Today we will be dealing with Epictetus, an early Stoic.

The very first line in the Handbook of Epictetus is "some things are up to us and some are not."

This is the basic premise of the philosophy he holds as it is elaborated within the short book. In regards to most things, the Stoics have a very sophisticated and well-advised philosophy. Similar to the "All is false" — an active Buddhism — Stoics and Epictetus especially stress a nonattachment in life that renders us unmoved by its catastrophes. Do not wail at a loss of property, the land was never yours to begin with. Do not long for more than you need, bottomless feasts don't hold bottomless fulfillment. "Be careful not to moan inwardly" when the loss of your child comes, as what will weigh you down after their death
is not what has happened, but [your] judgment about it." ("If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset.")

I took issue with his approach to death, mainly because I think it's hard to treat your dead child or spouse with indifference — to have my "judgment" of the situation resolve in a calm neutrality--while also treating them properly while they're alive. For how is one to love and cut love off immediately after death? If a fundamental Stoic principle is to follow rational capacity to their conclusion, how are we even to love in the first place?

For how are we ever to treat them right when they are alive if while they are living we set ourselves up to hold the judgment that their body does not matter because we are attempting to avoid the heartbreak we'll feel upon their death? Life is suffering, absolutely. One solution to it is to distance ourselves from everything. However, I think that nonattachment is cowardly and weak. For how strong must someone be to allow themselves to conquer the death of their child? Far stronger than the one who shies away from loving them in the first place.

It is my opinion that it is therefore impossible to act the Stoic presupposition out in life. For how would the Stoic "judgment" look while those they lack care for when dead are still alive? If we accept that it is rationality that brings us together with a partner, and that helps us love our child, then we can accept that it is rationality that will separate us from them when we experience their departure from life. It's easy enough to tell a grieving individual "rational judgment concludes that this person is gone, therefore, you have no business concerning over them."

However, even if we accept this as rational--because it is--but also appropriate, we also have to see how one is to immediately go from a state of loving care to immediate indifference regarding one's shift in sentience. The reason I think this is impossible is because I do not believe it is rationality or reason that bonds humans together, at least not one of a contemplative type.

(It is rational to be attracted to healthy people--as most are and should be--but it is not our choice, as we are biologically disposed to be attracted to those who will embody the most suitable parental role çphysically, and in most cases — therefore it is a kind of overlap, where our emotional desire aims towards a rationalistic outcome. This kind of Darwinism is simple: what keeps living is rationally calculable — health, particularly consistent between partners--and as what keeps living also keeps reproducing, the overlap is bred into us.)

I believe it is an irrational desire that pulls people together. Why are we often so mad at our friends who got back together with an ex that is no good for them? Why do we find ourselves in the same position? Why is it so hard to leave those who hurt us? If we were simply rational beings, we would calculate our way to a calculated reality (which, in my opinion, man would smash in two seconds to make sure spontaneity and destruction still existed!).

No, I believe love is akin to Nietzsche's idea that it is choosing to see someone as they are not. I think it is not "seeing" someone as they are not, but rather "treating" them as something they are not — another area that confuses rationality. Everyone is a liar, everyone is a failure, everyone is dying. Yet, most of us long to treat one (or more than one) person as if they're special, worthy of love and effort--and we often want the same in return.

(Again, it is rationally calculable that this is the best thing to do for societies sake, as we know two-parent households are best for raising kids and single motherhood is the greatest predictor of intergenerational poverty — not to say there aren't incredible sing mothers/ parents who work incredibly hard and support their kids sufficiently. Still, I don't think the acting out of the process by which humans select their mate is rational. I think it is instinctual — as we don't choose to be attracted to someone, we just feel it, it is not calculated, it is realized, as if we could calculate our attraction, heartbreak would be a myth — and even if the process itself is rational, because our actions within it are more based in instinct, and we don't decide instinct--just as we often can't decide the emotions we're to feel — the process wherein we act is subject to our irrational actions.)

Now that we've proven how we're attracted to others not by rational, but instead by instinctual means, we're to see how it is therefore impossible to distance ourselves from emotion in mourning the loss of loved ones.

I concede that the Stoics point something out correctly, that is that we often mourn because we wish death did not have to happen. If your child dies, this is all the more appropriate, as they could've lived a longer life and it would've been appropriate to expect that to happen. Even when people die of natural causes, we wish such a thing didn't happen. I agree with the Stoics with the idea that because death is inevitable, out of our control, and awaiting each of us, we'll have to accept it for all those in our lives — including ourselves.

However, I do not think that the only thing we do when mourning death is wishing for the immortality of the one we've lost. For if that was the only purpose in mourning, how could we ever be satisfied? Is death reversible?

I find that another function in mourning, which brings validity to the non-rational experience of emotion, is that it helps with a rational — some could say divine — realization. For physically, we die. But does not memory live on? Or spirit? Personality? What about gifts the deceased have given? Actions they've contributed?

The dead live in their permanent interactions with the world, and we hold those interactions within our memories, and within our hearts. To mourn is to immortalize that which cannot die — love given, actions taken, and so forth — and also to bury that which has died — a body. (Keep this in mind with regards to yourself, as well, for your good actions are permanent, as are your kind ones, and as are your evil ones — no matter how small, temporary, and insignificant you may think yourself to be).

In the end, it is clear now that we not only draw ourselves closer to our intended partners through irrational means — even if the process itself is evolutionarily rational and Darwinistic (I would say it is not rational also because it is not determined, even though we could be destined for failure) — but that it is only through irrational means that we can ever conquer what we feel through their death.