# Epictetus (Discourses)



## RamistThomist (Tuesday at 9:45 AM)

This is a manual for Business Ethics 101. The following metaphor is not original to me, but imagine your life as placed on a wheel with spokes. If you focus your life in the center, the hub, then when the wheel turns, as it must, you will be moved, to be sure, but you won’t be thrown over the place.

Epictetus exhorts the reader to develop a strong inner life. This goes beyond merely getting your priorities right. It means being proactive and never reactive. It even includes a calculus for business decisions. Know your worth. 

Epictetus does not paint a rosy picture for the reader. Having been a slave in a cruel world, he knows how the world can be. He does not think it will ever get any better. If Stoicism has sometimes been accused of being resigned to despair, that criticism might have some justification with Epictetus.

He does give us the basics of a Stoic worldview. There is the standard Stoic line on rationality. Man is midway between beasts and God. From the former he has a body, the latter a mind.

Purpose

Man’s good is a type of moral purpose, or “a disposition of the will with respect to appearances” (1.8).

On the Gods

When Epictetus uses the term “God,” he can mean the gods, Jupiter, and/or a guardian spirit within us. He believes our souls are “parts and portions of God.” We also have a guardian genius with us.

As a good Stoic, Epictetus assumes some form of pantheism, albeit not an extreme kind. All things are united as one (I:14). He does not mean some form of Eastern pantheism. His point, so it seems, is to find a reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth. In fact, “our bodies are intimately linked with the earth’s rhythms.” We do not have to accept his mild pantheism, but that statement is not wrong.

Epistemology

“Impressions” is the key word in Epictetus’s epistemology. It is not always clear what an impression is. Notwithstanding that, they come to us in four ways: “things are and appear to be; or they are not, and do not appear to be, or they are, but do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be” (I.27.1).

The mind forms “ideas that correspond with the impressions” (I.14.8). That seems accurate enough, but Epictetus takes it a step further with his definition of reason: a collection of individual impressions (I.20.5). That does not seem right.

Education

The goal of education is to bring our will in alignment with God’s reality and governance (I.12.15). As long as we understand that Epictetus does not mean the same thing by “God” as one normally does, it is a true enough statement. 

One strength in his approach is that there is not a sharp line between epistemology, education, and ethics. Epistemology and education dovetail with his use of the term “impressions.” We all have preconceptions. Our reason makes use of “impressions.” Getting an education, therefore, is “learning to apply natural preconceptions to particular cases as nature prescribes, and distinguishing what is in our power from what is not” (I.22.9). That last clause connects education with ethics. The wise man understands what he can and cannot control.

Ethics

The goal of virtue is “a life that flows smoothly” (12). Even though he does not use the term, he means that we should reach a state of apatheia. We can only do this by having “correct judgments about externals,” as externals are the only things outside of our control (I.29.24).

Analysis

If one wants to read a primary source on Stoicism, this is as good as any. Epictetus, perhaps in line with his own philosophy of limitations, never gets to the substance of the issue. These are more conversations than logical analyses, and they should be judged as such. It even seems that Epictetus commits a logical fallacy. He writes: “God is helpful. Whatever is good is also helpful. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that the divine nature and the nature of the good correspond” (II.8.1). The conclusion is certainly true, but Epictetus committed the fallacy of the undistributed middle premise. We can illustrate it in a Venn Diagram.





Conclusion

Epictetus lacks the nobility of Marcus Aurelius and the poetic grandeur of Lucretius. In some ways, however, he is more accessible than both.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## ZackF (Tuesday at 7:35 PM)

In college I gave Epictetus to friend who was going through a rough patch. Basically he wasn't getting along with his parents and he also was passed over by a girl he had fell for. He devoured the work overnight and thanked me.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Tychicus (Tuesday at 11:50 PM)

I'm thankful for your reviews of pagan works. Over time they've helped me get rid of the whole "worldview" stuff, and appreciate truth and wisdom wherever it is found.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 9:50 AM)

Tychicus said:


> I'm thankful for your reviews of pagan works. Over time they've helped me get rid of the whole "worldview" stuff, and appreciate truth and wisdom wherever it is found.


Thank you for the kind words. One of my life goals is to work through Mortimer Adler's _Great Books of the Western World _series.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Wednesday at 10:59 AM)

Tychicus said:


> I'm thankful for your reviews of pagan works. Over time they've helped me get rid of the whole "worldview" stuff, and appreciate truth and wisdom wherever it is found.


So you are saying there are not worldviews? Also, is there true wisdom and truth when it is divorced from God? The Bible says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", notice "beginning". I am not saying that there is not information to be gained from pagans, but can it rightly be called Truth and Wisdom? Perhaps if it aligns with something God has revealed in nature, but I would be cautious on calling something truth and wisdom without warrant from revelation. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you completely though.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Wednesday at 11:22 AM)

retroGRAD3 said:


> So you are saying there are not worldviews? Also, is there true wisdom and truth when it is divorced from God? The Bible says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", notice "beginning". I am not saying that there is not information to be gained from pagans, but can it rightly be called Truth and Wisdom? Perhaps if it aligns with something God has revealed in nature, but I would be cautious on calling something truth and wisdom without warrant from revelation. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you completely though.


This is part of the debate over epistemology/Van Til/Common notions. Tychichus simply and apparently leans more towards common notions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 12:07 PM)

retroGRAD3 said:


> So you are saying there are not worldviews? Also, is there true wisdom and truth when it is divorced from God? The Bible says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", notice "beginning". I am not saying that there is not information to be gained from pagans, but can it rightly be called Truth and Wisdom? Perhaps if it aligns with something God has revealed in nature, but I would be cautious on calling something truth and wisdom without warrant from revelation. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you completely though.



There are worldviews. He is saying that not every book breaks down along a nice Schaefferian/James Sire analysis of worldviews. 

Things can be true without revelation saying they are true. We aren't Clarkians, for example. The proposition "I am 40 years old" is true, even though it isn't in Scripture.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Wednesday at 12:20 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> There are worldviews. He is saying that not every book breaks down along a nice Schaefferian/James Sire analysis of worldviews.


Yes, I agree with this.


RamistThomist said:


> Things can be true without revelation saying they are true. We aren't Clarkians, for example. The proposition "I am 40 years old" is true, even though it isn't in Scripture.


Not sure what a Clarkian is. Also, time is something established in scripture and in nature, so I believe you being 40 years old is something that can still be linked to revelation. A man saying they are a woman would be example of something denied by both. I guess the point is, how to we establish truth without a standard?

I think my bigger push back though is on claiming something is wisdom without the fear of the Lord.


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 12:31 PM)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Not sure what a Clarkian is.



I was referring to Gordon Clark's scripturalism.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I guess the point is, how to we establish truth without a standard?



The being of God. As classical apologists have always said, the ordo essendi precedes the ordo cognoscendi. But for us, the order of knowing often precedes the order of being.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I think my bigger push back though is on claiming something is wisdom without the fear of the Lord.



I don't think wisdom is a zero sum game. Much of the book of Proverbs looks a lot like Egyptian wisdom literature (no, I am not saying Solomon copied from them). The Bible speaks of the wisdom of the men of the east (albeit inferior to God, but no less wisdom).


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 12:33 PM)

This is what I mean about not confusing the order of knowing with the order of being.








Classical Apologetics (RC Sproul)


I want to thank Tim Enloe for providing me with a copy. Please go by his site and check it out. He knows more about education and church history than I ever will. Sproul, R.C., Gerstner, John., Lin…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Wednesday at 12:46 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> There are worldviews. He is saying that not every book breaks down along a nice Schaefferian/James Sire analysis of worldviews.
> 
> Things can be true without revelation saying they are true. We aren't Clarkians, for example. The proposition "I am 40 years old" is true, even though it isn't in Scripture.


How do you know that you know that you know that you know that you are 40?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Wednesday at 12:47 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> This is what I mean about not confusing the order of knowing with the order of being.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The above article is useful. I would say the apologetic style I hold to is sort of a hybrid between Presupp and Classical. Whenever I hear people talk about the two, I often think they sound pretty similar (which your article points out as well). For me personally, while I lean more presuppositional, I am not hostile to the classical approach.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Wednesday at 12:50 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> The being of God.


Didn't the Greeks ground their wisdom in "god" in so far as they perceived through Reason? Is that what you mean here?


----------



## py3ak (Wednesday at 12:53 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> Much of the book of Proverbs looks a lot like Egyptian wisdom literature (no, I am not saying Solomon copied from them).


With regard to Proverbs 22:17-23:11, the borrowing from the _Instructions of Amenemope_ seems fairly clear.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Wednesday at 12:53 PM)

retroGRAD3 said:


> So you are saying there are not worldviews? Also, is there true wisdom and truth when it is divorced from God? The Bible says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", notice "beginning". I am not saying that there is not information to be gained from pagans, but can it rightly be called Truth and Wisdom? Perhaps if it aligns with something God has revealed in nature, but I would be cautious on calling something truth and wisdom without warrant from revelation. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you completely though.


I agree with what Jacob had to say. I would just add that this idea of worldview as an abstract ideal to be imposed on nature is Kantian. Rather one draws out wisdom from creation, which has been imbued by God with a design. Imposing one's ideal superstructure on it, ignores the inherent design in creation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Wednesday at 12:59 PM)

No informed Van Tilian would say that unbelievers know nothing or can say no true things. Instead, they would say unbelievers can know nothing _truly_. No one here should disagree with this. A Christian and atheist scientist can look at the same tree and come to all the same conclusions about it, all equally true. Yet only the Christian scientist knows that God created the tree for his glory. The point Van Til is making is not that unbelievers know nothing. Instead, the point is that unbelievers _do_ know things, _which can only be true because they make use of borrowed capital_.



Tychicus said:


> Rather one draws out wisdom from creation, which has been imbued by God with a design. Imposing one's ideal superstructure on it, ignores the inherent design in creation.


This appears contradictory to me. The act of "drawing wisdom from creation" presupposes the idea that creation is intelligible, which is a matter of worldview. In other words, without the appropriate (i.e., biblical) worldview, there is no warrant for studying creation at all. Again, that is not to say that only Christians can study creation. Instead, it is to say that unbelievers who study creation are betraying their own unbelieving worldview.

Reactions: Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Wednesday at 1:06 PM)

py3ak said:


> With regard to Proverbs 22:17-23:11, the borrowing from the _Instructions of Amenemope_ seems fairly clear.


Where are you going with this? Are you saying that Proverbs was copied from the Instructions?


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 1:20 PM)

Tychicus said:


> Didn't the Greeks ground their wisdom in "god" in so far as they perceived through Reason? Is that what you mean here?


No. Different God


----------



## Phil D. (Wednesday at 2:19 PM)

py3ak said:


> With regard to Proverbs 22:17-23:11, the borrowing from the _Instructions of Amenemope_ seems fairly clear.



I know that's the position almost universally held, and it can't simply or too readily be dismissed. But what do you think about the proposition that both of these writings may have taken their cue from an even earlier though now unknown text, perhaps even a Hebrew one (implying the teachings were originally inculcated in Israel's unique stewardship of godly wisdom)? In a similar vein, some of the 30 precepts in both Proverbs and the IofA are also contained in the Mosaic law, which chronologically precedes both (e.g. Prov. 22:22 and Ex. 23:6; Prov. 22:28 and Deut. 19:14). Regardless, even if they are wisdom points that can be, and perhaps were readily garnered from natural revelation, so to speak, they now have divine sanction (which renders moot the matter of literary origins).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 2:32 PM)

Phil D. said:


> I know that's the position almost universally held, and it can't simply or too readily be dismissed. But what do you think about the proposition that both of these writings may have taken their cue from an even earlier though now unknown text, perhaps even a Hebrew one (implying the teachings were originally inculcated in Israel's unique stewardship of God's wisdom)? In a similar vein, some of the 30 precepts in both Proverbs and the IofA are also contained in the Mosaic law, which chronologically precedes both (e.g. Prov. 22:22 and Ex. 23:6; Prov. 22:28 and Deut. 19:14). Regardless, even if they are wisdom points that can be, and perhaps were readily garnered from natural revelation, so to speak, they now have divine sanction (which renders moot the matter of literary origins).



I do think they came from an earlier source, but I am not sure it would have been a Hebrew one. Hebrew is not that old a language. The source might have been from God-fearers (I have no evidence either way), but I doubt it would have been from Hebraic God-fearers.

As to having divine sanction (which I grant it does), either it was true before divine sanction, or it only became true because God said it was true. The latter position is very close to nominalism.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Phil D. (Wednesday at 2:41 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> I do think they came from an earlier source, but I am not sure it would have been a Hebrew one. Hebrew is not that old a language. The source might have been from God-fearers (I have no evidence either way), but I doubt it would have been from Hebraic God-fearers.



Even accepting the common notion that written Hebrew only dates back to the 11th Century BC or so, yet Moses still had to have written the Law in some proto-Hebraic language (c.1500 BC) - which I am including in my colloquial use of the term Hebrew here. In other words, ancient Israel's language and religious culture.


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 2:42 PM)

Phil D. said:


> Even accepting the common notion that written Hebrew only dates back to the 11th Century BC or so, yet Moses still had to have written the Law in some proto-Hebraic language (c.1500 BC) - which I am including in my colloquial use of the term Hebrew here. In other words, ancient Israel's language and religious culture.



I'm open to the idea of a proto-Hebraic language. I just wonder what the evidence for it is.


----------



## Phil D. (Wednesday at 2:46 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> I'm open to the idea of a proto-Hebraic language. I just wonder what the evidence for it is.


Even if written Hebrew doesn't predate the 11th Century BC (which can only be presumed on a lack of _known_ hard evidence), the fact that there were Mosaic writings from around the 15th Century BC still facilitates my point (e.g. Ex. 17:14; Ex. 34:27)


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 4:52 PM)

Taylor said:


> Instead, they would say unbelievers can know nothing _truly_.



If we take the standard definition of knowledge as "justified, true belief" (which Bahnsen accepts in his VTA reader), then it is the case that unbelievers can know things truly. If an unbeliever sees two sets of two objects, then he can know that there are four total objects. He has a belief that there are four objects. It is a true belief. He can also give justification of such a belief (e.g., counting, multiplying, or adding). Therefore, by the standard account of knowledge, he knows it truly.


----------



## Taylor (Wednesday at 5:45 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> If we take the standard definition of knowledge as "justified, true belief" (which Bahnsen accepts in his VTA reader), then it is the case that unbelievers can know things truly. If an unbeliever sees two sets of two objects, then he can know that there are four total objects. He has a belief that there are four objects. It is a true belief. He can also give justification of such a belief (e.g., counting, multiplying, or adding). Therefore, by the standard account of knowledge, he knows it truly.


I suppose that depends on what you mean by “truly.” Scripture distinguishes different types of knowledge. Unbelievers know many things, no doubt. But can anyone _know_ any given thing without knowing/acknowledging its origin and telos? There is a difference between knowing that 2+2=4 and knowing that it is so because the eternal God made it so for his own glory and our good. And even given the definition of knowledge as justified true belief, I would say the unbeliever “knows” in one general sense. But the question regards the _nature_ of that justification. _How_ is any belief justified? It certainly isn’t on account of the unbeliever’s worldview. It is as Paul says: They have and know the truth, but they suppress it (Rom. 1:18 ff.). Unbelievers know things because they are image bearers—a reality they cannot escape, their godless worldview notwithstanding. I would never go up to my atheist neighbor and say, “You don’t know there are two trees in your front yard.” Of course he knows that; to say otherwise is silly. But I _would_ say, “How do you account for such knowledge given your professed presuppositions about the world?”


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 5:49 PM)

Taylor said:


> But can anyone _know_ any given thing without knowing/acknowledging its origin and telos? There is a difference between knowing that 2+2=4 and knowing that it is so because the eternal God made it so for his own glory and our good.



In terms of defining knowledge as justified, true belief, there is no difference. The act of knowing something is akin to an achievement. If the conditions for knowledge (JTB) are met, then the person knows x. Full stop. (I'm assuming that the Gettier problems don't matter here. In any case, I don't think they change anything for this discussion). I would like for him to know it according to the glory of God, but in terms of meeting the conditions for knowledge, he already knows x.


Taylor said:


> But the question regards the _nature_ of that justification. _How_ is any belief justified?



I suppose this is where I was trying to put my finger on it in all these discussions. The _how _question might be interesting, but it does not matter for the case of how knowledge works.


----------



## Taylor (Wednesday at 5:58 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> ...in terms of meeting the conditions for knowledge, he already knows x.


I have granted that. What I do _not_ grant is that all knowledge is the same. Scripture seems to me to distinguish here. All people know God (Rom. 1:21), yet only some _know_ him (John 17:3). The former does not even meet the criteria of JTB, given that belief is not even in the equation for those spoken of in Romans 1:18 ff. And, ultimately, the beginning, source, and fountain of all knowledge is fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:7). We must derive our epistemology from Scripture.



RamistThomist said:


> The _how _question might be interesting, but it does not matter for the case of how knowledge works.


I think it matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Wednesday at 8:53 PM)

Taylor said:


> I have granted that. What I do _not_ grant is that all knowledge is the same. Scripture seems to me to distinguish here. All people know God (Rom. 1:21), yet only some _know_ him (John 17:3). The former does not even meet the criteria of JTB, given that belief is not even in the equation for those spoken of in Romans 1:18 ff. And, ultimately, the beginning, source, and fountain of all knowledge is fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:7). We must derive our epistemology from Scripture.


But when we ask unbelievers to give an account of their knowledge, it is always in the sense of know-that, not in some deeper covenantal sense. 


Taylor said:


> I think it matters.



No doubt it matters, but it does not change structure and function of justified, true belief.


----------



## Phil D. (Yesterday at 1:44 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> I do think they came from an earlier source, but I am not sure it would have been a Hebrew one. Hebrew is not that old a language.





RamistThomist said:


> I'm open to the idea of a proto-Hebraic language. I just wonder what the evidence for it is.



It occurs to me that any view that supposes the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch, wasn't originally written in Hebrew, runs afoul of WCF/LBC 1.8

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...​
Now, personally I'm not one to categorically exclude subsequent textual discoveries or advances in lingual scholarship from potentially needing to qualify what was possible to to be known by, and was thus expressed by our 17th century forebears in the faith. On the other hand, the notion that the OT texts we now have are based not on the original language, but are rather copies of a translation of something that was in a now unknown language, is indeed highly problematic in relation to the doctrine of plenary scriptural inspiration.

It's worth considering that just because the oldest known Hebrew inscription is deemed to date from around the 11th Century BC, there is still a very real possibility that language, or perhaps a more primitive proto-Hebrew, could well-predate that period. The oldest _known _or _so far discovered _examples of something ancient doesn't in any way preclude the possibility or in some cases even likelyhood that older examples may _exist, _or did exist but have since been _lost _to history_._

Similarly, keep in mind that there is no _known _archeological or (extra-scriptural) chronicled proof of King David's or Solomon's existence, but there isn't even a shadow of a doubt that they most certainly did. Kind of like the way historians poo-pooed the reality of the Hittite empire as told in the OT because there was no _known_ evidence of it - that is, until indisputable hard evidence of it was in fact discovered, and then the academic backtracking began in earnest...

Anyway...


----------



## Phil D. (Yesterday at 1:47 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> As to having divine sanction (which I grant it does), either it was true before divine sanction, or it only became true because God said it was true. The latter position is very close to nominalism.



Of course I agree. That's why I specified that my point had to do with "literary origins."


----------



## RamistThomist (Yesterday at 2:46 PM)

Phil D. said:


> It occurs to me that any view that supposes the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch, wasn't originally written in Hebrew, runs afoul of WCF/LBC 1.8
> 
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...​
> Now, personally I'm not one to categorically exclude subsequent textual discoveries or advances in lingual scholarship from potentially needing to qualify what was possible to to be known by, and was thus expressed by our 17th century forebears in the faith. On the other hand, the notion that the OT texts we now have are based not on the original language, but are rather copies of a translation of something that was in a now unknown language, is indeed highly problematic in relation to the doctrine of plenary scriptural inspiration.
> ...



I never said the OT wasn't written in Hebrew (whatever we make of Aramaic). I was just skeptical of what sort of proto-Hebraic language some Egyptian authors might have used would look like.


----------



## Phil D. (Yesterday at 3:14 PM)

RamistThomist said:


> I never said the OT wasn't written in Hebrew (whatever we make of Aramaic). I was just skeptical of what sort of proto-Hebraic language some Egyptian authors might have used would look like.


Alright, I may be misunderstanding. You cast doubt on whether the Instructions of Amenemope (13th Century BC) could have been written in Hebrew because it's not a very old language, but now you're saying you don't doubt that the OT (w/Pentateuch probably being written 15th Century BC) was (or could have been) written in Hebrew.


----------



## RamistThomist (Yesterday at 3:17 PM)

Phil D. said:


> Alright, I may be misunderstanding. You cast doubt on whether the Instructions of Amenemope (13th Century BC) could have been written in Hebrew because it's not a very old language, but now you're saying you don't doubt that the OT (w/Pentateuch probably being written 15th Century BC) was (or could have been) written in Hebrew.


That’s correct. The Amenhotep instructions probably weren’t in Hebrew. If they were, then there should be evidence of it. The evidence we have is in Egyptian. 

As to the dating of Hebrew, I will withdraw my statement


----------



## Charles Johnson (Yesterday at 9:38 PM)

Phonetically, the evidence is that Hebrew is extremely old. Biblical Hebrew has all the same phonemes as reconstructed proto-Semitic, which means that they're likely not separated by much time. Even American English and British English have significant phonological differences.
Now, if you want to talk about when the written language came about, that is of course a different matter, and it doesn't necessarily predate Moses.


----------



## RamistThomist (Yesterday at 10:30 PM)

Charles Johnson said:


> Phonetically, the evidence is that Hebrew is extremely old. Biblical Hebrew has all the same phonemes as reconstructed proto-Semitic, which means that they're likely not separated by much time. Even American English and British English have significant phonological differences.
> Now, if you want to talk about when the written language came about, that is of course a different matter, and it doesn't necessarily predate Moses.


Right. I was thinking of the written language


----------

