Epictetus

>>8363340
Yes that is all of the surviving work of Epictetus, and some of the best shit ever written. As you go through it, check your understanding with YouTube lectures.

>>8363345
Thank, lad.

>>8363340
Enchiridion is Greek for "thing in the hand." Hence, Handbook.

>>8363376
That's why I asked. It is obvious, but I wanted to make sure.

>>8363340
Piggybacking on this, is this version or penguin classics better? Anyone read both?

I like the Stoics for their apatheia but I never really bought into the moralfaggotry desu

>>8363831
edgy

>>8363831
*tips*

>>8363860
>>8363869
It's not the morality itself but the complete arbitrariness that they don't adress

>>8363899
*edges*

>>8363899
What arbitrariness? At least in Epictetus I can't really think of any.

>>8363917
*tips*

>>8363917
Stoic virtue is at most an obviously flawed appeal to nature.

>>8363917
They appeal to nature to guide the way while completely ignoring that nature is utterly unpredictable, brutal and capricious if you were to assign it some character.

>>8363917
>“You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.”


― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

>>8364054
I thought the stoics wanted people to live according to the nature of...well, people; and it is not in the nature of people to be boundlessly indifferent and without pity, justice or whatever.

Am I wrong here? Don't tell me I missed their point this much.

>>8363471
Yes please even I'm looking for a good translation. Bump

>>8364099
All people live according to the nature of people. They're people.