Homer, Epictetus, and Socrates: What Life to Live?
In ancient Greek society many philosophers were considered useless because they contributed nothing to society. Socrates explains why many philosophers of his era are not contributing, but defends the notion that proper philosophers do contribute greatly to society. Socrates is not interested in practicing philosophy as a craft or activity; to him this is not philosophy. To Socrates philosophy is a way of living and pursuing an examined life. So too is philosophy for Epictetus. He believed philosophy is a way of life and not just a theoretical discipline. As a stoic philosopher, he taught a method to accept the uncontrollable with calmness and the ability to control oneself through self-discipline. However, Epictetus was not a run-of-the-mill stoic and without a doubt left his own unique mark on the philosophy which had a more profound impact than anyone else’s. Four main concepts underlie his stoicism and provide a good context in which to examine the works of Homer and PLATO’s Phaedo. These concepts are freedom, judgment, volition, and integrity.
Epictetus’s concept of freedom is not referring to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we so often think of when we hear the word. His meaning of freedom has nothing to do with political or social justice. Epictetus is speaking of purely individual attitudinal and psychological freedom. This freedom has much to do with one’s own happiness or unhappiness. Unhappiness, according to Epictetus, is allowing oneself to become the victim of debilitating emotions thrust upon you by people, values, happenings, and bodily conditions. Happiness would be the reverse. The ability to experience unimpeded, whatever you want to without having the feeling that things could be better than what you are experiencing at the present moment.
This sort of happiness is hard to achieve and in some ways in stark contrast to the epic poems of Homer. From the absolute beginning of the Iliad Homer paints a picture of a hero whose internal happiness is not immune to the external happenings of the world. Akhilleus had far from a stoic response when Agememnon took his prized slave girl from him. If Akhilleus had been more like Epictetus the Iliad wouldn’t have been much of a story. But, the Iliad was written to be much, much more than a story. The Iliad was the foundation of classic Greek education and the guiding principles of life sang from the pages of Homer’s epics. This leads to the assumption that Homer did not want Akhilleus to be stoic because he did not believe that stoicism (the official stoic philosophy hadn’t been defined yet) was the life one ought to live. In fact one of the most central concepts to ancient Greek culture and the Iliad is directly opposing Epictetus’s definition of happiness. Kleos is immortal glory and it was the mission of many Greeks to achieve in life. The greatest glory is one that lasts long after you’re gone and cheats death itself. It can then be assumed to equate that the belief (because they have to die to achieve Kleos) one is going to attain Kleos as the ultimate form of happiness. In complete contrast to Epictetus’s definition of happiness which relies only on oneself, Kleos hinges on what others think of you. As defined by dictionary.com glory is: very great praise, honor, or distinction bestowed by common consent; renown; ex. to win glory on the field of battle. So glory itself is impossible without letting an outside source influence your inner emotions.
In actuality much of the life Homer depicts in the Iliad is dependent on outside influences. His characters themselves have very volatile emotions heavily affected by other people’s actions. Akhilleus may be virtually immune to physical harm, but his mind not so much. Sticks and Stones may never break his bones but words can certainly lead him to abandoning an army and letting thousands of his countrymen die. Akhilleus is all about pride and holding his honor high above the rest. Any word or action taken against his honor must be righted; he always must restore his honor. Once he has his honor Akhilleus is content. So in essence much of his happiness hinges upon his honor, which itself is greatly affected by the actions taken against it by other people. For all the freedom he has on the battlefield, his honor binds his happiness to others actions. Akhilleus could not have peace of mind while there was someone within his reach who took his honor.
Although, just as Homer presented an alternative form of heroism to Akhhilleus’s, he is also not one-sided on his view of internal self-control. An ever constant foil to Akhilleus, Odysseus provides another example of heroism perhaps more similar to Epictetus’s concept of freedom. Odysseus is a hero because of his unrivaled (except for Hercules) ability to go through aethlos. The ability to endure more suffering than anyone else is not possible without an exorbitant amount of self-control. It is not a coincidence that Odysseus’s second most notable trait is his unmatched cleverness. Enduring aethlos requires mental strength far superior to anyone else’s. The point might be made that intelligence often doesn’t correlate with the ability to push through physical pain, as intelligent people are not always the best athletes. However, Odysseus’s self-control involves much more than blocking out pain to the body. Odysseus’s longing for home and fear of losing his name was not caused by any wound he was dealt on the battlefield. The emotional and mental pain felt by Odysseus took a far greater toll and were much harder to overcome. The mental scars dealt by being torn from his family for so long will never completely heal as time cannot be undone. Odysseus’s ability to restrain frustration and keep his sanity for long enough that he successfully made it home is a hallmark of his self-control.
No one else had the mental restraint to beat themselves bloody like a beggar in order to sneak into Troy. No one else had the restraint to hold back his name upon hearing it glorified by the first humans he’d encountered in seven years. No one else could restrain his tongue and arm when being insulted so harshly in his own home. There is no question that Odysseus could shield his mind from external suffering and have a high level of self-control. However, as some astute readers may already have realized, there is one major missing link in Odysseus’s connection to Epictetus’s concept of freedom; Happiness.
Epictetus’s freedom requires one to have internal self-control, but it hinges on the ability to control one’s happiness regardless of the external environment. Odysseus can shield himself from the suffering enough to carry on, but this does not mean he doesn’t experience it. After all he wouldn’t be heroic for going through aethlos if he was completely immune to any form of suffering. Homer’s portrayal of Odysseus’s form of heroism is closer to Epictetus’s concept of freedom than Akhilleus’s, but still ends up at odds with it. This is because the paths Homer and Epictetus point us toward do not end up in the same place.
If freedom is the ability to control one’s happiness regardless of external influences, then one must be able to control their judgments of those influences. For Epictetus, everything someone desires or avoids is based on a judgment of how that experience will affect them. The combinations of these judgments create the emotional response one feels. Imagine everyone was looking through a lens of assessment that determined how they felt about each experience. This lens determined what they viewed as just, unjust, pleasurable, painful, interesting, boring, etc… Epictetus is saying that we do not experience the world without our own assessments. He provides the example of death. To humans death is viewed as a very negative event considering it is the end of a life. However, Epictetus will argue that we do not view death as bad because death itself is bad, but rather because of the negative connotations we associate with it is because of our own evaluative judgments.
Epictetus’s rational analysis of judgments suggests that he believes how we judge experiences is completely within our control. This does not mean that if you were stabbed in the leg with a sword you wouldn’t have a physical reaction; it just means that you could choose to view the pain as a neutral experience instead of a bad one. Whether this is actually possible or how close Epictetus came to achieving this himself is not completely clear. However, what is clear is the reverse; the fact that people experience the world through judgments is obvious and was prominent in Homer’s epics.
One of the most noteworthy forms of judgment was near the heart of the cause of the Trojan War. The matter of physical judgment does not reside merely among mortal souls but extends to the heavens and gods above. The story of Paris and the Golden Apple is entirely about the judgment of physical beauty. As Zeus himself did not want to decide who to give the golden apple too (labeled the fairest) because of fearing the wrath of the goddesses he assigned the task to Paris of Troy. Paris was to decide which goddess, Hera, Athena, or Aphrodite, was the fairest. In the end he chose Aphrodite because she promised him the most beautiful woman in the world to be his wife. This woman turned out to be Helen of Sparta, thus igniting the Trojan War.
The key point here is the question of what is so special, or good, about physical beauty. For Epictetus, much of the perceived good in beauty merely exists because of the judgment humans give it and not because it is actually good itself. Yes, there are some aspects of bodily beauty that are objectively advantageous. Being attracted to people with fit muscular bodies is good because it increases the likelihood of offspring being in good physical shape themselves and having a better chance of survival. However, beauty of the face does not apply in the same way. Taking away evaluative judgment there is nothing necessarily advantageous about having a beautiful face. Yet, humans revere it. We allow our pleasure in seeing beauty to cloud our judgment about how good beauty really is.
Helen being the most beautiful woman in the world says nothing about her capability of being the best wife in the world; yet, every notable suitor in Greece wanted her as his wife. So far, it seems that much of Epictetus’s discussion of judgments is made in an effort to lead people to internal happiness in the face of initially negative events. However, this method can work both ways. If one could bypass a negative judgment to see the event is in reality neutral, one could see through a perceived positive judgment to discern the true reality of a situation. This would enable one to evade the evaluative judgments of beauty and truly conclude the worth of someone; the actual goodness of their character and justice in their being. There is no positive correlation between one’s beauty and justice. Socrates, by all accounts, was not known for his handsome features; which may be one of the reasons Homer’s epics rubbed him the wrong way.
In his epics Homer exalts the gods as those the mortals should strive to be like. This being the case the gods paint a picture of judgment in shades of their own assessment; teaching mortals to do the same. From the beginning to end of the epics the gods have good and bad views of people’s actions and from those views judge and treat the people accordingly. Throughout the Trojan War the gods played favorites amongst the mortals; including the gods own offspring, deciding who would gain the glory of victory and who would fall to the dust in defeat. The problem is not that the gods have views of good and bad, the problem is that the views of good and bad are not objectively the same. Having multiple gods means that each one has their own distinct judgment of the world, which is very prominent in Homer’s works. The gods do not support each side the same, nor do they support each other the same. In fact they often argue and plot against one another. Hera spent much of her time in the epics plotting against her husband Zeus.
This leads to the conclusion that believing in multiple gods cannot coexist with PLATO’s concept of the “Good”. If Homer holds the gods as almighty and to be obeyed then this means they determine what is good. However, this means that what is good can change because its definition changes between the gods. An individual god can even change his or her own view of what is good; something impossible if the god truly was the “Good”. The concept of the “Good” would also mean that some of the gods are wrong in their conclusions resulting in them being not the highest form of power. The only way for the concept of the “Good” to exist and a god to exist is for there to be only one God and that god to be the perfect, unchanging measure of the “Good”.
This therefore means Homer portrays a world which exemplifies gods who do not know what is objectively good. With ever changing views and assessments the gods cannot always be rationally judgmental. This sets a precedent for the mortals to emulate their way of thinking and believe that the right way to view the world is through one’s own evaluative judgment.
Being able to remove oneself from assessing judgments and having the freedom of mind to feel whatever happiness one wishes is not necessarily complicated to understand. On the other hand, what is perplexing is how this ostensibly impossible feat can be obtained. The answer to this question is perhaps Epictetus’s favorite word, volition. This undertaking seems so impervious because the body sends such a vast volume of signals to the brain. How can one be expected to have no reaction to a signal nature intended us to have a reaction too? Ignoring biological messages from the body is not easily done and virtually impossible without Epictetus’s concept of volition.
Volition is what persons are in terms of their mental faculties, consciousness, character, judgments, goals, and desires: volition is the self, what each of us is, as abstracted from the body. In other words, we are not our bodies; every abstract thing that defines us is part of our volition and separate from our physical body. This separation is the answer to the conundrum Epictetus presented us with. The only way to not allow our biological signals to affect us is to remove ourselves from them. While being connected to our physical self we cannot escape the emotions emitted by our bodies. Those that identify themselves with their bodies are submitting themselves to the external, making Epictetus’s concept of freedom impossible. Pursuing external amenities such as material objects, political positions, or even other people will entangle one in an emotional web increasing the possibility of getting bitten by the poison of negative feelings. In order to obtain true freedom in Epictetus’s eyes one must cut away all attachments from the external world and cement oneself solely to their volition. Those who understand the cosmic order of things know the destination they are aiming for is the perfection of volition; as its perfection is the human good, and the goal of Epictetus’s teaching.
The goal of achieving perfect volition seems to be one of personal happiness, but on closer inspection it also seems one to be of personal selfishness. According to Epictetus, anything one is externally attached too inhibits true freedom, as it lies outside one’s volition. This is not limited to strictly material objects, anything outside of your volition is considered inessential to its perfection. This includes status, country, one’s physical body, and even family members. Basically anything else that is apart from one’s volition is detrimental to their happiness. But given that Epictetus’s goal is perfecting volition, does that mean his goal is to detach people from everything in their life so they can achieve personal freedom and happiness? After all, the majority of his work is on advising people how and why it is paramount they practice detachment. For Epictetus, by casting a net toward conventional ambitions one will suffer a much greater emotional cost than the joy they bring in.
The question then arises of how any sense of moral theory or social policy can fit into Epictetus’s philosophy. The life he aims us toward is one of perfectly detaching ourselves from anything outside of us that could hinder our happiness. Not only that, but he also stated earlier that he didn’t think death was necessarily a bad thing. Having no emotional attachments to other people and not viewing death as bad does not seem to be the best combination. Could it then be true that people who followed his first three principles could turn into unjust menaces to society? Or at best, contribute nothing to society because they are drawing themselves in and ridding themselves of attachments in their search for happiness?
This is why Epictetus’s fourth main concept is so essential to his theory and deeply connected to volition. Integrity is the concept that makes moral theory possible in his world. Epictetus’s integrity includes social roles, honoring all of one’s ties to kin, and other acquired relationships. This does not disregard the fact that a good volition values itself over everything else; instead, this is what allows integrity to be possible. By valuing itself more than anything else, volition wants to be good, it desires justice; integrity is essential to its own interests. Without it volition would be worse off, decreasing ones happiness.
Applying volition and integrity to Homers works reveals some similarities. If volition is viewed as who you are and how perfect your volition is determines how good your life is; then glory is its counterpart in Homer’s world. Glory to one’s name is what matters most too many characters in the epics and is the motive for many of their actions. So just as in Epictetus’s world, in which volition is valued most and as a result one will have integrity; in Homer’s world, glory is valued most and as a result one will be honorable. A good example of this is the sacred guest/host relationship. As the host an ancient Greek was supposed to treat his guest with the upmost honor and respect. This was because of the importance of this relationship to the gods and upholding it would look favorably upon oneself. Breaking the guest/host relationship would be not acting honorably and be detrimental to ones glory. For Epictetus people should act with integrity not for the sake of integrity, but for volition; for Homer people should act with honor, not for honors sake, but for the sake of glory. Their sequence of logic echoes one another.
Despite how complex Epictetus’s concept of volition and integrity sound, the idea is not altogether new. Although not quite the same, Socrates describes a similar goal of separating one’s soul from their physical body in the Phaedo. Upon his death bed Socrates friends arrive and expect him to be in a morose emotional state. Quite the contrary, Socrates seems almost in a content joyous mood. He then proceeds to discuss whether or not there is an afterlife, if the soul is immortal, and what dictates the kind of life your soul forever deserves. He uses several arguments to display his thoughts on the matter including the argument from opposites, the theory of recollection, and the arguments from affinity. There is an incredible amount of philosophical discussion that can come out of the Phaedo; however, in concerning Epictetus, there is one idea that is most important to draw connections between; Socrates’s concept of detaching the soul from the physical body.
Death, Socrates explains, is the separation of the soul from the body. A philosopher’s goal is to find the truth, which can only come from the wisdom and reason of the soul. The body and all its senses are distractions, deceiving the soul from what truly is, and is not. Therefore a philosopher should try and detach himself from the pleasures of the body-food, drink, material objects, romantic lusts, etc. as much as possible. Socrates concept of the soul is very similar to Epictetus’s volition and mirrors Epictetus’s goal of completely removing all attachments that could hinder one’s volition. However, there are important differences that assert Socrates’s path of life, over Epictetus’s and Homers, as the one that ought to be lived.
Socrates spoke much in rebuke of epic poetry, and it would have been interesting to hear what he had to say about Epictetus’s stoicism. At first glance when examining Epictetus and the works of Homer, it seems as if Epictetus’s model is of a more mature nature than Homer’s. While Epictetus would stand immovable to negative influences, Akhilleus would literally cut someone’s head off for a snide remark about his honor. While Epictetus can ignore evaluative judgment to see the reality, the Greek Gods squabble over which one is the fairest. While Epictetus can detach himself from anything outside his volition, Odysseus cannot remove the homeland he so longs to see from his head. However, Homer’s model allows the possibility for something seemingly missing in Epictetus’s; the accomplishment of glorious feats.
While both models are centered on selfish desires, Epictetus’s revolves around happiness from removal. It is a way to achieve unlimited freedom of happiness by literally detaching oneself from everything in this world. It is an escape from suffering, because anything one attaches their volition too will provide the possibility of suffering to follow. Homer concedes that yes, attaching oneself to worldly objects, including your own body, can cause suffering. His epics are filled with pain, anguish, and aethos. But, what Homer also realizes, is that attachments one makes also provide the possibility for glory to follow. Pleasure cannot come without pain; glory, without suffering. This is an argument supported by none other than Socrates himself. In the argument from opposites Socrates notes the pleasure he found in being released from the manacles that had bound his legs for so long. While pleasure and pain appear to be polar opposites, we rarely find one without the other. The pleasure he felt was an immediate result of the pain he had endured. This is impossible for Epictetus because he has removed his connections altogether. He may not feel great pain, but he will not experience great happiness either. If one only feels happiness, how do they know if it is happiness anymore? There is also the problem of how contributing to society, someone who seems bent on removing themselves for the sake of personal happiness, would be. If one has the freedom to be happy no matter what, why do anything at all? Where is the motivation if it doesn’t matter what one does?
Epictetus would defend his position by his concept of integrity. Although, his use of integrity implies it is mainly reactionary. Meaning, he will respond to others with integrity because of the value for his volition, but he will not initiate great acts of good because he is more focused on removing himself from attachments that would require such. Akhilleus, through his attachment to Patroklos, gave up the possible long life he cherished for certain doom, but in doing so achieved something greater; an impossible feat for Epictetus.
Out of the three paths of life, Socrates is the only one which provides the possibility of living for something greater than oneself. Socrates life was not merely for his own soul and wisdom, but for truth itself. Both Epictetus and Socrates want separation of body and soul, but Socrates wants it for wisdom, reason, and justice; not merely for happiness. For Socrates the state of one’s soul upon death determines where the soul will go to spend eternity. When judgment day comes those who lived a bad life will suffer the consequences, while those who lived a good life will enjoy the everlasting benefits. Finally knowing the truth of forms was the benefit for Socrates, for he was unable to completely discover them while trapped in his physical body. This is why he said all philosophers should welcome death as he has. Epictetus may not view death as a bad thing either, but his path of life is to perfect volition with the goal of personal happiness. Socrates’s path is to perfect the soul, with the goal of all-reaching truth. This is why while Epictetus wants detachment from everything; Socrates will not detach himself from the community.
If Socrates’s everlasting search for justice was for himself, it obviously failed in the trial for his life. No, it was for much, much more; for if Socrates found the true meaning of Justice, he would not be upholding it if he kept the definition to himself. The search for Justice merits the responsibility of making the unjust, just. Socrates knew this and displayed his resolve in the final act of his life. His heroic death was not merely for his own soul, but to make the future Athens, and world, a more just place.
Long, A. A. Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Print.
Plato, and Benjamin Jowett. The Phaedo of Plato. Translated ... by William [etc.] Jowett. Waltham Saint Lawrence: Golden Cockerel, 1930. Print.
