I recently decided to read Grim's commentary on Epitectus's Enchiridion. I was quite busy with other things when he went through it. I only intend to post about this when I have something to say that's different from what Grim and the discussion in the post comments do, so I'm not sure how many posts on this I'll make.
The Enchiridion begins with some shocking claims. The first two paragraphs of the first chapter are:
There are things which are within our power, and there are things which are beyond our power. Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own. Beyond our power are body, property, reputation, office, and, in one word, whatever are not properly our own affairs.
Now the things within our power are by nature free, unrestricted, unhindered; but those beyond our power are weak, dependent, restricted, alien. Remember, then, that if you attribute freedom to things by nature dependent and take what belongs to others for your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you take for your own only that which is your own and view what belongs to others just as it really is, then no one will ever compel you, no one will restrict you; you will find fault with no one, you will accuse no one, you will do nothing against your will; no one will hurt you, you will not have an enemy, nor will you suffer any harm.
That final sentence is quite radical. It may sound simple: Mind your own business and you'll be free. However, Epictetus puts the body beyond our powers; the body is alien, in his terms. Bluntly, your body is not only not your own, it's not even your business. Your property, too, is not your own or your business. "Mind your own business" takes on quite a different meaning here than I'm used to.
Epictetus was born a slave and so it was true that his body belonged to someone else, at least until he was freed, but he is saying his body wasn't his own even as a free man. Considering this, when he claims that if you consider your body beyond your power and therefore your concern, his claim that "no one will ever compel you, no one will restrict you ... you will do nothing against your will; no one will hurt you, you will not have an enemy, nor will you suffer any harm" makes sense. Even if you are enslaved, maimed or killed, your body is not your own, so no one has compelled, restricted, or harmed you. That is great freedom, I suppose.
This runs counter to what I think have been the normal American assumptions that our bodies and property are in fact our own. Whole branches of law would collapse if that suddenly changed. It also goes against what I take to be the Christian view that a human is a body and a soul. We are both; this is why were were created immortal and why we will have a bodily resurrection and embodied immortality, and also why Jesus was fully human as well as fully God.
On the other hand, we can think that God gave us our bodies, so they properly belong to Him. Still, if that is so, then it would also seem that our entire existence, including "opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own" also belong to Him. Maybe that is where free will comes into play; we have these things as a free gift and it is our choice to align them with His will or not. Epitectus seems to align more with Christianity than American values. Although he wasn't a Christian, both he and Christianity are ancient, so it makes sense they'd have more in common than either would with modernity.
All that said, for most or maybe all of us, don't others have some claim on our bodies? We don't think of it that way I suppose, but those we are in close relationships with, or our communities, for example, make claims on us and we meet those claims with our bodies. If my elderly mentor needs a ride to the hospital, then I will use my body to drive him there. Or, if a young man is drafted for war, he must respond with his body or face bodily consequences for refusing. We tend think ill of a parent who abandons his or her children to pursue selfish passions. Maybe our bodies aren't our own.
Well, with a first chapter like this, the book should be quite enlightening. I look forward to seeing where it goes and reading the commentary and comments as I go.
