Is [a wise and good man] surprised at anything which happens, and does it appear new to him? Does he not expect that which comes from the bad to be worse and more grievous than what actually befalls him? And does he not reckon as pure gain whatever (the bad) may do which falls short of extreme wickedness? Such a person has reviled me. Great thanks to him for not having struck you. But he has struck me also. Great thanks that he did not kill you.To me, this is an important passage. This kind of anticipating all possible issues is something I haven't been very good about pursuing. I need to seriously give it a shot.
Epictetus goes on to say:
For when did he learn or in what school that man is a tame animal, that men love another, that an act of injustice is a great harm to those who does it. Since then he has not learned this and is not convinced of it, why shall he not follow that which seems to be for his own interest?This is a really interesting point. Not only should we not get angry at what little misfortunes befall us, but we can't even blame those who do it. After all, people do have their reasons.
Today, on the subway, someone was thrown off balance and stepped back, right on my sandal-covered foot. It hurt. I did what almost any New Yorker would in the situation: absolutely nothing. This is one situation in which it seems that everyone in the city has learned that it doesn't even make sense to get upset, since all of us has done our share of stepping on other people's feet as well. This isn't quite the same thing as the deliberate harm that Epictetus describes, but it is related. There are some small situations where Stoicism, in its wisest and most profound sense, is practiced widely, and I'm happy about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment