Sickness is an impediment to the body, but not to the will unless the will wants to be impeded. Lameness is an impediment to the leg, but not to the will. If you tell yourself this at every occurrence, you will find the impediment is to something else but not to yourself. (Ench 9)
Epictetus uses two dispreferred indifferents in this lesson, and both are related to our body: sickness and lameness. Then, he points out that each of these impairments presents a hindrance to our body but not to our will. The Greek word translated as “will” in this passage is prohairesis, and it has deep meaning in Stoicism.
I discussed prohairesis briefly in Episode 34; however, I think a more detailed look at this concept will be helpful. However, before we cover prohairesis, let’s look at the concept of body in Stoic physics. This concept applies equally to all bodies, whether rocks, plants, animals, or humans, so it will shed some light on Encheiridion 9.
In Stoicism, only bodies exist; therefore, everything that exists is a body. All bodies are a mixture of two principles—the passive principle (primary matter) and the active principle (logos or pneuma). The Stoic definition of a body is that which can act or be acted upon. Understanding this concept in Stoicism is essential because some people confuse it with modern reductive materialism. Some scholars even label the Stoics materialists, but they do not mean materialists in the modern sense where everything is reduced to matter.
As Jacques Brunschwig points out in his chapter on Stoic Metaphysics in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, the Stoic version of ‘materialism’ is “vitalist-teleological” in contrast to the “mechanistic-antiteleological” version of the Epicureans.[1] The Epicureans were the reductive materialists in Hellenistic times. That is why it’s essential to understand when scholars refer to Stoics as materialists, they do not mean like the Epicureans or modern materialists. A.A. Long argues:
It is misleading to describe the Stoics as ‘materialists’. Bodies, in the Stoic system, are compounds of ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ (God or logos). Mind is not something other than body but a necessary constituent of it, the ‘reason’ in matter. The Stoics are better described as vitalists.[2]
Here we see the basis of Stoic physics. Everything that exists is a body composed of matter and mind (God, logos, or pneuma). Therefore, humans are composed of matter and mind. I have more to say about this in a minute. First, let’s cover this concept of prohairesis in Stoicism.
Scholars have used different English words to translate the Greek word prohairesis; here are some of them.
Translations of prohairesis:
- will (A.A. Long; George Long)
- A.A. Long – WILL A favorite term in Epictetus (Greek prohairesis ) for a human being’s power of self-determination and mental disposition. The word is sometimes translated by choice, purpose, volition, or decision, but in my opinion “will” is the most natural English expression for what Epictetus seeks to convey with it.[3]
- choice (Robin Hard, John Sellars)
- Sellers – choice (prohairesis) Epictetus’ name for the conscious decision-making part of the commanding faculty; what might now be called the “will” or “I”.[4]
- moral purpose (W.A. Oldfather)
- moral character (Keith Seddon)
- prohairesis ‘moral character’; the capacity that rational beings have for making choices and intending the outcomes of their actions, sometimes translated as will, volition, intention, choice, moral choice, moral purpose. This faculty is understood by Stoics to be essentially rational. It is the faculty we use to ‘attend to impressions’ and to give (or withhold) assent to impressions. Those things which are outside the scope of one’s prohairesis are the aprohaireta, which are aprohairetos and ‘external’ (ektos), and ‘not in our power’ (ouk eph’ hêmin); Discourses30.3, 2.16.1, 3.3.14, 3.8.1–3.[5]
- faculty of choice (Nicholas White)
- mind (Robert Dobbin)
- decision or choice (Christopher Gill)
In his introduction to the Robin Hard translation of the Discourses of Epictetus, Christopher Gill, a recognized scholar of Stoicism, notes the following:
The interface between ethics and physics provides a number of important Stoic ideas, centring on the idea that the natural universe provides an informing framework for ethical life. The universe, or its shaping, or ‘divine’’, element, does so either as a paradigm of order, structure, and rationality or as a source of providential care for the component parts of the universe, especially human beings, who share its ‘divine’ rationality. A related idea is that for human beings to exercise their capacity for rational agency is to act in line with the rational (divine) direction of the universe as well as with one’s own inner, rational ‘guardian spirit’ (daimōn). This complex of ideas has a prominent place in the Discourses, as also in some other writings on Stoic practical ethics, notably, Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Epictetus stresses especially the last idea, accentuating the idea of God as director of the universe and as the source of the divine rationality in us. Another theme stressed is that the capacity to exercise rational agency in developing towards virtue (expressed as our prohairesis) is a fundamental, or inalienable, human capacity, which is built into the natural, divinely shaped universe.[6]
Now that I’ve covered both body and mind as conceived by the Stoics, it’s important to note the Stoics were not dualists. The mind is not something separated from matter in Nature. Remember that mixture of the passive and active principles. According to the Stoics, everything that exists—all the way down—is composed of both principles.
Additionally, according to the Stoics, the mind is not a product of the brain. This contradicts the modern materialist theories of consciousness as an illusion or an epiphenomenon. Instead, for the Stoics, mind is there at the ground level, and its source is the same rationality (logos) that permeates the cosmos. As I pointed out in Episode 35, Pierre Hadot makes note of this in The Inner Citadel. He wrote:
In fact, all the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[7]
This is consistent with a theory that is currently gaining substantial traction in the scientific and academic community. The theory is called panpsychism, and it claims consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. Modern panpsychism shares many similarities with the physics of the ancient Stoics. Were the Stoics panpsychists? That depends on how one defines panpsychism. David Skrbina, a senior lecturer in the department of philosophy at the University of Michigan, and author of a definitive book on the topic titled, Panpsychism in the West, certainly thinks they were. He wrote
The Stoics were thus thoroughly panpsychist in their outlook on the world, and they developed a theory of the cosmos that was perfectly compatible with that outlook.[8]
Whether or not the Stoics should be classified as panpsychists, the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe certainly provides some support for Stoic physics. Interestingly, an ever-increasing number of scientists, philosophers, and consciousness researchers are abandoning reductive materialism for panpsychism. Today, numerous prominent thinkers from various fields are ditching materialism and turning to panpsychism because it offers a coherent explanation for human consciousness. Do a little research, and you will find panpsychism is not a fringe idea anymore.
Those moderns who remain committed to reductive materialism and claim Stoic physics is outdated and must be abandoned may soon be the ones left clinging to an obsolete theory. I hear Modern Stoics want to update Stoic physics based on the best available facts; in that case, we should replace the conception of a mechanical universe with the entangled cosmos discovered by quantum physics more than a century ago. Likewise, it’s time to discard the century-old promissory note from reductive materialism to solve the puzzle of human consciousness and consider the possibility an innate intelligence or rationality permeates the cosmos at every level, as panpsychism suggests. Modern Stoics who demand we “follow the facts” are relying on a rapidly waning worldview to make that demand. If we’re going to update Stoic physics, let’s do it right, with the best available facts and theories from the twenty-first century.
Back to Encheiridion 9. Sickness and lameness are impediments to our body; however, they do not impede our will, purpose, volition, moral character, faculty of choice, or whatever English word we choose for prohairesis. Our ability to choose between what is up to us and what is not up to us is not impeded by impediments to our body. Obviously, we can create a list of diseases that affect the brain and inhibit or destroy our rational faculties. Epictetus is not talking about extreme cases like that. The list of sicknesses that can debilitate the body and leave the mind intact is substantially longer. If we want an extreme example of this, the brilliant scientist Stephen Hawking provides one. The point is this: the overwhelming majority of physical ailments or disabilities we can experience leave our prohairesis intact. Therefore, they do not affect our moral character unless we choose to allow them to do so.
In his book Greek Models of Mind and Self, A.A. Long wrote:
Most literally eudaimonia means a divinely favored dispensation. The daimon constituent of the word combines a generic sense of divinity with the notion of fate or fortune. By prefixing to daimon the adverb eu, which qualifies an activity or condition as excellent, the Greek language had a composite term for expressing the idea of the best possible human life, a condition of flourishing, prospering, doing extremely well. Hence eudaimonia is conventionally translated into English by happiness. But if happiness consists largely or entirely of material success and security, as early Greek culture had assumed, could it ever be assured? The question was especially pressing in its ancient context because the gods of mythology were notoriously quixotic and unpredictable in the ways they conferred or withdrew their favors. The philosophers responded to this challenge by internalizing the chief conditions for achieving eudaimonia. They made “happiness” largely or entirely dependent not on external circumstances and good fortune but on persons’ mental and moral dispositions.[9]
Long is referring to Hellenistic philosophers in general in this passage. In the case of the Stoics, happiness was not largely but entirely dependent on a person’s moral disposition rather than circumstances. As A.A. Long further notes:
Coming to terms with one’s internal divinity, seeking to achieve likeness to god, perfecting one’s familial and social relationships, and acquiring independence from chance or fortune—these huge notions all come together in the Stoic ethical project of living “in agreement with nature.” This expression signifies a way of life and a mental disposition that fully conform to the norms of reason and, equivalently, to compliance with divinity.[10]
That is the lesson of Encheiridion 9. Our physical impediments are externals that are subject to chance and fortune. Our moral character is up to us. Therefore, physical impediments are not moral impediments unless we choose to seek well-being in externals. As Epictetus taught:
…these two elements have been mixed together in us from our conception, the body, which we have in common with the animals, and reason and intelligence, which we share with the gods, some of us incline towards the kinship that is wretched and mortal, and only a few of us towards that which is divine and blessed. (Discourses 1.3.3)
We must not kid ourselves; that is the only choice we have. We can choose the path of freedom and well-being by focusing our attention on our moral character, or we can seek externals for our happiness and experience varying degrees of frustration, pain, and a troubled mind.
This lesson is so simple. Yet, we will see it repeatedly within the Encheiridion, formulated in various ways, because it is so hard to practice consistently. This fundamental truth can lead a Stoic practitioner out of a life of bondage to externals and into a life of true freedom and well-being. This is the path Epictetus called divine and blessed because it is the path illuminated by the divine and creative fire—logos.
ENDNOTES
[1] Brunschwig, J. (2003). Stoic Metaphysics. In The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics (pp. 206–232). Cambridge University Press. p. 211
[2] A. A Long, Hellenistic Philosophy; Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974). p. 154
[3] Long, A. (2018). How to Be Free: An Ancient Guide to the Stoic Life. Princeton University Press. p. 164
[4] Sellars, J. (2006). Stoicism. University of California Press. p. 164
[5] Seddon, K. (2005). Epictetus’ Handbook and the Tablet of Cebes: Guides to Stoic Living. Routledge. p. 228
[6] Epictetus. (2014). Discourses, Fragments, Handbook (C. Gill, Ed.; R. Hard, Trans.). Oxford University Press. pp. xvi-xvii
[7] Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Harvard University Press. pp. 308-9
[8] Skrbina, D. (2017). Panpsychism in the West (revised edition). The MIT Press. p. 67
[9] Long, A. A. (2015). Greek Models of Mind and Self. Harvard University Press. p. 166
[10] Ibid, p. 163
