Epictetus
discusses equality between men (definitely excluding women) by discussing how we judge others. In regards
to someone else obtaining a high position or honor that you do not have,
Epictetus writes that “…you cannot demand an equal share if you did not do the
same things, with a view to getting things that are not up to us. […] You will
be unjust and greedy, then, if you want to obtain these things for free when
you have not paid the price for which they are bought” (Ch. 25). I partially
agree with this statement. Here, Epictetus makes the argument that jealousy and
envy are irrational emotions to have (and point to a lack of maturity), because
we cannot envy another person for obtaining or having something that we did or
do not if we do not deserve to. I agree with Epictetus that given an equal
footing, jealousy of others who have worked harder than us to obtain something
is usually petty. That being said, I think that since we usually do not start
off on equal footing—due to demographical differences—we tend to feel jealousy
and envy towards those we feel did not deserve what they have obtained. I am
not recommending that we encourage jealousy we feel is valid, but instead that
Epictetus was probably just examining a small sector of society that all
started off with similar opportunities. For example, where has the slave’s hard
work gotten him so far?
Epictetus is of the opinion that everyone is equal because everyone is truly their own master in those matters which he assigns are up to us. Freedom as he defines such is available to all, equally attainable by all for as he suggests, “a person’s master is someone who has power over, what he wants or does not want, whether to obtain it or take it away. Whoever wants to be free, therefore, let him not want or avoid anything that is up to others” (15). A slave then, someone forcibly indentured to another, poor without any right to possessions, can therefore be free and thence happy if they are the masters over their own emotions, does not desire to change that determined by not themselves—their physical enslavement, and poverty—but simply works to change those things they can—their outlook despite circumstance.
ReplyDeleteI am critical of the opinion because such a belief encourages dangerous submission. No matter how much Epictetus believes and argues for a freedom which all can have—Epictetus would take issue with those efforts meant to liberate, emancipate, and decolonize by suggesting that those who do fight for their self determination do so erroneously in hopes of freedom because they attempt to change those this which are not determined by themselves. It is such a critique that demonstrates the inadequacy of Epictetus' ideas. To suggest that a slave can be free while enslaved, I assume, did nothing but further the idea that the enslavement of people can be justified for it cannot do any wrong or rather hinder anyone from true freedom. Who ends up critiqued and scolded by Epictetus is not the slavemaster but slave who resists for their agency has been misused, used to change a condition not determined by themselves. What Epictetus promotes is repugnant submission, which belittles all agency and attempts to control or discourage any effort to change the circumstances of enslavement, and marginalization.
Another approach to the question of equality in Epictetus' Handbook is the notion that even within dichotomous relationships like that of the master-slave, the common oppressor is the agent of 'nature'. Epictetus seems to use the term as a broad sweep of all that isn't in our control. In that nature causes every human to suffer, it behaves as a sort of equalizer. Although "some things are *naturally* enslaved", the notion that each person can cope with nature's oppression with the same stoic mindsets from within their social classes plays in favor of the notion of equality. Is it fair to call it unequal power and intense marginalization, but an equal relationship with nature's oppressive forces?
ReplyDeleteI also noted that the need for community organization and governance foregrounded much of the class division in Plato's and Aristotle's works, and thus the minimal attention to community in the Handbook starkly minimized the need for the same class divisions as forms of inequality.