Predestination or Free Will?: Handbook of Epictetus, sections 31-53

Up to now, the Handbook of Epictetus seemed to follow a coherent pattern in style and content. However, this third section of the text presented various differences from the rest of the work. For one thing, I noticed that sections were getting longer and more explicit. Epictetus provided the reader with more examples from daily life which, I believe, make the text duller to read by omitting the possibility for us to make our own interpretations of the content. I also noticed that the tendency of the text to make references to only one god (monotheism) was replaced by a broader, more polytheistic faith in various gods. “The most important aspect of piety toward the gods is certainly both to have correct beliefs about them, as beings that arrange the universe well and justly, and to set yourself to obey them.” (p. 21). At the beginning of the work, nature was said to be in charge of establishing the course of events; however, this task has now been attributed to the gods. Does this mean that nature and the Gods are one sole entity? Judging by the changes in style and content, could you say that the Handbook of Epictetus was written by two different people?

The Handbook of Epictetus concluded with the verse “Lead me, Zeus, and you too, Destiny, / Wherever I am assigned by you…” (p.29). These couple of lines made me think about the true nature of fate and free will, and whether those ideas really existed in a world coherently planned by nature. Up to now, the text had given me the impression that the universe was in charge of determining the order of events, but that it was also up to us to be at the right place at the right time. In other words, I had understood that life was a combination of patterns and chance. Nevertheless, the concluding lines of the text made me wonder whether us humans live according to fate, in a universe where everything is predestined to occur and where every slight movement or thought is controlled by destiny, something similar to the fourth dimension. This discussion actually reminds me of Anne Hutchingson and her philosophy of antinomianism, in which she stated that there was no purpose in making an effort in life if what awaited us was always going to be the same. What difference does it make if we try to make the best out of every situation if our actions are already predetermined by the gods? Why does Epictetus try to change the way we live our lives if our existence is going to be the same no matter what?

Stoic philosophy has been one of my favorite texts. I must say that it is actually one of the few books, apart from the KJB, that has answered many of my doubts about life. What I like about the Handbook of Epictetus that other works of literature do not possess, though, is its paradoxical style of presenting complex ideas in a very simple and logical manner. However, I believe that section thirty-three lacked the superb use of rhetoric present in the rest of the text. “Do not laugh a great deal or at a great many things unrestrainedly.” (p.22). Apart from proposing vague and superficial ideas, this fragment lacked the transcendentalist spark present in the rest of the text. It didn’t pose examples to support the author’s claim and explain why we had to refrain from laughing, which I find completely ridiculous. Epictetus, what happened here?