The Enchiridion, or Manual, of Epictetus
ptypes.com
ptypes.com
My favored translation of the first line is: Some things are up to us, and some things are not up to us.
The Manual is a great introduction (and perhaps largest contribution) of the Stoic school of ancient philosophy. It's also by by far the most practical of any philosophical document that I've ever read, though it's a bit light on pragmatic responses and, perhaps, realism.
After reading the Manual, it's hard not to live by its suggestions. In particular, my favorite suggestion is to relish good moments by pausing and remarking to yourself explicitly what makes the moment good. I believe the example Epictetus picks to illustrate this concept is a child, but perhaps it's a bowl or woman in actuality; when Epictetus notices the positive emotions that looking at his child/bowl/woman gives him, he stops and professes something along the lines of, "my child/bowl/woman is wonderful, and I am happy to have experienced my time with him/it/her. I love this child/bowl/woman."
It's a good way to appreciate what you have, and to reject negativity when it's not something you can control.
The primary hazard of Stoicism is passivity, of course. A trend of declaring some things as up to you and other things as not up to you can feed onto itself, leading you to write off responsibility when it isn't directly and unmissably yours. Conversely, a control-freak would endlessly fret about the things that are "up to him" when in reality they might be only tangentially or abstractly so.
I definitely recommend everyone read the Manual. At a minimum, it's a new and orderly perspective on how to experience life and deal with the good and bad. There's some conceptual overlap with Buddhism from what I understand.
You really think so? The former is just an anglicization of the latter. Manus is Latin for hand, and you can still hear this in French main Spanish mano etc.
"Handbook" implies action, portability, and usefulness.
XL. Women forthwith from the age of fourteen are called by the men mistresses (dominae). Therefore since they see that there is nothing else that they can obtain, but only the power of lying with men, they begin to decorate themselves, and to place all their hopes in this. It is worth our while then to take care that they may know that they are valued (by men) for nothing else than appearing (being) decent and modest and discreet.
"Men have a low opinion of women, and women perceive this, and see no path to achievement in their own right, bound as they are by the perception of their gender, so they remit and play the game, decorating themselves and seek achievement by association with a man (e.g. any number of political wives, often from more successful families than their husbands). We would be better to advise them to reject this line of thinking." I took it as implicit that women who chose the "descent and modest and discreet" path would then preserve a (subversive) path to achievement.
Not exactly a progressive feminist view, in the modern context, but I imagine consistent with what he would tell his own daughter. The Stoics would have been aware of notable female leaders and thus would consider themselves foolish if they did not admit that a women could be equal if not superior to men within any given group, in terms of intrinsic reasoning capacity.