Analysis Of Epictetus In The Enchiridion

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

This theory is very closely related with his other theory of restoration instead of loss (Epictetus, 20). In other words his second theory state that one cannot lose a thing instead that thing is restored to its original place, a family member being taken by death would count as such. It is for this reason that Epictetus argues that one should not be grieved when death has taken a family members life. His biggest make in this theory is not just the criticism itself but the lack of knowledge on the subject as well. Epictetus has not been reported to have married, he had no children, and lived to an old age (Seddon). Therefore he not possibly known of the bond that family impose on a father and since he did not experience this form of loss from his life it is impossible to correctly criticize it. A person without the experience of an event does not have an accurate idea of what it means to lose someone emotionally, thus it is pretty easy but ignorant to theorize about family in that manner. While he shows comprehensions of what an ideal person should be acting like he shows complete ignorance of human nature and the emotional bonds that compose it. Sensitivity towards a family member’s death, feelings of jealously and anger for

Why does he denies the striving for more than that which is within one’s own desire? And why does he fail to understand human bonds? The latter is easy to answer himself never had a family that would create a strong enough bond. The other two are trickier his acceptance of fate and his passivity are accounted to one thing his religious belief (Long, 3). In other words Epictetus was perhaps born at the wrong time. In a time were theology was so strong Epictetus dared not to oppose the will of the gods, on the contrary he believed in their way to a fault. Thus while has obtained his wisdom from their virtues he lacks the will to oppose the fate passed down to him by the gods. Something that is quite understandable for the time that he was living