Her second point is not that bad. One could say that even though Epictetus is not promoting power, what is really underlying Stoic philosophy is craving for power. This would be a Nietzschean reading. Of course, again, this is a different claim from the one about what Epictetus truly advocated.
Thanks Tarik. I would agree that it is a craving for power, but it is a craving for power within the domain of what is up to you. To have a character that is free from control as Epictetus would put it. That's fine, power isn't inherently a bad thing to want. Epictetus would just say we have to want the right kind of power for the right reasons.
Wilson's drive-by at Marcus Aurelius amply demonstrates that she doesn't understand, or want to understand, him either. A sensible discussion of Epictetus's 'goodbye-to-your-child' passage, also dwelt upon by Marcus, would start from the very high rates of child mortality in the ancient world, with Marcus's personal experience being Exhibit A. Wilson's offhand and lightweight piece barely qualifies as a review, either of Waterfield's translation, of Epictetus, or of Stoicism.
Thanks Judith. Her line on Marcus was quite funny. Yes, I find it a bit odd how many people take Stoic arguments around how to handle the death of a child as a total non-starter, and just bounce off that part of Epictetus in particular. It seems to me to be quite an important thing that we’d hope philosophy has a good perspective on.
Her second point is not that bad. One could say that even though Epictetus is not promoting power, what is really underlying Stoic philosophy is craving for power. This would be a Nietzschean reading. Of course, again, this is a different claim from the one about what Epictetus truly advocated.
Thanks Tarik. I would agree that it is a craving for power, but it is a craving for power within the domain of what is up to you. To have a character that is free from control as Epictetus would put it. That's fine, power isn't inherently a bad thing to want. Epictetus would just say we have to want the right kind of power for the right reasons.
Wilson's drive-by at Marcus Aurelius amply demonstrates that she doesn't understand, or want to understand, him either. A sensible discussion of Epictetus's 'goodbye-to-your-child' passage, also dwelt upon by Marcus, would start from the very high rates of child mortality in the ancient world, with Marcus's personal experience being Exhibit A. Wilson's offhand and lightweight piece barely qualifies as a review, either of Waterfield's translation, of Epictetus, or of Stoicism.
Thanks Judith. Her line on Marcus was quite funny. Yes, I find it a bit odd how many people take Stoic arguments around how to handle the death of a child as a total non-starter, and just bounce off that part of Epictetus in particular. It seems to me to be quite an important thing that we’d hope philosophy has a good perspective on.