Grammarian, or Philosophical Mind?

Epictetus was known for being a little bit harsh. There's an opinion I've been convinced of that he wasn't a particularly happy man because, at least in his Roman era (before he moved back to Greece and started his own school), he was stuck teaching the disinterested children of influential and wealthy aristocrats, kids who were only taking his philosophy training to benefit their professional careers later.

Imagine you're a highly specialised, passionate instructor of some niche topic and most of your class is just there for the credit hours. You probably wouldn't be the cheeriest either.

Some suggest it was Epictetus's take on how "reading isn't everything" that led people to stop reading Stoic texts and to attempt to sort out living them on their own (oof). I don't think that's true, but who's to say?

Either way, I'm sure it was his grumpiness that led him to rebuke his students so often.

In one specific instance of this rebuking, Epictetus is really taking a slice out of those who believe didactic study is all that's necessary to call oneself a philosopher, or to have the nature of one (those only engaging in philosophical training for the sake of their CVs or social status):

When a man is proud because he can understand and explain the writings of Chrysippus, say to yourself, If Chrysippus had not written obscurely, this man would have had nothing to be proud of. But what is it that I wish? To understand Nature and to follow it. I inquire therefore who is the interpreter: and when I have heard that it is Chrysippus, I come to him. But I do not understand what is written, and therefore I seek the interpreter. And so far there is yet nothing to be proud of. But when I shall have found the interpreter, the thing that remains is to use the precepts. This itself is the only thing to be proud of. But if I shall admire the exposition, what else have I been made unless a grammarian instead of a philosopher?

— Epictetus, Enchiridion 49 (trans. George Long)

Stoicism has a lot of useful maxims and one-liners. You've probably got a few saved on your phone right now. What you must keep in mind, persistently, is that these motivating quotes and phrases lose all meaningful utility if you understand them only as clever zingers or powerful "bring the hammer down" assertions from strong-willed and intelligent men.

The use of Stoicism is only partially in what is written about it.

The other half of Stoicism's utility is in understanding what's written to the degree that consistent, ever-improving practice becomes possible and, at some point, attractive to you, such that you actually begin that practice.

We're not disposed to this sort of approach (to morality and ethics) any longer. The vicissitudes of religious doctrine and of life itself have given most of us a kind of skepticism and anxious mistrust of the idea that any doctrine could, whole cloth, resolve our woes and make us complete (look at all the bad actors who have used religion or philosophy to cheat, steal, and deceive since... forever).

But the truth is, as much as Stoicism was ever able to do so, it is still capable of providing a framework that gives you every answer to every question of meaning and fulfilment you seek...

...but those answers don't reveal themselves to you on the printed pages of old books. They reveal themselves in practice.

So, are you practicing after you put the books down... or are you not?