Actor Or Director?

The concept of “free will,” as depicted by Eptictetus, has ignited much discussions recently. Free will, or our ability to make independent choices as to forge willingly whatever happens in our life, is directed in different ways according to the context as Eptictetus describes it. In sections 11-20 he talks about men being but “and actor in a play,” or the being that carries out a predestined life under a given situation. As a consequence I remember thinking: then we have an unlimited array of choices of action in a strictly limited context. As I read consequent sections of the text, I came upon greater proof that free will exists in Eptictetus’ mentality in a unique concept. The text starts talking about death and terrible components, and soon ends up talking about philosophy: “If you crave philosophy prepares yourself on the spot to be ridiculed, to be jeered at by many… But don’t you put on a high brow, but hold fast to the things that appear best to you (section 22).”Although the analytic meaning of the mentioned may be great altogether, I want you to focus on a couple of key words. Take the word “if,” what must always be true when we use this word? If you said that there must always be a condition that must happen (in this case you saying: “there must always be a condition that must happen”), then the rule, generalization, or whatever is being proven applies. This leads to the interjection of choice in the text. It indicates that “if you crave philosophy” you will be jeered at, clearly demonstrating choice: craving or not philosophy. The next word I would like you to consider it “but.” When the text reads: “But don’t you put on a high brow,” you are given a second choice. Up to the point you can either crave philosophy, or lower your brow and go by humble and unnoticed. The closing part: “hold fast to the things that appear best to you,” is a vital proof of free will. What appears best to you as an individual is completely subjective(in fact, it is the definition of the word). You get to choose in a mental state what is best for you, and then you get to chose physically if you want to hold tight to it or not. All of these indicators of choice agree with what first came to my head as an interpretation of free will in the Handbook of Eptictetus: we have an unlimited array of choices of action in a strictly limited context.

I have mentioned how we have an unlimited array of possibilities and choices, now let’s move onto the limited context. The last section I came across yet states that “you cannot demand equal share if you sis not do the same things, with a view to getting things that are not up to us (section 25).” Let the words “you cannot demand… things that are not up to us” sink deep in your understanding of this text. You cannot demand, in this case it refers to equal share, but it aims more at showing how little your control over many things are, how useless you are in changing the context of your story. Things that are not up to us exist, for believe it or not, we are far from understanding the essence of much, and only through the basis will we master the technique. We are not salves of a reality, but of an interpretation of reality we understand it. The setting is predestined to happen in an incredibly accurate way, there is no changing the limiting context. Our role has been written on the outline for the play, but the dialogue is yet to be acted out.