On Possessions

I'm currently halfway through Book 2 of Epictetus' Discourses. The lack of posts about the book is not an indication that I don't like it. Epictetus continues to be one of my favorite philosophers, vying for the top spot with Seneca I suppose. I find the Discourses to be a bit more rambling and incoherent than the Enchiridion. A more thorough reading is required, but I don't mind that. The wisdom contained with in the words, especially in Book 2, is obvious.

At the risk of slighting some his more important arguments, I'd like to praise one in particular. We exercise great care in tending to our car, our house, and our body. We submit them only to people trained in their care - mechanics, artisans, and physicians. Where I grew up, at least, contractors and electricians and the like could live just as comfortably as doctors; their importance is obvious. But our greatest possession is necessarily the one that commands all the others, and evaluates and values them.

Is that greatest possession our soul, or our reason, or our intellect? Here I find Stoicism essentially in conflict with religion, if only trivially. The obvious theological answer would be the soul. Stoics, identifying reason as the gift of the divine unto us, would say our reason is our most precious possession. A trivial incongruity, perhaps, but with large ramifications for personal ethics. Should I place more care in finding a mentor for my soul, or for my reason?

I can choose to spend time devoting myself to religion, working on living virtuously and correctly. Or, I can choose to focus on developing my reason - reading philosophy, expanding my intellect, etc. At this point I feel the soul will be enriched necessarily by enriching the intellect - but not at the expense of neglecting piety. Hence, though I am becoming more active in my religious beliefs, I realize I should expand my activity. Though not at the expense of diminishing my intellectual pursuits. If only days were longer....

On Proper Preparation

From Epictetus' Discourses, Book 1, Chapter 17:

If you want to hear about moral improvement, well and good. But if you say to me, "I do not know whether you argue truly or falsely," and if I use an ambiguous word and you say to me "distinguish," I shall grow impatient and say to you, "this is the more pressing need." It is for this reason, I suppose, that men put the processes of logic in the forefront, just as we put the testing of the measure before the measuring of the corn. And if we do not determine first what is the bushel and what is the scale, how shall we be able to measure or weigh anything? So in the sphere of though if we have not fully grasped and trained to perfection the instrument by which we judge other things and understand other things, shall we ever be able to arrive at accurate knowledge? Of course, it is impossible.


Perhaps that will be a new resolution of mine. To pursue the study of logic to bolster my capacity to develop and understand arguments. This brings to mind a passage by Hobbes, from the Leviathan, Part 1, Chapter IV:

Seeing then that truth consisteth in the right ordering of names in our affirmations, a man that seeketh precise truth, had need to remember what every name he uses stands for; and to place it accordingly.


My girlfriend recently tipped me off to an iPod app that presents 4 or so English words a day. I had already had a word of the day, but rarely looked at it. This new app includes a few fancier features and also includes the words of the day in other languages that are part of my Google Reader feed. Perhaps that will satisfy Hobbes.

On Anger

I managed to complete the second of Seneca's Dialogues and Essays before noon. The excerpt I have, Book 3 of his letter to Novatus (of how many books, I do not know) was fairly unorganized. Broadly, Seneca first addresses what to do when you are angry (wait, essentially), then how to avoid becoming angry, and finally how to calm down other angry people. The second of those three is by far the bulk of the section, in classic Stoic form. Much of the writing is in the form of references to historical accounts, accompanied by exhortations of the reader to live Stoically. I enjoyed the reading and expect to return to the passage in the future. Due to the chaotic nature of the letter, I'll address parts of it by section.

5 - In Aristotelian fashion, Seneca examines the nature of anger relative to other undesirable emotions. Anger is the worst of all the emotions, of course. It is the only one, in Seneca's opinion, which seizes a man and acts immediately. Moreover, unlike malice or envy, which desire a passive change in the situation, anger calls for an active change. I liked this viewpoint. It outdoes malice and envy, for those wish a man to become unfortunate, anger wishes to make him so.

7 - I was surprised to see a seemingly reversed evaluation of anger's value. Defeat will drive a man of spirit to anger, but induce sadness in one whose nature is sluggish and passive. This seems to me like Seneca looks upon anger as a sometimes-valuable emotion, when it spurs us to overcome failure or setbacks. It also makes it seem that anger is preferable to sadness, at least sometimes. This contradicts the tone of the letter and I am not sure whether this comes from the translation or not.

10 - Not all men are wounded in the same place; and so you ought to know what part of you is weak, so you can give it the most protection.

15 - Do you ask what path leads to liberty? Any vein you please in your body. This is second of Seneca's two passages that look favorably upon suicide. I don't know if that is a Roman influence or a Stoic influence. I wonder why suicide has become so reprehensible to us today. I don't claim to be a theologist, but I do not know where religion's animosity to suicide comes from. 

26 - No good quotation sums up this chapter. Seneca argues that we should not be bothered by the intentions or judgement of those who have wronged us. I thought on this for a little while and at least for now I agree with him. We do not become angry with dogs or mules, for they lack judgement and act on instinct. But how much less can many people be said to act on instinct, in defiance of judgement? Perhaps even more existentialist, how much less can I be said to act on instinct and in defiance of judgement? Returning to practical ethics, I think this is a valuable idea to keep before me. Those who irritate me during the day are more than likely not doing so intentionally, but rather from a lack of education or right morals. And how much more can I blame them than a dog or an ass?

30 - On what humans are angered by. Also quite a prescient section. He examines how people are often disappointed by the relative value of what they got. But who can say I got less than I deserved, or if I deserved less than I got? I should think this runs quite well with Epictetus examination of why we should not be angry if we are not invited to dinner - for we have not paid the price of spending time with the host. It is, I do admit, overwhelmingly difficult to examine every interaction with others objectively, rather than subjectively.

41 - Let us grant to our soul that peace which will be provided by constant study of beneficial instruction, by noble actions, and a mind fixed on desire only for what is honorable.

Back to Stoicism

Well, I finished Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Frankly, I'm glad. There wasn't anything comment-worthy over the last few nights of reading, and now I can move on to bigger and better things. The editor thoughtfully included some critical reviews of Nietzsche in the back of the book - I'm comforted with how many others also agree that there are better philosophers out there. It is not that Nietzsche doesn't have good ideas, it's just that I think his presentation is ineffective.

I ordered six new books , two of which should arrive as early as tomorrow, so I can start on them after I get through Descartes, which has been waiting patiently on my nightstand. I ordered Schopenhauer's Essays, Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise, all 4 volumes of The Discourses by Epictetus, and a commentary on stoicism. I am quite looking forward to getting back to stoicism - the commentary will perhaps be the first that I pick up.

As I continue to learn Portuguese, though already and perhaps unfortunately I am focusing more on vocabulary and grammar, I am vexed by the thought that I didn't pay Russian enough attention. Perhaps I could develop it more - but do I really have time for two languages? I am barely making progress in Portuguese. At the moment I think all I can try for is to pay a little closer attention to the Russian I expose myself to everyday. If only I had learned to listen, it would be so much easier to maintain...