Analysis Of Epictetus And Mills On The Way People Should Live Life

However, for a disabled slave in the Roman Empire, this attitude was what allowed him to stomach his life, and his options. Nowadays, a person with an injury, theoretically, has options to heal and possibly correct it. Epictetus did not. He also did not live in a society where basic human rights were exercised in the way we expect now. Stoic philosophy, for Epictetus, was a set of guidelines he could use to ‘roll with the punches’. Many other people, when in situations where they have very little control, have turned to Stoic, and specifically, Epictetus’, philosophy. James Stockdale was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He endured years of torture and brutal conditions and survived because of Epictetus’ Stoic

Epicurus was a hedonist, a materialist and a consequentialist who strongly believed that in order to attain the good life one must live a pleasant existence free of worry and pain. Through reflection of the concepts in Epicurus’s Letter to Menoeceus this paper will

The ethics behind Epicureanism are very simple. Epicurus demonstrates that experience shows happiness is not best attained by directly seeking it. The selfish are not more happy but less so than the unselfish. This statement is very powerful for the simple person. Epicurus proves that if a person seeks to be happy he/she usually won't be able to find true happiness.

Stoicism is the belief that virtue and the highest good is solely based on knowledge. It also has to do with letting go of other people's beliefs and focusing entirely on oneself. Being able to focus on only what is in our control is essential when it comes to stoicism because that is the only way to reach happiness. Epictetus wanted to get rid of any and all desires. Stoics are strong believers that nothing is eternal and that everything in due time will disappear. Therefore, n

Born of different backgrounds, upbringings, and experiences, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who outwardly appear very different. Epictetus spent most of his youth as a slave while Seneca was born into money and became a tutor of Nero. Although these two men seem to be very dissimilar, they each shared a common purpose in studying philosophy and teaching people on how to live well. Each suggested different paths for how to do so. Epictetus suggests in his book, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, that living a life in accordance with nature could be achieved by living moderately. Seneca suggests in his work, Letters from a Stoic, that a happy man is self-sufficient and realizes that happiness depends only on interior perfection. Despite the differences, both Epictetus and Seneca are considered Stoics because of their shared belief in the idea that character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness. The world outside ourselves will never give us happiness, nor will it be responsible for our unhappiness. It doesn’t matter what’s happening outside ourselves, Epictetus and Seneca claim that the only thing that matters is how we interpret those events. Further evaluating Seneca’s, Letters from a Stoic and Epictetus’s, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, we will clearly be able to differentiate the two in their ideas and opinions regarding stoicism and the keys to living a well, happy life.

As Epictetus opens his handbook with the line, “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us,” a precedent is set for the entire following of the nature in his teachings (Hackett, 5). We are not merely an individual seeking something better in life, but an individual who can control his/her own path as long as we follow the context of staying true to ourselves and not wandering outside of our own capabilities. “Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or public offices, or, that is, whatever is not our doing,” is a prime example of what we cannot control, death being one of these (Hackett, 5). Our control is limited to what we can grasp and be in power of, and whatever is out of that reach should not be looked

When he was gifted with his liberty, Epictetus started “teaching principles of personal freedom and tranquility” (Traylor, 2004. P 11). His followers became so numerous that it alarmed the Roman Empire rulers. When the emperor requested that he “shave off his beard to show the public his subservience to the emperor”, he declined (Traylor, 2004. P 12). Subsequently, Epictetus was ordered into exile. In Greece, his place of exile, he opened a small school. According to Traylor, this school taught students “how to live a life of serenity and purpose” (p 12). Traylor wrote, “He was said to be a kind and good-hearted man, passing away around the year 130 A.D” (p. 12).

“The good life” can have various interpretations to different people. Sophocles’ Antigone and Socrates in the Apology represent similar principles that guide the way in which the characters live their life. In Sophocles’ play, Antigone goes against the wishes of her uncle, Creon, to do what she believes is morally right and just. Similarly, in the Apology, Socrates defends himself against the accusations of Meletus, who claims that Socrates does not acknowledge the gods of the city and corrupts others by teaching philosophy (Apology, 28). Both Antigone and Socrates believed that “the good life” was rooted in following the wishes of the gods and doing what was right in accordance with the divine. Additionally, Socrates held the idea that

“Highlighted in prison camps, where everyday human nature, stripped bare, can be studied under a magnifying glass in accelerated time. Lessons spotlighted and absorbed in that laboratory sharpens one eye for their abstruse but highly relevant applications in the “real time” world of now”(10). As a POW he suffered indescribable trials externally controlled by other individuals. “ The historical perspective which enabled a man to take himself away from all the agitation, not necessarily see a rosy lining, but to see the real nature of the situation he faced, was truly a thing of value”(12). The misfortunes, which fell upon the POW’s, were unfair but in regard to Epictetus the unfairness in life is what makes individuals so courageous. POW not

By acting in this manner the individual pays attention to the external things. While Epictetus believes we have no control, it seems that we may have some control. We have control over our actions, and our actions can influence these external things. In this case the care and sympathy, have an effect on the man. While no one can directly control things that are not their actions, they still have things in their control, namely their actions. In fact, our actions can even have an effect on the things that Epictetus believes we can not influence.

Thrasymachus' perspective of human nature is that we all seek to maximize power, profit and possessions. He gives the argument that morality is not an objective truth but rather a creation of the stronger (ruling) party to serve its own advantage. Therefore definitions of "just" and "unjust", "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral" are all dependent upon the decree of the ruling party. Thrasymachus argues that acting "morally", in accordance with the ruling party, benefits the ruling party, while acting "immorally", injures the ruling party and benefits oneself.

Born of different stations, languages and creeds, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who externally appear to be very different. Epictetus was born to a slave mother, sold as a slave himself and spent the majority of his youth as a slave in Rome. Seneca was born into money; he became tutor to a boy named Nero who later acquired position of Emperor of Rome in 54 A.D. Though these two men seem to be from very different worlds, they have a shared purpose in studying philosophy. The purpose of their writings was to teach people how to live well. Though they had a shared purpose, they suggested its achievement through different means. Epictetus professed an ‘expect the worst so you wont be disappointed when it happens’

This is because actions and thoughts are not merely characteristics, but the quintessential parts that define who a person is. These parts are above everything because of the simple fact that if one’s fundamental makeup is lost, the individual is lost. Epictetus follows this with what he believes the individual is unable to control:

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who wrote, The Enchiridion, a manual which instructed people on how to live their life ethically and honorably on a social level. His belief was that regardless of personal conditions, people could live with pride and discipline. Epictetus tells us differentiating between what is in our own power to control and what is not is the key to a noble life (281).

Mencius states that “...if one is without the heart of compassion, one is not a human” (Mencius, 2A.6), which is a quote that captivates the essence of Mencius’s conventional life rather well. The conventional life is a lifestyle that focuses on the idea of all humans being born with these natural tendencies to be good, as well as to do good things. However we choose to care for these seeds planted within us will ultimately decide how we as humans treat others in this world. This conventional life contains the most convincing philosophy in my opinion, for it focuses primarily on the concept of humans being born as “good”, and choosing from that point on if they will use their natural born tools to remain “good”, or stray away from that path entirely.