Hans Holbein, The Dance of Death 45: The Waggoner

Ellis Walker, Epictetus in Poetical Paraphrase 29

XXIX. 

If to please others, studying to be dear
In their kind thoughts, you move beyond your sphere
And look abroad, respect and praise to gain,
And the poor outward trifle call'd a name;
You lose the character you wish to bear,
You lose your station of philosopher.
Let it suffice that such yourself you know,
No matter whether other men think so:
Let it be to yourself, if wise you'd seem;
And 'tis enough, you gain your own esteem. 

Stoic Snippets 150

This is the chief thing: be not perturbed, for all things are according to the Nature of the Universal; and in a little time you will be nobody and nowhere, like Hadrian and Augustus. 

In the next place, having fixed your eyes steadily on your business, look at it, and at the same time remembering that it is your duty to be a good man, and what man's nature demands, do that without turning aside; and speak as it seems to you most just, only let it be with a good disposition and with modesty and without hypocrisy. 

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 8.5 

Vanitas 59

Joannes de Cordua, Vanitas with a Bust (1665) 

Epictetus, Discourses 1.23.2

Epicurus says that the man who is wise does not enter into politics, for he knows what sort of things the politician has to do. 

 

Of course if you are going to live among men as if they were flies, what is to prevent you? But Epicurus, as though he did not know what natural affection is, says “Let us not bring up children.”

 

If a sheep does not abandon its offspring, nor a wolf, does a man abandon his? What would you have us do? Would you have us foolish as sheep? Even they do not abandon their young. Would you have us savage as wolves? Even they do not abandon theirs. 

 

No, who takes your advice when he sees his child fallen on the ground and crying? Why, I think that if your father and mother had foreseen that you were going to talk thus, even then they would not have cast you away from them. 

—from Epictetus, Discourses 1.23 

 

I have seen more than enough of the way posers and scoundrels are drawn to positions of authority, and so I am sympathetic to those who are wary of getting involved in anything political. If you tell me you are running for Congress, or even if you throw in your hat to be promoted to academic dean, I can’t help but wonder if you are one the very many who has been tricked down the road of wickedness. 

 

Still, it is also possible that you are one the very few who possesses incredible courage, and I think it important to remember that the Stoic does not reject any path of life simply on the grounds that it will be unpleasant or unnerving. If I can manage to do right by it, it can always be a correct path to choose. 

 

I look to Seneca, who regularly bemoaned the frustrations of politics, and yet he still devoted his entire life to public service. You tell me he failed because he couldn’t fix Nero’s vices? Only Nero could have fixed himself, while Seneca succeeded on account of his own integrity, regardless of how others treated him. 

 

I once complained to my uncle about how I disliked the smell of a cow pasture. “It’s your nose that’s the problem,” he said, “not the shit.” 

 

So it is with most anything I must face, since my attitude cannot be reduced to the circumstances. I should never treat a man as if he were simply a fly, though I am well advised to consider his annoyances as if they were no more than those of a fly. 

 

Feelings can only lead to meaning and purpose when they are rightly understood, and I suspect this is one of the critical points regarding the contrast between Epicureanism and Stoicism. If I avoid politics only from an aversion to jarring my emotions, that is hardly a decent excuse. 

 

I commit a far greater sin by following the same model when it comes to my family. As soon as I separate my satisfaction from an awareness of my natural responsibilities, I have sacrificed my very humanity for an illusion of serenity. 

 

The urge to raise children is not in conflict with the happy life, but rather a very expression of a happy life. Not all will necessarily find themselves in the setting to do so, and yet none should think that it is an obstacle to joy. 

 

There is a perfectly good reason why every decent man, even the confirmed bachelor, feels so deeply drawn to the welfare of a child, and it boils down to the fact that his wisdom has taught him to love. When he knows who he truly is, he also knows that he is made to give of himself, especially to those who are just beginning their human journey. 

 

The sheep and the wolf are working from instinct alone, and while a man adds to this his reason and will, they in no way diminish the aim of the instinct—indeed, they ought to magnify it. I am obviously free to judge and to choose as I wish, though let me not thereby become far more foolish than any sheep or far more savage than any wolf. 

 

Epictetus always says it just like it is, and he doesn’t pull any punches. I deserve a swift reprimand if I go about denying compassion to helpless children, when only the compassion of my own parents made it possible for me to turn myself into such a thoughtless and heartless savage. Even if they had known of my pathetic fate, they would still have loved me and cared for me without condition. 

—Reflection written in 3/2001 

Dhammapada 221

Let a man leave anger, let him forsake pride, let him overcome all bondage! 

No sufferings befall the man who is not attached to name and form, and who calls nothing his own. 

Chuang Tzu 2.8

Nieh Khüeh asked Wang Î, saying, "Do you know, Sir, what all creatures agree in approving and affirming?" 

"How should I know it?" was the reply. 

"Do you know what it is that you do not know?" asked the other again, and he got the same reply. 

He asked a third time, "Then are all creatures thus without knowledge?" 

And Wang Î answered as before, adding however, "Notwithstanding, I will try and explain my meaning. How do you know that when I say 'I know it,' I really am showing that I do not know it, and that when I say 'I do not know it,' I really am showing that I do know it." 

And let me ask you some questions: "If a man sleep in a damp place, he will have a pain in his loins, and half his body will be as if it were dead; but will it be so with an eel? 

"If he be living in a tree, he will be frightened and all in a tremble; but will it be so with a monkey? 

"And does any one of the three know his right place? 

"Men eat animals that have been fed on grain and grass; deer feed on the thick-set grass; centipedes enjoy small snakes; owls and crows delight in mice; but does any one of the four know the right taste? 

"The dog-headed monkey finds its mate in the female gibbon; the elk and the axis deer cohabit; and the eel enjoys itself with other fishes. 

"Mâo Tshiang and Lì Kì were accounted by men to be most beautiful, but when fishes saw them, they dived deep in the water from them; when birds, they flew from them aloft; and when deer saw them, they separated and fled away. 

"But did any of these four know which in the world is the right female attraction? 

"As I look at the matter, the first principles of benevolence and rightcousness and the paths of approval and disapproval are inextricably mixed and confused together—how is it possible that I should know how to discriminate among them?" 

Nieh Khüeh said further, "Since you, Sir, do not know what is advantageous and what is hurtful, is the Perfect man also in the same way without the knowledge of them?" 

Wang Î replied, "The Perfect man is spirit-like. Great lakes might be boiling about him, and he would not feel their heat; the Ho and the Han might be frozen up, and he would not feel the cold; the hurrying thunderbolts might split the mountains, and the wind shake the ocean, without being able to make him afraid. 

"Being such, he mounts on the clouds of the air, rides on the sun and moon, and rambles at ease beyond the four seas. 

"Neither death nor life makes any change in him, and how much less should the considerations of advantage and injury do so!" 

Epictetus, Discourses 1.23.1

Chapter 23: Against Epicurus. 

 

Epicurus understands as well as we do that we are by nature social beings, but having once placed our good not in the spirit but in the husk which contains it, he cannot say anything different. 

 

On the other hand, he firmly grasps the principle that one must not admire nor accept anything which is severed from the nature of the good: and he is quite right. 

 

How can we be social beings, if, as you say, we have no natural affection for our offspring? Why do you advise the wise man not to bring up children? Why are you afraid that they may bring him into troubles?

 

Does the mouse he rears indoors cause him trouble? What does he care then, if a tiny mouse begins crying in his house? But he knows that if once a child is born, it will not be in our power not to love it nor care for it. 

—from Epictetus, Discourses 1.23

 

For the few students who are still exposed to ancient philosophy, their experience is usually limited to a hasty contrast between Plato and Aristotle, stressing all the differences instead of seeking out a complementarity. 

 

Almost completely ignored is the wider range of Greek and Roman thought, including the Cynics, the Stoics, the Skeptics, and the Epicureans. This is unfortunate, as both the breadth and the depth of the human condition are best revealed by examining the full spectrum of historical expression. 

 

The Stoics, for example, stood in a sort of opposition to the Epicureans, even as they also sought to find some common ground, especially regarding the critical importance of a temperate life. For all that could be shared, however, they diverged on an understanding of first principles, and their disagreements can help us to better reason about our own assumptions. 

 

Though it surely requires further elaboration, I at least begin with my own general summary of their views: 

 

For the Stoic, the greatest human good is the pursuit of virtue and the avoidance of vice, in a Universe ruled by Providence. 

 

For the Epicurean, the greatest human good is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, in a Universe ruled by the swerving of atoms. 

 

It would do us all a world of good to consider such foundations to our thinking, instead of merely taking them for granted. In the current fashion, most of us would discover how we are implicitly working from Epicurean premises, though we then twist them into a base hedonism the Epicurean would find truly frightening. 

 

In this brief chapter, however, Epictetus confines himself to a single aspect of the division. To what extent are we called to be social animals, to encourage affection and cooperation with our fellow humans? 

 

Now it might at first seem that the Stoics, with their stress on self-reliance, would think poorly of family bonds or political engagements, while the Epicureans, with their stress on achieving the satisfaction of desires, would support relationships of utility, and yet quite the reverse ends up being true. 

 

The Stoics constantly appeal to our communal nature, since we are made as parts of a whole, while the Epicureans are deeply apprehensive about family and the public square, since they too easily serve as unnecessary distractions from a balanced contentment. 

 

Epictetus observes how Epicurus must admit that our physical nature makes social interactions unavoidable, and yet wonders why he simultaneously looks down on them as a nuisance. In particular, Epictetus challenges Epicurus on his rejection of marriage and children. 

 

Is a child really such a burden? Must the philosopher cast aside his natural instinct to give the gift of life in order to find his own happiness? I regularly come across similar claims regarding children as hardships, though all the media grandstanding and bickering on the matter is pointless without first isolating the source of the human good. 

 

Perhaps the Epicurean wishes to avoid a certain circumstance because it interferes with his peace of mind, but the Stoic considers any circumstance as an opportunity for his peace of mind. 

 

I suggest that one reason for this variance is from whether we find happiness in how we come to feel or in how we choose to act. When life presents challenges, is it best to hide them away or to joyfully embrace them? 

 

The good man is not driven to despair by such a little thing as the squeaking of a mouse, nor, when it comes to the much bigger things, will he deny his love to his offspring. The consistent ethic here is one of treating all the situations we face with the same commitment to justice, of being completely pledged to service over gratification. 

 

Before anyone turns this into petty tribal warfare, complete with clever slogans and unchecked outrage from one side or the other, please remember that love and understanding must apply across the board, not just where they are the most convenient for this or that narrow agenda. 

—Reflection written in 3/2001 

Living with Nature

Sayings of Publilius Syrus 65

A death that ends the incurable ills of life, is a blessing. 

Wisdom from the Bhagavad Gita 48

12. I shall describe that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless Supreme Brahman. It is called neither being nor non-being. 

13. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere in the universe—That exists pervading all. 

14. Shining by the functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; Absolute, yet sustaining all; devoid of Gunas, yet their experiencer. 

15. Without and within all beings; the unmoving and also the moving; because of Its subtlety incomprehensible; It is far and near. 

16. Impartible, yet It exists as if divided in beings: It is to be known as sustaining beings; and devouring, as well as generating them. 

17. The Light even of lights, It is said to be beyond darkness; Knowledge, and the One Thing to be known, the Goal of knowledge, dwelling in the hearts of all. 

18. Thus Kshetra, knowledge, and that which has to be known, have been briefly stated. Knowing this, My devotee is fitted for My state. 

19. Know you that Prakriti and Purusha are both beginningless; and know you also that all modifications and Gunas are born of Prakriti. 

20. In the production of the body and the senses, Prakriti is said to be the cause; in the experience of pleasure and pain, Purusha is said to be the cause. 

21. Purusha seated in Prakriti, experiences the Gunas born of Prakriti; the reason of his birth in good and evil wombs is his attachment to the Gunas. 

22. And the Supreme Purusha in this body is also called the Looker-on, the Permitter, the Supporter, the Experiencer, the Great Lord, and the Highest Self. 

23. He who thus knows the Purusha and Prakriti together with the Gunas, whatever his life, is not born again. 

—Bhagavad Gita, 13:12-23 

Seneca, Moral Letters 27.5

But let me pay off my debt and say farewell: "Real wealth is poverty adjusted to the law of Nature.” 

 

Epicurus has this saying in various ways and contexts; but it can never be repeated too often, since it can never be learned too well. 

 

For some persons the remedy should be merely prescribed; in the case of others, it should be forced down their throats. Farewell. 

—from Seneca, Moral Letters 27 

 

Very many will tell you that you must be rich in order to be happy, and a very few will even tell you that you must be poor in order to be happy, but the Stoic, like the follower of any Wisdom Tradition, knows how happiness is in the quality of the attitude, not in the quantity of the things. 

 

The attention ought to be directed toward working in harmony with Nature, such that the good life for a rational animal will be fulfilled in the exercise of the virtues. 

 

All other circumstances, which are in themselves neither good nor bad for us, take on a meaning that is relative to the measure of character, and so are never to be pursued or avoided for their own sake. 

 

What are the minimum external conditions for attaining peace of mind? How much property, status, or comfort are “required” to find contentment? However much I might prefer to object, I always find that I need far, far less than I initially assumed. 

 

Indeed, if I am totally honest with myself, I recognize why any old opportunity will do just fine, as long as I am focused on becoming a good man instead of a fat man.

 

When push comes to shove, there are no losing situations, only losing mindsets. To build up my own moral autonomy, I am well advised to avoid a reliance on convenience and luxury, and to commit rather to the strength of my principles. 

 

Let me not confuse the greed of the wanting with the responsibility of the needing.

 

Thus, an openness to poverty in the body is a sign of a zeal to be wealthy in the spirit. My fundamental values are revealed by where I assign a man’s credit—do I praise him for owning his own business, or do I revere him for acting with decency and kindness? The one came to him, the other came from him. 

 

Yes, I must remind myself of this every day, perhaps multiple times every day, because it isn’t just an important thing, it is the most important thing.

 

Take careful note of where a man exerts his efforts, and you then uncover his priorities. You now know if you can trust him, or if you should best keep him at arm’s length. 

 

I am always wary of forcing anyone to do anything, though I also know that Nature works in its own mysterious ways. 

 

Seneca is understandably irked by the weakness of a Sabinus or a Satellius, brutally aware of how such charlatans could use a good thrashing to knock some sense back into them. Yet he need not take that job on for himself, as Providence inevitably sets things right, whether with a gentle touch or with a heavy hand. 

 

The Stoic, like the follower of any Wisdom Tradition, knows the difference between serving willingly and being reduced to playing the part while kicking and screaming. 

—Reflection written in 10/2012 

Wisdom from the Early Cynics, Diogenes 8

Being asked where in Greece he saw good men, Diogenes replied, "Good men nowhere, but good boys at Lacedaemon." 

When one day he was gravely discoursing and nobody attended to him, he began whistling, and as people clustered about him, he reproached them with coming in all seriousness to hear nonsense, but slowly and contemptuously when the theme was serious. 

He would say that men strive in digging and kicking to outdo one another, but no one strives to become a good man and true. 

—Diogenes Laërtius, 6.27 

IMAGE: Jerome David, Diogenes (c. 1640) 

Wisdom from the Early Stoics, Zeno of Citium 48

Symbolical argument is a combination of full argument and mood; e.g. "If Plato is alive, he breathes; but the first is true, therefore the second is true." 

This mode of argument was introduced in order that when dealing with long complex arguments we should not have to repeat the minor premise, if it be long, and then state the conclusion, but may arrive at the conclusion as concisely as possible: if A, then B. 

Of arguments some are conclusive, others inconclusive. 

Inconclusive are such that the contradictory of the conclusion is not incompatible with combination of the premises, as in the following: "If it is day, it is light; but it is day, therefore Dion walks." 

Of conclusive some are denoted by the common name of the whole class, "conclusive proper," others are called syllogistic. 

The syllogistic are such as either do not admit of, or are reducible to such as do not admit of, immediate proof in respect of one or more of the premises; e.g. "If Dion walks, then Dion is in motion; but Dion is walking, therefore Dion is in motion." 

Conclusive specifically are those which draw conclusions, but not by syllogism; e.g. the statement "It is both day and night" is false: "now it is day; therefore it is not night." 

Arguments not syllogistic are those which plausibly resemble syllogistic arguments, but are not cogent proof; e.g. "If Dion is a horse, he is an animal; but Dion is not a horse, therefore he is not an animal." 

—Diogenes Laërtius, 7.77-78 

Mammon

George Frederick Watts, Mammon (1885)

Sayings of Ramakrishna 161

There are two Egos in man, one ripe and the other unripe. 

The ripe Ego thinks, "Nothing is mine; whatever I see, or feel, or hear, nay, even this body is not mine, I am always free and eternal."

The unripe Ego, on the contrary, thinks, "This is my house, my room, my child, my wife, my body, and so forth." 

Fractals 28

Seneca, Moral Letters 27.4

Satellius Quadratus, a feeder, and consequently a fawner, upon addle-pated millionaires, and also (for this quality goes with the other two) a flouter of them, suggested to Sabinus that he should have philologists to gather up the bits. 

 

Sabinus remarked that each slave cost him one hundred thousand sesterces; Satellius replied: "You might have bought as many bookcases for a smaller sum." But Sabinus held to the opinion that what any member of his household knew, he himself knew also.

 

This same Satellius began to advise Sabinus to take wrestling lessons—sickly, pale, and thin as he was, Sabinus answered: "How can I? I can scarcely stay alive now." 

 

"Don't say that, I implore you," replied the other, "consider how many perfectly healthy slaves you have!" 

 

No man is able to borrow or buy a sound mind; in fact, as it seems to me, even though sound minds were for sale, they would not find buyers. Depraved minds, however, are bought and sold every day. 

—from Seneca, Moral Letters 27

 

In every walk of life, we will find the self-important men, who define themselves by their trappings of property, and yet these are the least of men, because they have surrendered the power to be their own masters. 

 

In every walk of life, we will also find the flatterers, who have decided that the way forward is to win the approval of those self-important men, in the hopes of one day becoming just as bloated and dependent as their idols. 

 

The feed off each other, where the first thinks he owns the second and the second is driven to acquire the status of the first, for both have sadly forgotten how they could thrive on their own merits. 

 

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

There is an odd contradiction within every covetous man, where he will do almost anything to increase his standing with the rich and powerful, though he simultaneously harbors a deep resentment against his chosen overlords. He browns his nose at one moment, and then he spits venom once the boss turns his back. 

 

Could it be that he knows full well how he is slowly but surely transforming into the very monster he despises? Does Satellius snipe and quip as a defense mechanism to avoid gazing into his own emptiness? 

 

I do know that whenever I succumb to such bitterness and cynicism, it is always brought on by my own weakness of character, never by what another has forced upon me. He may be incredibly wicked in his ways, but I am the one who has firmly resolved to lick his boots.

 

Do I somehow think I can have it both ways? I can equivocate all I like in theory, and then I am faced with the crystal-clear difference in practice. No, I can either cling to the virtues, and so be willing to take or leave the riches, or I can cling to the riches, and then I must be willing to compromise the virtues. Which comes first? 

 

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

 

An abiding good within me only arises from holding to the truth of my conscience, and it should never be bought or sold for any other commodity. As often as I see people trading convictions for trinkets, I am not obliged to follow suit. 

—Reflection written in 10/2012 

IMAGE: Pieter Bruegel the Younger, Man with the Moneybag and Flatterers (c. 1592) 

Stoic Snippets 149

On the occasion of every act ask yourself, how is this with respect to me? Shall I repent of it? 

A little time and I am dead, and all is gone. 

What more do I seek, if what I am now doing is the work of an intelligent living being, and a social being, and one who is under the same law with God? 

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 8.2 

IMAGE: Jan Wildens, Landscape with Christ and his Disciples on the Road to Emmaus (c. 1640) 

Michael Leunig 37

Dhammapada 219, 220

Kinsmen, friends, and lovers salute a man who has been long away, and returns safe from afar. 

In like manner his good works receive him who has done good, and has gone from this world to the other—as kinsmen receive a friend on his return. 

IMAGE: George Elgar Hicks, The Return Home (1873) 

Michael Leunig 36

Seneca, Moral Letters 27.3

When will it be your lot to attain this joy? Thus far, you have indeed not been sluggish, but you must quicken your pace. Much toil remains; to confront it, you must yourself lavish all your waking hours, and all your efforts, if you wish the result to be accomplished. This matter cannot be delegated to someone else. The other kind of literary activity admits of outside assistance. 

Within our own time there was a certain rich man named Calvisius Sabinus; he had the bank account and the brains of a freedman. I never saw a man whose good fortune was a greater offense against propriety. His memory was so faulty that he would sometimes forget the name of Ulysses, or Achilles, or Priam—names which we know as well as we know those of our own attendants. 

No majordomo in his dotage, who cannot give men their right names, but is compelled to invent names for them—no such man, I say, calls off the names of his master's tribesmen so atrociously as Sabinus used to call off the Trojan and Achaean heroes. 

But none the less did he desire to appear learned. So he devised this short cut to learning: he paid fabulous prices for slaves—one to know Homer by heart and another to know Hesiod; he also delegated a special slave to each of the nine lyric poets. 

You need not wonder that he paid high prices for these slaves; if he did not find them ready to hand he had them made to order. After collecting this retinue, he began to make life miserable for his guests; he would keep these fellows at the foot of his couch, and ask them from time to time for verses which he might repeat, and then frequently break down in the middle of a word. 

—from Seneca, Moral Letters 27 

I can turn to someone else when I want help in understanding the complexities or the references in a book, but I cannot count on another to do my own thinking for me. 

I imagine I would never have passed my Doctoral comprehensive exams without leaning heavily on Copleston’s History of Philosophy, and yet Copleston could never “make” me a philosopher at all—if that was ever going to happen, I would have to take total charge of my judgments and stop acting as if footnotes have any real authority. 

It is good for us to work together, and yet it is so easy to cross that dangerous line into letting the work of life be outsourced. Stop passing the buck. 

 

Wherever possible, and to the greatest degree within my power, let me be my own man. Why expect to be waited on hand and foot when I can do it for myself? 

 

It may be pleasant to pay someone else to feed me, though it is most fulfilling for me to prepare my own meals. It may be convenient to buy a shiny new car, though I show far greater self-reliance by walking on my own two feet. It may be grand to have an entourage, though the true glory is in serving instead of being served.

 

I do not believe in stomping my feet and waving my fists about sweeping social issues, because I am convinced that all the big problems are really resolved by addressing the small problems, working from the bottom up instead of from the top down. 

 

If I want a more just society, I ought to begin by practicing justice in my everyday affairs, especially in those areas where there is the most filth and grime. 

 

Given the peculiarities of human nature, it’s the only way to go. Improve yourself and resist the temptation to play the lord and master over others. If just a few more of us did this, the effects would be earth-shattering. 

The first time I read this letter, I must admit that I glossed over the references to Sabinus. This was a mistake, since I must face men like him most every day, and I always run the serious risk of becoming the same sort of intellectually lazy oaf. 

The bigwigs and the wheeler-dealers not only employ others to bring them coffee and do the dirty work, but they also hand down deeply important decisions to their peons. Have you noticed how they take the credit from you when you make them a profit, and they fire you when you take the slightest misstep? 

The academic version is the most pitiful, where the Distinguished Professors have the Research Fellows do the legwork, and then they wallow in the praise. It is much like a politician who reads from a teleprompter, having been handed the clever quip by a groveling aide. 

As much as you might think I am telling you a tall tale, I was once actually approached by a spoiled brat in college to provide him with a set of profoundly romantic phrases from classical literature. He was trying, in his own words, to get a girl “in the sack” who happened to be a bookworm. He offered me $100 for my efforts.

I suggested he should do his own reading. He said it would take too much time. I reminded him that love requires Herculean efforts. He shrugged and walked away. I’m happy to say that he didn’t “bag” the fair maiden. 

—Reflection written in 10/2012