Epictetus, Discourses | On Indifference in Things | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@Nikky9s]

Thank you very much for clarification on the indifferents (adiaforo). How does the state of indifference (adiaforia) relate to apatheia? Does the indifferent attachment lead to the calm state of apatheia, or are they synonymous in this regard? I was also wondering whether Epictetus explicitly considers both apatheia and eupatheia, or only apatheia?

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Fritz Knauff Epictetus tends to use the terms fairly synonomously. Seeing things that are indifferents as indiffferent, i.e. being indifferent towards them both is a component and leads to apatheia, and indeed eudaimonia

[@Nikky9s]

+Gregory B. Sadler Thanks prof. Sadler. I saw in the Handbook that Epictetus does indeed mention the eupatheia, for example joy. I'm wondering whether his advice 'always wish for what comes to pass' is sometimes in contradiction with making judgements (and their accompanying eupatheia) in general. Do you think that there are times when we should try and suspend judgement and any eupathos? In other words, are there times when only apatheia should be sought without eupatheia?

[@Nikky9s]

+Gregory B. Sadler Perhaps I should phrase it in terms more apposite to the core concept in question. Are there certain occasions when complete indifference should take precedence over evaluating whether an indifferent is preferable or worthy of rejection?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Fritz Knauff I think that if you want to see Epictetus' approach more fully in a semi-systematic form, you want to read through his Discourses. Epictetus doesn't concern himself with "eupatheia" as a particular state. The Stoics did recognize several "eupathe", and you'll see Epictetus going beyond the traditional three to also discuss philostorgia, i.e. "familial affection". "Are there certain occasions when complete indifference should take precedence over evaluating whether an indifferent is preferable or worthy of rejection?" Sure, but that's a rather strange way of putting the matter. You evaluate - and then respond to - something are purely indifferent, or as preferred, or as rejected.

[@Nikky9s]

+Gregory B. Sadler Thanks for the advice. I'll be sure to check it out. I agree. Evaluation has to come first, even before complete indifference can be opted for. Otherwise that's just ignorance. I suspect that my concern is more relevant to contemporary considerations such as amor fati or the absurd, where an evaluation is made that any further evaluation for the foreseeable future would not be in accord with Nature/life-affirming etc. For example when one is severely ill during which thinking about the illness - and the energy etc. it takes - would only exacerbate one's condition (or lead to the passions). Here is where a decision to be completely indifferent - at least temporarily - may perhaps be the most rational option. Did the Stoics consider such situations?

[@StuartSafford]

αδιαφωρια, though it means indifferent, is an interesting concept. Is it amoral? I like the fact that our responses to something is so important.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Stuart Safford No, it's not amoral. It plays a very important role within Stoic moral theory.

[@StuartSafford]

Thank you for the response. I appreciate it.

[@followyourideas]

amazing content as always processor. I was wondering if there's a video where you speak more on depth about the following statement : 32. Remember that you know not what the event will be; but of what nature it is you know before you come, at least if you are a philosopher. For if it is among the things not in our own control, it can by no means be either good or evil. Don't, therefore, bring either desire or aversion with you (else you will approach him trembling), but first acquire a distinct knowledge that every event is indifferent and nothing to you, of whatever sort it may be, for it will be in your power to make a right use of it, and this no one can hinder. I feel that internalizing this would help me overcome my fear. thanks in advance

[@followyourideas]

*professor

[@GregoryBSadler]

Specifically, about that bit of the Enchiridion, about divination? No, I haven't got a video on that.

[@Anekantavad]

Desire and aversion being two sides of the same coin (both of them limiting one's freedom of attitude) the Stoic seeks to avoid the game of whack-a-mole that results when we attempt to use the one against the other? :-)

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Anekantavad Well, more reflexively, and bit by bit, redirecting them so that they more and more bear upon what actually is within our control, what falls under our faculty of choice (prohairesis)

[@mafijasale2]

I have one question in relation to the part speaking about saluting a person, “not meanly”. In translation of this word in my native language that “not meanly” is translated basically as “without humbleness / humility” - which brings to my confusion (I read this as if it actually means showing the man respect in a lets say honest / decent way - although not sure because of difference in translation). In any case, it seems that this story is, at least in part, about not being disturbed by the fact that you did not get what you wanted or that the door was / remained shut. But it seems that Stoics would not opt for a window as an alternative to finish off what was initially planned, but would rather accept the situation as is (probably inter alia since it is not in their control). But what if you got chance and saluted the man after which he shot he door in front of you, but you understand that if you saluted the man in another way (let say by being more humble or using saying something that he would appreciate) - and then get what you wanted and door opened - would this be acceptable to Stoics? Would this still be indifferent or would you the express your desire to achieve the gaol. In other words, what would Stoic say about being essentially indifferent of the concept but still pursue the goal “by going through the window” i.e. by finding another way that wont be honest or would be tailored to serve the cause? Would this be against the nature?

[@GregoryBSadler]

This text is less concerned about what one's response ought to be to a person behaving like a jerk, and more about not behaving as a jerk oneself. As to indifferents, you know that use of/dealing with indifferents is not an indifferent

[@mafijasale2]

Thanks professor, much appreciated. Reading through discourses (although only for the first time and not completely - lot work ahead), I was just wondering how should one use / deal with indifferents according to Stoics in some situations. It must depend on the situation, but it is interesting to me would they be opportunistic for example even when dealing with indifferent things eg. reactions of other, so to achieve their important goals. I understand they would never accept the game and consciously behave like a jerk to a jerk (or use any way around) to try to for instance to out jerk / out smart him / her to do something they desire / need (how many times in life you out raged or responded not politely to jerk and because of that got what you need). We are talking about Romans at the end of the day. :) I dont expect answer especially as my power of formulating thoughts in English and knowledge of relevant philosophical text are not as good and this has maybe nothing to do with the core message of the text, but anyway just wanted to continue my initial thoughts, as Im not really indifferent to finding answers to inner questions / thoughts just putting them together even when not really smart :) Thanks and all the best!

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@mafijasale2 Here's one of the talks I've given about the topic - kzbin.info/www/bejne/apLLn3ean65ob9U

[@sash0047]

Awesome

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@ayublord6610]

Please who is the philosien who talk about the relation of indifference and (don't care ) between people 😊

[@GregoryBSadler]

I have no idea what you're asking here

[@ayublord6610]

I'm asking about the name of The philosopher who talks about the relationship of indifference with others . please if you know it 😊

[@GregoryBSadler]

There is no one single philosopher who discusses indifference towards other people. You'll find hundreds discussing that topic in one way or another.

[@ayublord6610]

Gregory B. Sadler like who please I need names of the famous one 😊

[@GregoryBSadler]

Sounds a lot like you're fishing for me to do some of your paper assignment work, or the like.

[@goku.web3id]

would you comment on the stoics view on guns which I presume are the indeferent and therefore Obama is way out of line with his recent use of the executive order?

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Chinedu John Ezeji-Okoye Well, to start with, of course, guns weren't around back then. Weapons were, of course. Strictly speaking, yes, weapons would be indifferents. Of course, as I noted in the video, some indifferents are "preferred" and some "rejected". And, how we use indifferents is not itself indifferent. None of this would have anything, on its face, to do with Obama's executive order. But, if you really do think guns would be an indifferent, then you wouldn't be bothered by someone taking them away, or talking about taking them away. Nor would you be particularly worrying about whether political leaders are "way out of line", if you were adopting a Stoic perspective.

[@goku.web3id]

+Gregory B. Sadler Hummm...., respectfully, to me that sounds like the non-philosophical definition of an indifferent...as this has everything to do with the indifferent. When one person's opinion has the ability to affect the choices of the masses, that greatly affects individual freedom when interacting with the world. Yes, Obama cannot affect/punish my freedom of thought (some might argue that in the way things are progressing to totalitarian governance...) but as you have stated in an earlier video there is a definite connection between action - habit - and faculty of choice. Guns are an indifferent...worrying about the elitists is VERY important in this day and age. The stoic perspective, while it may be self-soothing, is tantamount to ignorance in my humble opinion with the few dictating which indifferents are 'rejected'. I'm not trying to be mean or play the devil's advocate, I do value your videos recently discovered as a life-learner, but this is one core concept that has VERY little practical value to me but thought provoking! Thank you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Chinedu John Ezeji-Okoye Well, now I know your take on all this. You're free to make of Stoicism whatever you like. Good luck with it

[@goku.web3id]

+Gregory B. Sadler Yup...I guess outted as a Libertarian. I would assume you are of the far left and definitely a Stoic...but that is OK.....but as a professor shaping the minds of those entering the workplace and a businessman focusing on practical applications of philosophy, 'Good luck with it' to someone receiving your material for betterment is somewhat of an insulting comment...a move to divert away from my points

[@GregoryBSadler]

Chinedu John Ezeji-Okoye You'd assume quite wrongly about both - but if you want you can put in a bit of research time, you'll quickly find that out. And I mean it - good luck with your own intellectual path. You can make of it what you choose. I've given freely of my pretty scarce and valuable time in even following up here

[@ratlover2243]

You are fabulous. I love your vids! You are one of my many honorary boyfriends that dont know I exist. XOXO baby!