Self-Discipline: Epictetis

Epictetus paints God as the creator, director, and all knowing being. Our existence comes from God himself. His (God's) laws for the universe are followed and served by all in existence, including our bodies. Rebelling by reason against that which is in full control will only cause us suffering or pain.

Epictetus believes that all beings are connected through God and influenced by him, his example is that of the trees and their cycles. This goes even to human affairs - influencing our understand, giving us patience, and even memories. God influences and knows all, something that we can't do. That said, God gave us control of ourselves but he is present within us as our existence is of him - so our actions are those of God's in a sense. We need to be aware that he is part of us so that we can respect God with pure thoughts and actions. You should be ashamed if you can't act and think properly as God is seeing, hearing, and partaking with your thoughts.

Epictetus address the mentality that we are individuals with great futures with the reality that we are part of an integrated whole - a whole where we will not have perfect lives but will partake in the existence of the whole. This is what make us man - being part of a whole from which God is the connection - a citizen of the universe that takes part and has the opportunity to help the divineness of all existence. A citizen who holds no private interest. If we knew what was going to happen, we would happily accept ills of sickness, pain, and death as it is all part of the laws and dictations of God, and being part of the whole is better than being an individual. Of course, we don't know whats going to happen so we should live for what is better for us, as this too is a gift of God.

For our existence we should be thankful to God but even more so, we should be thankful for the ability to control what we have - will power. It is not the most amazing thing that our eyes can open and our legs move, but that we have the power to control and move them. There is nothing greater than this control, will. Besides physical actions, our will is what allows us to make good ethical, virtuous, and decent actions. That said, our will is also what allows us to make unethical, wicked, and indecent actions. Because of this Epictetus says that will is the ultimate source of both Vice and Virtue. 

Epictetus attacks Epicurus's claim that matter is the most excellent thing in existence. Going back to the eye and leg analogy, the fact that it exists does not matter - without will it wouldn't do anything. The fact that will control's what exists points to this. Epictetus also points to the fact that something made of matter is always greater than some other thing made of matter.

To avoid frustration and suffering we need to understand what is and isn't under our power or control. We can control ourselves. We can't control everything else. Trying to take control of that which is not yours only leads to trouble and problems with other men and God. Focus on what you have control of rather than that you do not, such as power and wealth. Do not shun what you can't control as it brings no good or desire what is out of reach, rather desire what is within your power for then you can obtain it and achieve happiness. But remember not to forget discretion, gentleness, and moderation in that quest for what you desire.

When you can accept what is unavoidable will live a life of moderation and harmony as they will not be fighting against what God has set in motion. You have control, in the drama of life in how to act. What your role is has been set by God but the action you take are yours. Evil things are to be avoided but if death isn't avoidable Epictetus implies that it can't be evil. What we can escape is the dread of death. There is no reason that we must die in fear as we can control our reaction to death. We are not disturbed by event and things but by our views that we take of the events. We should not wish for things not to come but accept that they will come when they come and there is no point in worrying about them until they happen.

Once we rid life of lamentation, regret, and complaints then life will be better. Dwelling on the pains of others and yourself only creates more pain. Don't view the hardships as painful and the pain is removed. When it concerns pleasure, Epictetus calls for self control. He brings up the point that if you are going to indulge in any pleasure that will make you "repent and reproach yourself" then it is more joyful to make the decision to not go through those negative emotions than it to go through the pleasure at that time. Control your passions so that they don't control you. "It belongs to a wise man to resist pleasure; and to a fool to be enslaved by it."

Epictetus brings up the point that when we lose something external we should consider what we still have. If it is more valuable than what we lost, then don't consider yourself at loss. Time spend missing that loss will be time in vain. Seek your own highest good.

To be a wise and good person Epictetus calls for three things. Not being disappointed by our desires or our aversions. We should act carefully with order and considere in our pursuits and avoidances. Lastly, we need to be prudent and keep our integrity. 

Discussion Questions/Comments

Does Epictetus believe that God is completely omnipresent within everything or just people?

I don't follow the end of #3. It feels like he is saying to be selfish and want good for ourselves...he means this in an unselfish way - good heath, peace, and happiness - right? I can't see his meaning lining up any other way.

I find it interesting that he says our body is out of our control, as we can exercise and eat healthy to help the impact the condition of our body. Sounds more like he is talking about how we can't stop what is "fate" or dictated by God to happen in the future. 

Key Terms/Definitions 

Will: the ultimate source of both Vice and Virtue

Omnipresent: (of God) present everywhere at the same time

The Pleasant Life: Epicurus

Epicurus starts by telling us the fundamental laws of nature, nothing is created out of nothing and nothing can be destroyed to nothing. These laws hold true for all the universe. Atoms will always move and collide through the universe without destruction, providing stability and permanence to the world around us. The narrator informs us that these laws support his argument that only natural causes operate in the world.

Epicurus would like us to consider that our soul is made of atoms held within the body and that these atoms are what lead to our being able to feel sensations, but without the body no sensations would;ve ever been felt. When the soul leaves the body all sensation is lost. The soul is indestructible by nature because it is made of atoms. Because there is no sensation with the body separated from the soul it is impossible to conceive there is an incorporeal existence, as the soul would have no sense of the world around it.

When it comes to higher powers, Epicurus did not deny their existence, but he believes that they hold no true power. Instead he believes that the function of scientific nature is responsible for all phenomena that occurs. He says that God is blessed and immortal - an existence that knows no trouble and causes no trouble, as anger and favor only exist in the weak. Death for people is nothing - it is only the loss of sensation. Understanding that death is nothing, allowing the morality of life to be enjoyable. It is the anticipation of death that is painful, not the death itself. We should seek the most pleasant life possible.

Epicurus breaks down the desires into two parts, the vain and the natural. The natural can either be natural or necessary, with the necessary being either necessary for happiness, the body, or for very life. Unhappiness is the product of fear or vain desires. Natural desires are physical desires. When it comes to unlimited desires, nothing can bring joy as they are unobtainable. Nature is not to be denied, so follow desires and the physical (natural). By follwing nature and not vain opinions (desires?) 

Difficulties arrise from forgetting nature, which in turns means you create fear and unreachable desires. Epicurus says that what is obtainable is necessary and what is unnecessary, thankfully, unobtainable. When we understand this, we can protect the soul and the health of the body by avoiding pain and fear.

When we desire pleasure then we create pain in its absence. When we don't need pleasure then we no longer experience pain. Epicurus says that pleasure is the start and end to a blessed life - our initial pleasure, an innate good, helps us to judge all other good in the world.

He goes on to claim that prudent people understand good things are easy to obtain and fulfill ones life, while bad things are short lived and few, just like extreme pleasures. He goes on, destiny is nothing as only man has the true power to impact events, whether out of necessity, chance or by our control. Chance can not be a god, as gods acts have no disorder. Making a decision based off of reason and having an unfortunate outcome is better than relying on chance to give good outcomes. 

Epicurus believes that Justice is created by nature to stop people from harming each other and to provide a mutual advantage for everyone. Justice acts as a pact not to hurt others, when beings are unable to make this pact their actions can't be just or unjust. Injustice is not the source of evil, only the fears that stem from injustice are evil. Laws that effect interactions by adding advantage to man's interaction are just.

When talking about safety, Epicurus believes that removing oneself from community, at large, is the best way to obtain safety. Friendship helps to truly have a blessed life. He concludes that the safest and most full life is obtainable by keeping company with others that have also shed most of their ties with society at large. This allows for better safety and for the fewer friendships, I assume, to be stronger and more rewarding.

Despite his call to protect oneself no one can escape death. You can only protect yourself against "fortune" by anticipating how to avoid "fortune", assuming he means accidents or acts of harm against you. By following his words, he believes that people will live good lives and not fear death as they will have already had a good life. People who listen to him are always trying to live a better life throughout their lifetime and in doing so should be happy and content when they must leave this earth.

By living such a pure life with a few people one should be surrounded by immortal blessings during life and a life lived like an immortal and with others that act immortal will not be like a mortal being.

Discussion Questions/Comments

What influenced Epicuris to believe that only nature influences our world?

What does #3 have to do with happiness - I didn't see anything about happiness, but it was mentioned in the narrator intro to the section....

I never thought of death in the way that Epicuris did. Kind of funny though, as it is true. The problem is that we live such long lives now days that death is often a lot slower than it used to be. 

Does Epicurus mean vain desires when he says "vain opinions?"

I thought his imagery of the "draught of life and death" was particularly interesting to me. I thought it was a really great way to portray our lives (and then death) as deal already taken from our getting to exist.

Key Terms/Definitions

Justice: the dealings of man with one another at every time, making a pact not to hurt one another

Contravention: an act that violates law, treaty, or other ruling

Intrinsic: belonging naturally; essential 

Moral Character: Aristotle

Aristotle believes that all actions and questions are done for the purpose of some sort of good. If there is something that we desire something that fulfills itself, an ultimate end, then this thing must be good and the chief good. This chief good should have an influence on the rest of how we live our lives as we aim for this target. Politics, ethics and social philosophy, should have this quality. Aristotle also believes that reaching this good for a nation or state is greater than reaching it for an individual - I assume because it will positively impact the whole nation of people rather than just the individual. 

Aristotle believes that good and just actions, guided by politics, are achieved through convention rather than by nature. This causes him to conclude that the best people for politics are those who are educated about them and have the most experience with them. Having a less experienced person create ideals is foolish as they are more likely to be flawed. People are good judges of what they know - making the young bad to get political advice from.

Aristotle says that most people hold the opinion that happiness is the chief good that people aim for. Aristotle identifies a person's chief good as the single end result that we pursue. We must remember that ends are not always final ends. One end often leads to another and then another, therefore there can only be one final end - something that is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Happiness is the end and final result of many of the virtues we have. Aristotle says the final good should also be self-sufficient - fulfilling when isolated and lacking nothing.

Aristotle defines happiness as coming from a complete life full of activity of the soul, a rational principle, in accordance with virtue (the best virtue possible). This must be throughout the entire life, not just one day, hence the use of "complete life." Human virtue, that of the soul, depends on the structure of the soul. Each soul is made of two different parts, the irrational and the rational principle.

Aristotle says that two virtues, intellect and morality, correspond to reason. One of the reasons that he says virtues can't be created by nature is that our virtues tend to come from habits, and we cannot create a habit that is contrary to our nature making the source of morality convention. The only way we an become skilled in an area is by performing that medium, moral actions being performed leads to better moral actions/behavior (habits).

Aristotle breaks the human personality into three elements: passions, faculties, and sates of character. He believes that morality comes from states of character as passions and faculties are not, in themselves, worthy of praise. Being a state of character it makes man good and makes his work good too. For us to do this we must seek the intermediate that is correct for what is right.

He finally defines virtue as a state of character concerned with choice involving a mean between excess and defect in what is right. We use rational principle to help us decide. When there is excess fearlessness (a mean) we get rashness, but under doing it and we get a coward. Temperance can become self-indulgence and lacking, a person could be called "insensible." Liberality becomes prodigality or meanness.

The intellectual virtues, ones that exercise reason, have the task of give us knowledge of the world around us and to help provide a rational guide for action throughout our day. Virtues show that we have practical wisdom, not forms of practical wisdom as Socrates would have us believe.

Aristotle wishes people choose activities based on how good they are not based on the amount of pleasure that they produce. A good activity will have pleasure, but pleasure does not necessarily produce goodness - making the good activity better than the pleasurable one.

Happiness aligns with virtue, so we should seek the highest of virtues. If our activity is in accordance with this highest virtue than we should find the perfect happiness. Aristotle believes that philosophic wisdom is the pleasant of virtuous activities. A man who seeks and contemplates truth becomes self-sufficient. We work so that we may have free time and we make war so that we may have peace.

If we live lives that are full of reason that is best and pleasantest we will live the happiest of lives, as reason is human.

Discussion Questions/Comments

I find it interesting that Aristotle believe that "true student of politics wishes to make his fellow citizens good and obedient to the laws." I want to know how he is defining laws. Is he talking virtue? If he is I feel that "obedient" is an odd word choice as you should want people to adopt virtues and make them their own, not follow because they must be "obedient."

I didn't really follow what Aristotle was trying to say about the rational and irrational principles of the soul in #7. Could you clear that up please?

What is he talking about with picking the "intermediate?" I understand what he is saying...just not why he is talking about it. Was it only so he could connect it to the 'mean of character?'

Can you have excess "right"? Wouldn't that just be a more moral, just, and good world? Or are we talking about when a virtue becomes a vice?

I don't understand what he means when he says that "philosophic wisdom is the pleasant of virtuous activities." Does he mean virtuous actions or the process of thinking about/creating morals?

Key Terms/Definitions

Teleology: the explaining of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by the postulated causes
Politics (Aristotle): ethics and social philosophy
Self-sufficient (Aristotle): fulfilling when isolated and lacking nothing


Analogous: comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared
Defect: a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack
Prodigality: spending money and resources freely and recklessly 

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: The Ethics of Forgiveness: John K. Roth

To Roth, forgiveness means "to be merciful, to pardon an offense or an offender, to give up a claim against another individual, to set aside a debt, to relinquish anger or resentment, however justifiable those feelings may be, to free a person from the burden of guilt." This makes forgiveness both an after-word and a wounded word.

Who needs forgiveness? Everyone, Roth says - human kind needs forgiveness - but this question can be asked in two ways. "Who needs forgiveness?" and "Who needs forgiveness?" The first places doubt about everyone having a need for it, while the latter questions the virtue of forgiveness. The latter leads to indifference, condoning, or trivialization instead of justice.

Using history, of the bible, Roth notes that God's anger is powerful, but that his mercy and forgiveness are more present despite the tension between the two. As beings made in his image, Roth believes that we should show mercy and forgiveness to liken that image. The holocaust complicated this, and now Roth thinks that advocacy for forgiveness needs to come from other sources such as ethics. Many holocaust survivors haven't even been able to discuss forgiveness. We are duped though if we assume that forgiveness is the same in every instance.

Writer Primo Levi wrote that forgiveness requires the other party to have an earnest will to be forgiven, otherwise it does no good. It also shows that forgiveness is voluntary. For genuine repentance requires condemning and rooting out the wrong done as well as acting to do so as soon as possible - the sooner the better. Deathbed confessions maybe sincere, but they do little good as the person will soon die. The dead can also not forgive.

Like love, forgiveness must be given freely; or it is not real.

That said it is also important to grant forgiveness if it is sincerely and constantly sought. Not doing so come dangerously close to mercilessness, which removes humanity from the world.

Heschel writes that "only sins committed against God can be forgiven by God." The holocaust was a sin against God, and is forgivable by him - but does he forgive is the question. Elie Wiesel did not believe that God should, as that would suppress the feelings of guilt that the offenders had.

Roth points to six ethics of forgiveness

1. Forgiveness is needed to stop unnecessary suffering from continuing.
2. Although needed, forgiveness can lead to less accountability and reduce the condemnation of injustice 
3. Sincere repentance must be required with efforts to right wrongs
4. Forgiveness can not be spoken for another person
5. Many deeds are unforgivable because the dead can't forgive
6. Forgiveness is a gift and can only be freely given

Discussion Questions/Comments

Do Jews believe that children don't go to Heaven if they aren't "confirmed" (bar mitzvah?)?

Is there a reason that God needs to forgive all the Jewish children who died in the holocaust?

I almost had an issue with deeds being unforgivable, but the dead part makes sense. It begs the question, can't the dead, if you believe in an afterlife, forgive those that sinned against them? You can be forgiven and not know it.

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Duped by Morality: John K. Roth

Roth claims our own plans, dispositions, and actions as the biggest culprits to why we get deceived so often. Morality though is not something we usually think as being misleading, rather we believe that it leads us in the right direction all the time. The holocaust showed how much we had actually ben duped by morality.

There are three clear examples in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

1. "Never again!" is deceptively reassuring as it only shows a desire to prevent ones own destruction
2. "The killing will stop" shows that we only hope we value life enough killings will stop, not actual results
3. Retribution, it is mistaken as a form that will teach a lesson. Winning a fight does not mean peace, just the end of the current fight

Roth feels that Christians owe Jews a debt we can never repay, because Christians took part in isolating Jews over centuries, helping the holocaust to happen in the end. Roth believes that a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would only bring a short term solution to the conflict, believe otherwise people would be duping themselves.


Discussion Questions/Comments

So is the PCUSA saying they want to support Palestinians financially? Or was the divestment creating more capital for...what?

So I was confused what the PCUSA story of divestment had to do with duped morality. I just saw that they changed their stance on the value of investing money into Israel. What morality were they duped by?



Key Terms/Definitions

Divestment: the action or process of selling off subsidiary business interests or investments

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Grey Zones and Double-Binds: Holocaust challenges to ethics: John K. Roth

Roth mentions that Kant asked three questions: What can I know, what should I do, and what may I hope? The second is the one focused on ethics and morals, a question that makes ethics as old as human existence. Our actions force us to face what is just or unjust, right or wrong, and good or evil - forcing ethics into play. Ethics are also influenced by our value judgements and institutions. This brings up the question of objective vs. subjective ethics. Are there ones that are universal or will culture influence a person's decision? Ethics would not be ethics if they didn't force us to have critical inquiry, which is good because judgments can be mistaken.

Roth worries that we as people won't take ethics serious enough in the future. He brings up John Rawls and the "Vail of Ignorance." When placed behind the vail, we don't know our role in the world. This forces us to make decisions not based on ourselves but how we would want the situation to be if we were any other person in the situation. Right and wrong would be easier to establish as it would have to be considered reasonable from every party or at least as many as possible.

If humans knew everything then we wouldn't need critical ethical reflection and thought. Often conflict is caused by people disagreeing with what is right and what is wrong. The Grey Zone, as defined by Primo Levi, is where there is no complete clarity in ethics despite efforts to remove ambiguity. When ethics face the grey zone and come out with less "appeal" then trust in the moral world is lost. This grey zone helps to show that failure.

Roth believes that the conscious plays a huge role in ethics, but each individuals is not the same. We each possess the ability to think but the judgements and values we use are different. This is evident through the Nazi conscience, as they all acted in ways they thought were right and good. Racial hygiene was one such example, protecting the German Genetic Stream

Nazi conscience and ethics can be condensed into three main pieces.

1. Germans are different from every other group of people
2. German purity is the most important of issues and leads to prosperity
3. Germans should put German people's interests before self interest

These three parts lead to a nationalism that moved for ethnic cleaning, violence for the sake of the nation, and progress to prevent the nation from decay. It was a code of ethics because they called for integrity, communal solidarity, self-sacrifice, loyalty, courage, patritism and hardness - values and virtues that are good in themselves. (There was also the unwillingness to feel for enemies as a value) These virtues helped to justify the horrible actions in the holocaust. This is problematic, as we traditionally see ethics as things that produce good not evil.

Roth says that there are "ethical pit falls" when it comes to saying we study the holocaust for ethical reasons. The first is that triviality and banality must be avoided! The second part is that the holocaust can't be preempted, rather it must be accepted as what is and the full extent of what happened. This means avoiding ethical judgements that can't stand the questioning of the shadow of the Birkenau. The Birkenau was the "final solution" killing machine used to mass murder jews.

Roth brings up Sarah Kofman, who induced the idea of knotted words. These are words that want out but that are suppressed because of being forced to be contained for so long. They are painful and difficult to start or continue. Roth states that these are what Double-binds are - a duty to speak and yet the almost physical impossibility of speaking, words choked off.

The holocaust has created an obligation for ethics to be spoken about, but a double-bind is created by the horrible fear that too much damage has been done for recovery - ethics are overwhelmed with no chance.

Despite the nazi attempt to destroy humanity, it showed that there is an "indestructible unity." You can kill a person but that does not change that they are still a person. What we can take is that it is important to support the community of people who don't have a community.

Discussion Questions/Comments

I love how thoughtful inquiry is part of our mission statement

I like Rawls vail of ignorance, but I feel like it would be really hard to follow. Throughout the ethical decision making process you would still be subconsciously influenced by your own situation.

I find it really interesting how the "ten commandments for pick a spouse" was designed to act much like the real ten commandments or bible, both in form, order, and feel of content.

It is scary that these writers killed themselves (Pg. 90) after making it out of such a horrible experience, the world in my mind would be so much better. Did they lose all hope in the world for good, despite the improvement of their lives?

Key Terms/Definitions

Institution: a society or organization founded for a religions, educational, social, or similar purpose
The Grey Zone:
Decalogue: the ten commandments
Banality: so lacking in originality it is obvious

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Why Study the Holocaust?: John K. Roth

Roth asks the question of why we study the holocaust. Despite sixty years having passed we still see genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder. Begs the most difficult of possibilities - maybe, despite all our efforts and the good they could potentially produce, learning about the holocaust is a waste of resources and time. Facing this question, he asks us to look deeper at the ethical yearnings and aspirations that stand at the core of holocaust studies.

Roth labels the holocaust as an "immense human failure." Ethics were harmed because it was shown that ethical teaching could be overridden or subverted to unethical ends. Many stood as bystanders while many more participated despite the unethical treatment of fellow humans. The status of moral norms were skewed by how so many people let these deaths happened. We have placed more importance on human rights and stopping crimes against humanity. Sharing the words and of ideas of Amery Maier, Roth shows us that the experience of help is a fundamental experience of being human - when help wasn't given we damaged the trust in the world that help would come.

Even one of the basic needs, Home, was destroyed for millions of people in the holocaust. Not just the places we live, but also the relationships, the safety, and the love we possess. It is true that homes recover in a sense, never the same as before but they still recover. Morals have continued to exist despite human's destructive power against its own kind but power has and clearly can be misused.

Genocide in some shape or form has always targeted children in some shape or form. Killing off children stops a people from growing both in population and culturally. Destroy those children, or totally ruin the culture and the existence of a people will disappear. If we would instead care for the world's children, not just our own, then Roth believes that we could overcome all genocide. The quality of human life depends on putting children first. Holocaust education reminds us to do just that. Roth asked the question of why we should study the holocaust. The answer is to teach that we should put children first, the priority of our existence.

Roth begs us to remember, take nothing good for granted.


Discussion Questions/Comments

What is moral relativism exactly?

One of the scariest parts for me is that the best way to destroy a people is to attack its weakest and brightest future - children.



Key Terms/Definitions

Impugned: despite the truth, validity, or honestly of (a statement or motive); call into question