Be a Loser if Need Be | The Philosophy of Epictetus

Is being a loser a bad thing? It depends on how you look at it. Stoic philosopher Epictetus said some valuable things about what we generally pursue in life. Achievements that today’s society views as hallmarks of success, like wealth and fame, Epictetus saw as insignificant compared to the things that are truly worth living for and can only be found within. He observed that the ongoing pursuit of achievement and validation withholds us from acquiring something far superior: a blissful state unchanged by the whims of the unreliable outside circumstances, including the opinions of others.

But we’re so afraid to be seen as losers that we're willing to suffer in exchange for other people’s approval. What a sad state of being in, as by putting our money on external goods, we become dependent on them and gamble away our chances of being happy and free. According to Epictetus, we must be willing to let go of what he called “lesser things.” And if that means that we become total losers in the eyes of society, then that’s a price worth paying. This video doesn’t advocate for neglecting oneself or self-harm: quite the contrary, from a Stoic point of view.

It explores the philosophy of Epictetus, showing a different way to determine what’s important in life, the concept of “being a loser,” and why being “seen” as a loser doesn’t have to be a bad thing. By the way, you’ll find more Stoic wisdom in this book - Stoicism for Inner Peace - which contains my collected works on remaining calm and focused. You’ll find a link in the description.

What is a loser? The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides us with a definition that fits the subject of this video, and I quote: a person who is incompetent or unable to succeed. End quote. But competence and success are in the eye of the beholder. When is someone competent? Some people would regard a person as competent, while others would see that same person as incompetent. The same goes for success. When is someone successful? Building and running a small business like a hair salon is a success for many people. For others, success means putting people on another planet.

The definitions of competence and success are continuously changing with the zeitgeist, depending on certain social atmospheres and sectors of the population, and also on culture and religion. So, the concept of being a “loser” is pretty fluid, vague, and fundamentally means nothing more than what other people make of it. However, suppose we put this idea of “loserdom” in the context of today’s consumerist, capitalist societies. In that case, we see that it’s deeply linked to acquiring external things, especially money and fame.

People have a specific overall picture of what they need to be complete, which varies across the board. For many, it’s a well-paying job, a good-looking partner, the 2.3 kids, and the white picket fence. For others, this picture includes having a large following on social media and a large, interesting social circle that serves as proof of desirability. And what if you don’t comply with the overall picture? Then you’re a loser. You’re incompetent of acquiring what’s generally desired and thus, unable to succeed in life.

Tragically enough, being a loser is a double whammy. It means that you not just failed in the eyes of others but also that you’re ridiculed because of it. But how desirable is it to have what we ought to have in the first place? And how bad is it to be ridiculed if we don’t have it? Here’s where Epictetus comes in. What is it that we want? What makes material possessions, extreme wealth, or Instagram fame so appealing? Simply put, it’s their promise of happiness that makes us want to pursue them.

We fantasize about a world in which boatloads of people adore us while enjoying cocktails on the beach, raking in the comments and likes on our social media pages. How great this must feel. And for a while, such a life may be great, but eventually, we’ll get used to it and return to our baseline happiness, which now comes with a much bigger price tag. Epictetus didn’t hold these external goods in high regard. He described them as weak, slavish, and, most importantly, beyond our control.

In chasing things like wealth and fame, we pursue the unreliable, as we chase what can be taken away in a heartbeat. Also, the pursuit of these things comes with a significant cost: a price that many are willing to pay, but they sacrifice a lot doing so. As an example, he uses someone who wants to “conquer at the Olympic games,” which is, today, still a pursuit that, if one succeeds, generates lots of respect. But he also urges us to consider the sacrifice we have to make and the extent to which this benefits us.

I quote: You must conform to rules, submit to a diet, refrain from dainties; exercise your body, whether you choose it or not, at a stated hour, in heat and cold; you must drink no cold water, nor sometimes even wine. In a word, you must give yourself up to your master, as to a physician. Then, in the combat, you may be thrown into a ditch, dislocate your arm, turn your ankle, swallow dust, be whipped, and, after all, lose the victory. End quote. So, is this worth it? Is it wise to undergo such toil, just for, as Marcus Aurelius put it, “a clacking of tongues?” Especially if we think public praise is fickle and can change into public shame in the blink of an eye?

“These things are not consistent,” said Epictetus. And he emphasized that only things within our control are worth pursuing, which are inner qualities like contentment, joy, right action, tranquility, and the power of restraint. The rest is overrated and belongs on the backburner. Epictetus repeatedly distinguishes between what things are and the appearance we have of them in our minds. For example, he tells us that there’s a difference between how we see our loved ones and what they truly are.

Even though a man sees his wife and children as unique and desirable above all other wives and children, they’re still just human beings like everyone else. How they appear in our minds makes them special to us, not what they are in themselves, without our judgment. We can apply this logic to everything external. What makes the object we chase so desirable? Is it the object in itself? Or is it the way we perceive that object? We are often and unsurprisingly a flock of sheep that want what they want simply because everyone else wants it.

Also, we don’t want what everyone else doesn’t want, which is being a loser. Now, not that it’s inherently wrong to want what others want. In many cases, what the majority pursues can be beneficial regarding health and well-being. But in many other cases, it’s not. And it takes some wisdom and common sense to determine if we’re better off not pursuing what everyone else seeks. Epictetus prioritized a state of happiness and freedom over anything else and stated that we should be willing to quit the things that impede it. If that means that we are losers in the eyes of others, then so be it.

What’s so bad about being a loser? Is it truly an unfortunate fate? Or do we perceive it as unfortunate because others make it so? Let’s say we’ve got enough to satisfy our basic needs, but we have pretty much nothing going on in all other areas of life. We don’t have interesting social circles, we don’t have partners, we have no social media followers, and the jobs we work aren’t great or unique. Consequently, people call us losers, implying that we are somehow less than those who utter this observation.

Being perceived as ‘less’ by others frightens people, as it’s a direct attack on their egos: the stories they tell themselves about themselves. But is one truly less because he lacks certain external circumstances? Is someone rich and famous better than someone poor and unknown? According to Epictetus’ logic, such reasoning is pretty nonsensical. I quote: These reasonings are unconnected: “I am richer than you, therefore I am better”; “I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better.” The connection is rather this: “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.” But you, after all, are neither property nor style. End quote.

Our outside circumstances don’t say much about our inner well-being, which is truly important from a Stoic point of view. Yet, we find them very important, so much so that we’re willing to sacrifice our happiness and freedom to be seen as ‘sufficient’ and not as ‘less’ by the masses. So, again, being a loser isn’t a bad thing in itself. It’s what we make of it. If we see things like public praise, reputation, and the estimation of others, just as they are, namely: opinions that are fickle, unreliable, often worthless, based on delusion and false appearances, and totally beyond our control, we may find it easier to become indifferent to them.

Then, we’ll realize that being a loser is not terrible. Being a loser doesn’t hinder our ability to be happy and free; trying so hard not to be, does. I quote: Let death and exile, and all other things which appear terrible, be daily before your eyes, but death chiefly; and you will never entertain any abject thought, nor too eagerly covet anything. End quote. No matter what direction we decide to go, we’ll have to pay the price nonetheless. The question is: what price are we willing to pay?

Epictetus makes a clear distinction between these two options, as he stated: “Be either a philosopher or one of the vulgar.” Being vulgar (the option most people choose) comes with a cost: our inner well-being. We pay the price required to attain what’s considered desirable, like wealth and praise, meaning that we exchange our freedom, health, and inner peace, to participate in the rat race and to keep up with the Joneses. Being a philosopher means that we pay the price of probably not having, or at least not pursuing, what the vulgar want.

So, it’s very likely that we live a very sober, obscure, simplistic lifestyle, devoid of external pleasure: in the eyes of many, the archetypical loser. But, according to Epictetus, a true philosopher always puts inner peace and happiness above everything else, even work, money, and hunger. I quote: If you want to improve, reject such reasonings as these: “If I neglect my affairs, I'll have no income; if I don’t correct my servant, he will be bad.” For it is better to die with hunger, exempt from grief and fear, than to live in affluence with perturbation; and it is better your servant should be bad, than you unhappy. End quote.

But although this may sound a tad extreme, Epictetus is leastwise consistent in prioritizing what he thinks is truly valuable. To be unconquerable by anything, we must be willing to lose everything. Anything external we hold on to, even the most minor thing, automatically wields power over our mental state. Leaving all this behind is a tough road, with many obstacles, little external recompense, and even loss and resistance. I quote: You’ll have to forego your ease, work hard, leave people behind, be despised by menials, be laughed at, and get crumbs at best when it comes to recognition and position – in all affairs. Consider these costs, and see if you’re willing to pay them to gain peace, freedom and tranquillity. If you’re not willing, stay away from philosophy. End quote.

So, you’re a loser in other people’s eyes? Are you laughed at and even despised? At first sight, this might seem a terrible thing. The reputation of being a loser looks like a weak and pitiful position. But it also has its advantages, namely, that we don’t conform to other people’s rules and maintain the energy that we would’ve otherwise spent on what Epictetus called “lesser things,” just to be seen as sufficient. In short, being a loser comes with the benefit of ‘not paying the price for not being one.’ And, ironically enough, that could make a loser a winner.

Drawing from Epictetus’ words, one must have the wisdom to decide what’s truly beneficial and the strength to stick with that consistently, with a disregard for things like praise, riches, power, and social standing. As he stated: “(..) don’t wish to be a general, or a senator, or a consul, but to be free; and the only way to this is a contempt of things not in our own control.” Thank you for watching.