The modern “inclusivity” litmus test was Cov19 (non)”vaccine”. Comply or be banished. No “government” will own my free will. When imprisonment and the public racks arrive I will not feign surprise. Expect to be severely punished for simply being a man. Epictetus The Cripple knew it and so do I.
There comes a time in a man's life where we accept who we are. I call it the nuance of the spirit. While always aware of the circumstances and context in any situation, I often hear my mind saying after the encounter, well, that's my spirit, the nuance of my being. Every human leaves its own mark on other minds. The question is, are we making progress or regress on our causes.
I had my diploma shipped as well, I understood you. I got the impression you were liked by whomever complained about inclusivity. They wanted inclusion into whatever your spirit had left a mark on. Because you probably didn't care, they most likely felt left out. And... went on the offensive with words like inclusivity. But the core is what was the transaction switched for. I doubt you would've abandoned the group at its agreed duties. People want always more without recognizing lines in the sand.
Istitutions have catchy phrases for what they can't attain. Inclusivity, the real type, is earned. A check in the box inside a contract is met by 99.9% of us. We should not expect personal values to be accepted on a paid clock. This is the gray line. Those that use it, have issues of control. I liked your work as always.
Thank you, Persephone. “Nuance of the spirit” is an excellent way to put it. Your intuition is spot on. Many people seem to mistake lack of interaction with lack of dedication. I think we see the matter in the same way, and this is refreshing.
Great piece, Sam. First off, you've got some real gems in there. They kept me locked in. Great tone and pacing. "Steady-strong" as a friend of mine once said. That's what it felt like. Stellar job.
Not sure I've seen such a respectful, polite, and honest takedown of the distinctly disrespectful, impolite, and dishonest (not to mention cynical, imho) tool of "inclusive." Thank you, brother.
This is a great thread, thank you both. I can't contribute to either of your thoughts on the Stoics, which were very interesting.
I only want to comment on one point made above by Andrew: "I suspect the 'silence is violence' crowd might be thinking along the lines of Marcus Aurelius..."
I quite agree that they might be, and it reminded me instantly of an ancient Christian understanding of the two species of sin: that all sins are either sins of commission, or sins of omission.
But I have to be honest: personally I suspect that much of the time, the phrase is used simply to justify violence against the silent, by pretending their silence (and so their implicit disagreement) are actually forms of hatred and oppression. I further suspect that this position is intentionally disingenuous, and made in markedly bad faith: it has to do with power, not justice, and therefore smacks more of Stalin or Hitler than of Marcus Aurelius.
I am very quiet about a lot of my opinions in my workplace, because I am well aware that I would be accused of 'hatred' by exactly these sorts of people simply for openly disagreeing with them, after which I would be fired by cowards. It has left me not only in the position of hoping that discretion on my part is indeed the better part of valor (!), but also of considering large numbers of my colleagues and line managers to be either malevolent or catastrophically weak people.
This is interesting, Greg. It still astonishes me that there is so much oppression towards different points of view and that so many people still cannot speak their minds freely without fear of punishment. I do believe the pendulum is swinging.
I suspect the "silence is violence" crowd might be thinking along the lines of Marcus Aurelius: "You can also commit injustice by doing nothing." (Meditations 9.4)
Interrogating whether or not an injustice has been done and whether our attention to it is warranted is often no easy feat, and requires considerable thought and weighing what our (Epictetus style) roles are. But it's as you cited, Epictetus would be choosey, and with a level of judgement your accusers would likely find infuriating.
Discourses 2.24.28:
E: This is all I have to say to you, and I couldn't summon up much enthusiasm even to say that much.
Q: Why not?
E: Because you haven't excited my enthusiasm. For what can I see in you to excite me, as a horsemen are excited by thoroughbred horses? Your miserable body? Its shameful the way in which you tend to it. Your clothing? That too, is effeminate. Your bearing, your expression? Nothing there is worth a second glance.
The Meditations 9.4 quote is interesting. I wonder what Marcus would have thought about Socrates simply going home when he was ordered to fetch Leon of Salamis for execution. Socrates didn't fight, he didn't disagree, he just went home. Was Socrates unjust? It's a point that needs a lot of thinking.
The entire 2.24 passage is incredible. Here you have a philosopher who advocates for us to be "citizens of the universe" and recognize we are "all born of God", and who tears into this guy for being mediocre. There is a rhyme and reason to it all. The time I spend with Epictetus, the more I appreciate his depth.
I suspect, regarding Socrates, Marcus might cite something akin to Epictetus's role ethics. Socrates wasn't going to topple the 30 tyrants. That wasn't realistically in his scope. But he also wasn't going to participate in their misrule. "No one can implicate me in ugliness." (Meditations 2.1).
In fact, refusing to kowtow to the tyrants and bring in Leon was an act of great bravery and virtue. Many Athenians were killed for doing as much.
I feel the same about Epictetus. Many of the seeming contradictions turn out to to be multi-layered and well thought out stances if you dig into them. I feel like I could spend a lifetime with his ideas.
I read 2.24 slightly differently. It's not just that the guy was mediocre. It's that he didn't understand what was important. He was deluded.
What do we do with deluded people? Marcus, as usual, leans into Justice: “Men exist for the sake of one another. Teach them then or bear with them.” (Meditations, 8:59).
But there's a balancing act between Epictetus's disdain and Marcus's insistence on helping people who are misguided.
I wonder if Epictetus's disdain is itself a kind of teaching. He's not telling the guy not to come to his lectures. He's not saying he doesn't like his accent or race. He's just saying that he needs to get his act together.
It would be like saying, "I'll consider you for that promotion if you can give me three months of showing up to work on time."
Or, in a modern person who has an opinion about the conflict in Israel who wants your support, "I'll consider your request for my attention and time if you can show me you actually have a grasp of the underlying factors and history that lead to the war and you're not entirely basing your reaction on what emotion you're experiencing."
I've been wondering about your point with Epictetus. It is, almost, like waiting on the porch of Fight Club. If you really want it, you will "bear and forbear", and prove you give a damn. I could see a line of young men waiting on Epictetus's porch.
The modern “inclusivity” litmus test was Cov19 (non)”vaccine”. Comply or be banished. No “government” will own my free will. When imprisonment and the public racks arrive I will not feign surprise. Expect to be severely punished for simply being a man. Epictetus The Cripple knew it and so do I.
There comes a time in a man's life where we accept who we are. I call it the nuance of the spirit. While always aware of the circumstances and context in any situation, I often hear my mind saying after the encounter, well, that's my spirit, the nuance of my being. Every human leaves its own mark on other minds. The question is, are we making progress or regress on our causes.
I had my diploma shipped as well, I understood you. I got the impression you were liked by whomever complained about inclusivity. They wanted inclusion into whatever your spirit had left a mark on. Because you probably didn't care, they most likely felt left out. And... went on the offensive with words like inclusivity. But the core is what was the transaction switched for. I doubt you would've abandoned the group at its agreed duties. People want always more without recognizing lines in the sand.
Istitutions have catchy phrases for what they can't attain. Inclusivity, the real type, is earned. A check in the box inside a contract is met by 99.9% of us. We should not expect personal values to be accepted on a paid clock. This is the gray line. Those that use it, have issues of control. I liked your work as always.
Thank you, Persephone. “Nuance of the spirit” is an excellent way to put it. Your intuition is spot on. Many people seem to mistake lack of interaction with lack of dedication. I think we see the matter in the same way, and this is refreshing.
Great piece, Sam. First off, you've got some real gems in there. They kept me locked in. Great tone and pacing. "Steady-strong" as a friend of mine once said. That's what it felt like. Stellar job.
Much appreciated Cory, I'm stoked you enjoyed it.
This article is a keeper! You articulated the current stifling culture that we’re living in.
I'm grateful you found some value. Thank you for reading, Nadia.
Not sure I've seen such a respectful, polite, and honest takedown of the distinctly disrespectful, impolite, and dishonest (not to mention cynical, imho) tool of "inclusive." Thank you, brother.
You're more than welcome, thank you for reading.
This is a great thread, thank you both. I can't contribute to either of your thoughts on the Stoics, which were very interesting.
I only want to comment on one point made above by Andrew: "I suspect the 'silence is violence' crowd might be thinking along the lines of Marcus Aurelius..."
I quite agree that they might be, and it reminded me instantly of an ancient Christian understanding of the two species of sin: that all sins are either sins of commission, or sins of omission.
But I have to be honest: personally I suspect that much of the time, the phrase is used simply to justify violence against the silent, by pretending their silence (and so their implicit disagreement) are actually forms of hatred and oppression. I further suspect that this position is intentionally disingenuous, and made in markedly bad faith: it has to do with power, not justice, and therefore smacks more of Stalin or Hitler than of Marcus Aurelius.
I am very quiet about a lot of my opinions in my workplace, because I am well aware that I would be accused of 'hatred' by exactly these sorts of people simply for openly disagreeing with them, after which I would be fired by cowards. It has left me not only in the position of hoping that discretion on my part is indeed the better part of valor (!), but also of considering large numbers of my colleagues and line managers to be either malevolent or catastrophically weak people.
This is interesting, Greg. It still astonishes me that there is so much oppression towards different points of view and that so many people still cannot speak their minds freely without fear of punishment. I do believe the pendulum is swinging.
“What a bundle of contradictions. What a condescending view of mankind.”
💯 Sam.
Thank you, Dee.
This is really well framed. Great piece.
I suspect the "silence is violence" crowd might be thinking along the lines of Marcus Aurelius: "You can also commit injustice by doing nothing." (Meditations 9.4)
Interrogating whether or not an injustice has been done and whether our attention to it is warranted is often no easy feat, and requires considerable thought and weighing what our (Epictetus style) roles are. But it's as you cited, Epictetus would be choosey, and with a level of judgement your accusers would likely find infuriating.
Discourses 2.24.28:
E: This is all I have to say to you, and I couldn't summon up much enthusiasm even to say that much.
Q: Why not?
E: Because you haven't excited my enthusiasm. For what can I see in you to excite me, as a horsemen are excited by thoroughbred horses? Your miserable body? Its shameful the way in which you tend to it. Your clothing? That too, is effeminate. Your bearing, your expression? Nothing there is worth a second glance.
The Meditations 9.4 quote is interesting. I wonder what Marcus would have thought about Socrates simply going home when he was ordered to fetch Leon of Salamis for execution. Socrates didn't fight, he didn't disagree, he just went home. Was Socrates unjust? It's a point that needs a lot of thinking.
The entire 2.24 passage is incredible. Here you have a philosopher who advocates for us to be "citizens of the universe" and recognize we are "all born of God", and who tears into this guy for being mediocre. There is a rhyme and reason to it all. The time I spend with Epictetus, the more I appreciate his depth.
I suspect, regarding Socrates, Marcus might cite something akin to Epictetus's role ethics. Socrates wasn't going to topple the 30 tyrants. That wasn't realistically in his scope. But he also wasn't going to participate in their misrule. "No one can implicate me in ugliness." (Meditations 2.1).
In fact, refusing to kowtow to the tyrants and bring in Leon was an act of great bravery and virtue. Many Athenians were killed for doing as much.
I feel the same about Epictetus. Many of the seeming contradictions turn out to to be multi-layered and well thought out stances if you dig into them. I feel like I could spend a lifetime with his ideas.
I read 2.24 slightly differently. It's not just that the guy was mediocre. It's that he didn't understand what was important. He was deluded.
What do we do with deluded people? Marcus, as usual, leans into Justice: “Men exist for the sake of one another. Teach them then or bear with them.” (Meditations, 8:59).
But there's a balancing act between Epictetus's disdain and Marcus's insistence on helping people who are misguided.
I wonder if Epictetus's disdain is itself a kind of teaching. He's not telling the guy not to come to his lectures. He's not saying he doesn't like his accent or race. He's just saying that he needs to get his act together.
It would be like saying, "I'll consider you for that promotion if you can give me three months of showing up to work on time."
Or, in a modern person who has an opinion about the conflict in Israel who wants your support, "I'll consider your request for my attention and time if you can show me you actually have a grasp of the underlying factors and history that lead to the war and you're not entirely basing your reaction on what emotion you're experiencing."
I've been wondering about your point with Epictetus. It is, almost, like waiting on the porch of Fight Club. If you really want it, you will "bear and forbear", and prove you give a damn. I could see a line of young men waiting on Epictetus's porch.