What is in our power
This is an important point raised by a commentator [ see below ] , and I think it deserves more than a brief comment.
The Greek phrase “eph’ hemin” is conventionally translated as “ up to us” or “in our power” or “in our control”. And so I translate, for a want of better idiom, but caveat lector! The term, originally from Aristotle, has a technical meaning for Epictetus. Something is not “eph’ hemin” if our use of it can ever be hindered or frustrated in any way. Can the use we wish to make of our body or our property or any external sometimes be frustrated or hindered? Yes. Then no external is “eph’ hemin”. Epictetus says that more times than I can count, and we translate those passages as “ no externals are in our control or in our power.”
But there is a problem with this translation, isn't there ? It sounds counterintuitive to say “ our bodies are not in our control.” But this is what Epictetus is saying with the idiom “eph’ hemin”, not meaning, I think ,to deny the fact that we seem to be mostly in charge of what we do, but meaning only to deny that we have a level of control or power that cannot be overridden.
Don’t think of Epictetus as someone keen on scientifically exploring the limits and degrees of the voluntary control we do exert over ourselves and things. That is not his game in the Discourses. He thinks it self-evident that externals are not “eph’ hemin”.
One question I have been asking Epictetus is why he thinks that internals are “eph’ hemin” in his strong sense? We have the familiar phenomema of drugs and alcohol and brain injuries dramatically interfering with and altering our ability to reason and choose and behave well. Character and virtue and intellect are vulnerable. I can think of nothing, within or without, that is “eph’ hemin” in Epictetus strong sense. Remember, once again, that this is not to deny that we have some, perhaps a significant amount of internal control.
This is an important point raised by a commentator [ see below ] , and I think it deserves more than a brief comment.
The Greek phrase “eph’ hemin” is conventionally translated as “ up to us” or “in our power” or “in our control”. And so I translate, for a want of better idiom, but caveat lector! The term, originally from Aristotle, has a technical meaning for Epictetus. Something is not “eph’ hemin” if our use of it can ever be hindered or frustrated in any way. Can the use we wish to make of our body or our property or any external sometimes be frustrated or hindered? Yes. Then no external is “eph’ hemin”. Epictetus says that more times than I can count, and we translate those passages as “ no externals are in our control or in our power.”
But there is a problem with this translation, isn't there ? It sounds counterintuitive to say “ our bodies are not in our control.” But this is what Epictetus is saying with the idiom “eph’ hemin”, not meaning, I think ,to deny the fact that we seem to be mostly in charge of what we do, but meaning only to deny that we have a level of control or power that cannot be overridden.
Don’t think of Epictetus as someone keen on scientifically exploring the limits and degrees of the voluntary control we do exert over ourselves and things. That is not his game in the Discourses. He thinks it self-evident that externals are not “eph’ hemin”.
One question I have been asking Epictetus is why he thinks that internals are “eph’ hemin” in his strong sense? We have the familiar phenomema of drugs and alcohol and brain injuries dramatically interfering with and altering our ability to reason and choose and behave well. Character and virtue and intellect are vulnerable. I can think of nothing, within or without, that is “eph’ hemin” in Epictetus strong sense. Remember, once again, that this is not to deny that we have some, perhaps a significant amount of internal control.
posted by Macuquinas d' Oro at 6:40 AM
1 Comments:
Dear Henry,
Thank you again for the comment.
What I think is a problem for Epictetus is the vulnerability of our inner life to tragic accidents.
Epictetus wants to maintain that our intellect and character and inner calm are "up to us" in a way that our control of externals can never be. But the findings of modern neuropathology seem to oppose this optimistic assessment. Sustain some significant trauma to your anterior frontal lobes, or to your amgydala, and you will likely become a very different person. Your ability to make good reasoned choice will be gone. Your self-control will be severely impaired. Your behaviour will become inappropriate in many contexts.
I conclude that my grasp on things in the sphere of choice is no more secure and "up to us" ( in Epictetus' strong sense ) than is my possession of externals.
Post a Comment
<< Home