
The Enchiridion, or Manual, of Epictetus - jj-abram
http://www.ptypes.com/enchiridion.html
======
cryoshon
This translation of the Manual isn't very good, in my opinion. I've only heard
of it as being called the handbook of Epictetus and not the manual, also. The
word handbook has a lot different connotations than Manual, so I have to say I
really don't agree with the decision to translate it that way. I'll refer to
it as the Manual for the sake of consistency with the title, though.

My favored translation of the first line is: Some things are up to us, and
some things are not up to us.

The Manual is a great introduction (and perhaps largest contribution) of the
Stoic school of ancient philosophy. It's also by by far the most practical of
any philosophical document that I've ever read, though it's a bit light on
pragmatic responses and, perhaps, realism.

After reading the Manual, it's hard not to live by its suggestions. In
particular, my favorite suggestion is to relish good moments by pausing and
remarking to yourself explicitly what makes the moment good. I believe the
example Epictetus picks to illustrate this concept is a child, but perhaps
it's a bowl or woman in actuality; when Epictetus notices the positive
emotions that looking at his child/bowl/woman gives him, he stops and
professes something along the lines of, "my child/bowl/woman is wonderful, and
I am happy to have experienced my time with him/it/her. I love this
child/bowl/woman."

It's a good way to appreciate what you have, and to reject negativity when
it's not something you can control.

The primary hazard of Stoicism is passivity, of course. A trend of declaring
some things as up to you and other things as not up to you can feed onto
itself, leading you to write off responsibility when it isn't directly and
unmissably yours. Conversely, a control-freak would endlessly fret about the
things that are "up to him" when in reality they might be only tangentially or
abstractly so.

I definitely recommend everyone read the Manual. At a minimum, it's a new and
orderly perspective on how to experience life and deal with the good and bad.
There's some conceptual overlap with Buddhism from what I understand.

~~~
anigbrowl
_The word handbook has a lot different connotations than Manual_

You really think so? The former is just an anglicization of the latter.
_Manus_ is Latin for hand, and you can still hear this in French _main_
Spanish _mano_ etc.

~~~
cryoshon
"Manual" implies stuffy reference material to be referred to only when there
is a malfunction.

"Handbook" implies action, portability, and usefulness.

~~~
anigbrowl
These are highly personal associations which I don't share with you at all.

------
Luc
By the way, next week is Stoic Week, an online event (a course) organised by
Exeter University, about applying Stoicism to daily life. More details here:

[http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/stoic-
week-2014/](http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/stoic-week-2014/)

------
michaelsbradley
A classic, to be sure. Epictetus' style still served as a model for "guide-
books" 16+ centuries later. Two of my favorites from the second millenium
which bear such influence are Thomas à Kempis' _The Imitation of Christ_
(~1420) [1] and Lorenzo Scupoli's _The Spiritual Combat_ (1589) [2], both
classics in their own right.

[1]
[https://archive.org/details/imitationofchris012486mbp](https://archive.org/details/imitationofchris012486mbp)

[2]
[http://www.ecatholic2000.com/combat/spirit.shtml](http://www.ecatholic2000.com/combat/spirit.shtml)

------
infiniteseeker
Wonderful book. Epictetus is the man. If you enjoy this sort of stuff, also
look up Seneca "Letters of a Stoic", Marcus Aurelius "Medtations", Admiral
James Stockdale "Thoughts of a Philosopher Fighter Pilot", and Buddhist
philosophy/teachings.

------
kleer001
ok... uh... It was a different time?

XL. Women forthwith from the age of fourteen are called by the men mistresses
(dominae). Therefore since they see that there is nothing else that they can
obtain, but only the power of lying with men, they begin to decorate
themselves, and to place all their hopes in this. It is worth our while then
to take care that they may know that they are valued (by men) for nothing else
than appearing (being) decent and modest and discreet.

~~~
niels_olson
When I first heard this, I took it as something along the lines of:

"Men have a low opinion of women, and women perceive this, and see no path to
achievement in their own right, bound as they are by the perception of their
gender, so they remit and play the game, decorating themselves and seek
achievement by association with a man (e.g. any number of political wives,
often from more successful families than their husbands). We would be better
to advise them to reject this line of thinking." I took it as implicit that
women who chose the "descent and modest and discreet" path would then preserve
a (subversive) path to achievement.

Not exactly a progressive feminist view, in the modern context, but I imagine
consistent with what he would tell his own daughter. The Stoics would have
been aware of notable female leaders and thus would consider themselves
foolish if they did not admit that a women could be equal if not superior to
men within any given group, in terms of intrinsic reasoning capacity.

