A Selection from the Discourses of Epictetus with the EncheiridionEpictetus
Philosophy
A Selection from the Discourses of Epictetus with the Encheiridion
Epictetus
Philosophy -- Early works to 1800
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FREE CITIES WHO WAS AN EPICUREAN.—When the
administrator came to visit him, and the man was an Epicurean,
Epictetus said, It is proper for us who are not philosophers to inquire
of you who are philosophers, as those who come to a strange city
inquire of the citizens and those who are acquainted with it, what is
the best thing in the world, in order that we also after inquiry may go
in quest of that which is best and look at it, as strangers do with the
things in cities. For that there are three things which relate to
man—soul, body, and things external, scarcely any man denies. It
remains for you philosophers to answer what is the best. What shall we
say to men? Is the flesh the best? and was it for this that Maximus
sailed as far as Cassiope in winter (or bad weather) with his son, and
accompanied him that he might be gratified in the flesh? When the man
said that it was not, and added, Far be that from him. Is it not fit
then, Epictetus said, to be actively employed about the best? It is
certainly of all things the most fit. What then do we possess which is
better than the flesh? The soul, he replied. And the good things of the
best, are they better, or the good things of the worse? The good things
of the best. And are the good things of the best within the power of
the will or not within the power of the will? They are within the power
of the will. Is then the pleasure of the soul a thing within the power
of the will? It is, he replied. And on what shall this pleasure depend?
On itself? But that cannot be conceived; for there must first exist a
certain substance or nature ([Greek: ousia]) of good, by obtaining
which we shall have pleasure in the soul. He assented to this also. On
what then shall we depend for this pleasure of the soul? for if it
shall depend on things of the soul, the substance (nature) of the good
is discovered; for good cannot be one thing, and that at which we are
rationally delighted another thing; nor if that which precedes is not
good, can that which comes after be good, for in order that the thing
which comes after may be good, that which precedes must be good. But
you would not affirm this, if you are in your right mind, for you would
then say what is inconsistent both with Epicurus and the rest of your
doctrines. It remains then that the pleasure of the soul is in the
pleasure from things of the body; and again that those bodily things
must be the things which precede and the substance (nature) of the
good.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account