Discourses and Selected Writings

by Epictetus, Robert Dobbin (Introduction), Coralie Bickford-Smith (Cover Art)

A new translation of the influential teachings of the great Stoic philosopher

DESPITE BEING BORN into slavery, Greco-Roman philosopher Epictetus became one of the most influential thinkers of his time. Discourses and Selected Writings is a transcribed collection of informal lectures given by the philosopher around AD 108. A gateway into the life and mind of a great intellectual, it is also an important example of the usage of Koine or ?common? Greek, an ancestor to Standard Modern Greek.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Self Help, History, Psychology, Ancient

416 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 108

About the author

Epictetus was a Greek Stoic philosopher. He was probably born a slave at Hierapolis, Phrygia (present day Pamukkale, Turkey), and lived in Rome until his exile to Nicopolis in northwestern Greece, where he lived most of his life and died. His teachings were noted down and published by his pupil Arrian in his Discourses. Philosophy, he taught, is a way of life and not just a theoretical discipline. To Epictetus, all external events are determined by fate, and are thus beyond our control, but we can accept whatever happens calmly and dispassionately. Individuals, however, are responsible for their own actions which they can examine and control through rigorous self-discipline. Suffering arises from trying to control what is uncontrollable, or from neglecting what is within our power. As part of the universal city that is the universe, human beings have a duty of care to all fellow humans. The person who followed these precepts would achieve happiness.

Other language versions:
Epictète
Epícteto
Epiktet

Reviews

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

But to begin with, keep well away of what is stronger than you. If a pretty girl is set against a young man who is just making a start on philosophy, that is no fair contest.

Epictetus forms one part of the triad of classic stoic authors, along with Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.

Born a slave, sent into exile, never rich nor powerful, he certainly had more need of the stoic philosophy than Aurelius, an emperor, or Seneca, a senator. His course of life was closer to that of Socrates. Like Plato’s hero (and unlike Plato himself), Epictetus did not trouble himself with questions of logic, epistemology, or metaphysics. His concern was ethics; his aim was to learn how to live the best possible life. Also like Socrates, he did not write anything down himself. All of “his” works were set to paper by his pupil, Arrian.

In character, too, he is far removed from either Aurelius or Seneca. Aurelius’s voice is intimate and frank; he speaks as a friend. Seneca is sophisticated, suave, and cosmopolitan; he is easy to imagine as a witty dinner guest. Epictetus is like a sassy staff-sergeant. His mode is vituperation; he is a teacher who will mock and chide you into shape. The basic idea of his philosophy could hardly be simpler. His goal is only to instill this idea into your mind so deeply that it reforms your whole character.

What is his philosophy? The basic message is this. The external world is ultimately outside of our control. We cannot determine whether we will be rich or poor, whether our loved ones will die, whether we will be banished, imprisoned, or executed, whether we will be favored or persecuted by the emperor, whether we will get sick, whether other people will like us, or a thousand other things. The outside world—the world outside our minds—will always be able to overpower us, outmaneuver us, and surprise us.

Only the internal world is within our control. This is what Epictetus calls the “realm of choice.” We cannot choose our circumstances, but we can choose how we react to those circumstances. We cannot, for example, prevent ourselves from being robbed; but we can choose not to place value in our jewelry, and so maintain peace of mind in the event of a robbery. Everything, even our lives and our loved ones, only has value because we give it value with our minds. You can laugh at your own executioner if you don’t regard execution as an evil. This power—the power to change our attitude towards the external world—Epictetus regards as the ultimate and quintessential human faculty. This is the power of choice, and constitutes human freedom.

‘He has been taken off to prison.’—What has happened? He has been taken off to prison. But the observation ‘Things have gone badly for him’ is something that each person adds for himself.

He is unwaveringly concerned with the practical rather than the theoretical. This book is full of castigation for philosophy students who consider themselves successful when they can satisfactorily summarize and refute a logical argument. Logic is just a plaything, Epictetus says, and all this argument is entirely besides the point. How will you react when you’re in a ship that’s being tossed about in a storm? How will you react if you’re banished or if your loved one dies? How will you face death? Remember, he says, that books are ultimately just another external good, like money or power, and by prizing them, like any external good, we simply make ourselves victims of circumstances.

Epictetus’s stoicism is more explicitly deistic than Seneca’s or Aurelius’s. He regards all humans as children of God (Zeus), whom he pictures as running every detail of the universe. Thus a large part of his philosophy consists of acting in accordance with God. If you want to live in Rome, but circumstances prevent it, don’t whine and moan, but accept that God has other plans for you. If you go bankrupt and end up a beggar, accept this new role and play your part in the grand design. To reject God’s plan is foolish impiety. It is to overlook all of the blessing bestowed on you—not least life itself—and focus on one small part of the universe that you find unpleasant: “So because of one miserable leg, slave, you’re going to cast reproaches against the universe?” (Epictetus was lame in one leg.)

Although sometimes Epictetus pictures Zeus as a personal god, for the most part it is easy to see his Zeus as merely a personalization of the universe. In any case, Epictetus’s conception of death is entirely materialistic. There is no afterlife; death is the end of existence. But it is only an end from your point of view. The materials of your body will be released and used for other things. Indeed, says Epictetus, we really do not possess anything. Everything—our house, our family, our body itself—is just on a loan from the universe. If Zeus asks for it back, we would be rude to refuse.

Books like these can easily become moralizing and unpleasant; but this one is saved by Epictetus's rollicking humor and puckish wit. Epictetus is often shown discoursing with a pupil, upbraiding, reprimanding, scolding, chiding, and finally encouraging. His style is distinguished by its relentless use of rhetorical questions. For a philosopher, he can be rather cheeky:

I must die; so must I die groaning too? I must be imprisoned; so must I grieve at that too? I must depart into exile; so can anyone prevent me from setting off with a smile, cheerfully and serenely?

The only thing that makes this book occasionally unpleasant to read is its repetitiveness. The same ideas are put forward in a hundred different ways; the same theme is returned to again and again. There is little plan or order to the sections. There is no grand unifying scheme, merely a succession of chapters haphazardly arranged. I should admit, however, that this repetition can be partly excused by the need of a moralist to firmly instill his principles: “One should know that it isn’t easy for a person to arrive at a firm judgment unless, day after day, he states and hears the same principles, and at the same time applies them to his life.”

There are theoretical troubles, too. I could not entirely agree with his division of the universe into things falling within or without the sphere of choice. Surely it is more accurate to think of a scale, or a gradation, of things more or less within our power. We can minutely influence an election, we can somewhat influence our friends, we can usually control our bodies, and we can almost always control our attitude. Thus, instead of saying “Only worry about things within the sphere of choice,” it would be more accurate to say “Only worry about things insofar as your choices can affect them.” And then, even so, in practice it is so often difficult to tell whether we are fulfilling our duties to the best of our abilities.

This is related to another theoretical weakness. The stoics make much ado about living in harmony with nature (or Zeus). And yet, how can anyone act otherwise? If we are a part of nature, and bound by her laws, how can any of our actions be out of sync with nature? Let’s say, for example, that you get banished from Rome. Epictetus advises you to accept your fate as God’s will and make a new life. To protest your fate would be to act against nature. But what if it’s Zeus’s (or whoever’s) will that you protest? And how can Epictetus know that, by protesting, you won’t be readmitted to the capital? Maybe your protest will be an event in the history of Rome and change the practice of banishment forever?

By this I am led to another potential shortcoming in Epictetus’s system: fatalism. If everyone is entirely responsible for their own peace of mind, and if circumstances play no role in human happiness, then there is no reason to help anybody or to try to improve the world: “If anyone suffers misfortune, remember that he suffers it through his own fault, since God created all human beings to enjoy happiness, to enjoy peace of mind.” Again, in this situation I think Epictetus’s hard division between things outside or within our control blinds him to the dialogue between attitude and circumstances that comprise human life and happiness.

The modern use of the word “stoic”—someone imperturbable, unemotional, unfeeling—is not entirely accurate as regards the original stoics. Seneca was witty, cosmopolitan, and certainly not unfeeling. Yet in Epictetus we see this stereotype borne out more accurately. The majority of these dialogues is concerned with avoiding disturbance and maintaining peace of mind. Epictetus is constantly warning his pupils what not to do, what actions, people, and things to avoid in order to be properly philosophical. Very little is said about the joys of life. Indeed, unlike Seneca, who was a fan of Epicurus, Epictetus repeatedly denounces Epicureans without seeming to understand their doctrine.

These criticisms are minor when I consider that this book is easily one of the greatest books on the art of living that I have yet read. So often Epictetus seems to be speaking directly to me, with frightening relevance. He is not interested in any of my excuses, but shames me into virtue with his sharp-tongued and good-natured scolding. And it is, perhaps, unfair to criticize the theory of a philosophy whose end is practice. For my part, Epictetus is easily the most powerful of the three classic stoic authors, one who I will be sure to return to when life tosses me about.

[Orhan Pelinkovic · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Why do you read anyway - for the sake of amusement or mere erudition? Those are poor, fatuous pretexts. Reading should serve the goal of attaining peace; if it doesn't make you peaceful, what good is it?"

Epictetus' Discourses and Selected Writings read like a self-improvement book, but an ancient one, written two millennia ago in the Roman Empire. Epictetus (c.55-135 CE) was a Greek freedman and quite an articulate Stoic philosopher, although these Discourses where written and published by his student Arrian.

Epictetus' emphasis is solely on mental health and how to maintain and improve its fitness. First we must be persistent in alleviating ourselves of feelings, or better yet, perceptions of jealousy, anxiety, anger, and fear. Easier said than done! But how do we achieve this state of emotional stability and inner tranquility? We have to expect and prepare ourselves for disappointment and remain indifferent to things that are not in our power and are beyond our control. We must detach ourselves from all material things and practice self-control in order not to succumb to desires while looking down upon any material things and all externals that are outside of our sphere of influence.

Epictetus also discusses the correct way to evaluate and utilize our impressions and the importance of the will. He especially praises the philosophies and philosophers, Socrates and Diogenes, but criticizes and mocks Epicurus. This tells me I should read Epicurus as a GR friend already recommended.

Stoicism feels like an applied philosophy that teaches those that wish to follow it to continually "persist and resist" the pains and pleasures in any and most extreme circumstances in order to reach true freedom and happiness all in harmony with nature and belief in God.

[William2 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read The Enchiridion. Breezy Stoic tonics for daily living. Surprisingly Buddhistic. Star rating refers to that section only.

[Arastoo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gave Marcus Aurelius' Mediations a five star rating only because the writing was more clear. However Aurelius was inspired by Epictetus and that is why I chose to read this book. I really enjoyed the read. It had a very powerful effect on the way I viewed life. If you are seeking to change your perspective or you're looking to grow,, this is a good starting book for you. I most enjoyed discussions on family, friendship, and integrity. I also enjoyed the enchiridion at the very end.

[Ektoras (Ross) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me: Epictetus, why is life so difficult? Why can’t I get what I want? Why are people so immature? Why can I never seem to be satisfied?

Epictetus: Because you are a damned fool! *smacks you over the head with his cane.* Seek virtue within not in external things! There will you find peace!

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I had to recommend one of the classic Stoic authors to someone new to the subject, it would be Epictetus. Many contemporary works on Stoicism are largely restatements of what Epictetus said with greater force and clarity thousands of years ago. Marcus Aurelius himself was greatly influenced by Epictetus, as confirmed in the Meditations.

This edition includes the Discourses (the four books that survived of the original eight), some fragments, and the Handbook. These were all written by Epictetus’s student Arrian, as Epictetus never wrote anything down himself. The Discourses are purported to be the literal transcription of Epictetus’s lectures while the Handbook is a summary of the ethical precepts found within the Discourses. The Handbook is the quickest route to practicing Stoicism right away, and should probably be read first before diving into the Discourses.

The underlying theme of the Handbook is progressive ethical self-improvement through daily practice. Through the concept of dichotomy of control, the Stoic learns to use reason to manage desire, handle adversity, and build character. While Stoicism cannot be “mastered,” with continual practice and reflection the Stoic can achieve tranquility and intellectual freedom while coming to see that virtue is the only true good within our complete control.

If I was setting about to learn Stoicism over again, I would read Epictetus first before moving on to Marcus Aurelius and Seneca and then to the more modern works. And this particular edition is probably the best modern translation available.

[Aurelia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Epictetus was a leading figure in stoicism in the II century AD. More than Marcus Aurelius, he is more qualified to teach about misfortune and bad starts, since he himself was a slave. But it is strange how much one can identify easier with Marcus Aurelius more than Epictetus. Perhaps it is the very direct style in which the Discourses were written, or rather reported by his student Arrian, with which he tried to put us in the presence of Epictetus, in order to feel the intensity and seriousness with which he exhorted his students to the practice of Philosophy as a way of life, not only a theoretical discipline.


Faithful to the teachings of stoicism since Zeno of Citium, Epictetus places a huge emphasis on the free will of the individual, and the correct use of impressions. Nothing is bad or good in itself unless we decide it is so. In order to lead a peaceful life with satisfaction, contentment and happiness one should separate what is in his control from what is not, think constantly of what he values the most, and focus on it. This way he can stop being tormented by what he calls externals. If scrutinized enough, a lot of what we hold as fundamental to human happiness may show us a different side. Most of the time they don’t belong to us in the first place, like our bodies, our health and our social class. These are parameters which were there from the start, and one wonders if a king is less tormented than a peasant, maybe they only differ in what kind of torments they suffer. Humans call misfortune what is also often a part of the cycle of Nature. It is absurd to oppose it, be afraid of it or try to avoid it. Decay and death are as natural as growth and birth. It is even absurd to be bothered by it.


The main purpose of the stoic teaching is to live a life free from fear and anxiety. To achieve this one needs a rigorous training of the faculty of the will and its appreciation of impressions. The knowledge of what is really a vice or a virtue is essential. It seems that to achieve a certain degree of inner peace one should train himself to practice beliefs and habits which most humans indulge in and find very difficult to adhere to, like detachment from material objects, indifference towards blame or praise, acceptance of one’s lot.  Epictetus often cites the example of athletes or craftsmen, as if such attitudes are not innate to humans, but acquired through a long apprenticeship. Without this training in the art of life, it is only the existence of slaves which one should expect. It is slavery to worthless objects, petty people, false opinions and vain struggles.


When reading Marcus Aurelius one feels more empathy towards stoics. Here is a man of an unreachable status, and a rare caliber of virtue, but who struggles to put these principles into action, he reminds himself constantly of his failures and exhorts himself to put more effort in the matter. Epictetus sounds very different. He seems to penetrate your inner soul with his gaze, and sees your utter inability to practice stoicism.  He spends so much time talking about those would-be erudites who only read to brag about what they know in conversation, without ever having the courage to put it in practice. He knows that deep down you still envy your ex-classmates who had better jobs, better cars, your good looking colleagues, the seemingly perfect life of your superiors, he knows that you still blame fortune for not giving you this opportunity or that, anxious about what others think of you, fearing to fail to meet the social expectations of your group. You are as far as one can be from stoic teachings, yet with insolence you lie to yourself and pretend to be on the right path. Epictetus’s gaze is intimidating, it calls us back to reality, and makes us ask if we are really ready and able to transform our minds the way stoics do. When we think of our daily lives, and how much time we are slaves of envy, jealousy, anger, dissatisfied desires and disappointed expectations, stoicism seems like an ideal which is still far ahead.

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

These times in which we now live demand normal daily functioning, combined with active resistance to viciously regressive political forces, in a chaotic atmosphere of propaganda and violence. For some this state of being is nothing new, but for white left-wingers in the UK and US, I suspect it’s largely novel and shocking. Personally, I find the current state of things (which I dread to think of as a new normal) horrifying and depressing, as I discussed in this review. Amongst other coping mechanisms, I’m finding thoughtful non-fiction helpful. Stoic philosophy seemed appropriate in part because it is one of the roots of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). This ancestry was often evident while I read; Epictetus demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of psychology many centuries before such a discipline existed.

It was interesting to read Epictetus as an atheist. Central to his Stoic teaching is the need to resign yourself, ideally in a joyful spirit, to all that outside your control. Epictetus assigns this realm to God/the gods/Zeus, effectively interchangeable terms. When applying this to myself, I experimented with reading God as fate, destiny, chaos, and simply the universe. Since I don’t specifically believe in a preordained fate or destiny, I was most comfortable interpreting what’s outside my control broadly as ‘shit that happens’. I don’t think that anyone or anything is in control, but things happen nonetheless. If anything, I think this atheist reading strengthens Epictetus’ arguments. If there is no God deciding your way in life, all the more reason to carefully contemplate your impressions and actions. Railing against the chaos of the universe is no more helpful than condemning the capriciousness of God or gods.

I went through Epictetus at approximately half my usual reading speed, as I am unaccustomed to philosophy and wanted to understand it as best I could. The experience was rewarding. Epictetus has much to say about freedom and a good life that resonates today. It’s tempting to see Stoicism as passive and fatalistic, but I came to consider that a function of modern individualism and impatience. Epictetus makes it clear that Stoic philosophy is not something you read in a book, or a fashion choice (he specifically complains about hipsters dressing ‘philosophically’!), but an integral part of daily life. To simplify, he seems to say that you should live a good life insofar as you can: consider all your behaviour carefully, be content with what you have, accept that all things are fleeting, and quietly set a good example rather than evangelising. This, it seems, will bring you true freedom and happiness. The term Stoic has become synonymous with uncomplaining suffering, which isn’t really what Epictetus advocates. He suggests that you aim not to suffer at all, to accept what is outside your control and be happy about the little that is within it. He does accept this is very difficult, perhaps impossible for many, and he struggles himself. Which doesn’t mean, he argues, that everyone shouldn’t aspire to it:

”And you, are you free?” the man asks.
By the gods, I want to be and pray to be, but I’m not yet able to look my masters in the face, I still attach value to my poor body, and take care to keep it whole and sound, despite the fact that it isn’t so. But I can show you a free man, to save from having to search any longer for an example. Diogenes was free.

Diogenes the Cynic and Socrates are the two most often cited by Epictetus as good examples to follow, both men he describes as humble, ascetic, and unafraid to speak unwanted truths to power. I found this comment arresting:

Only, consider at what price you’re willing to sell your power of choice. If nothing else, make sure, man, that you don’t sell it cheap. But what is great and exceptional is perhaps the province of others, of Socrates and people of that kind.

In addition to personal ethical endeavour, Epictetus talks of humans (just men, inevitably) as citizens, going to so far as to lecture on how antisocial it is not to keep yourself clean. I liked this part:

...If you consider yourself as a human being and as a part of some whole, it may be in the interest of the whole that you should now fall ill, now embark on a voyage and be exposed to danger, now suffer poverty, and perhaps even die before your time. Why do you resent this, then? Don’t you know that in isolation a foot is no longer a foot, and that you likewise will no longer be a human being? What, then, is a human being? A part of a city, first of all that which is made up of gods and human beings, then that which is closest to us and which we call a city, which is a microcosm of the universal city.

Stoicism thus refutes passivity, as it makes clear that the good citizen should be prepared to stand up for what is good and right, if necessary dying for it. Discourse 2.10 asks you to ‘consider who you are’ and then lists the three most important answers: a human being, a citizen of the world, a son, and a brother. Each of these roles requires certain standards of behaviour; Epictetus is arguing for civic virtue as well as personal disregard of material possessions and other worldly benefits.

The elements of CBT can be found most specifically in two dialogues: 3.8 on training yourself to deal with impressions (the cognitive) and 2.18 on the cultivation of habits (the behavioural). Both of these approaches are very helpful in dealing with distress: the first involves stepping back from your feelings to analyse and try to alter them, the second cultivating behaviours that calm your mind. Epictetus is aspiring beyond the alleviation of distress, of course, towards true freedom and happiness. He describes the former vividly:

So accordingly, that person who doesn’t allow himself to be overpowered by pleasure, or by suffering, or by glory, or by wealth, and who is capable, whenever he thinks fit, of spitting his entire miserable body into some tyrant’s face and taking his leave - to what can such a man still be a slave, to whom can he still be subject?

That certainly seems like something worth aspiring to. Perhaps more immediately applicable was the commentary on reading in discourse 4.4, in which Epictetus points out that reading should be for a purpose: to help you live better. Thus time spent outside books is an opportunity to put into practise all that you’ve read. I think he has a good point there, although I greatly enjoy a bit of escapist reading. I also sympathise with his dislike of having a body, which is after all a real drag:

At any rate, we love our body and take care of it, the most unpleasant and foulest of all things. [...] In truth, it is amazing that we should love something for which we have to perform so many services day after day. I stuff this sack here, and then I empty it; what could be more tedious? But I have to serve God; and for that reason, I stay here and put up with having to wash this poor wretched body of mine, and feed it, and shelter it.

Interjections like this prevent the reader becoming tired of Epictetus’ lecturing style, which often sounds a lot like browbeating to the unaccustomed ear. I found the whole book both thought-provoking and accessible, undoubtedly aided by the relative informality of the translation style. (The notes at the end were terribly stolid, however.) There is definitely something to be said for Stoicism, for focusing on what you can do rather than what you can’t, for cultivating a healthy mind (and leaving the body to itself), for disregarding material things and accepting that nothing lasts. I was reminded of the recently-read novel Stoner, which concerns a man with definite Stoic tendencies but much more concern for his family roles than any wider civic responsibility.

I will end this rambling review with my two favourite quotes from the book, the first found in the Handbook:

Never say about anything, ‘I’ve lost it,’ but rather, ‘I’ve given it back’. Your child has died? It has been given back. Your wife has died? She has been given back. ‘My farm has been taken from me’. Well, that too has been given back. ‘Yes, but the man who took it is a rogue’. What does it matter to you through what person the one who gave it to you demanded it back? So long as he entrusts it to you, take care of it as something that isn’t your own, as travellers treat an inn.

The second, a delightfully gothic epigram, I found amongst the Fragments:

You’re a little soul carrying a corpse around.

Am I alone in finding that curiously comforting? I recommend Epictetus as a boost to mental fortitude when the daily news seems determined crush your peace of mind.

[Xander · Rating 1 out of 5]

After finishing Aristotle, I decided to delve into Hellenistic philosophy. During the second and first centuries B.C. Greek philosophy was divided into three main currents: (1) the Sceptics (Plato's Academy turned doubtful about the possibility of any knowledge); (2) Epicureanism (who preached atharaxia - the quieting of the mind through cultivating (in a reasonable fashion) indulging in bodily pleasures); and (3) the Stoics (who preached apathia - the quieting of the mind through become indifferent to the outside world and solely focusing on our internal world, the soul).

The Stoic school, while developed in the third century B.C. (through Zeno, Cleanthes, etc.), is mostly known through former slave Epictetus and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius - sort of illustrating the broad scope its doctrines and its attractiveness to all sorts of people. Then, there's Seneca - intellectual precursor to both Epictetus and Aurelius.

Although each philosopher in the long Stoic tradition undoubtedly has his own peculiar insights to offer and his own unique perspective on the common doctrines, I hereby decide to quit my quest into it. I just now put down Epictetus' Discourses, and earlier glanced through Seneca's Letters, and I have to admit - I don't have the patience for this. All these works are collections of short sayings of miniature essays, and while each fragment is interesting, they have so much overlap that after reading ten of them, the repitition begins to bother me.

The key ideas of Stoicism are very easy to summarize and don't require a detailed reading of all these works - especially so since Stoicism preaches a practical wisdom - as opposed to all the theoretical discussing in ethics (like, e.g. Aristotle and his Peripatetic school). This means that these works are full of dull everyday situations, which at times convey interesting details about the Greco-Roman world during the first two centuries A.D., but more often end up in mundane, almost superficial 'wisdoms'. I'd go as far as to claim the whole of Stoicism is kind of supperficial - it's common sense writ large.

In short: the whole of Nature is equivalent to God, which is Reason personified. All ordering in Nature is hence lawful, i.e. God's laws, and any resistance against Nature and her ways is futile. This means that human beings have to accept Nature's indifference towards them, and accept their fate. But if one thinks this is determinism in a fancy jacket, one's wrong - Stoicism recognizes individual freedom for human beings, as opposed to plants and animals. Why? Because we are particles of God, and thus are equiped with reason as well, albeit not as perfect as His Reason.

Reason is the key to freedom: our inner world is the only world that should concern us, while the outer world, the world of the senses is nothing but temptation and potential pain. To live the good life, one starts with learning logic. This then serves as an instrument with which to distinguish good from bad, and true opinion from false opinion. How? It forms certain and distinct preconceptions, which then can serve as measuring rod to evaluate all our sense impressions - this way we can learn to recognize truth and to see that good consists in a quiet mind (apathia).

And as opposed to many of the then current ethics (like Aristotelean, Skeptic and Epicurean ethics), and in line with Socratic conceptions of virtue as knowledge, the Stoic ethics consists in practice, not theory. Only through acting like a Stoic is one a philosopher; all contemplation and theorizing about ethics is futile, since as soon as the class closes, one has to practice what he's learned. And thus we end up with a sort of self-help book avant la lettre. As a matter of fact, in the introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of Epictetus' Discourses, Robbert Dobbin writes that Stoicism (and Epictetus especially) inspired many a twentieth century psychologist in developing some version of rational cognitive theory.

And it is fairly easy too see how this connection can be made: Epictetus teaches that all our concern should be focused on our own soul, and that all involvement with the outer world is not only futile, but negatively interfering with leading a good life. When we care about what possession we have, what others think of us, what desires we want to pursue, we set ourselves on a course to unhappiness, since all these things, in ultimo, have no impact whatsoever on how we feel. We think they do, but this is a mistake, which can only be detected through the use of a well-trained reasonable mind. Through applying reason we learn to realize that what others do and feel is their problem, what we do and feel ours. And that only that which is in my power concerns me.

Epictetus has many examples of everyday life in his speeches, as well as many myths and metaphors. For example, when we have a bad father, we should not complain about this. We have a father and this social role, like all the social roles we perform, comes with a particular sets of duties - we should listen to him, honour him and not badmouth him to others. That he's bad should not bother us, it should bother him, since it is he who degenerates himself. Again, Epictetus mentions his oil lamp being stolen, and pitying the thief who did this, since now he has forfeited his honesty as a person. No revenge or even bad feelings - he just plans to buy a cheaper, less attractive lamp (for thieves, that is). And finally, he mentions the prescribed behaviour for someone boarding a ship. Seek out a decent ship, hire a decent captain and a decent crew, board the ship and simply wait. If a storm kicks in and the ship drowns, be indifferent - you have done all that was in your power, now you will die but that's beyond your concern. He evens illustrates your final moments: you're drwoning in the ocean, but as soon as you start fearing swallowing up the whole ocean and panicking, you realize there's only three good swallows of water and you're dead - what a relief!

I find this way of thinking interesting yet also otherworldly - it smacks too much of asceticism and christian slave morality. Adopting a Stoic ethics means turning the other cheek to every indignity and offense you suffer from others. Instead of learning from it and preventing a similar thing from happening again (through strengthening yourself, punishing the offender, or whatever), you pity the man who did it since he degenerates himself by his acts. He is simply mistaken, ignorant - if only he knew... Also, you perform your social roles like a robot, not considering the emotional attachments of you to others. Both points make Stoic ethics hard to implement - it's simply inhuman (humans are not simply reasonable minds, they are social animals first and foremost) and it's immensely vulnerable to cheaters and immoralists.

Somewhere in book 2, Epictetus criticizes the Academics and Epicureans of contradictions and, ultimately, self-refutation. Skeptics claim nothing can be known, but yet this proposition if proclaimed to be a general truth - how do they know? Epicureanism claim only individual pleasures should be sought, yet Epicurus himself busied himself with teaching and writing many books to inform others - why bother? As a matter of fact, Epictetus brilliantly remarks, a true Epicurean should teach his students Stoicism, since then he can, being a closet-Epicurean, have all the fun for himself. The teaching Epicurean is a contradiction in terms - he creates other Epicureans who then compete with him for pleasures.... But if everyone in his environment close themselves off from the world, he can then do what he wants.

But isn't Stoicism open to a similar rejection? If you retreat from the world into your own soul, and don't care what others do with your body because you know they can't reach you - the real you (your will) anyway - you are in effect rolling out the red carpet for immoral people to abduct, abuse and ultimately kill others, including yourself. What is the good of an ethics of self-annihilation? Can an ethical system even be said to be coherent and consistent if it leads inevitably to self-annihilation? I guess only on the condition that you believe in the existence of an immortal soul - cut this metaphysical notion from the system and becomes self-contradictory. And as far as I can tell almost all ancient Stoics rejected the notion of an afterlife. It is easy to see how Stoicism could inspire Christian monks, though, since they could simply become ascetics in the believe that in suffering and even dying on purpose they approached Jesus Christ in his sufferings (the 'Imitatio Christi') - but this option is not open to the ethics of Seneca, Epictetus and Aurelius, making their ethics kind of unreasonable...

Anyway, those are just the musings of a questioning mind while reading fragment after fragment of a seemingly absurd practical philosophy.

The important part (for me) is: Stoicism first and foremost is a code of ethics, but one shouldn't overlook the Stoic conception of Nature (as God); the fundamental importance of Logos and its corollary Natural Laws (a well-ordered, law-given Nature - macrocosmos and microcosmos); as well as the huge importance of logic as an instrument to distinguish both true from false and right from wrong. I think those few key concepts and doctrines can be grasped just fine by having some background knowledge and reading some 150 pages or so of Stoic texts (mostly fragments).

I feel there's simply not much for me to gain here anymore, and I was kind of disappointed in the dull and repetitious style of Epictetus' Discourses - perhaps Marcus Aurelius' Meditations or Seneca's Letters are a better read. (I'm not picking them up anytime soon, though).

[Anmol · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is relatively disappointing, coming directly from a reading of Seneca. But I don’t think that’s because Epictetus is a poorer stoic compared to Seneca. Instead, I have come to think that Seneca’s masterful prose really concealed the flaws of Stoic philosophy as a whole. Seneca’s thought is also (on the surface) less deistic, and more amor fati which given my agnostic biases, appeals to me. In Epictetus and his crude dialectic thought that is ultimately dependent on his god, however, many of the issues I have against Stoic philosophy shine through.

Unlike Seneca, who gives at least some due credence to the imperfectness of this world and ourselves, Epictetus has this tone of “stop whining lol” (there’s really no more accurate way of saying this). He keeps emphasising people to stop finding fault in what cannot be changed. While that is true from a logical perspective, why should people mute themselves in this act of self-control when they lose nothing from their complaints? Epictetus’ remarks only make sense when our complaints completely ruin our peace of mind. But in my experience, I believe we can retain our peace while complaining as well. See: how complaining about politicians or the weather brings people together.

More concerning, however, is how Epictetus completely rejects the concept of bodily autonomy by keeping what affects our body outside our realm of choice. This is fitting for a dictatorial society with slavery. While I agree with him that the various things that can affect our body (ultimately resulting in death) may be out of our control, Epictetus falters in simplifying the realm of choice as a binary - you either have control over something, or you don’t, according to him. I would say that we have partial control over most things in our life, but total control over none. The degree of partial control, of course, varies. However, he is right in arguing that we have absolutely no control over our mortality - exercising and eating healthy does absolutely nothing other than reduce probabilities.

Epictetus’ stoicism implies submission to the collective, to the government, and to religion. His conception of a human being itself requires the individual being defined in relation to the city, and then to the “universal city” (the kingdom of god). It is obvious that Epictetus influenced early Christianity here, and sounded the death-knell for individualism, until it would be rediscovered after the Enlightenment.

It was also disappointing to see the ad hominem attacks against Epicurus, in a ridiculously small span of time since Lucretius had written his beautiful De rerum natura. Epictetus portrays Epicureans as the immoral perverts they would be remembered as by posterity. Had he gone deeper into Epicurean thought, he could have seen the asceticism that shines through in that philosophy, and recognised that despite their philosophical differences, Epicureanism and Stoicism are not so different in praxis. Instead, Epictetus makes fun of people who “eat bread day after day”, yet “have the gall” to question the existence of the gods.

Wherever Epictetus says “act according to nature”, be sure that he means “act according to status quo”. This is surprising because the manner in which Epictetus turned his life around from being a slave to a philosopher with his own school would make one wonder if his philosophy contains a critique of slavery. I could not find anything like that though. Instead, his philosophy could generate complacency in the acceptance of injustice. He leaves our lot up to god: these very thoughts have prevented equality for millenniae.

This is not to say that everything is bad in this book. I did enjoy the “sphere of choice” exercise: think whether all judgments you pass are within the sphere of choice or not; whether you can actually do anything about your complaints or about anything you hear. It is something people could learn from in this era of 24/7 news, social media, yada yada. I don’t really follow the news and I am not on social media, so I’m good for now.

[Nada · Rating 5 out of 5]

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

for years i've searched for ways to trick myself into cleaning my house. reading the great stoic philosophers is the only thing i've found that works

[Sebastian Gebski]

Just like in the case of Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations," I won't even dare rate it. It's an immortal classic that will never grow old - not getting familiar with it is a mistake to be fixed.

Nevertheless, it's very different from the aforementioned "Meditations" - it feels rougher, more anecdotal - most likely because it was not written by Epictetus himself but noted by his pupil. Obviously, I did not read the original version but relied on Polish translation & sometimes it felt ... quite odd - yes, I assume that the language used was antiquated & having a 1:1 translation fit for a modern reader is a challenge in itself, but I wouldn't say the translator did a perfect job in this case.

The core of the doctrine obviously stays the same, but there are differences (obviously) - it was inevitable, e.g., keeping in mind the social status of both gentlemen (MA & E). Epictetus dedicated a lot of space (words?) to the dichotomy of control (what we could and can't control); his teachings are also more "down-to-earth" (practical) as I guess they came from situations when he was asked directly about something by one of his students.

Personally, I think I enjoyed "Meditations" more, not because they've given me more food for thought - but because they feel more fluent and organized - there's a natural flow of thought processed. Which, of course, doesn't mean I regret any second I've spent on "Discourses".

OK, next in line - Seneca!

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

A difficult but powerful perspective to be found here; what this book seems to promise is
the secret to invincibility. But it's not what most people at first thought would expect or even for that matter want. Out the window go the traditional definitions of evil. Suffering is thought very little of here; it's not even given a consolation in any sort of afterlife. There is an overwhelming faith here in the abilities of the mind not to eliminate but to stand above and resist to the waves of misery inevitably found in human life.

Key to success is limiting our concerns to what we're in control over and often it's not a lot. Sometimes all we're left with is our response and attitude to the circumstances. It's easy to strawman stoicism as advocating a petrified lifestyle in which one simply sits down and let's the world pass them by but I didn't find that here. Epictetus advocates using reason to discover one's calling, and one's limits, which don't have to be removed from the world, but the foundation must remain reason, and it's power over the senses. Attacked is the hedonism of the Epicureans and the nihilism of the Skeptics. Epictetus believes in reason as that which mortals share with God. 

There is a lot of passionate prose here about fortitude, determination, heroism in the face of adversity, about the value of a person not coming from their possessions, or natural born abilities, but rather from their character in the face of suffering, and the payoff of patiently facing it all and, bringing good out of the bad. 

Fittingly enough I failed a job interview in the middle of reading this and while the book's ideals were very clearly floating around my mind, they did not seem to offer a solution to the disappointment, despair and envy I went through in subsequent weeks. Nonetheless I kept reading this and contemplating it  and perhaps my recovery was hastened.  

I still agree with a lot of what Epictetus says, but my ironic lapse helped me see that it's not enough to read him, but rather to put these methods into practice and preparation, even when, our lives seem at peace. He advocates testing one's endurance, and strengthening oneself against the impressions that can bother us so much. It's a harsh effort, and as a crippled slave in ancient Rome,

Epictetus most likely knew more about suffering than moderns. It will be a lifelong challenge with many falls along the way, but the payoff is appealing. Back to my petty concerns, I would consider that during the next interview it would be best to remember beforehand very sincerely that there's nothing I can do to guarantee acceptance, and that all I can do is give it my all and fail gracefully, because it seems that jobs, possessions, relationships, and health are not enough by themselves to bring us peace of mind, and that accepting loss may be one of the most important abilities that any human being can learn.

[Nora · Rating 5 out of 5]

«What else is freedom but the power to live our life the way we want?»

This book has been my retreat of mindfulness for the past month and a half. I’m so grateful for all the hours it allowed me to enter into a state of self-awareness and introspective analysis, and for how some of the principles have started taking root in my way of thinking.

Although there are still many ideas in here that I want to practice living by, I’ve already (since I began reading) found myself in rather complex situations where my thought processes have been aided by these teachings. I’ve also had more frequent moments of thinking «Now, now - what would Epictetus think about this?🤨☝️» if I found myself getting upset or bothered by something trivial, helping me to a pause to see what an silly waste of energy it was. Although I’ll admit that it’s challenging for me to maintain consistent Stoic attitudes, I’m curious to see how it will play a role in the further evolution of my general mindset and the values I live by.

Despite the undeniable impact, I have to point out that I was not always on the same wavelength as Epictetus, either because I found him unreasonably harsh and discriminating (his views on animals and women are abominable), or because there were certain arguments that I couldn’t fully subscribe to. Importantly, my high rating does not reflect my opinion of him as a person, but rather what I personally got out of reading this work of his. I’ll now head into some of the key ideas that I extracted from his teachings.

One of the core messages is that we should not reject or complain about whatever life throws our way, but rather accept our situation as it is and live with it; in this way, nothing has the power to hurt the core of who we are, meaning our mind and integrity rather than our physical presence. Epictetus argues that it’s possible to fully control our own emotions and reactions through self-regulation according to our will, as long as you stay mindful of your values and whether your thoughts and actions consistently align with them. However, although this is generally a helpful approach, I do think that no matter how much we try to regulate ourselves, certain experiences inevitably have the power to affect us mentally. Epictetus seems like the kind of guy who would oversimplify mental health struggles e.g. framing depression as a failure of will. Still, I believe that his principles of acceptance and gratitude - rather than his stern reprimands - may help in healing from difficult circumstances and growing stronger.

To be able to live in a way that enables this introspective focus and prevents us from being tipped off balance by external events, it’s important to be able to distinguish between what is in your control and what isn’t; our attachment to and emphasis of uncontrollable externals is the source of all of our disappointment, pain and misery, while freedom is only to be gained from realizing and prioritizing the only thing you can control: Your own will and attitude. Epictetus notes that, ironically, the most central and precious thing to individual human existence is what is most often neglected in favor of chasing meaningless properties like money, admiration, promotion, physical belongings, and the like. In order to obtain true contentment, our focus should be on who we want to be rather than who the world coincidentally allows us to be.

«Be confident in everything outside the will, and cautious in everything under the will’s control. For if evil is a matter of the will, then caution is needed there; and if everything beyond the will and not in our control is immaterial to us, then those things can be approached with confidence. And so, you see, that’s how we can be cautious and confident at the same time - and, in fact, confident owing to our caution. For being on guard against evils, we approach things whose nature is not evil in a spirit of assurance.»

We also spend a lot of our energy fearing the «What ifs?»: What if I lose my job? What if they’ll no longer like me? What if I get sick? What if I die? If you realize that none of these events have the power to hurt the true you - your integrity and your freedom to know what you desire and value -, you would know that there’s nothing to fear except for living a life in disaccordance with your own truth.

«Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whichever way they happen: this is the path to peace.»

Knowing this, everything that happens during your life is a chance for you to fulfill the one and only goodness that you can control: Your ability to choose your own values and think, live and act in accordance with them as well as possible. Your effort into doing your best to be the person that you desire. Nothing can take this freedom away from you, and nothing can bring greater happiness than dealing with all of life’s various circumstances in the way that feels right to you.

«Remember from now on whenever something tends to make you unhappy, draw on the principle: ‘This is no misfortune; but bearing with it bravely is a blessing.’»

This was a short narrative of my main takeaway from my reading experience. However, it’s only fair that I’ll share some criticism as well. I’ve already mentioned Epictetus’ discriminatory views, and he was also quick to lash out with harsh words towards anyone (mostly his students) who weren’t able to apply their principles into practice. I agree that self-improving philosophical contemplation holds no value unless the conclusive ideas are integrated into one’s daily life. I also agree that it’s easy to get distracted from the focus on getting to know yourself and becoming confident in your ability to act in line with your principles. However, Epictetus seemed to be of the impression that nothing in life could be as valuable and important as this journey of self-improvement, hence is nothing else worth your time. In my opinion, I think it is fully possible to combine joy and passion with stoic acceptance and mindful living. Thanks to a friend’s Goodreads review, I read the following Fredrik Backman quote: «You have to care about something. If you don’t care about anything you’re actually not alive at all. You’re only existing». I’d like to think that even while focusing your attention on living honorably, the pleasure of joy, eagerness and gratitude over what you get to have and experience is what will ultimately make life feel worth living, despite everything being only temporary.

—
Tip: If you don’t feel like reading the full discourses, I recommend checking out «Enchiridion» (included at the back of this edition), which offers a pretty decent summary in only 25 pages.
—

During my reading, I’ve been posted updates here on Goodreads with some of the quotes that made me pause and think. To have them all in one spot and make the messages easier to return to, I’ll include a collection of additional impactful quotes here:

Detachment from externals
«It is better to die of hunger free of grief and apprehension than to live affluent and uneasy. (…) For that reason, starting with things of little value - a bit of spilled oil, a little stolen wine - repeat to yourself: ‘For such a small price I buy tranquility and peace of mind.’»

«‘And if I can’t live without them?’
Don’t get attached to them and they won’t be. Don’t tell yourself that they’re indispensable and they aren’t.»

Your integrity is untouchable by anything but your own mindset and actions
«No, I cannot escape death, but at least I can escape the fear of it - or do I have to die moaning and groaning too?»

«‘But the tyrant will chain’ - What will he chain? Your leg. ‘He will chop off’ - What? Your head. What he will never chain or chop off is your integrity. That’s the reason behind the ancient advice to ‘know yourself’.»

«It was not his skin he wanted to save, but the man of honour and integrity. These things are not open to compromise or negotiation.»

Adversity is opportunity
«‘Poor me, because this happened to me.’ No, say rather, ‘Lucky me, because though this happened to me I’m still happy, neither broken by present circumstance nor afraid for the future.’ Because the same thing could have happened to anyone, but not everyone could have remained content.»

«So is it possible to benefit from these circumstances? Yes, from every circumstance, even abuse and slander. A boxer derives the greatest advantage from his sparring partner - and my accuser is my sparring partner. He trains me in patience, civility and even temper.»

«If we try to adapt our mind to the regular sequence of changes and accept the inevitable with good grace, our life will proceed quite smoothly and harmoniously.»

«Whoever chafes at the conditions dealt by fate is unskilled in the art of life; whoever bears with them nobly and makes wise use of the results is a man who deserves to be considered good.»

«In this body, this universe, this community, it is inevitable that each of us faces some such event. Your job, then, is to appear before the court, say what you have to say and make the best of the situation. Then the judge declares you guilty. ‘I wish you well, judge. I did my part, you can decide if you did yours.’»

Effort over outcome
«Even if I lack the talent, I will not abandon the effort on that account. Epictetus will not be better than Socrates. But if I am no worse, I will be satisfied. (…) We do not abandon any discipline for despair of ever being best in it.»

Resolution
«Two words should be committed to memory and obeyed by alternately exhorting and restraining ourselves, words that will ensure we lead a mainly blameless and untroubled life. These two words are ‘persist and resist’.»

«Look for it in your volition, friend - that is, in your desire and avoidance. Make it your goal never to fail in your desires or experience things you would rather avoid; try never to err in impulse and repulsion; aim to be perfect also in the practice of attention and withholding judgement. But the first subjects are the most essential. If you aim to be perfect when you are still anxious and apprehensive, how have you made progress?»

Self-awareness
«‘I made my decision,’ he said. ‘Yes, but what drove you to do it? Look, if it is the right decision, we are ready to sit by your side and help you make the passage. But if it was a reckless decision, it should be open to change.’»

Manner of action
«The trouble is, we don’t exercise these virtues (courage, fortitude and endurance) because we don’t appreciate them. Show me one person who cares how they act, someone for whom success is less important than the manner in which it is achieved. While out walking, who gives any thought to the act of walking itself? Who pays attention to the process of planning, not just the outcome?»

There’s no time like the present
«For how long will you wait before you demand the best of yourself, and trust reason to determine what is best?»

[☾❀Apple✩ Blossom⋆｡˚ · Rating 4 out of 5]

I never had an original thought in my life

[Martin Lumiste · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are things that are under our control and things that are not - focusing on the former is the key to freedom, virtue and happiness.

While this sentence summarises most of Stoic philosophy, Discourses builds tens of variations around the theme, which can honestly border on the tedious. The didactic style of a lecturer offers less practical knowledge compared to the works of Marcus Aurelius or Seneca. Epictetus' perfect philosopher is very much the vagabond sage modeled on Socrates and Diogenes who has denounced all material and social ties and lives purely for virtue.

Especially wearying are the chapters on gods. Epictetus was one of the few authors to escape the Christian censorship and it is eminent why: the virtue models and ethics he constructs are reminiscent of official church doctrine. Proof of gods is assumed trivial due to the complexity of the world around us. In the same manner, the sole purpose of beasts and nature is to serve humans - the master animal. While this sounds naive today, it's an interesting perspective on the attempts of early man to understand complex dynamics.

I liked Enchiridion more as it's somewhat close to Meditations - a practical guide on good living. Read Discourses only if you want to get hardcore with Stoicism. It's not bad but if it were written today, would get edited to 20% of the length due to redundancy🙂

[Jack Hruby · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75 Stars.

I give this rating not for the ideas in the work, but because of the writing style. Everything in this book was written by his student Arian and its all just basically a transcription of the conversations that took place in the school. So, there’s not very many liberties taken to make it textually appealing if that makes sense. So, it is more of a problem with my critical reading and analysis skills than the book. However, I would definitely recommend book 4 of the Discourses and the “Enchiridion” at the end of the book which is basically a 30 page summary of the core lessons taught throughout the book. Looking back, reading the Enchiridion first before reading the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius would have helped me take even more out of the Meditations which ,alone, is a solid 6/5 stars and will make my future reads of it really nice. All in all, I took some really great lessons from this book and I will definitely return to certain parts in the future.

[Isak Nash · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s certain things in life that automatically makes an individual cool; like pulling off a visor or having an accent. Well, ladies and gentlemen, after much deliberation, I’ve decided to add being a Stoic to the list.

This book is dense, not in length but in content. I’ve never read a philosophy book before and was worried it’d put me to sleep. Luckily, the philosophy of stoicism was interesting enough to me to keep me engaged, and even luckier, Epictetus is so sassy that I was actually entertained while reading.

The Greeks knew their SHIT, holy. It’s crazy how applicable the things Epictetus talks about are in modern living. It’s hard to even put into words how much I love this book. I think what made it so special for me was how certain passages felt directly applicable to my life. Someone else could read a passage that revolutionized my thinking and feel nothing, and vice versa.

Sooooo, I’m just gonna recommend the HELL out of it. Ancient diva, modern wisdom - 10/10

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

The main point of the Discourses can be summed up in a couple sentences: If it is under your control, change it. If it's not under your control, don't worry about it.

There's more--a lot more--of course, but nearly everything comes back to that. Epictetus keeps referring to the Reason, which is the essential central aspect of humanity, the one thing that makes you you. Therefore, that is what is under an individual's control and what they should work on, and everything else should be endured. Death comes at the will of the gods, so fearing death is pointless. A tyrant can destroy a man's body, but so can a fever, and they should both be given the same regard. Desiring and detesting anything is problematic because it means that anyone who possesses those things gains power over you, so don't do it. Do not hope or fear the future except insofar as you are able to change it. It actually reminded me a lot of Buddhism in its insistence on avoiding attachment to the world.

He draws a distinction between Externals, those things that are beyond one's controls, and Internals, which are primarily one's thoughts and opinions. Even the body isn't included in Internals, because there are a lot of example conversations about why you shouldn't fear death or pain, because an accident could happen or a tyrant could arrest you and you have no control over those. The Will, or Reason (capitals in original), are the main aspect of a man that is under his control, and Reason is held up as pretty much the defining force of humanity and the highest good. He even uses that as a way of proving that the gods are benevolent--reason is good, and the essence of the gods is reason, therefore the gods are good.

Except, well, Epictetus is completely wrong. Reason is not inviolate, and as anyone who's read Thinking, Fast and Slow knows, humans are only "rational" in comparison to the other animals around us. I wonder how Epictetus would have reacted to research showing that emotions are absolutely necessary to being able to make decisions at all considering his view of Reason as the essential self, separated from the body and from all of the good and bad that the world buffets us with?

A lot of his philosophy is also based on an understanding of theism that falls pretty flat nowadays. For example, his proof that the gods exist is that the seasons change and flowers bloom and so on, except that we obviously have other explanations for all of those. That's a problem for the Discourses, because the moral basis for enduring the difficulties of life is that life is how the gods want it to be, and the gods are good, therefore control what you can and endure all else and bow to the will of the gods.

Despite these problems, there's so much good advice in here that I think it's definitely worth four stars. There's an argument about convictions and how important it is to maintain one's convictions in the face of adversity, but also an acknowledgement that convictions are only worth maintaining if they are moral and correct and dogged persistence in being wrong is not virtue but vice. I feel like that's something modern America needs to learn, considering how willing we are to dig into people's pasts and hold up comments written decades ago as proof of someone's moral turpitude. Either they still believe it, in which case they're terrible, or they no longer believe it, in which case they're an untrustworthy flip-flopper. The only way to win is to have never been wrong about anything, which is ludicrous.

That also brings me to another part of Epictetus' philosophy that I love--that we should treat moral deficiency and ignorance the way we treat physical disability. Abusing a blind person just because they're blind is obviously terrible, and so is abusing an ignorant person because they're ignorant, or an immoral person because they're immoral. Act well and provide an example, help them overcome their disability if they're open to it, and otherwise don't worry about it because, well, see above about Internals vs. Externals.

The whole book resonated with me even knowing what I do about human reason (or lack thereof). It's true that consciousness may be an illusion and we may be meat puppets jerked around by unconscious forces beyond our control...but you know, even if that's true, it's better to act like it's not true, in much the same way that the best outcomes come from assuming one's own life is totally under control but other people's lives are buffeted by the whims of chance, thus producing both compassion and personal dynamism. The kind of personal detachment Epictetus advocates is really attractive to me, and the majority of his advice is great even if some of the premises are dodgy or flat-out wrong. Modern life would be a lot better if more Stoicism made its way into the mainstream.

[Mikayla Rzeppa · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ancient greek male podcaster

[Farhan Khalid · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the three pillars of stoic writing

Epictetus was a freed slave

Aurelius was one of the most powerful men of his time and Seneca was one of the wealthiest of his. Epictetus was at the other end of the spectrum

Arrian recorded and published Epictetus’ informal lectures and conversations on ethics, in eight books, of which four books and some fragments survive. These are the Discourses; Arrian also wrote a summary of main themes, the Manual

When we are frustrated, angry or unhappy, never hold anyone except ourselves – that is, our judgments – accountable

Being attached to many things, we are weighed down and dragged along with them

Make the best use of what is in our power, and treat the rest in accordance with its nature

You’re an actor in a play, which will be as the author chooses, act even that part with all your skill

In each action that you undertake, consider what comes before and what follows after

Man, the rational animal, can put up with anything except what seems to him irrational; whatever is rational is tolerable

Goal of education is to bring our preconception of what is reasonable and unreasonable in alignment with nature

What good is your education if you are not to put it in practice?


The masses are wrong to say that only freeborn men are entitled to an education; believe the philosophers instead, who say that only educated people are entitled to be called free

You can’t hope to make progress in areas where you have made no application

Because you think of yourself as no more than a single thread in the robe, whose duty it is to conform to the mass of people – just as a single white thread seemingly has no wish to clash with the remainder of the garment. But I aspire to be the purple stripe, that is, the garment’s brilliant hem. However small a part it may be, it can still manage to make the garment as a whole attractive

When someone caught in an argument hardens to stone, there is just no more reasoning with them

Bring on whatever difficulties you like, Zeus; I have resources and a constitution that you gave me by means of which I can do myself credit whatever happens

Be confident in everything outside the will, and cautious in everything under the will’s control

Whenever externals are more important to you than your own integrity, then be prepared to serve them the remainder of your life

So in life our first job is to divide and distinguish things into two categories: externals I cannot control, and the choices I make with regard to them I do control. Where will I find good and bad? In me, in my choices. Don’t ever speak of good or bad, advantage or harm, and so on, of anything that is not your responsibility.

Socialize with men of good character, in order to model your life on theirs, whether you choose someone living or someone from the past

Surrounded as we are by such people – so confused, so ignorant of what they’re saying and of whatever faults they may or may not have, where those faults came from and how to get rid of them – I think we too should make a habit of asking ourselves: Could it be that I’m one of them too? What illusion about myself do I entertain? How do I regard myself – as another wise man, as someone with perfect self-control? Do I, too, ever make that boast about being prepared for whatever may happen? If I don’t know something, am I properly aware that I don’t know it?

A person is not going to undertake to learn anything that they think they already know

If you consort with someone covered in dirt you can hardly avoid getting a little grimy yourself

Freedom is not achieved by satisfying desire, but by eliminating it

Work day and night to attain a liberated frame of mind

So choose: either regain the love of your old friends by reverting to your former self or remain better than you once were and forfeit their affection

It is not events that disturb people, it is their judgements concerning them

Take a moment before reacting, and you will find it is easier to maintain control

Keep the prospect of death, exile and all such apparent tragedies before you every day – especially death – and you will never have an abject thought, or desire anything to excess

Because we’re the only animals who not only die but are conscious of it even while it happens, we are beset by anxiety

If you’re wrong to do it, then you should shrink from doing it altogether; but if you’re right, then why worry how people will judge you?

When someone is properly grounded in life, they shouldn’t have to look outside themselves for approval

Never identify yourself as a philosopher or speak much to non-philosophers about your principles; act in line with those principles. At a dinner party, for instance, don’t tell people the right way to eat, just eat the right way

Remain silent for the most part, or say only what is essential, and in few words

Exclude everything that is for show or luxury

That’s how Socrates got to be the person he was, by depending on reason to meet his every challenge

Nothing important comes into being overnight; even grapes and figs need time to ripen. If you say that you want a fig now, I will tell you to be patient. First, you must allow the tree to flower, then put forth fruit; then you have to wait until the fruit is ripe. So if the fruit of a fig tree is not brought to maturity instantly or in an hour, how do you expect the human mind to come to fruition, so quickly and easily?

The true man is revealed in difficult times. So when trouble comes, think of yourself as a warrior

What would have become of Hercules, do you think, if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar – and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges? Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules

We should discipline ourselves in small things, and from there progress to things of greater value

Every habit and faculty is formed or strengthened by the corresponding act – walking makes you walk better, running makes you a better runner. If you want to be literate, read, if you want to be a painter, paint. So if you like doing something, do it regularly; if you don’t like doing something, make a habit of doing something different

[Michelle Nixon · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not for me. Genuinely could not focus or retain any information. I already forgot it all

[Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't think it's a good book, or even a good primer for Stoicism, but it was fun to read. I got through it pretty quickly as well.

The good:

* Epictetus sounds like one hell of a savage badass. I wonder if he really walked the talk, the ideals he preaches seem unachievable

* Epictetus has some god humour here and there

* The whole thing gives an interesting glimpse into those ancient times, I mainly enjoyed it for that

* I want to read Socrates now, which means I want to read Plato now

The bad:

* It's unbelievably repetitive. The entire book literally has one single central message: "Focus on what you can control: Your thoughts. Ignore everything else. If bad shit happens to you it's only bad because you chose to interpret as bad. Instead thank the gods for whatever they planned for you and just be happy." -- easy peasy. Any Buddhist/Mindfulness book puts this into much better words, gives a much more actionable framework and even leaves out the stupid gods.

* It is not based on convincing logic, very very dogmatic. I expected much better from a famous philosopher

* It strongly reminds me of Nassim Taleb's books: A lose stream of consciousness from an arrogant fuckhead

* It might have been much more relevant at the times. At this day and age, the individual can actually influence a lot more and has a lot more power than at Epictetus' times

* I think I could actually punch holes into many of the dogmatic claims that Epictetus just states as facts

* You could just read the Enchiridion and be done with it. But then you would lose out on the humour and savagery

[Jim Coughenour · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just read Epictetus with a small group and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. In my totally dilettantish opinion, after only 1 reading – I found the Discourses rambling and repetitive, and Epictetus too much of a scold – but with interruptions of actual genius. On the other hand, the short Enchiridion (or "handbook") at the end is a gem of bitter wisdom. Epictetus's stoicism is a philosophy for the desperate moments of life, but in such moments it holds up pretty well. (Cf. "Courage Under Fire" or "The World of Epictetus" by James Bond Stockdale, easily available on the internet - each of which is an excellent introduction to and recommendation for Epictetus. Who knew?)

[Fatima · Rating 5 out of 5]

A prominent figure among the Stoic school of thought, Epictetus deals with several subjects such as the correct use of impressions, desire and aversion, the importance of logic in governing one's own life, and many others. The most important one among all is making "the best use of what's in our power" , while remaining completely indifferent to things beyond our control.

A very enlightening read. Recommended to everyone.

[Castles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Humbly, I can’t review a 2,000-year-old book of the great philosophers as if it’s just an ordinary read. I’ve learned a lot and Remembered how good it feels to read simple yet complicated truths again.
Along with Marcus Aurelius, this book is another step in my journey through the wonderful world of the stoic philosophy.

the book is translated superbly and way more accessible than I’d ever imagined.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classic of Stoic philosophy. A self-help book before there were self-help books. Some great stuff, although it's a bit repetitive, which will be largely due to its origins in lecture notes by a devoted pupil.

[顏 · Rating 5 out of 5]

despite being a heavy read, this was woke af. i’ve learnt so much from someone who existed 1900 years ago.

[Designated Hysteric · Rating 1 out of 5]

The stoic philosophy is ultimately the philosophy of the status quo. Slave morality as faux philosophy. I do not deny that certain stoic teachings can help some individuals become more grounded, less dejected, and overall more present. For this reason, I am a little less harsh on the writing of some of the other stoics like Aurelius and Seneca - even going as far as truly loving Seneca at times. However, the works of Epictetus are monotonous - devoid of wit and wisdom - and his thought is rigid and inflexible, which many would call principled, yet I would call foolish and impractical, and furthermore, dead.

Epictetus tells us to divide matters into those we exercise control over and those we exercise no control over, yet Epictetus will not question why these matters are divided thusly nor will he concede that no matter can be assigned so readily and fully to neither of these unequivocal categories, for our power over any matter is infinitely ambiguous and to be found always on a spectrum. For practical purposes, it is reasonable to accept that such matters as natural occurrences or basic misfortune are outside our control, but it is unjustifiable to unquestionably accept the manufactured systems at work that exercise immense control over us as a matter we have no control over. Epictetus cannot indulge such questions, for he takes everything as is without much deliberation, claiming control only over oneself. It becomes understandable once we realize that Epictetus is evidently not interested in anything else besides individual tranquility, indeed, this tranquility can only be attained through the accordance of oneself to nature, i.e., to what stoics imagine nature to be. Even his principle of absolute integrity irrespective of consequences appears to be based on the idea that it is virtuous and will therefore lead to a good life. For Epictetus, eudaemonia is always a personal quest and never a collective one. This is best reflected in the passages like this one:

[21] ‘But even one’s opinions can get one into trouble here in Rome.’
Do you mean your own? No one can force you to hold an opinion against your will. And if you are referring to other people’s, how can their wrong opinions pose any danger to you?

So, for Epictetus - our great solipsist - as society accelerates towards a direction one highly detests, one should meekly accept the external and claim no control over it, while others arduously labor with their fellow man to exercise their power over the material world to realize something actual, which will also exercise power over me - perhaps even pose a danger to me. However, I will stoically succumb to outside influences and find peace within myself. Ah, stoicism is undoubtedly a thoroughly Roman philosophy.

This is why I call stoicism the philosophy of the status quo and slave morality as faux philosophy. It praises the beautiful wholeness of the universe, as Marcus Aurelius declared "The world as a living being—one nature, one soul. Keep that in mind. And how everything feeds into that single experience, moves with a single motion. And how everything helps produce everything else. Spun and woven together.", nonetheless, we have a great stoic Epictetus moralize at us to relinquish any idea of control over the outside world if we are to attain tranquility. There is apparently virtue in this - in restraining negative emotion, in impotence, passivity - but why disregard how valuable it is to get properly angry, to recognize that something is not right with how you are being treated, that perhaps Gods have not made the best of all worlds, and finally utilize those negative emotions as inspiration, as a signal that you ought to exercise power over the material world to achieve actual eudaemonia. And why is this experience of eudaemonia devoid of suffering and pain?

But can any critical formulation of mine be superior to that of Nietzsche? Perhaps, but not here. Thus, I leave you with this:

James A. Mollison (2019) Nietzsche contra stoicism: naturalism and value, suffering and amor fati, Inquiry, 62:1, 93-115, DOI:10.1080/0020174X.2019.1527547



Few of those notably appealing:

I 19 How we should act towards the powerful

[1] A person who enjoys some advantage, or just believes they do, will invariably grow to be arrogant, especially if they are uneducated. [2] The tyrant, for example, will say to you, ‘My power is supreme.’
‘Will you do something for me then? I want uncurbed desire. Do you even have it to give? I want my aversion error-free. Do you have that? How about a faculty of impulse that is faultless? [3] No, you have no connection to that. Look, you entrust yourself to the pilot’s expertise when on board ship, and to the superior skill of the driver when you are in a carriage. [4] It’s no different with other skills. So what does your advantage amount to?’
‘Everybody gives me their attention and respect.’
‘Right, and I pay attention to my blackboard, wiping it, and washing it; and for my oil flask I’ll even drive a nail in the wall. Does that make these things better than me? No – it just means that they are useful to me somehow. I look after my horse too, [5] I wash its feet and brush its coat. The fact is, everyone looks after themselves; if they curry favour with you it’s as if they’re currying their horse. Who is there who respects you as a human being? [6] Who wants to be like you, to emulate you the way people emulated Socrates?’
‘But I can cut off your head.’
‘Good point; I had forgotten that I should look out for you as I would look out for some virus or infection, and erect an altar to you on the model of the Altar of Fever at Rome.27
[7] ‘What frightens most people and keeps them subdued? It can’t be the tyrant and his bodyguards; what nature has made free can only be disturbed or hampered by itself. [8] A person’s own thoughts unnerve them. If a tyrant threatens to chain our leg, whoever holds his leg in high regard will beg for mercy, whereas the person who cares more for his character will answerback, “Go ahead and chain it, if that’s what you want.”’
‘And you don’t care?’
‘I don’t care.’
‘Just wait, I’ll show you who’s in charge!’
[9] ‘How do you propose to do that? Zeus himself has given me my freedom; he was not going to allow any son of his to be enslaved. You are master of my corpse, come help yourself to that.’
[10] ‘What about when you petition me for a favour, isn’t that proof of your regard?’
‘No, it’s me looking after myself. If you press the point, I will concede that in the process I give you the same attention I give my dishes.
[11] ‘Look, this is not selfishness, it’s the nature of the beast; everything we do is done for our own ends. The sun moves across the sky for its own ends.28 Even Zeus acts for his own aims. [12] But when Zeus wants to be “Rain-Bringer”, or “Grain-Giver”, or “Father of Gods and Men”, it’s obvious that he can only gain his goals and earn his epithets by doing some benefit for the world at large. [13] In the same way he made the rational animal, man, incapable of attaining any of his private ends without at the same time providing for the community.
[14] ‘The upshot is that it is not anti-social to be constantly acting in one own’s self-interest. [15] We do not expect someone, after all, to be indifferent regarding himself and his welfare. It’s the basis of our principle of appropriation,29 the instinct that drives everyone’s behaviour. [16] Consequently when people are mistaken in the views they hold about things outside the will – thinking that they are good or evil – they naturally are going to grovel before tyrants. [17] And if only it ended there! But they grovel before the tyrant’s lackies too. Tell me, how do underlings suddenly become sages when the emperor elevates them to the post of bathroom attendant? Why are we suddenly saying “Felicio’s30 advice to me was very astute.” [18] I hope he gets kicked out of the toilet, so I can see you change your mind again and declare publicly that he’s a fool.
[19] ‘Epaphroditus once owned a slave, a shoemaker, whom he sold because he was no good. As chance would have it, he was bought by one of the imperial household and became shoemaker to Caesar. You should have seen Epaphroditus flatter him then! [20] “And how is my friend Felicio today?” [21] Whenever one of us asked, “Where is the master?” he would be told, “He is in conference with Felicio.” [22] Hadn’t he sold him off because he was useless? [23] How did he become so knowledgeable all of a sudden? Well, that’s what comes of valuing anything not under control of the will. [24] Someone is raised to the office of tribune and accepts congratulations on every hand. One person kisses his eyes, another his cheek, his slaves even kiss his hands. When he gets home, he finds lamps being lit in his honour. [25] He mounts the Capitol, where he offers a sacrifice of thanks. Now who, I ask you, has ever offered sacrifice for right desires, or for impulses in agreement with nature? We only thank the gods, it seems, for what we popularly suppose are the good things in life.
[26] ‘A man spoke with me today about accepting a priesthood of Augustus.31 I told him not to touch it. “You will lay out a lot of money for little in return.”’
[27] ‘But the clerk will add my name to public contracts.’
‘Are you planning to be there every time a contract is signed, so you can announce to the assembled, “That’s my name he’s writing down there”? [28] Even if you can attend these signing ceremonies now, what will you do when you die?’
‘But my name will survive me.’
‘Carve it in stone and it will survive you just as well. Outside Nicopolis, though, no one is going to remember you.’
[29] ‘But I get to wear a crown of gold.’
‘If you have your heart set on wearing crowns, why not make one out of roses – you will look even more elegant in that.’


I 22 On preconceptions

[1] Everyone has preconceptions. And one preconception does not contradict another. I mean, who of us does not assume that what is good is beneficial and choice, in all cases to be desired and pursued? Who of us does not assume that justice is fair and appropriate? So where does conflict come in? [2] In the application of preconceptions to particular cases. [3] One person, for instance, will say, ‘Well done, there’s a brave man,’ while another says, ‘He isn’t brave, he’s just deranged.’
This is how conflict originates, [4] and it is the source of difference among Jews, Syrians, Egyptians and Romans. They don’t dispute that what is holy should be preferred above everything else and in every case pursued; but they argue, for example, over whether it is holy or unholy to eat pork. [5] This is also the basis of the conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles. Call them up before us.
‘What do you say, Agamemnon? Shouldn’t we do what is right and proper?’
‘Naturally.’
[6] ‘What about you, Achilles? Wouldn’t you, of all people, say that we ought to do what is appropriate?’
‘Of course.’
‘All right, then, apply your preconceptions.’
[7] It is just here that conflict starts. Because one says, ‘I shouldn’t have to return Chryseis to her father,’ and the other says, ‘Indeed you’d better.’ It’s obvious that one of them is misapplying his preconception of what is appropriate. [8] Then Agamemnon says, ‘Fine, if I have to give Chryseis back, then I should get one of the other men’s prizes in return.’ Achilles says, ‘It’s not mine you intend to take, I hope.’ ‘Yours, that’s right.’ ‘Why should I be penalized?’ ‘Because it’s not right that I be the only one to go without.’ And this is how conflicts originate.
[9] What does it mean to be getting an education? It means learning to apply natural preconceptions to particular cases as nature prescribes, and distinguishing what is in our power from what is not. [10] The operations of the will are in our power; not in our power are the body, the body’s parts, property, parents, siblings, children, country or friends.
[11] Where should we put the good, then – to which of the two classes of things are we going to assign it? To the class of things in our power. [12] It follows that neither health nor fitness are good, nor are our children, parents or country.
‘That view is not going to win you many friends or converts.’
[13] Well, let’s transfer the designation ‘good’ to health and other externals and see what happens. Suppose someone meets with misfortune and loses these ‘goods’; can they still be happy? ‘Impossible.’ You might ask, too, how they will remain on good terms with their neighbours, since we naturally incline to self-interest. [14] And if it is in my interest to own land, it is in my interest to rob them of it. If it is in my interest to own a coat, it is in my interest to pinch one from the baths. There you have the genesis of wars, factions and seditions.
[15] And how will I be able to stay right with God? Because if I’m harmed and meet with misfortune, I begin to doubt whether he is looking after me. And if he won’t help me, why should I give him my regard? I want nothing to do with a god who allows me to be in my present state. So I begin to hate him, [16] and wonder if the temples and statues we dedicate to him are not intended to placate a malignant force, like Fever. Honorary titles like ‘Saviour’, ‘Rain-bringer’ and ‘Fruit-bringer’ are no longer applicable to him – and all this comes of identifying ‘the good’ with externals.
[17] What should we do? That’s the topic of inquiry for the person who is truly out to philosophize and think deep. Now, if I am in the dark as to what is good and bad, I’m crazy. [18] But if I locate ‘the good’ in the realm of the will I risk being ridiculed. Some grey old man rattling his gold rings and shaking his head at me will come along and say, ‘Listen, my boy, philosophy’s all right up to a point, but don’t get carried away. This question is ridiculous. [19] Philosophers can teach you logic, but you know better than they do the right way to behave.’ [20] ‘Well, if I know what to do, as you say, don’t make an objection if what I choose to do is philosophize.’ I’m not going to try to engage this fatuous old fool in logic. But if I ignore him altogether, he’ll explode in indignation. [21] So I have no choice but to say to him, ‘Humour me as you would someone in love. I can’t help myself, you see, I’m mad.’