Steeldust
They are amusing fellows, said he (Epictetus), who are proud of the things which are not in our power. A man says, I am better than you, for I possess much land, and you are wasting with hunger. Another says, I am of consular rank. Another says, I am a Procurator. Another, I have curly hair. But a horse does not say to a horse, I am superior to you for I possess much fodder, and much barley, and my bits are of gold and my harness is embroidered: but he says, I am swifter than you. And every animal is better or worse from his own merit (virtue) or his own badness. Is there then no virtue in man only? and must we look to the hair, and our clothes and our ancestors?
(Epictetus, Enchiridion, XVI)
Advertisements
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 3, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Confused of WC2
I find this muddling. Even in corrupt ancient Rome, surely consular or procuratorial rank were achievements which said something about a man’s intrinsic merit, even if good fortune came into it too (see Robert Harris, Imperium). So on Epictetus’ analysis, these should have been legitimate subjects for boasting. And the speed of a horse seems a good example of something that is “not in its power”, but rather in its breeding. So why does Epictetus approve?
Help me, o wise one.
Confused of WC2
February 3, 2009 at 3:16 pm
adifferentvoice
Confused,
Not sure who you are appealing to for help …
I tend to find that meditating on Epictetus’s words brings clarity. You should try it.
I’m not convinced that an elevated rank correlates with virtue. Think of all the corrupt leaders there have been (I’ve been reading about Hitler’s library), and how positions of power attract those bent on abusing it. I am not sure I subscribe to the belief that “cream rises”, at least not in the UK.
I agree, I had difficulty seeing how a horse’s speed was different from a man’s curly hair, and why it should be an indicator of virtue. And of course, I was attracted to the quote because of the furore here last week about U and non-U names. Is a man better because he is called William, or Charles, or James?
Or is he, rather, better because he is very intelligent, or strong, or handsome, or brave, or can run fast?
Elder Daughter’s friend has a ex-racehorse. His father sold for millions, but he is worth next to nothing. There is more to speed than breeding, or, at least, as a visit to the National Stud here confirmed, the outcome of breeding is unpredictable and prepotency is not visible for several generations (https://adifferentvoice.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/prepotency/)
And, having been given gifts, it is up to us what use we make of them. A man built for speed could be a sloth. A handsome man could waste his looks through addiction and self harm. An intelligent man may use his talents to manipulate and destroy.
I meant to add to the end of my other recent comment the observation that IQ levels did not correlate with virtue. A man is not better because his IQ level is greater, he is just a man with a higher IQ. A man is better because of the sort of man he is.
I remembered writing this:
https://adifferentvoice.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/jacobs-ladders/
How do you think we judge whether one man is better than another?
February 3, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Confused of WC2
[Still meditating on this one]
February 3, 2009 at 8:14 pm
adifferentvoice
So am I, particularly whether I would think differently if I were someone who had achieved consular rank instead of being a stay-at-home-Mum.
February 4, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Confused of WC2
I would like to think I assess the virtue of a man by whether he has made the most of what he is born with. Or, to borrow another ADV topic title, his “character”.
So I am most impressed by learned qualities such as honesty, wisdom, thoughtfulness, decisiveness and kindness to others. I am moderately impressed by consular rank, at least where it is won and retained fairly and on merit, but only because it is an imperfect proxy for some of those desirable learned qualities. I am also impressed by an athlete who has worked hard to achieve what he has.
But … I am more impressed than this principle would allow by inborn physical prowess and physical beauty in both sexes. This may be a genetically programmed rather than a rational response on my part. And in direct contradiction to the principle above, I think less of a person who has “made the most” of their looks by hair transplants, nose jobs etc. than of a person whose looks are or appear to be natural.
Not sure how any of this applies to horses.
February 5, 2009 at 2:30 pm
adifferentvoice
Confused of WC2,
I like your list of attributes.
You say that these qualities are learned. Does that mean they can be taught? Or are they rather acquired through out own efforts? If they can be taught, then it doesn’t seem fair to judge someone who doesn’t possess them if they had no opportunity to learn them …
Epictetus seems to have a liking for comparisons with horses, for elsewhere in the Manual he is recorded as having cautioned against taking pride in any excellence that is not your own and continues:
“If a horse should be prideful and say, ” I am handsome,” it would be supportable. But when you are prideful, and say, ” I have a handsome horse,” know that you are proud of what is, in fact, only the good of the horse. What, then, is your own? Only your reaction to the appearances of things. Thus, when you behave conformably to nature in reaction to how things appear, you will be proud with reason; for you will take pride in some good of your own.”
Epictetus was a stoic. He believed that self-mastery lay in stripping away everything that was beyond the control of the individual, or rather, giving it no value, and instead taking delight only in things that lay within his control. Thus having consular rank was outside his control because it depended on someone else’s decision to make the appointment (though we might hope it is within our control if merit is rewarded). Curly hair likewise. Money, too, since earning money requires other people to recognize that your efforts are worth a financial reward, and how many great artists have died unrecognized in penury? Speed, however, he presumably thought was something over which the horse had control. Whilst you, alternatively, might argue that it is genetically predetermined (depending on where you think the truth lies in the nature:nurture debate).
It would seem, therefore, that Epictetus would counsel against placing any value in good looks, at least to the extent that they are outside our control. We can, of course, influence the degree to which others experience us as attractive, both in ensuring that we look after our bodies well and keep them clean, and in presenting an attractive personality and character to best show off our physical attributes. Some people who are conventionally beautiful and perfectly symmetrical are not attractive, or only until they open their mouth. Others whose appearance is unorthodox are attractive because their beautiful insides shine through.
If Epictetus represents one extreme, then the other is occupied by those who believe that their worth comes from the good opinion of others, which attitude requires them to always do what they think others would want. This would tend towards creating a herd mentality of clones. Though, perhaps I should not be so quick to dismiss this attitude, for it is possible that the others have recognised where true virtue lies and I need only to copy them to acquire it for myself …
Then again.
Thanks for commenting and for provoking thoughts!
February 5, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Confused of WC2
Thanks to you too. I shall continue to be proud of my dog, though it is not very fast, even if I am not sure why.
February 5, 2009 at 6:18 pm
adifferentvoice
Are you unsure why it is not fast, or why you are proud of it?
I’m proud of your dog too, because he’s a dog in a million and humble with it.