Question
What does Epictetus mean by richer does not mean better?
Epictetus separates what you have from who you are, and shows why wealth can prove more property without proving more worth.
Updated
The short answer
Epictetus means that having more money or more skill with words only proves you have more property or a better style. It does not prove you are a better person, because you are not the same thing as your property or your style. Being richer or more eloquent are facts about externals, things not up to us, while being better is a fact about character and choice, which is the one thing that is truly ours.
Key points
- Handbook 44 exposes a faulty inference: being richer or more eloquent than someone is used to conclude you are a better person.
- The valid version of the comparison only reaches your property or your style, never you yourself.
- Epictetus states plainly that you are neither property nor style.
- This rests on the dichotomy from Handbook 1 between what is up to us, such as opinion and desire, and what is not, such as property and reputation.
- In the Discourses, Zeus explains that only the faculty of choice was given to be fully ours, which is why wealth cannot make someone better.
- Taking this seriously means separating measurable comparisons, like income or fluency, from claims about character, which need their own evidence.
The longer answer
Epictetus is diagnosing a piece of faulty logic that most people never notice they are using. In Handbook 44 he lays out two arguments side by side. The first goes: I am richer than you, therefore I am better. I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better. He calls these reasonings unconnected, meaning the conclusion does not actually follow from the premise. The valid version of the argument is much narrower: I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours. I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours (Handbook 44).
Notice what the second, valid argument does not say. It never reaches you at all. It only reaches your property, your style, your possessions. Epictetus makes the point explicit: "But you, after all, are neither property nor style" (Handbook 44). Comparing bank accounts or comparing vocabularies tells you something about the bank accounts and the vocabularies. It tells you nothing about the persons who hold them, because a person is not identical to what he owns or how he speaks.
The common misreading here is to hear this as a claim about humility, as if Epictetus were just telling rich or eloquent people not to be arrogant. That is present, but it is not the core of the argument. The real claim is about identity. Handbook 1 opens the whole work by dividing everything into what is up to us and what is not. Opinion, pursuit, desire, and aversion, in a word, whatever are our own actions, are up to us. Body, property, reputation, and command are not (Handbook 1). Wealth and eloquence both sit on the not up to us side of that line. They can be taken from you by fire, by theft, by illness, by circumstance. What is up to us is by nature free and unhindered, and what is not up to us is weak and belongs to others (Handbook 1). If richer meant better, then your goodness as a person would rise and fall with your bank balance, and could be erased by a bad harvest or a bad investment. Epictetus will not accept that a person's worth can be that fragile.
This connects to a claim Epictetus puts in the mouth of Zeus in the Discourses. Zeus explains why the human body and possessions were left exposed to hindrance while one thing was not: 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 (Discourses I 1). That faculty, the faculty of choice, is what Epictetus thinks a person actually is. Property and style are things a person has and uses. Confusing the two, mistaking a larger house for a larger self, is the exact error Handbook 44 is built to block.
Taking this seriously changes how you read comparison itself. When you notice yourself thinking I have more than him, so I am more, or he is more articulate than me, so he is worth more, you can stop and separate the claims. The first half might be true and measurable. The second half is a different kind of claim entirely, one about character, and it needs its own evidence: how the person judges, chooses, and acts, not what he owns or how well he talks. The next time you catch yourself ranking yourself against someone by income, title, or fluency, ask what that ranking has actually shown you. It has shown you something about property or style. It has not touched the question of who is better.
Primary passages
I am richer than you, therefore I am better"; "I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better.
Epictetus, Handbook 44 Read in context
Epictetus states the faulty inference he wants to expose before correcting it.
I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours;" "I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours.
Epictetus, Handbook 44 Read in context
The valid version of the comparison stays confined to property and style, never reaching the person.
But you, after all, are neither property nor style.
Epictetus, Handbook 44 Read in context
The load-bearing line: identity cannot be reduced to what you own or how you speak.
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.
Epictetus, Handbook 1 Read in context
The founding division of the Handbook explains why property sits outside what is truly yours.
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
Epictetus, Discourses I 1 Read in context
Zeus's speech identifies the faculty of choice, not body or property, as what was given to be fully our own.
Important distinctions
Having more versus being more
Epictetus grants that a richer person really does have greater property, and a more eloquent person really does have a better style. What he denies is that either fact transfers to the person's worth as a person. The mistake is treating a true comparison about possessions as if it settled a comparison about character.
Humility versus identity
It is tempting to read Handbook 44 as advice against being smug about wealth. That is a fair side effect, but the deeper claim is about identity: a person is constituted by the faculty of choice, opinion, desire, and aversion, not by external goods. Property and style belong to the class of things not up to us, so they cannot be the measure of a person's excellence.
Objections and replies
Doesn't wealth still reflect good judgment sometimes?
Someone might object that wealth or eloquence can be the product of virtues like discipline or hard work, so a correlation with better character is not absurd.
Epictetus is not denying that virtuous action can sometimes produce wealth or skill. He is denying that the wealth or skill itself is the virtue, or proof of it. Property can be inherited, won by luck, or kept by vice, so it cannot serve as a reliable measure of a person's character.
This can sound like it excuses envy or resentment toward the rich
If wealth says nothing about being better, a reader might use this to dismiss any admiration for people who have earned real skill or resources.
The passage cuts both ways: it also blocks looking down on those with less property or less polished style, since their worth is not diminished by lacking these things either. The point is not to flip the ranking but to stop using property and style as the measure of worth at all.
Practice this in Stoa
Guided courses in the Stoa app that put this into daily practice.
Related questions
-
What does Epictetus mean by things in our control and not in our control?
A close look at the opening line of the Handbook, where Epictetus draws the line between what is up to us and what is not.
-
What is really in my control according to the Stoics?
A look at Epictetus's opening claim in the Handbook: what actually counts as up to you, and why the answer is narrower than most people think.
-
What is the Stoic teaching of the two handles in Epictetus's Handbook?
A short teaching from Epictetus on choosing how to grasp what happens to you, and why that choice is up to you even when the event is not.
-
What maxims does Epictetus recommend keeping ready at hand?
A look at the three quotations Epictetus tells his students to hold close, and what they teach about accepting what is not up to us.
-
How does Epictetus use the metaphor of an actor in a drama to describe our role in life?
A short lesson from the Handbook on why you do not choose your part, only how well you play it.
-
What does Epictetus advise about desire and aversion for beginners?
Epictetus tells the beginner to suspend desire almost entirely and redirect aversion only toward what is truly up to them.
-
Why does Epictetus say to call a dead child or spouse 'returned' rather than 'lost'?
Epictetus reframes loss as a return to correct a false judgment about what was ever yours to keep.
-
How does Epictetus say we should respond when someone insults or wrongs us?
Epictetus argues that a person who insults you is not attacking something of yours, and that this fact should change how you respond.
Podcast discussions
-
Michael Trombley and Caleb on Emily Wilson's Critique of Epictetus
Michael Trombley and Caleb examine classicist Emily Wilson's three criticisms of Epictetus and test whether they hold up against the Discourses and Handbook.
-
The Stoics vs. Plato: Blank Slate or Innate Ideas
Michael Tremblay and Caleb Ontiveros compare the Stoic view of the mind as a blank slate with Plato's theory of innate knowledge, and what each means for self-knowledge.
-
Caleb Ontiveros on Why Stoic Happiness Must Be Up to Us
Caleb Ontiveros and Michael Tremblay lay out and stress-test the Stoic case that happiness must depend on us, not on the world.
-
Is Christopher Nolan's Odyssey More Stoic Than Homer's?
Caleb Ontiveros reads Christopher Nolan's film adaptation of the Odyssey against Stoic ideas about the gods, agency, duty, and perseverance.
-
Ryan Holiday Runs Rome's Stoic Sites
Ryan Holiday narrates a solo 50-kilometer run past Rome's Stoic landmarks to draw out lessons about voluntary hardship and endurance.
-
Stoic Lessons on Power and Complicity from Roman History
Two hosts tour Roman political history to argue that Stoic virtue demanded active participation in public life, not withdrawal from it.
Related concepts, philosophers and works
Sources
- Epictetus, Discourses I Primary text, Stoa library
- Epictetus, Handbook Primary text, Stoa library