Lead Me Zeus, and you too, Destiny - Handbook of Epictetus sec. 31-53

To the Greeks, the Olympic Gods were the supreme voice in the world, whatever they desired it was carried out with no complain. Where can we see this today or in other times throughout human history? Who's will was it when millions marched to the Holy Land? Who's will was it when thousands were burned across Europe? Who wills it today that hundreds of his followers imolate themselves for a cause? What the Stoics saw as the natural order of things, the Gods' will is the truth, soon became an excuse for some of the greatest brutalities in human history. For this I attempt to avoid relating any of these teachings with religion but will take it as "the order of nature".

The most important aspect of piety towrds the gods is certainly both to have correct beliefs about them, as beings that arrange the universe well and justly, and to set yourself to obey them and acquiesce in everything that happens and follow it willingly, as something brought to completion by the best judgement (sec 31).

In section 31, Epictetus attempts to tell us that nature controls everything not up to us, so there is no point in complaining or discerning about it and just follow its course. If it is not up to us, it is neither good nor bad, it just is. The only time where we are in full authority to discern between good or bad is when the thing were analyzing is up to us. A great example of this was the death of Raul Reyes recently, for many it is a tremendous success. For others it might be a terrible act of war and of lack of respect for frontier lines. But for a Stoic it is just what happened, not good but not bad. The Stoic is in complete control of his perspective. This again reminds me of the Tao te Ching and its belief of letting the force of the world take its course. It seems to me this believe is not cultural or geoghraphic, but a human belief that around the world can be appreciated as the Greeks and Chinese did.

The final sections of The Handbook talk about how a true philosopher should lead his life and his relation with "non-philosophers". After reading this I think Stoic way of life was too thoretical, too perfect:

Be silent for the most part, or say what you have to in a few words....If you happen to be stranded among strangers, do not talk.... Do not laugh a great deal or at a great many things or unrestrainedly (sec 33).

For me this life, though maybe happy and free from all desires, is boring and too forced. Sometimes it is delightful to laugh hard at silly things or make new friends form completely new people. Sometimes it is relaxing to ramble on with friends about frivolous subjects to release the stress from daily life. A Stoic apparently seems a quiet person who does not engage in small talk or even laughs at jokes, and whenever he speaks he says excatly the appropiate thing. That is not a human, it is the museum specimen and textbook definition of a good human. Perhaps for a true Stoic that would be fun, if they accept having fun, but for me I'd rather be happy at times and unhappy at times. If I experience sadness and happiness, I can enjoy happiness even more because I know what sadness is. A Stoic, as he lives his entire life being fulfilled, he can't enjoy those amazing feelings that a human has the capability of. I agree with Stoic philosophy as a way to understand life and how to avoid terrible misfortunes, but a Stoic life is rid of all emotion. Perhaps this is why the definition of stoic is "one apparently or professedly indifferent to pleasure or pain."

"If someone reports back to you that so-and-so is saying bad things about you, do not reply to thembut answer, 'Obviously he didn't know my other bad characteristics, since otherwise he wouldn't just have mentioned these (sec 33)." I feel this is a great response to a criticism. It shows how no one can now how a person truly is. Only person you can truly know is yourself and thus the only person with authority to criticize you is yourself. To this, Epictetus adds, "For until you have discerned what his judgement was, how do you know whether he did it badly (sec 45)?" This shows that you, despite having philosophical ways of thinking, are in no authority to criticize until it is completely apparent what kind of judgement someone had at the moment of his actions.

Epictetus says that a true philospher, "Never talks about himself as a person who amounts to something or knows something......if someone censures him he does not respond (sec 48)." However a few sections back he says, "Stay away from raising a laugh, since this manner slips easily into vulgarity and at the same time is liable to lessen your neighbor's respect for you (sec 33)." Didn't Stoics avoid outside influences? What does a Stoic care about a lack of respect? That is not up to them.

The end of the Handbook speaks of philosophical propositions. "The first and most important aspect of philosophy is that of dealing with philosophical propositions, such as 'not to hold to falsehood (sec 52)." This greatly shows how the Stoics thought. They didn't question their environment, their reason to exist, even thier moral. For them, what happened, happened no questions or doubts. That is why they state "not to hold to falsehood" and not ask themselves "what is falsehood?"

For me, Stoic philosophy is summarized into one of the final phrases of the book:

Well, Crito, if it is pleasing to the gods this way, then let it happen this way (sec 53)."