Question on Epictetus??

Question

Explain the connection between Epictetus' view of providence and the stoic ideal of complete acceptance and emotional detachment. If Epictetus is correct about nature and providence, is his ethical ideal the only logical/rational approach to life? Explain why or why not

Answer 1

I think the best way to start is by defining 'providence', so we are all talking about the same thing. The dictionary has a couple defintions, two of which I think are most relevant: the guandianship and control exercised by a diety; and the prudence and care exercised by someone in the management of resources.

In chapter 6 of 'The Discourses' (link 1) Epictetus talks specifically about his view of how the Divine manages resources.

He begins by suggesting that the existance of divine providence is almost beyond dispute, by a variation of the 'watchmaker argument'. Things seem to fit together as if designed, so therefore they must have been. Oddly, he then reverses this same argument to say that even if things don't seem to be intentionally designed, they were anyway.

And it is this last point which ties well into stoicism. Hercules' strength, he argues, existed to help him defeat monsters, and monsters existed to be defeated by Hercules' strength. And so too for ALL our strengths and ALL evils in the world. In other words, Epictetus segues right into a classic solution for the 'problem of evil'. Bad things are there to make us strong.

Since nobody thinks of being strong as a bad thing, so too does it seem to Epictetus that nobody should think of the evils intended by the Divine to make us strong as bad things either. If we agree with all his presumptions along the way, this certainly seems like a completely logical conclusion.

Nor, as long as you have faith in the Divine, can you easily dispute it. Though we know that some men lose to the the evils they face, if we assume (as Epictetus does) that the Divine perfectly matches the challenge to the challenger, we can only say that any losses are the fault of men, not the Divine.

Still, I don't think his conclusions are necessarily the only ones a person might draw. After all, Epictetus himself argues that every faculty that is given to man is intended for our use by the Divine... so what then of our faculties for doubt, faithlessness, and even cowardice? Likewise, Epictetus declares that all we need to know about our purpose for being may be inferred from our native abilities, but there are certainly many, many people who believe that direct communications from the Divine also have an important place in ethical systems. So although his ideas are reasonable, they are probably not the ONLY reasonable conclusions, depending on what else you bring to the decision-making process.