ier you are correct…what do you think about the similarity to the tao and Buddhism…no gods involved
It’s been over fifty years since I read about Buddhism and Taoism. But, if memory serves, these philosophies fit the sayings of Epictetus. It’s all about the simple and responsible life. In a life devoid of gods, angels, ETs, etc., one is ultimately responsible for his thoughts and actions. According to Epictetus, it’s a matter of self-discipline.
quotationspage.com/quotes/Epictetus
Here’s one by him
“There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power or our will. ”
― Epictetus
Very simple yet very stoic and practical. One of the things which does cause us to be unhappy IS going after that which we realize we can never have yet continuing to pursue it.
Better to see the butterfly and enjoy its flight rather than trying to chase after it. We miss beautiful moments of its flight and its color during the chase and who would want to possess a butterfly?
On the other side of that coin, what epictetus has to say may sound simple but not so simple in its practice of his wisdom.
“Don’t seek to have events happen as you wish, but wish them to happen as they do happen, and all will be well with you.”
― Epictetus
I don’t know which came first - stoicism or amor fati. Perhaps one has first to be stoic, to learn to be stoic in order to embrace “what is” and wish for nothing more or less.
one of the problems following Epictetus-----it is hard work…you have to keep working on your own self and your own life…
That’s a given turtle. But depending on the indivudal one could either…
go from A to Z by traveling along all of the letters ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A B C D et cetera…to Z
or one could in a moment of courage, realization and detachment kind of make that quantum leap from A to Z in one swoop.
I think that it would actually depend on the individual and their own personal awareness. It can be as easy or as difficult as we make it.
Who knows, perhaps we just might have had to be born with a bit of the practical and stoicism within our DNA which remains dormant for a bit til philosophy or some kind of a realization or epiphany comes to the foreground and creates that mindscape by which we can change and take that quantum leap.
I don’t know. Perhaps it’s only difficult because that’s the way we “see” it and the only thing which we 'see".
Is it obvious what is beyond our power and what is not?
It’s possible to possess a butterfly. So why not?
phyllo
I just noticed Epicetus’ use of the word ONLY here. Insofar as that goes, there are other paths to happiness. But detachment is certainly one of them.
Aside from that, I don’t think that Epicetus was making the assertion that that view was so obvious. But after having reflected on what is and isn’t beyond our power or our will and after trying to prove or disprove it, we then let it go and move on. Either way, we can cease to worry about it.
Really though when you think of it, it is a very practical and logical stance to take and we only have the present moment.
So what do you think? Do you actually think that holding one, possessing one, putting it under glass for example, could give you more a sense of qualia or satisfaction than just watching that butterfly flying or gliding or soaring and seeing how it shimmers in the sunlight, perhaps even sensing its own sense of freedom?
That experience in the present moment is worth so much more, is more meaningful and delightful than looking at the poor captured butterfly…at least to me it is. That is an experience that doesn’t leave you when you remember it. What is looking at one under glass compared to that qualia of beauty and freedom and exhilaration that comes to you?
What image of self better serves you when you ask yourself" I wonder what it is like to be that butterfly? The “flying free” image, the moving flowing image or the dead one of that poor butterfly encased in glass? Which would you like to be?
I think that often people will accept things which they can actually change. In that case, his advice is poor. The critical judgment is in discerning the changeable from the unchangeable and that is truly difficult.
Even trying to change the unchangeable, may be noble and worthwhile… although futile.
Science is about capturing that butterfly and studying it. That leads to good things, not for that particular captured butterfly but for other creatures.
Letting things be as they are, preserves the good and the bad in equal measure.
phyllo
I don’t think that the problem is with Epictetus’ advice being poor. It’s still sound advice. The real problem is with lazy people not wanting to see how things can be different or not and working toward that. Many people like to live in their own little safe coccoons out of fear or laziness without breaking free into transformation - like the butterfly realizes his time to break free.
But it still comes down to mental and emotional awareness, will and the motivation to change. Would you say that most things in life are changeable I mean insofar as human spiritual growth goes once we can see it that way?
Well, I don’t know - that might be debatable. A fool might even attempt that but i realize what you mean. We do though have to dig deeper into reality to see what can and cannot be changed.
Who would have thought that Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on that bus might have changed things? True, many people might not have seen how something like that could have occurred and changed things.
Sometimes just trying to change the so-called “unchangeable” is called lacking vision.
Give me an instance of where you think changing the “real” unchangeable would occur?
I suppose that that’s true. Not so easy to accept though when you think something is so beautiful.
Are the butterflies destroyed in studying them? For instance, what good occurs in studying the butterflies. Are they later on set free?
I don’t agree with that but in a way I suppose that one would have to be able to look into the future and even into the past and to see all possible outcomes or to see how everything affected everything else and changed it.
So I don’t really see how you could make a statement like that without first looking at and studying everything about the thing being talked about, everything which occurred as a result of it and its effects and outcome for the positive and the negative.
Anyway, I think it’s an impossibility for the good and the bad to be preserved in equal measure. Life isn’t really that much about balance do you think?
I wonder how taking a laisez faire attitude toward the plight of the Jews in the concentration camps and anyone else there for that matter would have preserved the good and bad in equal measure?
How did the dropping of the bombs on Iwo Jima and Nagasaki preserve the good and bad equally? Is one to take the argument that well the japanese dropped their bomb at pearl harbor? Did that action lead to an equal preservation of the good and the bad?
I don’t think that laziness account for it. Humans are terrible at predicting the consequences of actions and there are an overwhelming number of factors in many situations.
I’m not sure how much is changeable. The Stoics and Buddhists say that you need only change how you think about a situation but I believe even that can be extremely difficult and maybe impossible.
At the highest level, Stoics and Buddhists have a great deal of compassion for the difficulties of the common man.
The consequences of that action can’t be calculated. One operates on certain principles (virtues) which may be futile and/or destructive to oneself.
There may be error or poor judgement or misunderstanding. Lots of reasons.
They are typically gassed and pinned to cardboard in a frame. Available for study by others in the future.
If you leave things as they are, then you are indifferent to both good and bad. Only by reasoning, and predicting a future state, are you selecting a ‘good’ to pursue.
It was not laissez faire and did not preserve good and bad. It was a choice for good by a group of people who where in a position to make the choice. They decided that dropping the a-bombs was better than not dropping them.
phyllo
Well, true, it’s not the ony reason but it is one of them.
If people did take the time to reflect on behavior and what could possibly happen as a result of some behavior, unless they’re just plain stupid or lying to their selves, they might come up with some consequences. We don’t have to be psychic.
Are you a buddhist, phyllo? But why do you say this?
True, she may have landed herself in jail like other political or consciousness witnesses (for lack of a better term) but still that was kind of like a quantum leap that Rosa Parks took. I wonder if at some point before she got on that bus she had already considered or decided that she WOULD take that action?
Hmmm, I’m conflicted about that.
So, to your frame of mind, might makes right? That’s what it seems to have come down to.
goodness in and of itself is the practice and the reward…to be virtuous…
we need more of this …the hell with all this religious overhead
I didn’t say that.
And I didn’t say a lot of the stuff that was quoted.
Whatever. 
What you posted, Phyllo, was;
Do you think that they had it all thought out as much as they could have?
Do you think that more good came out of it or less?
I wasn’t necessarily saying that might makes right is your thought. I don’t know what you mean by your above quote.
does this have anything to do with Epictetus…I may be missing something important…
Well then you could certainly lead us back in the right direction. Turtle, what else do you have to say about Epictetus?
look back a couple of posts
Why don’t you just reiterate what you said and add to it? It might change.
I am happy with the way it is said…it comes from a good book on epictetus
Yes. I think they were moral, intelligent people who did not make the decision lightly.
I think that the Japanese would have resisted an invasion and they would have fought hard for each city in Japan. That would have resulted in a great number of casualties on both side and more destruction than the atomic bombs produced.