I have noticed lately that despite of years of reading various literature I do not really know any "classics". I mean by that any books that I'd especially relate to and depend on for supporting me in one way or another. There have been many books that have influenced me, but none in a specific way. I've decided to try to counteract with a couple of deep readings. First was Seneca's letters, but as it usually happens to me I got distracted and ended up reading Enchiridion. So let it be. Here will be my notes regarding The Stoic Manual:
I recommend Gregory B. Sadler's reading of Enchiridion, it's a useful commentary to help you understand and digest the book: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcAWwXKC0MNr9SrKoUFWeQtGltQIG7DyY
One of most fundamental Stoic principles. We control our actions, desires and opinions. Everything else is outside of our control. To live well, as what we control is liberating and makes us independent, we have to reject bothering with the latter completely, and recognise it as sort of an illusion.
I am not sure how far do I agree with this principle. Sadler states that Stoic anthropology is different from the Platonic one as it doesn't distinguish between human affects and thoughts. Trying to comment upon it from my life experience, it always seemed to me that my thoughts and abstract ideas on how should I act to achieve happiness were often at odds with my emotions and desires. In this sense the vague idea of what Platonic writings would say about the nature of our mind (I haven't read most of them, yet.) seems to be closer to that experience. Still, if we'd try to understand the integrity of thought and desire as a thing within our control, then perhaps we can understand that by tweaking with the most controllable part of our mind (Thought), we can try to shape the space in which our emotions exist, and try to directly control whatever is still outside of that thought space.
On one hand, this vision sounds very promising on useful, but on another, I wonder if there's any strong argument that can be made against or for its validity. So far I just stick to trying to practice the stoic theory to some degree (Which is somewhat at odds with Epictetus, but I hope that not in the worst parts), both as to not break my resolve and because I am not really sure what my goals are yet. I have read a couple of Seneca's letters that seemed more... hesistant about fully getting detached from the external things. With more practice and reading perhaps I'll be able to understand these matters better.
Any demand or aversion requires attaining the object it rests upon, thus it is necessary to desire and be averse only to things which are appropriate and within our control. It is this or falling into misfortune.
Remind yourself of the nature of whatever you're fond of, so you don't grieve losing it.
This position is a bit puzzling, since the way way Epictetus describes this principle doesn't hint unambiguously. Epictetus advocates with starting small, taking a jug for example. He recommends reminding oneself that if one really enjoys their jug, they should see just as a jug. Sadler in his commentary puts emphasis on how this nature is temporary, and thus a jug is delicate and might break during daily use. Epictetus then takes another example, now with a serious matter. He recommends giving the same treatment to a person - If you love someone, remember that they're just a human being. Some translators translating the human in this passage as "a mortal" (Higgison and Rolleston), even though Epictetus uses simply "anthropon" (Unfortunately, I can't get the Greek font to work), meaning human, makes it seem like Sadler isn't alone in that interpretation.