On Epictetus Discourse About Wealth and Freedom - Essay Example

?Full On Epictetus’ Dis About Wealth and Freedom Freedom! It is one reason why battles were fought, bloods were shed and brothers and sisters hurt each other. It is because of the different perceptions of what freedom is that brought the aforementioned circumstances come to pass. One thinks that wealth brings freedom and so he seeks to own gold, diamonds, lands and slaves through whatever means including what has been mentioned earlier. Another considers a high political status as something that would bring him freedom and in the modern world; education is regarded by most as the means to freedom. To Epictetus, he uses the first argument and links wealth and freedom in a manner that is debatable in an era where wealth is widely sought for, one that contradicts modern lifestyles, disagreeing that wealth brings freedom. Epictetus counts wealth as something that enslaves rather than frees someone because these are not the things that make men free rather are the ones that bound them to slavery. He considers owning nothing as having freedom, a concept that most of the people today might not agree with. One might laugh as well at such a concept, for how could a wealthy man be enslaved when he has the means to own his own slaves and be the master of other people? The philosopher explains his arguments with examples that strongly support his thoughts, qualifying it as a serious thought one should think about not only by the seekers in his time but also in this period where it is believed to be most needed. Looking into his philosophies, one would have an illumination of his considerations and is guaranteed to be more inclined to agreeing than questioning. First, the philosopher considered fear and said that no one really fears Caesar but that they fear death, exile, deprivation of property, prison and disenfranchisement (Matheson, p. 72). Slavery to fear is not actually caused by men, not even powerful men, but is caused by what a person wants, things that he holds on to. This is the reason why Epictetus argues that having nothing, which includes wanting nothing, will release a person from fears. When an individual has properties, and is so attached to them, he would do everything he can to protect it from those who desire to have it, like robbers. Wealth brings fear of losing it, fear of calamities, fear of people and things that would destroy and grab it away from him therefore a wealthy man is a slave to his fears, and is punished on his mind as to remedy how he should protect himself and his wealth. Sometimes, wealthy people also fear for their lives, because it is inevitable that when a person is after his wealth, he would plan to do all sorts or ways including unthinkable ones only to protect himself, including killing possible witnesses, killing the wealthy man. This is the reason why most of the rich ensure their security by paying thousands of dollars for security alarms and guards. Still, it does not give a hundred percent guarantee that they would all work for their purpose because as the rich man can be vigilant in his ways, robbers could also be more vigilant in their plans, thus, the fear continues and still is a master of the wealthy man. Money and wealth could be in a person’s possession but he could still be a slave not to men but to an abstract yet gripping master called fear and what could be worse than to serve something that is within one’s self. Epictetus argues that one who is truly free is one who distinguishes what is his and what is not his, that he owns nothing but his will and to recognize that everything he has is God’s, so that if people take it away from him, he should let it be and if they leave him in peace, he should let it be and not worry much about the matter. Furthermore, the philosopher speaks about what people love, which can also serve as another master. People love wealth, the tribunate, the praetorship and the consulship (p. 72) which, in search for it, would cause a person to enslave himself to whatever matters and manners he engages in, in order to take hold of what he desires. Wealth brings fear and it also brings more desires, slavery unto wealth itself and the recognition it brings along. For instance, Epictetus criticizes those who kiss the hands of other people’s slaves in order to get the great and splendid offices and honors consequently becoming a slave to men who are not themselves free (p. 82). This means that such people who claim to be of standing, who should have been free from the bondages of slavery of brought by men, seek the praises of other people so that they humiliate themselves by being equals with slaves, or even lower than they are, for they kiss the hands of the so-called slaves. They bow themselves to slaves and cast their pride aside for the sake of gaining people’s praises, for them to be considered of higher standing than others who would rather be satisfied with wealth alone. Epictetus then defines a free man as one who is not hindered by anything or anyone, the one who can deal with things as he wishes. As a slave is not allowed to rest on his own free will when he is at his master’s fields, the opposite of it describes the free man who is able to do whatever he desires, wherever and whenever he wants to. On an ordinary person’s point of view, a slave is not to be debated if he is free or not for he obviously is bound by other men. Yet, to Epictetus, physical bondage is nothing compared to psychological freedom as he cites Diogenes as an example, who although was chained by men like him, considered himself bound by nothing. This is because he got rid of all the weaknesses that might give slavery a hold on him, making his captors unable to approach or lay hold on him to enslave him (p. 82). He had no fear of what men might say about him because he cast off the desire for the appreciation of men for whatever stand he had and also got rid of the fear that might have allowed him to succumb to his captor’s wishes. He was able to do what he wanted, unhindered by fear or desire so that even if he was considered a slave in the eyes of other people, the philosopher, he was a truly free man. As a man, Diogenes surely had fears and he had things that he loved dearly and it was a statement of denial to claim that he had no fear nor desire but that despite their presence, he did not let them take a hold of him. He allowed his fears and desires to vanish in thin air, considering he did not even own his body which could be a cause of the aforementioned probable masters. Since Diogenes claimed his body as not his own possession, he would have allowed it to be subjected to hardships if the circumstances allowed so. His fellow philosopher said of him that if one took his leg off, it would just have been fine with him, letting it be without question or complaint because he counted it as not his own. All that was in his possession were in his discretion to manage but he did not consider them to be for his forever, they were loosely attached to him, ready to be given away willingly should events call for it. “He is the man who fixes his aim on nothing that is not his own”, is a continuation of Epictetus’ definition of a free man. Diogenes was considered a free man by Epictetus and the latter philosopher based his definition of what a free man is from the words of the former, that he had the power to converse with the king of the Persians and with Archidamus, king of the Lacedaemonians not because he was a son of free parents but ‘because I count my poor body not my own, because I need nothing, because law and nothing else is all in all for me’. As a person did not make himself, he does not own his body but is owned by his creator so that the philosopher further argues that whatever God will he wills, whatever He does not will, he does not will, whatever he does not like to give, he has to stop wanting it or he will be enslaved to wanting what is not planned for him. With this philosophy, Epictetus encourages those who seek true freedom to therefore give up one’s body and all the things that belongs to it- faculties, property, reputation, offices, honors, children, brothers, friends (p. 76) because this is the starting point where one destroys the citadel that encloses a slave. The citadel Epictetus refers to is not built of human hands because even if this is destroyed, the person who had formerly been imprisoned cannot truly be free unless he disowns everything he has. This thought is echoed in the powerful poem of William Ernest Henley entitled Invictus where he mentioned about his unconquerable soul. Despite the darkness that surrounded him and the dangers that might have been, he did not fear any of them but has gotten rid of fear so that it did not get a hold on his soul. In hardships where he was physically beaten, the unconquerable never cringed nor cried and although he was bleeding, he still stood tall amidst his circumstance. Where hatred, anger, tears and all the horrors of hardships abound, the poet spoke of a free man, who was always unafraid no matter what the happenstance might be. Truly, the citadel that has to be conquered is one’s self, his thoughts, his fears and desires that dictate what could possibly be a person’s master. Henley discovered and understood well enough Epictetus’ philosophies and in his own words, this argument can be concluded, “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.” One might argue with the philosopher and the agreements of this paper with his idea but that Diogenes, if he were bound by chains, though in his mind was free, he is still undeniably a slave. This is for the philosopher, is a weak argument for it has already been explained that the freedom he was referring to was not only of the flesh but includes the soul, that to him, what was more important was the latter. This makes the philosophy able to stand on its own, amidst discourses despite whatever weaknesses there might be. If behind one’s wealth, an individual is enslaved to fear or the want for recognition; he is just partially free, liberated from financial strife but not on other aspects of a person’s life. However, even if one is enslaved physically, it would not count much if that does not matter at all to the person who is imprisoned for he considers the freedom of his thoughts and feelings more valuable. References Matheson, P.E. Discourses: Books 3 and 4. Read More