Skip to content

Concept

The dichotomy of control

You will learn why Epictetus draws a hard line between what is up to us and what is not, and why that line is about identity and value, not stress management.

Updated

Definition

The dichotomy of control is Epictetus's division of everything into what is up to us, namely our own judgments, desires, and actions, and what is not up to us, everything external including our body, property, and reputation. Only what is up to us is truly free and can be called good or bad.

Key points

  • Epictetus divides everything into what is up to us, our own judgments and actions, and what is not up to us, everything external.
  • The Greek eph' hemin means up to us, not control, and the test is whether anything external can hinder the thing once you will it.
  • Only what is up to us can be good or bad, so externals like health, reputation, and even life and death are not, as such, good or evil.
  • The popular reading turns this into a calm-down technique, but the deeper claim is about identity, you are your faculty of choice, and about where value lives.
  • Confidence and caution are not opposites to be balanced but attitudes to be sorted, caution toward the will, confidence toward everything else.
  • The doctrine does not ask you to stop acting or caring, it asks you to stop staking your good on what you cannot secure.

Explanation

The claim, stated plainly

Epictetus opens the Handbook with a division: "Some things are in our control and others not" (Handbook 1). What is up to us is "opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions." Everything else, "body, property, reputation, command," belongs to the second category (Handbook 1). There is no word for "control" in the phrase. That is not a translation quibble. It changes what the doctrine is claiming.

Notice the test Epictetus uses to sort things. Things up to us are "by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered." Things not up to us are "weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others" (Handbook 1). The test is not whether you can influence something. It is whether anything external can stop it once you will it. Your health, your career, your reputation can all be pushed and shaped, but none of them can be guaranteed against interference. Only your own judgments, your assent to an impression, your desires and aversions, are yours in this strict sense. Epictetus makes the anatomy explicit in the Discourses: education is learning to distinguish "will and all acts which depend on the will" from "the body, the parts of the body, possessions, parents, brothers, children, country" (Discourses I 22).

The popular misreading

The common version of this idea, repeated in self-help form, says: focus on what you can influence and let go of the rest, and you will feel calmer. That is not false exactly, but it flattens the doctrine into a stress-management tip. It misses the two claims Epictetus is actually making.

The first is about identity. You are, at bottom, your faculty of choice, what Epictetus calls prohairesis, the faculty of using impressions well. In Discourses I 1 he has Zeus explain why: the gods could not make your body or your property free from hindrance, because you exist bound to a body and to other people. So they gave you instead "this faculty of pursuing an object and avoiding it, and the faculty of desire and aversion, and, in a word, the faculty of using the appearances of things" (Discourses I 1), and told you to treat it as your only real possession.

The second claim is about value. Epictetus does not say externals matter less. He says they are not good or bad at all. If you locate good or evil in health, reputation, or how a trial goes, you will inevitably blame people and gods when things go the other way, because those things are, in the end, not yours to secure.

What actually changes

Marcus Aurelius applies the same division to a narrower and more usable target: opinion itself. "It is in our power to have no opinion about a thing, and not to be disturbed in our soul; for things themselves have no natural power to form our judgements" (Meditations 6.52). Take away the judgment that something is harmful, he adds, and you stand secure, and the "self" doing the taking-away is reason (Meditations 8.40). The discipline is not to stop caring about outcomes. It is to stop staking your good on outcomes you cannot secure.

This produces a distinctive move Epictetus calls having confidence and caution in the right places at once. Caution belongs only to what depends on your will, because that is where a bad exercise of the will is genuinely possible. Confidence belongs to everything else, because "things independent of our will do not admit either the nature of evil nor of good" (Discourses II 1). This is not bravado. It is a redirection of the very faculties of fear and boldness toward the only place they can do any good.

The hardest version, and the objection

Taken seriously, this means your health, your career, your child's safety, even your own life, are not, as such, good or bad. Epictetus says it without softening: if a stronger man drags you off by your cloak or throws you in prison, "every thing which happens, if it be independent of my will, is nothing to me" (Discourses I 29). That is the radical claim, not a hedge.

The obvious objection is that this looks like indifference to real harm, or a doctrine only a person with nothing to lose could afford. Epictetus's answer is that indifference is not what follows. You still act, still pursue health and avoid pain, still prefer the outcome that accords with nature. What changes is where you put your final verdict of good and bad. Marcus states the positive residue of the doctrine, not just its subtraction: it is in your power "piously to acquiesce in your present condition, and to behave justly to those who are about you" (Meditations 7.54). The dichotomy does not empty your life of engagement. It relocates the one thing you can never lose. As Marcus puts it, "no man can rob us of our free will" (Meditations 11.36).

A fair reply to the objection still leaves work to do: this is not a claim that pain does not hurt or that loss does not matter as a preferred or dispreferred thing. It is a claim about what makes a life good, and it asks you to stop borrowing your sense of worth from what was never fully yours to keep.

Historical context

The doctrine opens Epictetus's Handbook, a short manual of Stoic practice compiled from his teaching by his student Arrian. Epictetus, a former slave who became a philosophy teacher, returns to the same division throughout his Discourses, and Marcus Aurelius, writing his private journal generations later, applies it repeatedly to the discipline of judgment.

Important philosophers

  • Epictetus Epictetus argues that freedom does not come from your circumstances but from correctly sorting what is up to you from what is not.

Primary-source passages

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others.

Epictetus, Handbook 1 Read in context

The opening line of the Handbook and the definition Epictetus gives the whole tradition.

I have given you a small portion of us, this faculty of pursuing an object and avoiding it, and the faculty of desire and aversion, and, in a word, the faculty of using the appearances of things; and if you will take care of this faculty and consider it your only possession, you will never be hindered, never meet with impediments; you will not lament, you will not blame, you will not flatter any person.

Epictetus, Discourses I 1 Read in context

Epictetus frames the doctrine as a gift with a condition: treat this faculty as your only possession.

withdrawing yourself from things not in our own control, and placing good or evil in those only which are.

Epictetus, Handbook 31 Read in context

This is the value claim, not just a coping strategy: good and evil belong only to what is up to us.

It is in our power to have no opinion about a thing, and not to be disturbed in our soul; for things themselves have no natural power to form our judgements.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 6.52 Read in context

Marcus narrows the doctrine to its sharpest point: judgment itself.

For if the bad consists in a bad exercise of the will, caution ought only to be used where things are dependent on the will. But if things independent of the will and not in our power are nothing to us, with respect to these we must employ confidence

Epictetus, Discourses II 1 Read in context

Shows the dichotomy is not passivity: it redirects caution and confidence to their proper objects.

I have learned to see that every thing which happens, if it be independent of my will, is nothing to me.

Epictetus, Discourses I 29 Read in context

The hard, undiluted version of the claim, stated by a man who has been dragged off and imprisoned.

No man can rob us of our free will.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 11.36 Read in context

The positive core left standing once everything not up to us is set aside.

Disagreements and interpretations

The self-help reading

The most common reading treats this as a productivity or serenity tool: sort your worries into two piles, work on the one you can affect, and stop wasting energy on the other. This captures something real, and it is a reasonable first step for a beginner. But it treats the dichotomy as a technique for feeling better, when Epictetus presents it as a claim about what you are and what counts as good.

The identity and value reading

On this reading, which is the one the texts support most directly, the dichotomy tells you that you are your faculty of choice, and that only what is up to us can be good or bad. Externals are not devalued to a lesser kind of good. They are removed from the category of good and evil altogether. This is the harder and, we think, the accurate reading of Handbook 1 and Discourses I 22.

A determinist reading (signed as contestable)

Because Stoic physics holds that the universe is a deterministic whole, some readers push the dichotomy further: even your judgments are caused, so up to us marks not an exemption from causation but the place where the causal chain runs through your own reasoning rather than around it. Epictetus does not spell out this metaphysical picture in the passages here, so this reading should be held loosely.

Practice this in Stoa

Guided courses in the Stoa app that put this into daily practice.

Questions involving dichotomy of control

  • Discourses I by Epictetus Epictetus's students recorded his classroom talks, and Book I lays out the single distinction his whole philosophy rests on: what is up to us and what is not.
  • Discourses II by Epictetus This book of Epictetus's lectures shows how confidence and caution, courage and care, can coexist once you sort the world correctly into what is up to you and what is not.
  • Discourses III by Epictetus This book of the Discourses trains the reader to locate good and evil in the will alone, and to test every impression, from a beautiful face to a dead son, against what is and is not up to us.
  • Discourses IV by Epictetus This book asks what freedom actually is, and argues that almost no one who thinks he has it, has it.
  • Handbook by Epictetus A short, blunt manual for telling what is up to you from what is not, and building your life on the first.
  • Meditations by Marcus Aurelius A Roman emperor's private notebook of Stoic exercises shows what it looks like to practice philosophy under real pressure, not just write about it.

Sources

  1. Epictetus, Discourses I Primary text, Stoa library
  2. Epictetus, Discourses II Primary text, Stoa library
  3. Epictetus, Handbook Primary text, Stoa library
  4. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Primary text, Stoa library