Critique of the Control Dichotomy as a Useful Strategy

New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies 

    Greetings to all supporters of practical philosophy.


    Surely everyone interested in the practical aspects of philosophy and inspired by the doctrines of the wise men of ancient Greece has become familiar with the dichotomy of control. Many modern Stoics take this as a fundamental reference for their lives (though they do not necessarily understand the meaning of the original doctrine). I have used this idea myself for a long time along with the rest of Stoic philosophy and I find that this doctrine is not as useful as it is made out to be. I will try to explain my position in this post and I am open to criticism of my positions.

    1. Explaining what this dichotomy is.

    So let's start by explaining what this dichotomy is. In fact, no ancient Stoic except Epictetus uses something like this. The popular dichotomy of control usually involves separating things that are within our control and those that are not. People typically group health, relationships, work, and so on into dependent things. But this doesn't constitute the true dichotomy of control promoted by Epictetus.

    The dichotomy of control, as Epictetus perceived it, was that the only thing that depends on us is prohairesis. Prohairesis means the ability to make judgments. Thus, Epictetus states that relationships, health, or even the body do not fall into this category. The only thing that falls into this category is judgment. It's noticeable that Epictetus doesn't perceive "control" as we do. For him, it simply means something being free from external factors, from obstacles. It's not even control in the sense that we are able to freely shape our thoughts and judgments. According to Epictetus, we can only refine our judgments, but this doesn't mean complete control over this ability in the sense that we can do whatever we want with it. For example, when it's daytime, you can't fool yourself into thinking it's nighttime.

    This view that only judgment matters is connected to the Stoics' general worldview, namely providential determinism. According to the Stoics, everything that happens is planned by providence, and we have a certain part of God within our minds (as described in Epictetus's Discourses). This part of God is the only one not subject to external limitations. Epictetus explains this by saying that fate can bring us all kinds of misfortunes, but it cannot force us to accept truth as falsehood.

    2. Practical criticism

    We can immediately see that this entire doctrine is based on a providential order. Judgments are dependent on us, while everything else is not. This leads to the conclusion that virtue should be the goal of life, because the Stoics interpreted virtue as a form of knowledge (Socratic ethical intellectualism). As we well know from our Epicurean education, concepts such as virtue are ambiguous and difficult to define. Therefore, this can lead to consequences that are detrimental to our happiness. For example, someone might conclude that it is virtuous to always obey one's father because providence placed him in that role. Even if this father harms you or causes you pain, you might conclude that feelings should be ignored in the name of virtue (Epictetus would say that judgment causes suffering, not the event). As the Stoics themselves assume, pleasure and pain are indifferent.

    A consequence of this is the view that mind is superior to matter. Stoics will assume that through changes in judgment, you can generally control your state and thus always be virtuous. But even to truly pursue "virtuous actions" in some way, you must satisfy your needs. Reason is highly dependent on the body. Even bacteria in the stomach can influence the judgments we make. Therefore, Stoics who say that prohairesis is the only thing dependent on us are making a mistake. Even if we accept the view that virtue is crucial in life, the capacity for it is so dependent on the body that it cannot be said that all other things are indifferent.

    3. Summary

    So, moving on to the practical Epicurean perspective, we can conclude that this idea is largely unhelpful. Simply changing our judgments will prevent us from achieving pleasure, as the body is inextricably linked to the mind. Of course, there are certain judgments that, if changed, will affect our state. Examples include the judgments and attitudes we hold toward the gods and the afterlife. But we cannot fill our bellies simply by thinking.

    A person who adheres to the dichotomy of control will avoid planning their life and exerting control over their environment. If someone insults them, rather than severing contact with them, they will assume that it is better to simply change their judgment. This can lead to unnecessary pain. A more practical doctrine is Epicurus's categorization of desires. Epicurus points us to the things that are easiest to achieve and that will give us the most pleasure. At the same time, by categorizing desires, we avoid devaluing our feelings and can achieve true happiness.

    Is there more to this idea of dichotomy of control that we ought to include here? Separating those things that are "within our control" from those that are "not in our control" is one thing. But after you have the two categories, what are you supposed to do with them?

    In going through Cicero's arguments about virtue it's clearly important to separate out virtue (as being under our control) vs other "goods" (which really don't even deserve the name as "good"). But to me the term "dichotomy of control" seems to omit some essential aspects without which it rings to me like "hammer" or "screwdriver."

    What are we supposed to do with it and why?

    Quote from Cassius

    What are we supposed to do with it and why?

    I believe that all concepts can be tested within the Epicurean worldview. In the sense that one can sometimes try to take a concept and adapt it to one's own purpose. In this particular case, I believe that the very idea of a dichotomy of control is useless in the pursuit of pleasure because it leads to the recognition of the superiority of reason over the body. Categorizing desires is much more sensible. Because categorizing desires directs us to reflect on desires in terms of their achievability, leaving much room for flexibility. It seems to me that this criticism may be useful in discussions with uneducated Stoics, because such Stoics often actually strive for mental peace, and not necessarily for what the ancients called "virtue". These Stoics often treat as sacred this principle of dividing dependent and independent things.

    Yes, the only good thing in the control dichotomy in my view is to don’t worry about unchangeable things and to focus on what you can do.

    This is often seen as one of the greatest benefit of Stoicism but it was first in Epicurus Philosophy but without providental goodness for necessity.

    Also there is the own agency stated as a source of causal power besides chance and necessity:

    Letter to Menoeceus


    „[133] Who, then, is superior in thy judgement to such a man? He holds a holy belief concerning the gods, and is altogether free from the fear of death. He has diligently considered the end fixed by nature, and understands how easily the limit of good things can be reached and attained, and how either the duration or the intensity of evils is but slight. Destiny, which some introduce as sovereign over all things, he laughs to scorn, affirming rather that some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency. For he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance or fortune is inconstant; whereas our own actions are free, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach“

    Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus - Epicureanfriends.com
    www.epicureanfriends.com

    Matteng You went right where I was going. Here's my translation of the start of 10.133 (emphasis added):

    [133] "Seeing that, whom do you consider is better or more powerful than one who holds pious beliefs concerning the gods; one who has absolutely no fears concerning death; one who has rationally determined the τέλος of one's natural state; and the one who grasps that, on the one hand, good things (namely pleasures) are both easily attained and easily secured, and, on the other hand, evil things (or pains) are either short in time or brief in suffering; someone who laughs at Fate which is introduced onto the stage of life by many as the mistress of all things? For that person, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves."

    To me. There's almost a "trichotomy of causes" (not a dichtomy of control) for Epicurus:

    • things that happen by necessity
    • things that happen by chance
    • things that happen by our own power

    This goes back to there being no divine plan. If something happens to us and we night to mull or obsess about it, we can look at whether we did something to cause it or was it really by chance or necessity. If something pleasurable or painful happened, we can try to do it or not in the future. If, on the other hand, what happened really was a chance accident, it really was just chance.

    Found this Stoic text which claims that the dichotomy leads to undisturbable happiness.

    The main point is that when you desire no things outside of your control ( like life, health … ) you encounter no „unhappiness“ or when you desire only Virtue you get „complete“ happiness.

    What would you response to such arguments ?

    Core Stoicism
    Core Stoicism by Grant Sterling [A post to the International Stoic Forum, September 19, 2005.] I won't have much time to post for...
    stoicnews.blogspot.com
    Quote from Matteng

    The main point is that when you desire no things outside of your control ( like life, health … ) you encounter no „unhappiness“ or when you desire only Virtue you get „complete“ happiness.I'd start by saying that their definition of "happiness" is absolute BS. No issues of control are even relevant until you forthrightly start with a clear explanation of what "happiness," means without the BS "virtue" overlay.

    It appears that many Stoics are comfortable saying that they have no concerns about life and health. For my part I'd say that unless you have life and at least some degree of health, no happiness is possible.

    This is an unbridgeable divide. The Stoics can go their way and I'll go mine.

    I try to deconstruct it a little bit, point for point, my statements come after "=>":

    => 1) Compatible with Epicurean Philosophy
    2) questionable

    Quote

    Section Two: Negative Happiness
    Th 3) All human unhappiness is caused by having
    a desire or emotional commitment [I will henceforth
    say "desire" for simplicity] to some outcome,
    and then that outcome does not result.

    => 3) Yes ok, but Pain Signals are important Information for life/Health/self preservation

    => 4,5) No, because life/Degree of Health is the foundation of happiness and are not completely in our Control. That´s the reason Epicurus differs between desires

    => 7) Incomplete: not only by our beliefs but also desires are caused by our bodily and psychological Needs and self-preservation. They are not arbitrary.
    So belief/will are in our control and we should only desire them ? But what are they About ? Without Content they are empty and Nothing.

    => 10,11) just a Claim why is virtue good when not for its possible Outcomes ? Vice is in our Control so it would be rational to desire Vice ?

    Quote


    14) Ergo, if we value only virtue, we will both judge truly
    and be immune to all unhappiness.

    => 14) Virtue without Content and positive Outcome is empty and a phantasy. Believing in a positive phantasy can bring some Pleasure but it is short and in the consequence when desiring no positive Outcomes, no happiness will come but suffering.

    => 15,16,17 ) Yes but is Virtue in the Stoic Theory really achievable ? It is very rare and means complete perfection in judging everything.
    So it could be that it is an unreachable desire, in Epicurean teaching: An Empty / Unnatural desire.
    Also this means that you have as a Stoic your whole life no positive Feelings until you are a perfect Sage and all your positive Feelings are doubtful and enjoying them must be seen als irrational. An instruction for unhappiness / depression in my view...

    => 18,19,20) For life/Health and so for happiness it is rational to desire them when they Benefit.

    => 20-22) Stoic Physics. It is inhuman/unnatural to judge harmful Things positive. Accepting necessities is rational but also to learn from them and be motivated to do Things better or protect from bad Things if possible or to Change Things.

    => 23) Ignoring harmful Things can have bad consequences in the Long run and reduces Motivation to Change for better or to value relationships/Things more. Emotions form Values and reminds us how fast we can lose People/Things.

    => 24-26 Is there an difference between desiring and aiming ? Is there aiming without wanting ? Value consists in Feeling the evolutionary psychologists say. So it is an Illusion to think we can value/aim on Things without Feeling/desire. Here reason/logic tries to get rid of (human) Nature.
    Why not end the desire for the external "Life" than you are never "unhappy" but you will die

    Quote

    Th 27) Virtue consists of rational acts of will, vice of
    irrational acts of will.

    => 27) ah.. but vice and irrational Acts of will are in our Control so shouldn´t we desire them ? The logic is not consequent here.

    => 28-end) So the Stoic Sage has good Feelings about pursuing (without desire) on rational aims but not on the Content of the aims….
    So they are just happy About their thoughts and Need Nothing else but their own inner mind and everything outside of the mind they rationally choose but don´t want…..
    So in Terms of Epicurus desires: They deny the natural/necessary desire for Health and Life but pursue only the desire for Eudaimonia the happy life.

    I think there are extreme situations in which Epicureans come the same conclusions for example when choosing to die for family/friend.
    But in general I think Life/Health and choosing the risks of pain from missed Outcomes from Externals must be taken for Eudaimonia.

    Quote

    Th 1) Everyone wants happiness.

    i would say from the very first sentence you are not defining what happiness means, so that it would be unproductive to evaluate anything after that starting point without more specifity.

    Matt there is something else I want to add. I see that you are going through a long sequence of statements about Stoicism and analyzing the logic of them. Anytime I get confronted with a long intricate chain argument, I always remember this from Lucian's Hermotimus:

    Quote

    Perhaps an illustration will make my meaning clearer: when one of those audacious poets affirms that there was once a three-headed and six-handed man, if you accept that quietly without questioning its possibility, he will proceed to fill in the picture consistently—six eyes and ears, three voices talking at once, three mouths eating, and thirty fingers instead of our poor ten all told; if he has to fight, three of his hands will have a buckler, wicker targe, or shield apiece, while of the other three one swings an axe, another hurls a spear, and the third wields a sword. It is too late to carp at these details, when they come; they are consistent with the beginning; it was about that that the question ought to have been raised whether it was to be accepted and passed as true. Once grant that, and the rest comes flooding in, irresistible, hardly now susceptible of doubt, because it is consistent and accordant with your initial admissions.

    That is just your case; your love-yearning would not allow you to look into the facts at each entrance, and so you are dragged on by consistency; it never occurs to you that a thing may be self- consistent and yet false; if a man says twice five is seven, and you take his word for it without checking the sum, he will naturally deduce that four times five is fourteen, and so on ad libitum. This is the way that weird geometry proceeds: it sets before beginners certain strange assumptions, and insists on their granting the existence of inconceivable things, such as points having no parts, lines without breadth, and so on, builds on these rotten foundations a superstructure equally rotten, and pretends to go on to a demonstration which is true, though it starts from premises which are false.

    Just so you, when you have granted the principles of any school, believe in the deductions from them, and take their consistency, false as it is, for a guarantee of truth. Then with some of you, hope travels through, and you die before you have seen the truth and detected your deceivers, while the rest, disillusioned too late, will not turn back for shame: what, confess at their years that they have been abused with toys all this time? so they hold on desperately, putting the best face upon it and making all the converts they can, to have the consolation of good company in their deception; they are well aware that to speak out is to sacrifice the respect and superiority and honor they are accustomed to; so they will not do it if it may be helped, knowing the height from which they will fall to the common level. Just a few are found with the courage to say they were deluded, and warn other aspirants. Meeting such a one, call him a good man, a true and an honest; nay, call him philosopher, if you will; to my mind, the name is his or no one's; the rest either have no knowledge of the truth, though they think they have, or else have knowledge and hide it, shamefaced cowards clinging to reputation.

    So while I am fine if others here want to go through the details of Stoic chain reasoning, my own recommendation is to follow what Lucian advises:

    Start with their fundamental presumptions and don't get drawn into an argument about self-consistency. The Stoics are very good about drawing up self-consistent arguments that are absolute nonsense when you examine their premises. Whatever good there might be in examining whether an issue is under your control or not (and indeed there may be some good in that) their overall use of the argument poisons any benefit from traveling very far down their road.


    I wouldn't advise traveling a step with them beyond those steps in which you are sure you agree.

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

Here is a list of suggested search strategies:

  • Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
  • Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
  • Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
  • Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
  • Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.