Is it possible to read Epictetus' discourses with a secular view? Admittedly I'm only halfway through the first book, but it seems like half of his arguments presuppose the existence of a god.
That's how I read it. What are you having trouble with?
>>8211219
Well to give examples, he argues in
1.3.3 "some of us incline toward intelligence, which we share with the gods, some of us incline towards the kinship that is wretched and mortal, and only a few of us towards that which is divine and blessed", and again a similar argument in 1.12.27 is used to show that reason is "divine" and should be used to rise above savagery.
1.5, "On providence" pretty much justifies a creator because "it's obvious" and "how else could the world be" then goes on to assert a handful of lofty ideas.
1.9 "How from the idea that we are akin to God, one may proceed to what follows" is obviously completely tainted.
etc. It just feels like I'm tip toeing around this idea of god and it's making it difficult to reason about some of his arguments. Am I interpreting this wrong or missing something?
If you understand God/gods as metaphor and not fact then it's perfectly easy.
Gods are personifications of the forces of nature or aspects of the psyche or a unification of all the universe.
Hold the cringe for just a moment, but take Sagan's famous remark of "We are all made of star stuff"; you could argue that it's very similar to the phrase "I and the father are one" if you understand it as someone realizing the indivisible reality of man and nature.
>>8211362
I came to this same conclusionwhen I was tripping on shrooms several years agoand it completely changed the way I approach religious texts for the better.
>>8210434
Maybe just stop being a fag and start believing in the Prime Mover.
>>8210434
Actually yes, for instance Spinoza's favorite philosopher was Seneca. You can look at all the claims about 'God' in a pantheist view to understand the Stoics. Albeit that's probably not what they meant, but it's an interesting interpretations.
>>8210434
not sure what you mean, OP. are you saying that you literally can't understand it bc he believed in a God and you don't? seems unlikely. or do you mean that you'd actually like to apply his advice but you can't figure out how to seperate it from his metaphysics?
>>8211620
>or do you mean that you'd actually like to apply his advice but you can't figure out how to seperate it from his metaphysics?
Not OP, but I'm thinking he means this most likely
>>8211319
Bitch, you unfold with the universe. You're under its mechanics. Deal with it. That's pretty much it -> deal with it.
>>8211653
I think so too, but OP's question sounded a little confused to me, and I thought it'd basically answer itself of he'd just sharpen it up a little.
>>8211319
If I recall correctly the Stoics believed that Providence was simply the "divine order of things", and this divine order was created by (or according to some interpretations, in-cased in) the universal reason. The Stoics did not believe in a God akin to monotheistic religions, but that this universal reason is the same thing as 'God'. And since humans were the only beings capable of this divine reason, the main goal in life was to be reasonable in all things, and thus to be Godlike, divine, reasonable.
That is at least, where the meta-ethical claims about life and death come from for the Stoics. Now of course, this raises question about where universal reason comes from, if this reason-god is made of anything else (the stoics claim he is also made of an unknowable matter and primal elements). I recommend you to the SEP article on stoicism, specifically the section on Physical Theory (as well as much else, you shouldn't take my word, I'm a lonely student), where its examined more in depth:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
And follow the further reading from there.
>>8211689
>>8211319
I'd also like to add, if this just seems like typical Socratic/Platonian metaphysical bullshit to you, there are loads of books which disconnect Ancient ethics, especially the Stoics, from there less defensible metaphysics:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-morality-of-happiness-9780195096521?cc=us&lang=en&#
Which examines happiness and how to achieve it from this point
And
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-theory-of-virtue-9780199552252?lang=en&cc=us
Which does the same thing with virtue, and focuses more on the practical side of being virtuous.
