What do you think of the below quote from Epicteus’ Enchiridion?
49.When a man shows himself overly confident in ability to understand and interpret the works of Chrysippus, say to yourself, ” Unless Chrysippus had written obscurely, this man would have nothing to be proud of.
But what do I desire? To understand the world and follow her.
I ask then—Who interprets the world? Finding Chrysippus does, I come to him. I don’t understand his writings.
I seek, therefore, one to interpret them. So far there is nothing to be proud of. And when I find an interpreter, what remains is to make use of his instructions.
This alone is the valuable thing. But, if I admire nothing but merely the interpretation, what do I become more than a grammarian instead of a philosopher? It is just the case that instead of Homer I interpret Chrysippus.
However, when anyone desires me to read Chrysippus to him, I rather blush when I cannot point to acttion which are in harmony with his teaching.
Overall, should things even be this difficult to interpret? Are we valuing the simple ability to interpret these things, or are we actually valuing specific way of conduct that can be clearly gained from reading the text?
Funnily, I’ve read that quote not that long ago during my morning stoic routine. ^^
My interpretation with regard to the post is that the value is not in being able to interpret but in getting something that makes you more virtuous from it. Which is exactly what this short dialogue tries to capture: me trying to find what to extract from this whole mess without spending an enormous amount of time for the sheer thrill of interpretation.
What do you think of the below quote from Epicteus’ Enchiridion?
49. When a man shows himself overly confident in ability to understand and interpret the works of Chrysippus, say to yourself, ” Unless Chrysippus had written obscurely, this man would have nothing to be proud of.
But what do I desire? To understand the world and follow her.
I ask then—Who interprets the world? Finding Chrysippus does, I come to him. I don’t understand his writings.
I seek, therefore, one to interpret them. So far there is nothing to be proud of. And when I find an interpreter, what remains is to make use of his instructions.
This alone is the valuable thing. But, if I admire nothing but merely the interpretation, what do I become more than a grammarian instead of a philosopher? It is just the case that instead of Homer I interpret Chrysippus.
However, when anyone desires me to read Chrysippus to him, I rather blush when I cannot point to acttion which are in harmony with his teaching.
Overall, should things even be this difficult to interpret? Are we valuing the simple ability to interpret these things, or are we actually valuing specific way of conduct that can be clearly gained from reading the text?
Funnily, I’ve read that quote not that long ago during my morning stoic routine. ^^
My interpretation with regard to the post is that the value is not in being able to interpret but in getting something that makes you more virtuous from it. Which is exactly what this short dialogue tries to capture: me trying to find what to extract from this whole mess without spending an enormous amount of time for the sheer thrill of interpretation.