I had no idea that Epictetus had anticipated Adam Smith. This is a fascinating essay, beginning to end.
I've long been interested in reading the Stoics, but I've always started with Marcus Aurelius and quickly gotten bogged down in what seem like platitudes, at least in the early going. What is your view of his Meditations?
Meditations was good, but I certainly enjoyed Epictetus more. There’s little humor in Meditations — you can tell it was written in a battlefield camp rather than a Greek island.
Aurelius is also much more of a “scold” whereas Epictetus is more like a gadfly who enjoys provoking. Epictetus has plenty I disagree with, and it’s not always easy to parse, but there’s also lots of great stuff, and I’d recommend starting with him. Chronologically, he was also first.
I haven't read the original, but it seemed like he was making a somewhat different point than Smith--from the excerpt, I think the point Epictetus was making was that being admired and getting to play that role was the reward, rather than the benefits of exchange. If I want to get the internal and external rewards of being a mentor to my younger coworkers, I have to actually mentor them--spend time helping them learn things, give them useful career advice, etc.
True -- Epictetus wasn't saying "you'll make money if you treat people well" but rather "you will be respected and fulfilled if you treat people well." In an abstract, that is pretty similar, but it is removed from the more advance market economy that Smith lived. But the same logic can be mapped onto it pretty easily.
But yeah there does seem to be a bit of tension between "people will respect you if you do this" and "don't care if people respect you" which is another big theme of his. Not sure if those can be fully reconciled. The book isn't 100% cohesive, and it shouldn't be expected to, as it was based on his speaking.
I haven't read enough Stoic philosophy to be entitled to much of an opinion, but the limited stuff I have read (mostly Seneca's letters) makes me think that the goal is to do things that you will find admirable, whether or not the world will find them admirable. The reward of having someone admire you for your excellent tennis skills or singing ability is a nice bonus, but the reason to practice and work at those skills is internal--you want to be a good tennis player or a good singer, not just to be known as such.
I also have a half-formed intuition that imposter syndrome comes largely from being driven more by external rewards for success than internal ones, or maybe from chasing external validation more than internal validation.
I had no idea that Epictetus had anticipated Adam Smith. This is a fascinating essay, beginning to end.
I've long been interested in reading the Stoics, but I've always started with Marcus Aurelius and quickly gotten bogged down in what seem like platitudes, at least in the early going. What is your view of his Meditations?
Meditations was good, but I certainly enjoyed Epictetus more. There’s little humor in Meditations — you can tell it was written in a battlefield camp rather than a Greek island.
Aurelius is also much more of a “scold” whereas Epictetus is more like a gadfly who enjoys provoking. Epictetus has plenty I disagree with, and it’s not always easy to parse, but there’s also lots of great stuff, and I’d recommend starting with him. Chronologically, he was also first.
Thanks, I've ordered the edition you recommend from Amazon.
I haven't read the original, but it seemed like he was making a somewhat different point than Smith--from the excerpt, I think the point Epictetus was making was that being admired and getting to play that role was the reward, rather than the benefits of exchange. If I want to get the internal and external rewards of being a mentor to my younger coworkers, I have to actually mentor them--spend time helping them learn things, give them useful career advice, etc.
True -- Epictetus wasn't saying "you'll make money if you treat people well" but rather "you will be respected and fulfilled if you treat people well." In an abstract, that is pretty similar, but it is removed from the more advance market economy that Smith lived. But the same logic can be mapped onto it pretty easily.
But yeah there does seem to be a bit of tension between "people will respect you if you do this" and "don't care if people respect you" which is another big theme of his. Not sure if those can be fully reconciled. The book isn't 100% cohesive, and it shouldn't be expected to, as it was based on his speaking.
I haven't read enough Stoic philosophy to be entitled to much of an opinion, but the limited stuff I have read (mostly Seneca's letters) makes me think that the goal is to do things that you will find admirable, whether or not the world will find them admirable. The reward of having someone admire you for your excellent tennis skills or singing ability is a nice bonus, but the reason to practice and work at those skills is internal--you want to be a good tennis player or a good singer, not just to be known as such.
I also have a half-formed intuition that imposter syndrome comes largely from being driven more by external rewards for success than internal ones, or maybe from chasing external validation more than internal validation.
And, thank you!
A stoic that I love is Seneca. Here's a nice primer: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/seneca/
He’s good! I’m reading him currently.