vice-Admiral James B. Stockdale. He cites some quotes from Stockdale, including:

"You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end - which you can never afford to lose - with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."

"Living In Accordance With Nature" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Living in Accordance with Nature

Epictetus: 'Remember that you must behave in life as at a dinner party. Is anything brought around to you? Put out your hand and take your share with moderation. Does it pass by you? Don't stop it. Is it not yet come? Don't stretch your desire towards it, but wait until it reaches you. Do this with regard to children, to a wife, to public posts, to riches, and you will eventually be a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods. And if you don't even take the things that are set before you, but are able even to reject them, then you will not only be a partner at the feasts of the gods, but also of their empire. For, by doing this, Diogenes, Heraclitus, and others like them, deservedly became. and were called, divine.'

Allow life to come to you, states Epictetus in the above passage. Don't go outside of your philosophy in order to attain things, live your life honestly, authentically, and with dignity and let things flow into your life as they naturally do, and partake of them when they are presented to you.
. . .
Marcus Aurelius: 'We are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature.'

Fairness, equality, and cooperation are central to Stoic beliefs as, like Marcus Aurelius here states, we do not see nature tearing itself apart, or destroying itself, and by that logic neither should the human race."

"Of Tranquility: Preparing for the Trial" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Of Tranquility: Preparing for the Trial
. . .
Epictetus: 'Never say of anything, "I have lost it"; but, "I have returned it." Is your child dead? It is returned. Is your wife dead? She is returned. Is your estate taken away? Well, and is that not likewise returned? "But he who took it away is a bad man." What difference is it to you who the giver assigns to take it back? While he gives it to you to possess, take care of it; but don't view it as your own, just as travellers view a hotel.'
. . .
So here's an interesting idea, 'view nothing as your own' . . . unlike many religions and sects where it is necessary and part of the dogma to totally give up, or renounce certain material items, foods, drinks, wealth, and refrain completely from certain rituals or actions, in Stoicism the key is moderation. Should you go overboard or take part in some actions that you are not proud of, you have only disappointed yourself, and even then not beyond redemption, you don't torture yourself, you simply notice what you've done, notice that you dislike that you've done it and tell yourself that you'll try harder in the future, while maintaining full unconditional love and acceptance of yourself."

Radical detachment!

"Fatalism, Determinism - Be It Gods Or Atoms" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Fatalism, Determinism - Be It Gods Or Atoms

Epictetus: 'Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If it is his pleasure you should act a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your business, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is another's.'

A big part of Stoicism is the idea that our path in life is pretty much mapped out, or at least that it might as well be considering that there will always be only one outcome to anything that we do or try, and we have no way of knowing how things would have turned out should you have tried something different. Now I'm not exactly sure if the Stoics really believed in a 'future is already planned out' fatalism, or if they were simply using what was the common belief at the time to communicate their message to people in a way that they would understand. Then there is the contradiction of when Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius will say that you have free will, indeed that it is all you have, and then later in the same passage talk about how we must accept our fate. This seems like a pretty big contradiction . . .

Determinism: Determinism is the view that every event has a cause and that everything in the universe is absolutely dependent on and governed by causal laws. Since determinists believe that all events, including human actions, are predetermined, determinism is typically thought to incompatible with free will. Basically, there are no coincidences, all is connected.

Determinism states that every event, including human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Determinists believe the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time.

Fatalism: Fatalism is the belief that 'what will be will be,' since all past, present, and future events have already been predetermined . . .

Fatalism is seen as a submissive mental attitude resulting from acceptance of the doctrine that everything that happens is predetermined and inevitable. It is also a philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them.

Free Will: The theory of Free Will states that human beings have freedom of choice or self-determination; that is, given a situation, a person could have done other than what he did. Philosophers have argued that free will is incompatible with determinism.

Free will is the power to make free choices unconstrained by external agencies.

Indeterminism: The view that there are events that do not have any cause; many proponents of free will believe that acts of choice are capable of not being determined by any physiological or psychological cause.

Indeterminism is a philosophical position that maintains that any form of determinism is incorrect because it is ultimately metaphysical. Quantum physics has shown that not only is it possible for outcomes to be different, but even that millions of alternate realities are playing out all at the same time in different dimensions or spaces.

So these are the most common fields of thought on this subject, all seem contradictory except for one thing they all have in common. The single consistency between these theories is that no matter which you believe, only one thing can actually happen to you at any given time, life is linear, we can't go back and see what would have happened if we had made a different choice.

. . . [W]e still have only one reality to deal with, and no matter how you look at it we have to accept what comes to us. Once something has happened it's already too late, it's time to move into acceptance and making the most of what is put before us. However, in the present moment we do have thoughts, opinions, and beliefs that are fully within our control (or at least seem to be), that we can change as we please, and when you consider that it is these exact opinions and beliefs which shape how we feel about our uncontrollable circumstances we're not doing too bad.

. . . As Epictetus says: 'Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well'."

"Of Preferences and Aversion" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Of Preferences and Aversion:
I Want Want Want it, but I Don't Need Need Need it!

Epictetus: 'Remember that following desire promises the attainment of that of which you are desirous, and version promises the avoiding that to which you are averse. However, he who fails to obtain the object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object of his aversion wretched. If, then, you confine your aversion to those objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse. But if you are averse to sickness, or death, or poverty, you will be wretched. Remove aversion, then, from all things contrary to the nature of what is in our control, and transfer it to things contrary to the nature of what is in our control. But, for the present, totally suppress desire: for, if you desire any of the things which are not in your own control, you must necessarily be disappointed; and of those which are, and which it is laudable to desire, nothing is yet in your possession. Use only the appropriate actions of pursuit and avoidance; and even these lightly, and with gentleness and reservation.'

. . . What Epictetus is saying here is that if you place your preferences and aversions on things outside of your power, you will naturally be unhappy, because your happiness is determined by whether or not you get what you desire, and avoid what you are averse to. And when outside forces are determining whether or not you get what you want, you will, eventually, be disappointed. Therefore, he says, prefer and move away from things within your power only, and reserve a kind of indifference to everything else . . .

It is suggested in Stoicism, in regard to external things, both desirable and undesirable, that they should be approached with a kind of indifference or apathy. This is not a negative indifference or apathy, though these words have gained quite a negative reputation, these are of the positive kind. The Stoic will still move naturally in the direction of that which they like and which is an external 'good' (health, wealth, good relationships, good reputation, etc.), just as they will as much as they can move away from that which they don't like, an external 'bad' (illness, poverty, bad relationships, a poor reputation, etc.). But the key point is that should either fortune or misfortune strike, it will be viewed with the sort of indifference that would be shown to anything outside the Stoic's control. They enjoy good fortune, but no more than it deserves, and they do not take credit for gains acquired from outside forces. Stoics do not reject wealth, power, property, status, or good reputation, they just don't need it. If it comes, it comes, if it doesn't, it doesn't.

. . . If you can stay pretty much the same and at peace in good circumstance and bad you will know that you are a Stoic."

I think Healey masterfully states some of the core ethics of Stoicism in very simple terms, here!

"For How Much Lettuce is Sold" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"For How Much is Lettuce Sold: The Little Epictetus Inside Your Head

Epictetus: 'Is anyone preferred before you at an entertainment, or in a compliment, or in being admitted to a consultation? If these things are good, you ought to be glad that he has gotten them; and if they are evil, don't be grieved that you have not gotten them. And remember that you cannot, without using the same means [which others do] to acquire things not in our own control, expect to be thought worthy of an equal share of them. For how can he who does not frequent the door of any [great] man, does not attend him, does not praise him, have an equal share with him who does? You are unjust then, and insatiable, if you are unwilling to pay the price for which these things are sold, and would have them for nothing. For how much is lettuce sold? Fifty cents, for instance. If another, then, paying fifty cents, takes the lettuce, and you, not paying it, go without them, don't imagine that he has gained any advantage over you. For as he has the lettuce, so you have the fifty cents which you did not give. So, in the present case, you have not been invited to such a person's entertainment, because you have not paid him the price for which a supper is sold. It is sold for praise; it is sold for attendance. Give him then the value, if it is for your advantage. But if you would, at the same time, not pay the one and yet receive the other, you are insatiable, and a blockhead. Have you nothing, then, instead of the supper? Yes, indeed you have: the not praising him, whom you don't like to praise; the not bearing with his behaviour at coming in.'

This passage describes yet another way we often torment ourselves needlessly. It's basically the idea of having your cake and eating it too.
 . . .
In all your dealings with the world there is an exchange, a compromise . . . But once you have made your choices, look at, and be happy with what you have gained, or retained, and don't lust after having both or you will be miserable.
 . . .
Don't forget what you have, and what it would cost to have what another is in possession of, nothing comes for free, there is always a price to pay be it in money, time, or lifestyle choices. So often we get carried away by the appearance of things, especially in regard to jealousy and envy, but always remember that everything comes with a cost."

"As A Mark Is Not Set Up To Be Missed" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"As A Mark Is Not Set Up To Be Missed

Epictetus: 'As a mark is not set up for the sake of missing the aim, so neither does the nature of evil exist in the world.'

What Epictetus is saying is that not once during the entire history of human kind has a person done the wrong thing on purpose . . . Even if a person decided to act . . . against their personal feeling and the available information, they would still be acting in accordance to what they think is best at the time. Even if they are doing their worst on purpose, it's still what they have willingly chosen to do. It is quite simply impossible to choose to do the wrong thing according to your own standards, opinions, and beliefs at the time of choosing. Even those historical figures who have instigated or personally taken part in horrendous crimes, have at the time of undertaking, been absolutely sure that it was the right course of action, or even if they had their doubts, it was still, to them, the best thing they could do at the time with the information that was available to them. Therefore Epictetus argues that there is no evil, or that no one has ever decided to do an evil thing. This of course does not justify these horrible acts, the Gulags of the Soviet Union come to mind, or the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge, or the Death Camps of the Nazis. Despicable as these atrocities are it must be accepted that those who created these systems, at one time at least, thought them to be noble and necessary ideas, or at very least the lesser of available evils. The concept of evil is entirely subjective and although people can do acts which are perceived as evil, the person as a whole cannot be evil . . .

This is not to say that everyone should go out and do horrible things and take no responsibility, quite the opposite in fact, we should take full responsibility for our deeds and to that end should take more care in choosing which course of action to take . . . "

This is one of the hardest doctrines of Stoicism for beginners, I think - the concept that nobody chooses evil. Almost everyone, I think, has enemies at some point in their lives, and almost everyone wishes to ascribe evil motivations to their enemies. But following a tradition begun by Socrates, the Stoics demand that we look closely at our enemies and realize that while they do not wish us well when they seek to harm us, they are under the mistaken impression that attempting to harm us is the right thing for them to do. We should pity their ignorance rather than hate their evil.

"Sickness is a Hindrance of the Body" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Sickness is a Hindrance of the Body: You Always Have a Choice

Epictetus: 'Sickness is a hindrance to the body, but not to your ability to choose, unless that is your choice. Lameness is a hindrance to the leg, but not to your ability to choose. Say this to yourself with regard to everything that happens, then you will see such obstacles as hindrances to something else, but not to yourself.'"

That last part is important - your SELF, your Ruling Faculty, is not the same as your body. Something can hinder your leg, but not affect YOU. You are your Ruling Faculty, you are your own ability to choose. You are your soul, so to speak.

"Don't  give up your Ruling Faculty, always consider what you are presented with carefully, and make the best decision from the choices available to you at the time.

Epictetus 'Remember that not he who gives ill language or a blow, insults, but the principle which represents these things as insulting. When, therefore, anyone provokes you, be assured that it is your own opinion which provokes you. Try, therefore, in the first place, not to be hurried away with the appearance. For if you once gain time and respite, you will more easily command yourself.'

Here Epictetus is using the same theory, that it is not the event but our opinions about the event that create our reaction to the event, to describe how it is possible to not go into things rashly in a knee-jerk way. So often when we are insulted, or something unforeseen and unfortunate happens, we go ahead and do something stupid that we later regret, often because we have misunderstood what has happened, or we were missing some important piece of information."

"Death is not terrible" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"Death is not terrible: Else it would have appeared so to Socrates

Epictetus: 'Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Someone who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself.'

Basically what Epictetus is saying here is pretty obvious stuff, death is one of the most important, and of course inevitable aspects of all life in the natural world, and being so could surely not be something to be worried about, for if it were, as Epictetus says, it would have appeared so to Socrates . . . So many of us spend our lives in fear, afraid of death and so become afraid of life, lose the fear of death and so become afraid of life, lose the fear of death and life can become much more pleasant. Your opinion is the most powerful tool you possess, and your choice is your only true freedom."

"It's Not The Accident" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"It's Not The Accident

Epictetus: 'When you see anyone weeping in grief because his son has gone abroad, or is dead, or because he has suffered in his affairs, be careful that the appearance may not misdirect you. Instead, distinguish within your own mind, and be prepared to say, 'It's not the accident that distresses this person, because it doesn't distress another person; it is the judgment which he makes about it.' As far as words go, however, don't reduce yourself to his level, and certainly do not moan with him. Do not moan inwardly either.'
. . .
Epictetus: 'The will of nature may be learned from those things in which we don't distinguish from each other. For example, when our neighbour's  boy breaks a cup, or the like, we are presently ready to say, 'These things will happen.' Be assured, then, that when your own cup likewise is broken, you ought to be affected just as when another's cup was broken. Apply this in like manner to greater things. Is the child or wife of another dead? There is no one who would not say, 'This is a human accident.' But if anyone's own child happens to die, it is presently, 'Alas how wretched am I!' But it should be remembered how we are affected in hearing the same thing concerning others.'
. . .
It is always your choice how you react to events.

Imagine the respite from stress and emotional pain you would gain from being able to treat your own misfortunes with the same, or similar degree of indifference that you would feel toward something that had happened to someone else.
. . .
Because the process of event, opinion, reaction is so quick, it is very difficult to change your opinions in real time . . ."

"With Regard to the Things You Love . . ." (from "Greeks to Geeks")

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks:Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century:

"With Regard to the Things You Love: Ceramic Cups and Kissing

Epictetus: '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.'

OK, Epictetus, we get it, don't be sad if our wife or child dies, no problem. A little harsh maybe, but let's look at the idea behind this logic and start with something a little easier like those ceramic cups he was talking about.

The point here is that if you place a great deal of attachment onto something which is outside of your control, you are setting yourself up to take one heck of a fall. This is quite a radical idea in this age of materialism, where people pride themselves on their physical possessions, their collections, their cars, houses, gadgets, clothes, and even our relationships. Let's hear that last sentence again; we 'pride OURSELVES on our physical possessions', so if our worth to ourselves and what we project to others is reliant on a physical item, what happens when that item breaks, is stolen, or lost? Depression happens, rage happens, violence can happen.
 . . .

This is an example of retaining logic, and dignity, during a crisis. Once something has happened, you cannot go back and change it, you do though have the power to choose how you will react and behave afterwards. If you follow the Stoic logic to its end, asking, is it within my power? Have I been harmed by this? Did I choose for this to happen? Have I embarrassed myself? If you ask these questions and answer them honestly, you will always keep your dignity in tough situations and you will be free of the excess pain, worry, and rage that is often the first impulse when something like this happens.
 . . .

If we place our own innate, human worth onto an external item, place, or person, we are disempowering ourselves completely, we become a slave to that which we have placed our worth onto."

"The Importance of Distinguishing" (from "Greeks to Geeks")

"The Importance of Distinguishing " from Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century

"Epictetus: Work, therefore, to be able to say to every harsh appearance, 'You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be.' And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our own control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.
. . .
Epictetus is saying to us that if something is not within our power we have the right, or indeed the obligation, to say that it is nothing to us. If there is nothing we can do about something, what is the point in worrying? . . . You will find that in any circumstance you always have some power, to influence your opinion, and to make choices."

The ability to distinguish what is and is not in our power is perhaps the most important skill a Stoic learns, for everything hinges on the ability to make this critical distinction.

"The Self Esteem Trap" from "Greeks to Geeks"

From Rohan Healey's Greeks to Geeks: Practical Stoicism for the 21st Century

"The Self Esteem Trap
 . . .
Epictetus: 'The things in our control are by their nature free, unrestrained, and unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you will not be harmed."

Healey, using Epictetus, here examines how little importance a Stoic should place on things outside the control one's own control. He quotes Dr. Albert Ellis, founder of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (who based it on Stoic philosophical concepts), as saying "Self-esteem is the greatest sickness known to man or woman because it's conditional." Healey explains, "If you place your sense of value as a human being, your sense of self-worth, on something that lies outside your control, you are asking for trouble. If your sense of self-love relies on outside conditions you are giving away all of your power."

So what is self-esteem? Healey says, "True self-esteem is the confidence you gain when you know what is actually within your power, and by mastering and utilizing this knowledge." True self - esteem, then, is based on what is in our control - opinion, pursuit, desire, and aversion - the "Ruling Faculty" of Epictetus. This Ruling Faculty "is simply our ability to form opinions, to have beliefs, to reminisce about the past and to project into the future."