Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The epictetus xxi
Epictetus made many excellent points on how he believes would be the best way for people to live though there were a point or two where I differed from his opinion on how life should be lived. One point of differing would be at passage eleven when he is saying that you should just believe that you are giving something back when it is taken from you. I don’t think this is quite the best way to go about anything since it would, more or less, just be someone saying that their own property or the people around them don’t matter to them in the least. I think that it is far too much an emotionless state to be in to think like this about everything around you. In passage eleven it is spoken that if something or someone is taken then you should just …show more content…
I don’t completely agree with this passage though it helps me to see sort of how it can be a simple understanding to treat the world and the people in it in such a way as to not care about them. As this passage talks about that I must not force something to come to me but let it come to me on it’s own, I understand that if I treat the world as if I don’t care about it then it will never really become something that I hold a piece of; if the world is thought of as something that shouldn’t be cared about then the only holding I will have over it will be temporary and never really have something that will be mine. I don’t think this is the way that anyone should go through the world since it provides no real enjoyment of the things around me and the lack of being empathic toward anyone else in the …show more content…
On passage eleven I shall have to disagree with him since it seems far too cold of a way to go through life. As he wrote this passage it seems that Epictetus was focusing on the fact that the world is an easier place if empathy is lacked in how I go through it so that I can lack any sort of connection to the things that I come in contact with. The world is a cruel place, obviously, and the way I know it can be changed in an instant so it just makes the world easier if I don’t try to become connected to anyone I meet or any of the property I own. I should keep from becoming empathetic about the world around me and never care about the people who are suffering since it causes too much harm to be worried about anyone else. It works if I am able and willing to keep from getting close to anyone in my life though it would make for a lonely existence to always be thinking that to keep everything from being taken away at a moment 's notice, I must not care about anything that I come in contact
...is seems to line up well with the serenity prayer: “Lord, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Our task as humans is to discern these wills in our lives and separate them. We must not become embittered, but rather empowered, clinging to the knowledge that there is an ever-benevolent God constantly working for our good, and that he always has a plan for us amidst trial presented by life on earth. In order to discern this will though, we have to be on the lookout for it with an awareness of its separateness from our own fears and desires. This discernment is also difficult because of our limited perspectives as humans, and thus we need humility in our search. The most important thing, however, is the search itself: we must all continue to search for the will.
Thrasymachus has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.
As a worldview, Stoicism is a philosophical approach to help people to cope with times of great stress and troubles. In order to give comfort to humanity, the Stoics agree with the Pantheistic view that God and nature are not separate. Instead, the two forces are one. By believing that God is nature, humans have a sense of security because nature, like God, is recognized as rational and perfect. The perfection of nature is explained through the Divine, or natural, Law. This law gives everything in nature a predetermined plan that defines the future based on past evens (cause and effect). Because the goal for everything in nature is to fulfill its plan, the reason for all that happens in nature is because it is a part of the plan. It is apparent that, because this law is of God, it must be good. The Divine Law is also universal. Everything on the planet has a plan that has already been determined. There are no exceptions or limitations to the natural law. The world in the Stoics’ eyes is flawless, equal, and rational.
Intellectuals are philosophers, are writers, are artists. They are all those people who work with their minds by questioning the events that touch them and that are touched by them. To recall a Plato's famous allegory, we can say that intellectuals are those who are able to look beyond the shadows and never take concepts for granted. However, some questions as what their role is and, more specifically, whether they should be engaged in politics are still unanswerable. Over the years answers and behaviors towards the engaged culture have been various and we can assume that the intellectuals who cannot separate the two live their lives actively for they want to be part of the events that surround them and let awareness win over apathy. On the contrary, we can assume that those who let apathy win are the intellectuals that look at politics and culture as two different and specific concepts and live a solitary life far from society. However, this is not an appropriate judgment because it would be difficult to consider to which extent solitude can be regarded as cowardliness and to which extent action can be regarded as consciousness.
An Analysis of Thucydides' Views on the Melian Dialogue The Melian Dialogue is a debate between Melian and Athenian representatives concerning the sovereignty of Melos. The debate did not really occur-the arguments given by each side were of Thucydides own creation. Thus it is reasonable to assume that we can tease out Thucydides' own beliefs.
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Cicero, was truly a man of the state. His writings also show us he was equally a man of
He reminds us that for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence, making them feel like their lives are meaningless.
I think that what the author was trying to imply in this passage was that in his personal experience, he has noticed that many people take many things for granted and that they don’t live their lives according to what they want and need to do. So much is wasted during one’s lifetime, and people just allow their lives to pass them by.
With their philosophical roots grounded in ancient Greece, Stoicism and Epicureanism had contrary yet significant impacts on Roman society. These two philosophies differed in many of their basic theories. Stoics attempted to reach a moral level where they had freedom from passion, while Epicureans strove for pleasure and avoided all types of pain. Stoics like the Epicureans, emphasized ethics as the main field of knowledge, but they also developed theories of logic and natural science to support their ethical doctrines.
In his work, “The Enchiridion,” Epictetus outlines multiple examples of how we should react or behave in certain situations, one of these being death. In section 3, he states that “If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.” His logic follows a clear path - if you only kiss things that are human, that means you only kiss things that will inevitably die because that is a necessary piece of being human. Therefore, when the people you kiss, or love, die, it should not disturb or upset you because it was a given from the moment you met them that they would eventually pass away. While his description may seem callous and difficult to actually put
Epictetus is one undoubtedly of the most recognized Stoic philosophers of the ancient Greece. His work revolve around control or lack of thereof. In the Enchiridion he makes a distinction between things that are within ones power such as opinion, aim, desire, aversion and whatever affairs are our own and things that are beyond ones power such as body, property, reputation, office, and whatever are not properly our own affairs (Epictetus, 17). But with his advice also come complications for he voices some ideas that might be out of the realm of human capability especially when considering some specific teachings of his. This essay will focus on how some of Epictetus’s ideas are hard to be fully realized by humans, thus challenging and criticizing
Epictetus, a revolutionary stoic of his time often makes some strong claims about the idea of stoicism. Stoicism is fundamentally promoting a lifestyle that yields a depleted happiness where everything is bounded by just desires being fulfilled and not enjoying the love and opportunities life brings to live it to the fullest and make life meaningful. Meaningful life is living with passion, happiness, love, and enjoying every moment you have because one only has one life. Being passionless is popular with stoics. The world is in large part affiliated with happiness regarding materialistic success, family love, meaning, why bring it down with selfish thought? I shall argue that I interpret the claims and lifestyle promoted by the stoic is
In this passage the soul is not only shown in control of the body but also protected by it and dependent on it for its interaction with the world...
As Herodotus develops his History he diverges from the main aspect of his narrative many times throughout the text. Many wonder why Herodotus diverges from the main point by introducing minor characters who do not seem relevant to the central theme. Some consider this method of narrative confusing and pointless but I believe that Herodotus has a purpose for including these minor figures and that these characters help express Herodotus ideology towards proper moral and political systems. These minor figures are developed and manipulated by Herodotus in order to express his ideas and he is able to accomplish this because these characters are flexible in the sense that the readers (and listeners) do not have a predisposition when introduced to these characters. By closely analyzing the minor characters throughout book seven we realize Herodotus’ purpose behind the inclusion of these characters is to demonstrate his beliefs on the proper morals people should exhibit and to show how Tyranny is a poor form of government.