Hey Doug - I get your point about not attaching rigidly to ideas (confirmation bias), but in Epictetus' defense, and as he argues in The Enchiridion, doesn't he equate "good" with behaving "virtuously," by which he's referring to the four cardinal virtues? If so, then he does appear to have a "rule." Or have I misread you? Thanks.
Yes, it is true that Epictetus's rule does narrow down what may be classified as "good." In this chapter, he specifically rejects pleasure. Elsewhere, he rejects some other things (adaiphora that some, such as Aristotle, consider to be good), and he equates the "good" with virtue.
This, however, does not solve the fundamental problems he seeks to solve.
First, while he claims that there is a rule that will end the dispute about good and evil, his rule has failed to do so. Two thousand years later the point is as open to irreconcilable debate as it ever was.
Second, even if Epictetus' rule is accepted, it does not end the dispute because even with regard to virtue and vice, there's disagreement about whether particular actions are or are not virtuous or vicious.
Hey Doug - I get your point about not attaching rigidly to ideas (confirmation bias), but in Epictetus' defense, and as he argues in The Enchiridion, doesn't he equate "good" with behaving "virtuously," by which he's referring to the four cardinal virtues? If so, then he does appear to have a "rule." Or have I misread you? Thanks.
Yes, it is true that Epictetus's rule does narrow down what may be classified as "good." In this chapter, he specifically rejects pleasure. Elsewhere, he rejects some other things (adaiphora that some, such as Aristotle, consider to be good), and he equates the "good" with virtue.
This, however, does not solve the fundamental problems he seeks to solve.
First, while he claims that there is a rule that will end the dispute about good and evil, his rule has failed to do so. Two thousand years later the point is as open to irreconcilable debate as it ever was.
Second, even if Epictetus' rule is accepted, it does not end the dispute because even with regard to virtue and vice, there's disagreement about whether particular actions are or are not virtuous or vicious.
Third, he never proves that a rule must exist.
Gotcha. Thank you.