I conclude that Epictetus, who was a religious man, and who believed in the existence of God and his administration of all things, did not deny a future life; nor does he say that he believes it. I conclude that he did not understand it; that it was beyond his conception, as the nature of God also was. His great merit as a teacher is that he attempted to show that there is in man's nature and in the constitution of things sufficient reason for living a virtuous life."[1] He knew well what man's nature is, and he endeavoured to teach us how we can secure happiness in this life as far as we are capable of attaining it.
More might be said; but this is enough. I will only add that the Stoics have been charged with arrogance; and the charge is just. Epictetus himself has been blamed for it even by modern theologians, who are not always free from this fault themselves. If there is any arrogance or apparent arrogance in Epictetus, he did not teach it, for he has especially warned us against this fault, as the reader will see in several passages.
- ↑ I am not sure that I rightly understood the Apostle Paul, when I wrote the note 22 in p. 283. The words "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die," are said to be a quotation from a Greek writer. The words then may be taken not as Paul's, but as the conclusion of foolish persons. A friend who, as I understand his remarks, is of this opinion, also adds that as Paul was a learned man, and knew something about the Greek philosophers, he would certainly give them credit for better and more rational opinions. This may be the true meaning of the words. Paul is not always easy to understand, even by those who make a special study of his Epistles.
