Stoicism Stockdale's Life As A Slave Epictetus

When you look at the word slavery most have this fixed characterization of the word and refer back to when Europeans enslaved Africans. If we look in ancient Greece times we see slavery was around for years. Not only do we see that slavery has been around for year we also see that there were many different uses of slavery and the meaning of slavery. For instances, the Greeks used slavery as reasoning for their actions. Also, people such as the Athenians used slavery as a word to describe people as someone who needed to be ruled. Greeks looked down upon other Greeks being used as slaves, when they were not enslaving them. During these ancient times, many tyrants had many slaves but these tyrants were very relatable to their subjects.

Alleck, W., Glass, K., & Macdonald, M. E. (2012). The Limitations of Language: Male Participants, Stoicism, and the Qualiative Research Interview. American Journal of Men's Health , 155 - 162.

Athletes who compete in a college sport should get paid a small amount of cash for all they do. When a student is involved in a college sport, it consumes much of their life, and they do not have much time to do anything else. Since these athletes are not supposed to be paid, when they are paid athletes suffer great consequences that hurt the rest of their careers. It should be the college’s choice whether they want to pay a player to come play at their school or not. This would help many of these players who do not have enough time for a job. Almost all of these athletes’ time has something to do with the sport they are involved in, whether it is practice, games, or film. Many teams make their athletes go out and be involved with their community.

Slavery was the practice of taking a human being and making them do the work of another by force. This was practiced through out the ancient world and especially in Rome and Greece. Slaves were nothing more than just property to the ancient peoples. They didn't have the rights of citizens nor were they able to do what they want in most cases. Slaves had many tasks that they had to do, many of which included taking care of the masters house and kids, cooking and cleaning that house, herding the cattle for the farming families, being guards for some prisons, fighting for entertainment of the masses, and more common was sexual activities with the slaves.

After the death of Aristotle, philosophy that targeted greater complex depths was outrun by philosophy that focused on mere everyday lives. With the rise and fall of Skepticism, Cynicism, and Epicureanism there was an influence that survived years impacting life and that was Stoicism. Zeno of Citium who believed that the world had an ultimate plan and everything--including nature, animals, and humans, were there for a reason (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014, p. 66). The reason Stoicism was easily used is because it was well-suited with the way Romans highlighted their law and order giving the extensive coverage displayed by many philosophers, including Marcus Aurelius.

Previous Roman actions have raised the question whether they recognized their slaves as things or people. Of course, there are economic advantages in support of slavery. However, when human lives are under constant danger and torture, the economic advantages must be forgotten. Although the slaves of Ancient Rome played a pivotal role in the society, their actions were never approved. After careful consideration, it is evident that the Romans recognized slaves as things rather than people. This conception is mainly due to three factors. They include: slaves being put on the market, the physical cruelty towards the slaves, and the slaves being mistreated to the point of revolt.

Happiness is all around the world, it is a very genuine and important thing, and everyone wants to be happy. Being happy is what makes life worth living, and it makes life a lot better in every way possible. What makes people happy though? Are bodily and external goods necessary to happiness? I would say no because by which they can make you happy, they are not necessary for human happiness. It’s not what things you buy, the pain, the suffering, or enjoyment your body might get. Human happiness comes from somewhere else within the human. Comparing and contrasting Aristotle’s and the Stoics’ view of human happiness will help give a better clear and logical understanding on what really happiness is and why I believe that bodily

Social classes have existed throughout all of history. The categorizing of slaves on American Plantations is often overlooked, but there were in fact many levels of slave classes. The use of a class system helped plantation owners to punish and reward their slaves as well as to keep their business organized.

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.

     Throught Oedipus Rex, Oedipus displays his heroism many times. From the Prologue of the play to the moment in which he leaves Thebes, Oedipus' heroics are extremely apparent; however, at the same time, the decisions which make Oedipus a hero ultimately become the decisions which bring him to shame and exile.

Reading through three related stories, we discover different motifs denoting author’s thought in different time.Without any doubt, the tragic essence goes through the Three Theban Plays. As Sophocles meditates the philosophy of the tragedy all along his life, the tragic essence expands from individuals in a society. The conflict in each play becomes increasingly complicated. In Antigone, we can clearly distinguish the conflict between Antigone and Creon, family and politics. However, in Oedipus at Colonus, the play merges all the conflicts happened to former plays and enhances the theme of the story. The later part of this trilogy, especially the ending of Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus, reveals a darker and deeper phenomenon of Thebes and projects it to Oedipus. The prophet plays important role of forming the story line and tragic image of Oedipus, but the root causing the series of tragedy of the characters is not gods’ command. It is degeneration of people, which is pathetic to humanity. Finally, after suffering from family complex and exile, Oedipus is not only a victim of the society, but also the reflection of the twisted humanity of Thebes.

The role of hubris, a theme commonly present throughout the works of Sophocles and particularly evident in Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus, not only exalts the Greek nationalism present at the date of composition but dictates the course of the story, evolving as its tragic hero works through his fated anguish. Hubris, defined as exaggerated pride or self-confidence, is the earmark character trait of Oedipus and perhaps Creon. However, it is the abandonment of his sanctimonious nature that distinguishes Oedipus as a true hero. The theme of the evolution and role in the downfall of men by this overly zealous pride may be traced throughout Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus, as it is only by his radical reversal of mind-set that one may deem Oedipus a hero.

Aristotle’s tragic hero is one of the most recognizable types of heroes among literature. A tragic hero combines five major points all of which have to do with the hero’s stature in society, his faults, how these faults effect him, the punishment his faults gets him, and how he reacts to this punishment. Aristotle explained that the story of Oedipus the King, written by Sophocles, is a perfect example of a tragic hero. In the play, Oedipus is given a prophecy in which he is told that he will kill his father then marry his mother. As in many Greek plays, Oedipus tries to run from his prophecy and ends up fulfilling exactly what it is foretold. Through the play we see that Oedipus posses many of the characteristics

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

Before a serious investigation of any aspect of Aristotle’s political theories is undertaken, we must take a moment to acknowledge that many of the institutions and doctrines he defends have been repudiated in modern political thought. In fact many such institutions are appalling and simply morally wrong. One such institution is slavery. Aristotle argues in the Politics that slavery is just. No argument is needed to conclude that Aristotle made a terrible ethical and moral error in defending slavery. Further we must accept that the argument of the abolition of slavery was available to him as his defense of slavery is in response to critics who claim slavery is unjust. What sparks intriguing debate is questioning why