I suspect that everyone who writes about ancient Greece has some list of books that were known to have existed in antiquity but which have not come down to us.
Interesting application of skeptical tropes against Epictetus. My quasi-dialectical mind can locate at least three. It's interesting that to a dogmatist these are really examples of mental sloppiness, while to a Pyrrhonist they are discursive stratagems deserving praise.
- Ad hominem attack: tell embarrassing anecdotes about a philosopher as a way of undermining their doctrine. Lather on the negative epithets as you proceed, for good measure.
- Selective emphasis, a.k.a. cherry picking: pick a few unpalatable aspects of a position and criticize the whole based on those, while (1) ignoring the possibility that those aspects, though unpalatable, may in fact be justified; and (2) ignoring the full richness of the position criticized.
- Rejection by association: since Epictetus was a theist, and he sounds at times like a fundamentalist Christian preacher, let him be anathema. Not to mention the microaggressions, triggering words and criticism he inflicts on his students. Is he a stooge of the patriarchy, a figure of toxic masculinity and/or just a resentful, crippled slave airing his frustrations on a captive audience? Take your pick.
It is worth noting that Epictetus is one of the more cynical stoics, that is, cynic tendencies are obvious in his thinking and behavior. The cynic practice of plainspeaking should be mentioned here, as that is largely what this article is about. Plainspeaking was one way for the cynics to demonstrate their scorn for social mores, while pushing their interlocutors away from social attachments and towards the good (as the cynics understood it). This practice is by no means new with them though, one only needs to remember the "sting of the torpedo fish" enacted by the Socratic dialectic in the Meno. In fact no philosophy worth its dialectical salt should shy away from the aporias brought on by words that claim to speak truth (or what the ancients called parrhesia). Or so one can argue, all the more so seeing that parrhesia was considered a duty.
Finally, isn't it remarkable that the cynics (and Epictetus along with them), having nothing but a transcendent good to lean upon, heaped scorn upon social norms that they regarded as corrupt and profane; while the Pyrrhonists, having no conception of the good, in the end lean on nothing but those same social norms, regarding them as an indispensable crutch in the practice of daily life?
Manners were rough in those days. We don't stone people for trivial offenses. We're more compassionate and empathetic so of course we today would be more understanding. As Saint Augustine said "Love and do as you will".
Interesting application of skeptical tropes against Epictetus. My quasi-dialectical mind can locate at least three. It's interesting that to a dogmatist these are really examples of mental sloppiness, while to a Pyrrhonist they are discursive stratagems deserving praise.
- Ad hominem attack: tell embarrassing anecdotes about a philosopher as a way of undermining their doctrine. Lather on the negative epithets as you proceed, for good measure.
- Selective emphasis, a.k.a. cherry picking: pick a few unpalatable aspects of a position and criticize the whole based on those, while (1) ignoring the possibility that those aspects, though unpalatable, may in fact be justified; and (2) ignoring the full richness of the position criticized.
- Rejection by association: since Epictetus was a theist, and he sounds at times like a fundamentalist Christian preacher, let him be anathema. Not to mention the microaggressions, triggering words and criticism he inflicts on his students. Is he a stooge of the patriarchy, a figure of toxic masculinity and/or just a resentful, crippled slave airing his frustrations on a captive audience? Take your pick.
It is worth noting that Epictetus is one of the more cynical stoics, that is, cynic tendencies are obvious in his thinking and behavior. The cynic practice of plainspeaking should be mentioned here, as that is largely what this article is about. Plainspeaking was one way for the cynics to demonstrate their scorn for social mores, while pushing their interlocutors away from social attachments and towards the good (as the cynics understood it). This practice is by no means new with them though, one only needs to remember the "sting of the torpedo fish" enacted by the Socratic dialectic in the Meno. In fact no philosophy worth its dialectical salt should shy away from the aporias brought on by words that claim to speak truth (or what the ancients called parrhesia). Or so one can argue, all the more so seeing that parrhesia was considered a duty.
Finally, isn't it remarkable that the cynics (and Epictetus along with them), having nothing but a transcendent good to lean upon, heaped scorn upon social norms that they regarded as corrupt and profane; while the Pyrrhonists, having no conception of the good, in the end lean on nothing but those same social norms, regarding them as an indispensable crutch in the practice of daily life?
Baby, bath water.
Manners were rough in those days. We don't stone people for trivial offenses. We're more compassionate and empathetic so of course we today would be more understanding. As Saint Augustine said "Love and do as you will".