essay on power lies within you

His tongue was framed to music, And his hand was armed with skill, His face was the mould of beauty, And his heart the throne of will.

There is not yet any inventory of a man's faculties, any more than a bible of his opinions. Who shall set a limit to the influence of a human being? There are men, who, by their sympathetic attractions, carry nations with them, and lead the activity of the human race. And if there be such a tie, that, wherever the mind of man goes, nature will accompany him, perhaps there are men whose magnetisms are of that force to draw material and elemental powers, and, where they appear, immense instrumentalities organize around them. Life is a search after power; and this is an element with which the world is so saturated, — there is no chink or crevice in which it is not lodged, — that no honest seeking goes unrewarded. A man should prize events and possessions as the ore in which this fine mineral is found; and he can well afford to let events and possessions, and the breath of the body go, if their value has been added to him in the shape of power. If he have secured the elixir, he can spare the wide gardens from which it was distilled. A cultivated man, wise to know and bold to perform, is the end to which nature works, and the education of the will is the flowering and result of all this geology and astronomy.

All successful men have agreed in one thing, — they were causationists . They believed that things went not by luck, but by law; that there was not a weak or a cracked link in the chain that joins the first and last of things. A belief in causality, or strict connection between every trifle and the principle of being, and, in consequence, belief in compensation, or, that nothing is got for nothing, — characterizes all valuable minds, and must control every effort that is made by an industrious one. The most valiant men are the best believers in the tension of the laws. "All the great captains," said Bonaparte, "have performed vast achievements by conforming with the rules of the art, — by adjusting efforts to obstacles."

The key to the age may be this, or that, or the other, as the young orators describe; — the key to all ages is — Imbecility; imbecility in the vast majority of men, at all times, and, even in heroes, in all but certain eminent moments; victims of gravity, custom, and fear. This gives force to the strong, — that the multitude have no habit of self-reliance or original action.

We must reckon success a constitutional trait. Courage, — the old physicians taught, (and their meaning holds, if their physiology is a little mythical,) — courage, or the degree of life, is as the degree of circulation of the blood in the arteries. "During passion, anger, fury, trials of strength, wrestling, fighting, a large amount of blood is collected in the arteries, the maintenance of bodily strength requiring it, and but little is sent into the veins. This condition is constant with intrepid persons." Where the arteries hold their blood, is courage and adventure possible. Where they pour it unrestrained into the veins, the spirit is low and feeble. For performance of great mark, it needs extraordinary health. If Eric is in robust health, and has slept well, and is at the top of his condition, and thirty years old, at his departure from Greenland, he will steer west, and his ships will reach Newfoundland. But take out Eric, and put in a stronger and bolder man, — Biorn, or Thorfin, — and the ships will, with just as much ease, sail six hundred, one thousand, fifteen hundred miles further, and reach Labrador and New England. There is no chance in results. With adults, as with children, one class enter cordially into the game, and whirl with the whirling world; the others have cold hands, and remain bystanders; or are only dragged in by the humor and vivacity of those who can carry a dead weight. The first wealth is health. Sickness is poor-spirited, and cannot serve any one: it must husband its resources to live. But health or fulness answers its own ends, and has to spare, runs over, and inundates the neighborhoods and creeks of other men's necessities.

All power is of one kind, a sharing of the nature of the world. The mind that is parallel with the laws of nature will be in the current of events, and strong with their strength. One man is made of the same stuff of which events are made; is in sympathy with the course of things; can predict it. Whatever befalls, befalls him first; so that he is equal to whatever shall happen. A man who knows men, can talk well on politics, trade, law, war, religion. For, everywhere, men are led in the same manners .

The advantage of a strong pulse is not to be supplied by any labor, art, or concert. It is like the climate, which easily rears a crop, which no glass, or irrigation, or tillage, or manures, can elsewhere rival. It is like the opportunity of a city like New York, or Constantinople, which needs no diplomacy to force capital or genius or labor to it. They come of themselves, as the waters flow to it. So a broad, healthy, massive understanding seems to lie on the shore of unseen rivers, of unseen oceans, which are covered with barks, that, night and day, are drifted to this point. That is poured into its lap, which other men lie plotting for. It is in everybody's secret; anticipates everybody's discovery; and if it do not command every fact of the genius and the scholar, it is because it is large and sluggish, and does not think them worth the exertion which you do.

This affirmative force is in one, and is not in another, as one horse has the spring in him, and another in the whip. "On the neck of the young man," said Hafiz, "sparkles no gem so gracious as enterprise." Import into any stationary district, as into an old Dutch population in New York or Pennsylvania, or among the planters of Virginia, a colony of hardy Yankees, with seething brains, heads full of steam-hammer, pulley, crank, and toothed wheel, — and everything begins to shine with values. What enhancement to all the water and land in England, is the arrival of James Watt or Brunel! In every company, there is not only the active and passive sex, but, in both men and women, a deeper and more important sex of mind , namely, the inventive or creative class of both men and women, and the uninventive or accepting class. Each plus man represents his set, and, if he have the accidental advantage of personal ascendency, — which implies neither more nor less of talent, but merely the temperamental or taming eye of a soldier or a schoolmaster, (which one has, and one has not, as one has a black moustache and one a blond,) then quite easily and without envy or resistance, all his coadjutors and feeders will admit his right to absorb them. The merchant works by book-keeper and cashier; the lawyer's authorities are hunted up by clerks; the geologist reports the surveys of his subalterns; Commander Wilkes appropriates the results of all the naturalists attached to the Expedition; Thorwaldsen's statue is finished by stone-cutters; Dumas has journeymen; and Shakespeare was theatre-manager, and used the labor of many young men, as well as the playbooks.

There is always room for a man of force, and he makes room for many. Society is a troop of thinkers, and the best heads among them take the best places. A feeble man can see the farms that are fenced and tilled, the houses that are built. The strong man sees the possible houses and farms. His eye makes estates, as fast as the sun breeds clouds.

When a new boy comes into school, when a man travels, and encounters strangers every day, or, when into any old club a new comer is domesticated, that happens which befalls, when a strange ox is driven into a pen or pasture where cattle are kept; there is at once a trial of strength between the best pair of horns and the new comer, and it is settled thenceforth which is the leader. So now, there is a measuring of strength, very courteous, but decisive, and an acquiescence thenceforward when these two meet. Each reads his fate in the other's eyes. The weaker party finds, that none of his information or wit quite fits the occasion. He thought he knew this or that: he finds that he omitted to learn the end of it. Nothing that he knows will quite hit the mark, whilst all the rival's arrows are good, and well thrown. But if he knew all the facts in the encyclopaedia, it would not help him: for this is an affair of presence of mind, of attitude, of aplomb: the opponent has the sun and wind, and, in every cast, the choice of weapon and mark; and, when he himself is matched with some other antagonist, his own shafts fly well and hit. 'Tis a question of stomach and constitution. The second man is as good as the first, — perhaps better; but has not stoutness or stomach, as the first has, and so his wit seems over-fine or under-fine.

Health is good, — power, life, that resists disease, poison, and all enemies, and is conservative, as well as creative. Here is question, every spring, whether to graft with wax, or whether with clay; whether to whitewash or to potash, or to prune; but the one point is the thrifty tree. A good tree, that agrees with the soil, will grow in spite of blight , or bug, or pruning, or neglect, by night and by day, in all weathers and all treatments. Vivacity, leadership, must be had, and we are not allowed to be nice in choosing. We must fetch the pump with dirty water, if clean cannot be had. If we will make bread, we must have contagion, yeast, emptyings, or what not, to induce fermentation into the dough: as the torpid artist seeks inspiration at any cost, by virtue or by vice, by friend or by fiend, by prayer or by wine. And we have a certain instinct, that where is great amount of life, though gross and peccant, it has its own checks and purifications, and will be found at last in harmony with moral laws.

We watch in children with pathetic interest, the degree in which they possess recuperative force. When they are hurt by us, or by each other, or go to the bottom of the class, or miss the annual prizes, or are beaten in the game, — if they lose heart, and remember the mischance in their chamber at home, they have a serious check. But if they have the buoyancy and resistance that preoccupies them with new interest in the new moment, — the wounds cicatrize, and the fibre is the tougher for the hurt.

One comes to value this plus health, when he sees that all difficulties vanish before it. A timid man listening to the alarmists in Congress, and in the newspapers, and observing the profligacy of party, — sectional interests urged with a fury which shuts its eyes to consequences, with a mind made up to desperate extremities, ballot in one hand, and rifle in the other, — might easily believe that he and his country have seen their best days, and he hardens himself the best he can against the coming ruin. But, after this has been foretold with equal confidence fifty times, and government six per cents have not declined a quarter of a mill, he discovers that the enormous elements of strength which are here in play, make our politics unimportant. Personal power, freedom, and the resources of nature strain every faculty of every citizen. We prosper with such vigor, that, like thrifty trees, which grow in spite of ice, lice, mice, and borers, so we do not suffer from the profligate swarms that fatten on the national treasury. The huge animals nourish huge parasites, and the rancor of the disease attests the strength of the constitution. The same energy in the Greek Demos drew the remark, that the evils of popular government appear greater than they are; there is compensation for them in the spirit and energy it awakens. The rough and ready style which belongs to a people of sailors, foresters, farmers, and mechanics, has its advantages. Power educates the potentate. As long as our people quote English standards they dwarf their own proportions. A Western lawyer of eminence said to me he wished it were a penal offence to bring an English law-book into a court in this country, so pernicious had he found in his experience our deference to English precedent. The very word 'commerce' has only an English meaning, and is pinched to the cramp exigencies of English experience. The commerce of rivers, the commerce of railroads, and who knows but the commerce of air-balloons, must add an American extension to the pond-hole of admiralty. As long as our people quote English standards, they will miss the sovereignty of power; but let these rough riders, — legislators in shirt-sleeves, — Hoosier, Sucker, Wolverine, Badger, — or whatever hard head Arkansas, Oregon, or Utah sends, half orator, half assassin, to represent its wrath and cupidity at Washington, — let these drive as they may; and the disposition of territories and public lands, the necessity of balancing and keeping at bay the snarling majorities of German, Irish, and of native millions, will bestow promptness, address, and reason, at last, on our buffalo-hunter, and authority and majesty of manners . The instinct of the people is right. Men expect from good whigs, put into office by the respectability of the country, much less skill to deal with Mexico, Spain, Britain, or with our own malcontent members, than from some strong transgressor, like Jefferson, or Jackson, who first conquers his own government, and then uses the same genius to conquer the foreigner. The senators who dissented from Mr. Polk's Mexican war, were not those who knew better, but those who, from political position, could afford it; not Webster, but Benton and Calhoun.

This power, to be sure, is not clothed in satin. 'Tis the power of Lynch law, of soldiers and pirates; and it bullies the peaceable and loyal. But it brings its own antidote; and here is my point, — that all kinds of power usually emerge at the same time; good energy, and bad; power of mind, with physical health; the ecstasies of devotion, with the exasperations of debauchery. The same elements are always present, only sometimes these conspicuous, and sometimes those; what was yesterday foreground, being to-day background, — what was surface, playing now a not less effective part as basis. The longer the drought lasts, the more is the atmosphere surcharged with water. The faster the ball falls to the sun, the force to fly off is by so much augmented. And, in morals, wild liberty breeds iron conscience; natures with great impulses have great resources, and return from far. In politics, the sons of democrats will be whigs; whilst red republicanism, in the father, is a spasm of nature to engender an intolerable tyrant in the next age. On the other hand, conservatism, ever more timorous and narrow, disgusts the children, and drives them for a mouthful of fresh air into radicalism.

Those who have most of this coarse energy, — the 'bruisers,' who have run the gauntlet of caucus and tavern through the county or the state, have their own vices, but they have the good nature of strength and courage. Fierce and unscrupulous, they are usually frank and direct, and above falsehood. Our politics fall into bad hands, and churchmen and men of refinement, it seems agreed, are not fit persons to send to Congress. Politics is a deleterious profession, like some poisonous handicrafts. Men in power have no opinions, but may be had cheap for any opinion, for any purpose, — and if it be only a question between the most civil and the most forcible, I lean to the last. These Hoosiers and Suckers are really better than the snivelling opposition. Their wrath is at least of a bold and manly cast. They see, against the unanimous declarations of the people, how much crime the people will bear; they proceed from step to step, and they have calculated but too justly upon their Excellencies, the New England governors, and upon their Honors, the New England legislators. The messages of the governors and the resolutions of the legislatures, are a proverb for expressing a sham virtuous indignation, which, in the course of events, is sure to be belied.

In trade, also, this energy usually carries a trace of ferocity. Philanthropic and religious bodies do not commonly make their executive officers out of saints. The communities hitherto founded by Socialists, — the Jesuits, the Port-Royalists, the American communities at New Harmony, at Brook Farm, at Zoar, are only possible, by installing Judas as steward. The rest of the offices may be filled by good burgesses. The pious and charitable proprietor has a foreman not quite so pious and charitable. The most amiable of country gentlemen has a certain pleasure in the teeth of the bull-dog which guards his orchard. Of the Shaker society, it was formerly a sort of proverb in the country, that they always sent the devil to market. And in representations of the Deity, painting, poetry, and popular religion have ever drawn the wrath from Hell. It is an esoteric doctrine of society, that a little wickedness is good to make muscle; as if conscience were not good for hands and legs, as if poor decayed formalists of law and order cannot run like wild goats, wolves, and conies; that, as there is a use in medicine for poisons, so the world cannot move without rogues; that public spirit and the ready hand are as well found among the malignants. 'Tis not very rare, the coincidence of sharp private and political practice, with public spirit, and good neighborhood.

I knew a burly Boniface who for many years kept a public-house in one of our rural capitals. He was a knave whom the town could ill spare. He was a social, vascular creature, grasping and selfish. There was no crime which he did not or could not commit. But he made good friends of the selectmen, served them with his best chop, when they supped at his house, and also with his honor the Judge, he was very cordial, grasping his hand. He introduced all the fiends, male and female, into the town, and united in his person the functions of bully, incendiary, swindler, barkeeper, and burglar. He girdled the trees, and cut off the horses' tails of the temperance people, in the night. He led the 'rummies' and radicals in town-meeting with a speech. Meantime, he was civil, fat, and easy, in his house, and precisely the most public-spirited citizen. He was active in getting the roads repaired and planted with shade-trees; he subscribed for the fountains, the gas, and the telegraph; he introduced the new horse-rake, the new scraper, the baby-jumper, and what not, that Connecticut sends to the admiring citizens. He did this the easier, that the peddler stopped at his house, and paid his keeping, by setting up his new trap on the landlord's premises.

Whilst thus the energy for originating and executing work, deforms itself by excess, and so our axe chops off our own fingers, — this evil is not without remedy. All the elements whose aid man calls in, will sometimes become his masters, especially those of most subtle force. Shall he, then, renounce steam, fire, and electricity, or, shall he learn to deal with them? The rule for this whole class of agencies is, — all plus is good; only put it in the right place.

Men of this surcharge of arterial blood cannot live on nuts, herb-tea, and elegies; cannot read novels, and play whist; cannot satisfy all their wants at the Thursday Lecture, or the Boston Athenaeum. They pine for adventure, and must go to Pike's Peak; had rather die by the hatchet of a Pawnee, than sit all day and every day at a counting-room desk. They are made for war, for the sea, for mining, hunting, and clearing; for hair-breadth adventures, huge risks, and the joy of eventful living. Some men cannot endure an hour of calm at sea. I remember a poor Malay cook, on board a Liverpool packet, who, when the wind blew a gale, could not contain his joy; "Blow!" he cried, "me do tell you, blow!" Their friends and governors must see that some vent for their explosive complexion is provided. The roisters who are destined for infamy at home, if sent to Mexico, will "cover you with glory," and come back heroes and generals. There are Oregons, Californias, and Exploring Expeditions enough appertaining to America, to find them in files to gnaw, and in crocodiles to eat. The young English are fine animals, full of blood, and when they have no wars to breathe their riotous valors in, they seek for travels as dangerous as war, diving into Maelstroms; swimming Hellesponts; wading up the snowy Himmaleh; hunting lion, rhinoceros, elephant, in South Africa; gypsying with Borrow in Spain and Algiers; riding alligators in South America with Waterton; utilizing Bedouin, Sheik, and Pacha, with Layard; yachting among the icebergs of Lancaster Sound; peeping into craters on the equator; or running on the creases of Malays in Borneo.

The excess of virility has the same importance in general history, as in private and industrial life. Strong race or strong individual rests at last on natural forces, which are best in the savage, who, like the beasts around him, is still in reception of the milk from the teats of Nature. Cut off the connection between any of our works, and this aboriginal source, and the work is shallow. The people lean on this, and the mob is not quite so bad an argument as we sometimes say, for it has this good side. "March without the people," said a French deputy from the tribune, "and you march into night: their instincts are a finger-pointing of Providence, always turned toward real benefit. But when you espouse an Orleans party, or a Bourbon, or a Montalembert party, or any other but an organic party, though you mean well, you have a personality instead of a principle, which will inevitably drag you into a corner."

The best anecdotes of this force are to be had from savage life, in explorers, soldiers, and buccaneers. But who cares for fallings-out of assassins, and fights of bears, or grindings of icebergs? Physical force has no value, where there is nothing else. Snow in snow-banks, fire in volcanoes and solfataras is cheap. The luxury of ice is in tropical countries, and midsummer days. The luxury of fire is, to have a little on our hearth: and of electricity, not volleys of the charged cloud, but the manageable stream on the battery-wires. So of spirit, or energy; the rests or remains of it in the civil and moral man, are worth all the cannibals in the Pacific.

In history, the great moment is, when the savage is just ceasing to be a savage, with all his hairy Pelasgic strength directed on his opening sense of beauty: — and you have Pericles and Phidias, — not yet passed over into the Corinthian civility. Everything good in nature and the world is in that moment of transition, when the swarthy juices still flow plentifully from nature, but their astringency or acridity is got out by ethics and humanity.

The triumphs of peace have been in some proximity to war. Whilst the hand was still familiar with the sword-hilt, whilst the habits of the camp were still visible in the port and complexion of the gentleman, his intellectual power culminated: the compression and tension of these stern conditions is a training for the finest and softest arts, and can rarely be compensated in tranquil times, except by some analogous vigor drawn from occupations as hardy as war.

We say that success is constitutional; depends on a plus condition of mind and body, on power of work, on courage; that it is of main efficacy in carrying on the world, and, though rarely found in the right state for an article of commerce, but oftener in the supersaturate or excess, which makes it dangerous and destructive, yet it cannot be spared, and must be had in that form, and absorbents provided to take off its edge.

The affirmative class monopolize the homage of mankind. They originate and execute all the great feats. What a force was coiled up in the skull of Napoleon! Of the sixty thousand men making his army at Eylau, it seems some thirty thousand were thieves and burglars. The men whom, in peaceful communities, we hold if we can, with iron at their legs, in prisons, under the muskets of sentinels, this man dealt with, hand to hand, dragged them to their duty, and won his victories by their bayonets.

This aboriginal might gives a surprising pleasure when it appears under conditions of supreme refinement, as in the proficients in high art. When Michel Angelo was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel in fresco, of which art he knew nothing, he went down into the Pope's gardens behind the Vatican, and with a shovel dug out ochres, red and yellow, mixed them with glue and water with his own hands, and having, after many trials, at last suited himself, climbed his ladders, and painted away, week after week, month after month, the sibyls and prophets. He surpassed his successors in rough vigor, as much as in purity of intellect and refinement. He was not crushed by his one picture left unfinished at last. Michel was wont to draw his figures first in skeleton, then to clothe them with flesh, and lastly to drape them. "Ah!" said a brave painter to me, thinking on these things, "if a man has failed, you will find he has dreamed instead of working. There is no way to success in our art, but to take off your coat, grind paint, and work like a digger on the railroad, all day and every day."

Success goes thus invariably with a certain plus or positive power: an ounce of power must balance an ounce of weight. And, though a man cannot return into his mother's womb, and be born with new amounts of vivacity, yet there are two economies, which are the best succedanea which the case admits. The first is, the stopping off decisively our miscellaneous activity, and concentrating our force on one or a few points; as the gardener, by severe pruning, forces the sap of the tree into one or two vigorous limbs, instead of suffering it to spindle into a sheaf of twigs.

"Enlarge not thy destiny," said the oracle: "endeavor not to do more than is given thee in charge." The one prudence in life is concentration; the one evil is dissipation: and it makes no difference whether our dissipations are coarse or fine; property and its cares, friends, and a social habit, or politics, or music, or feasting. Everything is good which takes away one plaything and delusion more, and drives us home to add one stroke of faithful work. Friends, books, pictures, lower duties, talents, flatteries, hopes, — all are distractions which cause oscillations in our giddy balloon, and make a good poise and a straight course impossible. You must elect your work; you shall take what your brain can, and drop all the rest. Only so, can that amount of vital force accumulate, which can make the step from knowing to doing. No matter how much faculty of idle seeing a man has, the step from knowing to doing is rarely taken. 'Tis a step out of a chalk circle of imbecility into fruitfulness. Many an artist lacking this, lacks all: he sees the masculine Angelo or Cellini with despair. He, too, is up to Nature and the First Cause in his thought. But the spasm to collect and swing his whole being into one act, he has not. The poet Campbell said, that "a man accustomed to work was equal to any achievement he resolved on, and, that, for himself, necessity not inspiration was the prompter of his muse."

Concentration is the secret of strength in politics, in war, in trade, in short, in all management of human affairs. One of the high anecdotes of the world is the reply of Newton to the inquiry, "how he had been able to achieve his discoveries?" — "By always intending my mind." Or if you will have a text from politics, take this from Plutarch: "There was, in the whole city, but one street in which Pericles was ever seen, the street which led to the market-place and the council house. He declined all invitations to banquets, and all gay assemblies and company. During the whole period of his administration, he never dined at the table of a friend." Or if we seek an example from trade, — "I hope," said a good man to Rothyschild, "your children are not too fond of money and business: I am sure you would not wish that." — "I am sure I should wish that: I wish them to give mind, soul, heart, and body to business, — that is the way to be happy. It requires a great deal of boldness and a great deal of caution, to make a great fortune, and when you have got it, it requires ten times as much wit to keep it. If I were to listen to all the projects proposed to me, I should ruin myself very soon. Stick to one business, young man. Stick to your brewery, (he said this to young Buxton,) and you will be the great brewer of London. Be brewer, and banker, and merchant, and manufacturer, and you will soon be in the Gazette."

Many men are knowing, many are apprehensive and tenacious, but they do not rush to a decision. But in our flowing affairs a decision must be made, — the best, if you can; but any is better than none. There are twenty ways of going to a point, and one is the shortest; but set out at once on one. A man who has that presence of mind which can bring to him on the instant all he knows, is worth for action a dozen men who know as much, but can only bring it to light slowly. The good Speaker in the House is not the man who knows the theory of parliamentary tactics, but the man who decides off-hand. The good judge is not he who does hair-splitting justice to every allegation, but who, aiming at substantial justice, rules something intelligible for the guidance of suitors. The good lawyer is not the man who has an eye to every side and angle of contingency, and qualifies all his qualifications, but who throws himself on your part so heartily, that he can get you out of a scrape. Dr. Johnson said, in one of his flowing sentences, "Miserable beyond all names of wretchedness is that unhappy pair, who are doomed to reduce beforehand to the principles of abstract reason all the details of each domestic day. There are cases where little can be said, and much must be done."

The second substitute for temperament is drill, the power of use and routine. The hack is a better roadster than the Arab barb. In chemistry, the galvanic stream, slow, but continuous, is equal in power to the electric spark, and is, in our arts, a better agent. So in human action, against the spasm of energy, we offset the continuity of drill. We spread the same amount of force over much time, instead of condensing it into a moment. 'Tis the same ounce of gold here in a ball, and there in a leaf. At West Point, Col. Buford, the chief engineer, pounded with a hammer on the trunnions of a cannon, until he broke them off. He fired a piece of ordnance some hundred times in swift succession, until it burst. Now which stroke broke the trunnion? Every stroke. Which blast burst the piece? Every blast. "Diligence passe sens," Henry VIII. was wont to say, or, great is drill. John Kemble said, that the worst provincial company of actors would go through a play better than the best amateur company. Basil Hall likes to show that the worst regular troops will beat the best volunteers. Practice is nine tenths. A course of mobs is good practice for orators. All the great speakers were bad speakers at first. Stumping it through England for seven years, made Cobden a consummate debater. Stumping it through New England for twice seven, trained Wendell Phillips. The way to learn German, is, to read the same dozen pages over and over a hundred times, till you know every word and particle in them, and can pronounce and repeat them by heart. No genius can recite a ballad at first reading, so well as mediocrity can at the fifteenth or twentieth readying. The rule for hospitality and Irish 'help,' is, to have the same dinner every day throughout the year. At last, Mrs. O'Shaughnessy learns to cook it to a nicety, the host learns to carve it, and the guests are well served. A humorous friend of mine thinks, that the reason why Nature is so perfect in her art, and gets up such inconceivably fine sunsets, is, that she has learned how, at last, by dint of doing the same thing so very often. Cannot one converse better on a topic on which he has experience, than on one which is new? Men whose opinion is valued on 'Change, are only such as have a special experience, and off that ground their opinion is not valuable. "More are made good by exercitation, than by nature," said Democritus. The friction in nature is so enormous that we cannot spare any power. It is not question to express our thought, to elect our way, but to overcome resistances of the medium and material in everything we do. Hence the use of drill, and the worthlessness of amateurs to cope with practitioners. Six hours every day at the piano, only to give facility of touch; six hours a day at painting, only to give command of the odious materials, oil, ochres, and brushes. The masters say, that they know a master in music, only by seeing the pose of the hands on the keys; — so difficult and vital an act is the command of the instrument. To have learned the use of the tools, by thousands of manipulations; to have learned the arts of reckoning, by endless adding and dividing, is the power of the mechanic and the clerk.

I remarked in England, in confirmation of a frequent experience at home, that, in literary circles, the men of trust and consideration, bookmakers, editors, university deans and professors, bishops, too, were by no means men of the largest literary talent, but usually of a low and ordinary intellectuality, with a sort of mercantile activity and working talent. Indifferent hacks and mediocrities tower, by pushing their forces to a lucrative point, or by working power, over multitudes of superior men, in Old as in New England.

I have not forgotten that there are sublime considerations which limit the value of talent and superficial success. We can easily overpraise the vulgar hero. There are sources on which we have not drawn. I know what I abstain from. I adjourn what I have to say on this topic to the chapters on Culture and Worship. But this force or spirit, being the means relied on by Nature for bringing the work of the day about, — as far as we attach importance to household life, and the prizes of the world, we must respect that. And I hold, that an economy may be applied to it; it is as much a subject of exact law and arithmetic as fluids and gases are; it may be husbanded, or wasted; every man is efficient only as he is a container or vessel of this force, and never was any signal act or achievement in history, but by this expenditure. This is not gold, but the gold-maker; not the fame, but the exploit.

If these forces and this husbandry are within reach of our will, and the laws of them can be read, we infer that all success, and all conceivable benefit for man, is also, first or last, within his reach, and has its own sublime economies by which it may be attained. The world is mathematical, and has no casualty, in all its vast and flowing curve. Success has no more eccentricity, than the gingham and muslin we weave in our mills. I know no more affecting lesson to our busy, plotting New England brains, than to go into one of the factories with which we have lined all the watercourses in the States. A man hardly knows how much he is a machine, until he begins to make telegraph, loom, press, and locomotive, in his own image. But in these, he is forced to leave out his follies and hindrances, so that when we go to the mill, the machine is more moral than we. Let a man dare go to a loom, and see if he be equal to it. Let machine confront machine, and see how they come out. The world-mill is more complex than the calico-mill, and the architect stooped less. In the gingham-mill, a broken thread or a shred spoils the web through a piece of a hundred yards, and is traced back to the girl that wove it, and lessens her wages. The stockholder, on being shown this, rubs his hands with delight. Are you so cunning, Mr. Profitloss, and do you expect to swindle your master and employer, in the web you weave? A day is a more magnificent cloth than any muslin, the mechanism that makes it is infinitely cunninger, and you shall not conceal the sleezy, fraudulent, rotten hours you have slipped into the piece, nor fear that any honest thread, or straighter steel, or more inflexible shaft, will not testify in the web.

Ralph Waldo Emerson left the ministry to pursue a career in writing and public speaking. Emerson became one of America's best known and best-loved 19th-century figures. More About Emerson

Quick Links

Self-reliance.

• Address at Divinity College
• English Traits
• Representative Men
• The American Scholar
• The Conduct of Life
• Essays: First Series
• Essays: Second Series
• Nature: Addresses/Lectures
• Lectures / Biographies
• Letters and Social Aims

Early Emerson Poems

• Uncollected Prose
• Government of Children

Emerson Quotes

"Every man has his own courage, and is betrayed because he seeks in himself the courage of other persons." – Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”  – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson's Essays

Research the collective works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Read More Essay

Emerson's most famous work that can truly change your life. Check it out

America's best known and best-loved poems. More Poems

• Aleksandra Eifler
• Feb 22, 2019

Your True Power Is Not What You’ve Been Told

(To see the original post by Aleksandra Eifler click here)

YOUR TRUE POWER IS NOT WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD.

I remember being told that being powerful means having money, having titles, being loud and extroverted, being special, or being somehow “chosen”. We live with the misconception of what is truly your power. Those unrealistic ideas make many of us think we’ll never be successful and we’ll never be powerful.

Fortunately, I have great news for you; the truth of your power is far from that. In fact, your power lies within you, it lies within your belief. However, this fact is far from simple, and needs to be explored further.

YOUR TRUE POWER LIES WITHIN YOUR BELIEF.

What does “Your true power lies within your belief” really mean? It means you must:

Believe that you can unleash your own superpowers!

Believe without doubt that you can and will fulfill your desires.

Believe so deeply that it creates a level of intensity in your thinking so that your desire becomes a burning obsession.

Visualize it and emotionalize it vividly.

You have to believe at the level where you know that you can overcome any obstacles that may arise. That you will pay any price. You will give and do whatever it takes to achieve your goal.

When you believe like this, you invoke the superpowers of your mind and your alter reality.

Here is the truth about power: Being of power means to connect what you do to who you are. Being of power influences and alters your actions, sensations, feelings, and emotions.

DOING: If you are of power, you:

Serve others, not just yourself.

Show up and are reliable.

Shape the future in ways to help, not harm.

BEING: If you are of power, you:

Are accepting: You’re not in denial.

Are grateful: You celebrate successes.

Are generous: You’re kind and considerate of others (but not at the cost of self).

Practice stillness: The result not always comes from doing. Work smarter, not harder.

FINDING YOUR TRUE POWER

True power comes alive when you love what you do; when what you do aligns with your values and you follow your intuition and creativity. The more time we spend doing in these spaces, the more we are true to who we are.

In true power, you are easily focused. You are motivated, disciplined. You have a vision and you create your own future.

True power is everywhere and in everyone around us. You’ll realize that less fortunate does not mean less courageous or less of power. Which means YOU are of power! Step up to the opportunity to be in your power and be the part of the solution for today’s world.

LIVING IN YOUR TRUE POWER

Living in your true power is a choice. Look deeper into the areas below to discover your powers within:

Power of intuition: Trust your inner knowing, that sensation in your gut.

Power of vulnerability: It’s ok to be highly sensitive and introverted, to feel more aligned with yourself than with others.

Power of being yourself: Identify your uniqueness and amplify it, allow your true self to shine.

Power of living your life purpose: Let your inner flow guide you and lead you to your ultimate purpose.

Power of facing your fears: Move forward gently towards your fears, no longer allowing fear to dictate your decisions

The idea is simply that we endeavor to become more in touch with who we are, what we’re capable of, and what we want out of life. We bring together our emotional and physical health, dedication to effective communication, and personal as well as professional relationships. If you feel rather stuck in knowing who you are, read more in my blog: I Feel Stuck In My Life – What Do I Do?

In this attempt to better define and understand ourselves, we become better equipped to deal with others. We set priorities, take initiative, and solve problems. With this ability to influence people in order to get things done, we become leaders for our community.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Don’t let NO stop you. Don’t be afraid to fail. Obstacles are detours in the right direction. You are stronger than fear tells you, embrace your power.

You are worthy of influence and leadership. Claim your worthiness today and choose to release any blockage that is stopping you from being the leader you were born to be.

Mantra: I was born to be bold. I was born to lead.

Warmly, Aleksandra

Follow Aleksandra on IG : @aleksandraeifler

For more posts by Aleksandra visit: www.infuseyourself.life

To contact Aleksandra: call 786.879.1030 or email [email protected]

Recent Posts

Three things you can do this February to have a better 2021:

What Have We Learned From COVID-19? - Financial Planning is Essential

December 2020 - A New Type of Self Assessment

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

The power is within you

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

2,483 Previews

29 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

EPUB and PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by Tracey Gutierres on July 11, 2012

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

What Epictetus Really Thinks Is in Our Power

January 17, 2017 by Greg Sadler 13 Comments

Of things that exist, some are in our power and some are not in our power. Those that are in our power are conception, choice, desire, aversion, and in a word, those things that are our own doing. Those that are not under our control are the body, property or possessions, reputation, positions of authority, and in a word, such things that are not our own doing.

The Discourses themselves begin with a chapter titled “On what is in our power and what is not in our power.” There Epictetus doesn’t provide a similar listing, separating off one side from another. He does, however, introduce another key point about what does lie in our power. We possess, as an integral part of what it means to be a human being, something that in that passage he calls the “rational faculty” ( hē dunamis hē logike ), and at other points in his work, the “ruling faculty” ( to hēgemonikon ) and the “faculty of choice” ( hē prohairesis ). As a side note, the identity of these three is an interesting part of Epictetus’ psychology; for a recent treatment of it, you can watch this talk .

Whatever aspect we wish to understand this faculty through, in book 1, chapter 1 of the Discourses , Epictetus points out that unlike other faculties or capacities, it is reflexive—that is, it applies to itself, not only by being self-contemplating, but even by taking positions of value upon itself. It also, in some sense, calls the shots for all of the other faculties, capacities, or skills of the human being. It is the highest part of a human person, really the core of who one is. And, as he points out, it is what is most in our own power. He calls this a “faculty of choice and refusal, of desire and aversion” and the faculty that “makes use of ” or, if you prefer, “deals with,” what we typically translate as “appearances” or “external impressions,”  phantasiai .

So, to start with, we have a distinction that is absolutely central to Epictetus’s Stoic philosophy, one that he returns to over and over again throughout the two works of his that we possess. Given that these are compilations of selections from his actual teaching and conversations, this means anyone who spent much time with Epictetus would have heard him invoke, apply, draw inferences from, and clarify this distinction many times. In fact, “what is in our power” and “what is not in our power” are, as he mentions, among the “general conceptions” or “preconceptions” ( proleipseis ), akin to other conceptions like good and evil, justice and injustice, what is rational and what is irrational, duty and what is against duty. There’s much more to be said about this sometimes confusing topic of preconceptions in Epictetus’s thought (I’m working on another post elsewhere about that particular issue), but suffice it to say that what is in our power and what is not, like these other conceptions, both plays an absolutely central role in Epictetus’s Stoic ethics, and tends to be something we human beings consistently get wrong.

Why This Distinction Matters So Much

By the time that we might encounter Stoic philosophy, decide to study it, and determine a need to apply it within our own lives, typically we have already developed some strongly rooted habits that apply to what is in our power and what is not in our power. Some of these even have to do with what sorts of matters we think fall on one side of the divide or the other. When a person, for example, believes that their financial resources or their social status is a matter entirely or primarily within his or her control, Epictetus would consider that person to have an erroneous perspective on those things, even if that person’s experience seems up to that point to bear out his or her way of applying the distinction.

A bigger issue concerning the distinction, however, has to do with value and disvalue. The Stoics consistently—indeed even paradoxically —asserted that some things were good, some bad, and that the others, strictly speaking, were morally indifferent. In certain of the authors, it is virtue that is the sole good and vice that is the only genuine evil, so that other things that we typically consider good—wealth, health, fame, opportunities, comfort, pleasure, and the like—or generally consider bad—poverty, disease, pain, and so forth—are not really so. They are morally indifferent, neutral, neither good nor bad. The Stoic position as a whole is, of course, more complex than that, distinguishing “preferred” and “rejected” indifferents, those that conduced to or contributed in some way to the good or to the bad—but again, I’m going to just mention that, and move on.

In Epictetus’ works, there’s significantly less talk about virtue and vice by comparison to those of other Stoics. Instead, he frames matters in terms of what is and what is not in our power, and more specifically in terms of what falls within the scope of the faculty of choice and what does not. What is good or evil for a person is what falls on the side of what is in that person’s power, what falls within the scope of their faculty of choice; what they can do , or at least decide about . What is not in a person’s power, what does not fall within the scope of their faculty of choice (often because it is determined by someone else’s faculty of choice) is—again, strictly speaking—neither good nor bad. It is external, and as such indifferent, at least for that person (since it could also be good or bad for other persons).

That’s definitely not the way most people, or even most moral theories, regard matters. Insofar as that is the case, Epictetus would say that they’re mistaken. Worse, they thereby set themselves up for a lot of unnecessary trouble—getting upset, experiencing negative and excessive emotions—being “hindered,” as the Stoics put it. So long as our views about what is outside of ourselves, external to our own faculty of choice or our ruling faculty, are that genuine good and bad reside out there, our desires and aversions, following naturally, even automatically, along the lines sketched out by our thoughts and opinions, will seek the good for us out there in external matters. And we will largely end up unsuccessful in getting what it is that we want and avoiding what it is we don’t want.

Stoicism proposes instead an ongoing discipline of deliberately withdrawing one’s desires and aversions from external matters and applying them to what lies within one’s own person. So, getting this distinction right—what is in our power and what is not—turns out to be integral to understanding and practicing Stoic philosophy as a way of life. And that seems simple enough when first expressed or explained. Make this clear and straightforward distinction. Apply the distinction along the lines Epictetus and other Stoics made it. Follow it out consistently. And then, at least in the range of things that you do have control over, your life will get a lot simpler and better.

Following that course won’t—or rather, it is very unlikely to—bring you riches or property, fame or prestige, positions of power, or even dinner invitations (a topic Epictetus mentions quite frequently!). It might have some positive effects upon bodily health, if you’ve behaving temperately in terms of eating, drinking, exercise, and the like, but that’s not at all the point to it. Those things aren’t where the genuine good you’re seeking or the genuine evil you’re avoiding reside. Those lie within the person, strictly speaking in the faculty of choice that is the lasting core of the person. And we do indeed have a choice to make with that faculty: do we focus primarily on what lies within our power, on using it well and improving it, or do we allow ourselves to be drawn into becoming more and more distracted by all those things that are not in our power?

Understandable Objections and Irvine’s Trichotomy

Invariably, whenever I’ve presented Epictetus’ views to students, and proposed that they consider how adopting those views would affect the life they are currently living, their aspirations and goals, their present priorities, there’s an initial positive response. And then, the same objections arise. “Wait, he’s saying I have no control at all over my own body? But that’s clearly wrong! I can decide for myself whether I exercise or not, whether I do risky things with my body or not, how much (if at all) I drink, how much and what kind of foods I eat.” Students are entirely right to bring up these sorts of objections, not least given how uncompromising Epictetus seems to be in insisting that the body is, strictly speaking, outside of our control.

Similar objections can be brought up (and usually are fairly quickly) about several of the other things that Epictetus asserts to lie outside of our control. Money is one of those. I can (and generally do) decide how I spend my money, for example whether I do so prudently or extravagantly. I do determine whether I look for remunerative work or not. And if I have a job that brings in some income, it does seem up to me whether I meet the requirements for keeping that job. Social approval or status may seem a bit more difficult to affect or control through our own choices, at least if our goal is to have and enjoy more of these. But we can easily throw both of those away by engaging in behavior guaranteed to damage or destroy them.

Now, as I’ll discuss in the next section, Epictetus does address some of these sorts of matters quite reasonably in other parts of his Discourses . Before that, though, let’s look at a way in which one contemporary Stoic, William Irvine , deals with these sorts of objections, in his book,  A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy . He notes:

[Epictetus] states that some things are up to us and some things aren’t up to us. The problem with this dichotomy is that the phrase “some things aren’t up to us” is ambiguous: It can be understood to mean either “There are some things over which we have no control at all” or to mean “There are things over which we don’t have complete control” (87).

Irvine suggests replacing the “dichotomy of control” with a “trichotomy,” in which there are:

• things over which we have complete control
• things over which we have some but not complete control
• things over which we have no control at all (89).

This trichotomy is a reasonable enough suggestion for addressing the kinds of objections mentioned above. We don’t have complete control over our bodies, or our finances, or whether we have a job come next Friday. But we do seem to have some measure of control over them. At the very least by our choices, our actions, our commitments, we can—sometimes—create the right sorts of conditions for things to come out all right, or even better than that, in those areas of our lives.

Irvine goes further than this, however, expressing several doubts or qualms about quite a few of the things Epictetus asserts to lie completely within our control: opinions or assumptions, impulses, desires, aversions, and the like. With the exception of opinion—understood in a certain way—these all ought to fall within the category of “things over which we have some but not complete control” in Irvine’s reinterpretation. In fact, what we do have entire control over, in his view, are “the goals we set for ourselves” (91), “our values” (92), meaning how we value things in relation to each other, or at all, and “opinions” insofar as these bear upon goals and values (92). Having qualities of character or not, which Irvine derives from Marcus Aurelius, rounds out this list of “things over which we have complete control” (92–3).

The category of things over which we have some but not complete control becomes centrally important when we apply this trichotomy. Instead of adopting a passive, detached, or indifferent attitude toward them (becoming “withdrawn underachievers”), we ought to be concerned with them, treat them as important and valuable, and exert our agency with respect to them. But, since they are not entirely within our control, we ought also to adopt a certain reserve as well. We should, in Irvine’s words, “internalize our goals we form with respect to them” (97), that is, what we aim to attain, achieve, or produce should be something within our control, not an external over which we don’t have control.

He uses the example of a kind of performance, a tennis match. The Stoic player does not control whether he or she wins or loses the match. The player does control whether he or she plays to the best of his or her ability, however, and if this is made into the goal—an internal goal, rather than an external one—whether this player is disappointed by his or her performance depends entirely upon that player. Analogously, we have the capacity to make only internal goals relevant for us when we’re dealing with those things that are only partly in our control.

Irvine does note: “In my studies of Epictetus and the other Stoics, I found little evidence that they advocate internalizing goals in the manner which I have described” (99). But, in his view, this approach of internalizing goals (along with the trichotomy of control) is plausibly how classical Stoics would have addressed the sorts of objections their doctrine is likely to—and often enough does—raise from non-Stoics.

A Fuller Response Derived from Epictetus’s Discourses

If we focus upon Epictetus’s Discourses rather than confining our attention primarily to the Enchiridion , we find something quite interesting. Although Epictetus does not articulate something precisely like Irvine’s trichotomy of control, he does make a number of remarks that indicate that the dichotomy of what is in our control and what is not possesses considerably more flexibility and sophistication than it appears to at first glance.

To start with, he provides a useful clarification in book 4, chapter 1:

What are the things that are another’s? The things that are not under our control [ ha ouk estin ep’humin ], whether to have or not to have, or to have with a certain quality [ poion ekhein ], or to have in a certain way [ pōs ekhein ].

He goes on to bring up familiar examples—the body, its parts, property or possessions ( ktēsis )—precisely the sorts of matters that students express their understandable objections and misgivings about, and among the matters Irvine’s trichotomy is intended to address. Notice that in this passage, Epictetus does not require the things that are not our own, that fall into the class of “out of or control”, to be entirely so. They fit into this class if we have no role in determining whether they exist or occur, or not—including whether we have them or not. But they also fit into this class if we are unable to determine whether they exist or occur with a certain quality, or in a certain way. One might rephrase this as a matter of features or aspects of those things lying beyond the scope of our control.

For example, you can set a beautiful table and centerpiece for a dinner party, you can exercise imperious rule over the kitchen fiefdom, and line up a wonderful set of guests—all things that with a bit of effort, some long-developed talents, and the right resources, it seems one can indeed control. And yet, a myriad little details remain outside of one’s control. The centerpiece flowers begin drooping an hour in, unnoticed spots on the silverware come embarrassingly to light, a sauce goes wrong, due to one ingredient or another not being up to snuff… one could imagine all manner of mishaps, which can then lead to other ways in which the overall dinner party eludes one’s best efforts to control it through careful planning (and all of this is imagination on my part—I haven’t given a dinner party in over a decade!).

Epictetus provides many other important clarifications bearing upon this distinction of what is and what is not in our control. Perhaps the one of the widest scope is his repeated insistence that, although externals are indeed outside of our control, what we do with them, how we respond to them—what he calls their khrēsis , which we can translate literally as “use”, and more figuratively as “dealing with”.

This comes up in book 2, ch. 5 in the course of a discussion of how magnanimity and carefulness are compatible (closely connected with an earlier discussion in ch. 1 about confidence and caution). He starts out by noting “matters [ hulai ] are indifferent, but the use we make of them is not indifferent… to make a careful and skillful use of what has occurred, that is the task for me.” He adds, a bit later:

Are externals to be used carelessly? Not at all. For again, doing this is something bad for the faculty of choice, and is, with respect to that faculty, contrary to nature. Rather [externals] must be used carefully, because their use is not something indifferent, and at the same time with steadfastness and without being troubled, because the matter itself is something indifferent. For in what does make a difference, nobody can hinder or compel me. Success in those things in which I can be hindered or compelled is not in my control, nor is it good or bad—but the use [I make of them] is bad or good, and is under my control.

Epictetus uses two main examples to illustrate his point. One of these has to do with travel, in his time an often dangerous prospect. It is up to us to select the ship, to choose which crew to trust, and to decide when we will sail. But after all of this care has been exercised, we can still run into a storm. The other has to do with “playing ball”—and not just in the literal sense but one close to the metaphor we still use today, evidenced by the fact that Epictetus singles out Socrates at his trial as a person who knew how to play ball skillfully.

When we look at these passages—and there are many more that could be brought up—what we see is that the fundamental distinction Epictetus makes between what is in our power and what is not (or if you prefer the more contemporary jargon, the “dichotomy of control”) is something a bit more complex than one might assume. It isn’t that the distinction isn’t a clear, well-argued, and in some respects strict one, but it is the case that many of the objections or other problems people would have with that distinction were already foreseen and addressed by Epictetus himself. When it comes to many of those things that, broadly speaking, from a Stoic perspective, are outside of our control and are morally indifferent, noting and acting upon this fact does not at all imply that one has absolutely no capacity to take part in determining these matters.

Epictetus does not elaborate a trichotomy of control in an explicit manner as Irvine does, but that distinction is clearly consonant with the ways in which he works through the dichotomy (or more strictly speaking, refines and properly applies the preconceptions of “what is in our control” and “what is not” to specific cases and particular matters). The third, additional branch of Irvine’s trichotomy can be rolled back into Epictetus’s dichotomous distinction, as comparison of their two ball-playing examples shows (and similarly, the discussion of the skilled musician in book 2, ch. 13). That doesn’t mean, of course, that Irvine hasn’t done a valuable service to many modern-day practitioners of Stoicism; they’re far better off armed with his trichotomy, which they can then apply to understand matters better when confusions or objections arise for them about matters that seem to be at least partly in their control, for instance, the body. But in my view, the would-be-Stoic, engaged in the necessary experiment of trying out Stoic doctrine, would be still better equipped by studying Epictetus’s own explanations and clarifications about the distinction. And for that, there is so substitute to working one’s way through his  Discourses .

By Greg Sadler, PhD. For more on Greg and his work, visit ReasonIO . 

January 19, 2017 at 4:23 am

Dear mr. Sadler,

I believe you are right with regards to the dichotomy of controle. I read A Guide to the Good Life a couple of years ago and after reading I still had the dichtotomy instead of the trichotomy of control. The latter is probably more understandable for people. Irvine’s book is a great book for the contemporary stoïc.

Kind regards, Jeroen Broere

January 19, 2017 at 3:32 pm

Yes, I’m not saying there’s actually anything wrong with using Irvine’s trichotomy, if that helps a would-be Stoic not get him or herself committed in ways that do mix up what is and is not in our control. It’s certainly an option.

The other option that’s available, and doesn’t require introducing a new distinction is the one that I’m highlighting here, Epictetus’ own option, at least as we find it in his surviving teachings

January 19, 2017 at 6:44 am

I agree with Greg Sadler’s analysis. I would even go a step further and say that it is the brilliance of the Stoics that gave rise to the dichotomy of control, avoiding the trap of a trichotomy. Stoics were logicians, and surely it would have been obvious to them that we have partial control over certain things. And it was, as Sadler points out, sourcing Epictetus. So why did they insist on a dichotomy?

I believe the dichotomy follows from the Stoic promise “to complete you, to free you from restraint, compulsion, hindrance, to make you free, prosperous, and happy” (Epictetus. Discourses. Book II.19.29). There is nothing conditional about this promise. It is absolute. It follows then if complete freedom be possible, it can only come from things that are under our total control. If things are under our partial control, for our purposes, it is not under our control. No matter how many gym hours we clock in, no matter how many vitamins and supplements we swallow, no one can guarantee us that we will not fall ill and get old and infirm. No matter how carefully we drive, no one can guarantee that we will never get into to an accident. The Stoics wanted us to realize that even if one falls ill or gets into an accident, one can still be free. The only things under our control are what we are attracted to or avoid, what we judge to be good or bad, and whether we are moved to act or not act.

If we are to achieve the freedom talked about by the Stoics, it is essential that we understand this dichotomy with absolute clarity. If we prematurely start classifying things into a third category before understanding why the dichotomy is so critical to Stoicism as Epictetus conceived it, there is this danger: “Taking into account the value of externals, you see, comes at some cost to the value of one’s own character.” (Epictetus, Discourses I.2.14).

The fact that certain things are under our partial control did not escape the laser sharp analysis of Stoics. Many of them cultivated their bodies. They had preferences. To quote Epictetus again “If you want to know if life or death is better, the answer I give is life. If you ask about pain and pleasure, I say pleasure is preferable.” (Discourses, I.2.15) Preferred indifferents take care of things that are under our partial control.

Even when things were not under his control, even when he knew he could not be the best in the field, Epictetus did not stop trying “Even if I lack the talent, I will not abandon the effort … I will never be a Milo … nevertheless, I don’t neglect my body. Nor will I be another Croesus – and still I don’t neglect my property.” (Discourses I.2.35;37)

Not understanding this dichotomy before having preferences for things under our partial control may give rise to a false sense of security, as described by Lee Lipsenthal in Enjoy Every Sandwich: “At some irrational level, we believe that if we eat right, exercise daily, and take vitamins, we won’t die. Although these actions may decrease our risk of illness, they give us a false sense of safety.”

Stoics understood that we have partial control over certain things and pursued those that were desirable. Chrysippus was a long distance runner and died laughing at the age of 73 during the 143rd Olympiad. Cleanthes was a boxer. Marcus Aurelius was a warrior and expressed thanks to the gods for giving him the body that could withstand so much stress. Epictetus’ body was strong enough to endure physical disability, slavery, and banishment. Musonius Rufus advised his students to exercise both mind and body. Seneca was wealthy and had an opulent lifestyle. But first and foremost, they were clear that they did not need any of the things under their partial control.

Long before I studied the Discourses, I came across Niebuhr’s prayer “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”Even though I liked the idea, the biggest difficulty I had in following the prayer was that I wasn’t sure what I have control over and what I don’t. Epictetus clarified it for me. If we don’t understand the clear dichotomy, we are likely to be carried away by motivational speakers and authors who promise that almost anything (such as making ten million dollars, or becoming the top person in your company or having perfect health for the rest of your life) is completely under our control.

In my view, the trichotomy takes the focus out of what exactly the Stoics were trying to teach us and dilutes it. Maybe it makes it palatable to some people and, if they benefit from it, so be it. The trade off is between understanding clearly what the Stoics were trying to teach us and why vs. dlluting it to make it potentially less objectionable to skeptical new comers. For me the former is a lot more important than the latter.

January 21, 2017 at 2:38 am

Hello Chuck,

I very good reply. I think this is indeed what the Stoics meant with the dichotomy. Is this “Niebuhr’s prayer “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”, also said by Epictetus?

Regards, Jeroen Broere

January 21, 2017 at 6:47 am

Thank you, Jeroen. The serenity prayer was written by Reinhold Niebuhr and is widely used by Alcoholics Anonymous. While it summarizes the basic idea of Epictutus, Epictetus himself did not put it that way.

February 2, 2017 at 8:23 pm

Beeeyoooteefull reply! Tres bien!

I have little to add other than concurring with your evaluation of the trichotomy. It has too much potential to muddy the waters, (of human nature or one’s own nature), that Epictetus worked so hard to clarify and which deserve to be foundational logic, imo, for the pragmatic application of Stoicism in one’s own life.

Deviation can, and in my own experience did, eventually cause a complete revulsion for Stoicism which I am trying to overcome and work my way back from. It’s not easy, because at this point even seeing the name of Aurileus or Aquinas or even Socrates himself almost makes me physically sick.

February 3, 2017 at 6:51 pm

Thank you for a terrific essay! I guess my objection might be that actually we may have no control over anything at all, let alone partial control. Can you tell I’ve studied Spinoza? The things we value, and our sense of virtue, it seems to me, might not be under our control but determined by a host of factors beyond it. These would include our birth parents ‘ values, our experience of the things which befall us , the chemistry of our particular neurological makeup, and, our unconscious, over which we may have indirect control but little conscious control…etc as infinitum. So Epictetus begs the questions pertaining to free will.

I’ll qualify this by saying I actually believe Epictetus more than Spinoza; I do believe in at least a degree of free will, because I believe that the spirit and body are separable. If there is only body, then, compatibility notwithstanding, there really can be nothing but cause and effect.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference

But it is worth noting that the serenity prayer assumes the aid of a supernatural agent, or else it would fail to find purchase! Thanks again!

February 4, 2017 at 11:28 am

By “begs the question”, I’m guessing you don’t actually mean that he commits that fallacy, which is that of circular argument, but you mean to say that he doesn’t answer the question.

Epictetus doesn’t actually speak of “free will”. He speaks of having a free prohairesis, or faculty of choice – here’s a video discussing that matter: https://youtu.be/EWS4QR1PM58 – and about our capacity to choose in particular circumstances.

It could be that our values come to us through enculturation. Sure, Epictetus grants that (you can find a number of examples of that in his Discourses). But we do have some measure of choice about what to do about that, once we discover that to be the case. That’s freedom, for Epictetus, and that is the sort of thing that is under our control for him. It doesn’t have to be much, but if there is some window where we have some control and choice, freedom exists.

March 10, 2022 at 12:54 pm

I know you posted this years ago. but thank you for clarifying the fundamental concept that I have had the hardest time digesting from Epictetus–I tried to understand it from Admiral Stockdale’s excellent essay “Courage under Fire ‘ : What is not up to me ? “The Body, Property, Pain, Pleasure, Magisterial Offices, Wealth, Honors, Reputation, Station in Life, and in a word whatever is not up to us . These are matters beyond the Control of the will

[…] here is that blog post.  You’ll be seeing more posts by me there this year – as well as the other blogs/sites […]

[…] distinction is supposed to work (if you’d like to read more about that in particular, you can go here), but there are two really key points to make […]

[…] by contemporary Stoics (and if you’d like to learn more about these distinctions, you might read this), but the same basic issue would arise from both […]

[…] What is really in our power. […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Yes, please add me to your mailing list (for an occasional announcement or newsletter)

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

About The Partially Examined Life

Become a pel citizen.

PEL Citizens have access to all podcast episodes, free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

• Announcements
• Book Excerpts
• Citizen Content
• Citizen Document
• Citizen News
• Close Reading
• Combat and Classics
• Constellary Tales
• Exclude from Newsletter
• Featured Ad-Free
• Featured Article
• General Announcements
• Letter to the Editor
• Misc. Philosophical Musings
• Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
• Nakedly Self-Examined Music
• Not School Recording
• Not School Report
• Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
• PEL Nightcap
• PEL's Notes
• Personal Philosophies
• Phi Fic Podcast
• Philosophy vs. Improv
• Podcast Episode (Citizen)
• Podcast Episodes
• Pretty Much Pop
• Song Self-Exam
• Supporter Exclusive
• Things to Watch
• Vintage Episode (Citizen)
• Web Detritus

• The Open University
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

About this free course

Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course.

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

3 Where does the power lie?

One of the key themes throughout these codes of conduct is the relationship between the practitioner and the individual, and a key aspect of this is power. In this instance we are referring to power as the amount of control or influence one party has over another, such as influencing decision making. Think about a relationship you have with someone, either professionally or personally; does one person hold more power in the relationship than the other? The relationship between coaches and athletes, and the power balance within that relationship is important. Jones (2009) looks at coaching as an exchange relationship, with coaches contributing knowledge and expertise, and athletes a willingness to learn, and a high level of effort and compliance. In this view it is the coaches that hold the power in the relationship. However, in practice this is not always the case. For example, high level athletes may hold higher levels of power and interestingly it is often the other way round in personal training when people of high status employ a trainer. A relationship where one individual is fully compliant to the other is one that can be seen to have an imbalance of power and control and can lead to the potential for abuse of power. The next activity encourages you to think about this further.

Activity 3 The balance of power

Consider the following relationships and think about who has the most power over decision making and behaviour. Place these at some point on the continuum below:

• child athlete of individual sport and the coach
• elite adult athlete of individual sport and the coach
• child athlete of team sport and the coach
• professional adult athlete of team sport and the coach
• personal trainer and wealthy client
• yoga teacher and client from adult class
• fitness instructor in gym and adult client

The image displays a continuum of power with the client/athlete on one end and the coach/trainer situated at the opposite end.

We felt that power was a feature in all relationships, although it was not a static entity but one that fluctuated depending upon the situation and context. In a child athlete-coach relationship we felt the coach held the power to influence the relationship but as the age of the athlete increases the power balance often begins to level out, and in cases involving elite adult athletes they often hold more power as they employ the coach. Within team sports there is the possibility that players/athletes will unite to increase their power within the relationship.

In a fitness context we felt a wealthy client employing a personal trainer had more power as the trainer may be reliant on the income. A yoga class teacher would need customers and so in this instance the client could hold more power; however, the teacher holds the skill and thus still holds a degree of power. It could be argued that in a class setting the teacher may hold more power than in one-to-one or coaching sessions because the content of the classes are likely to be less flexible. Interesting discussions arose over the fitness trainer and client in a gym and we felt that possibly the trainer may have more power as the individual would be reliant upon their knowledge and support.

In all cases where a financial exchange is involved, the client has the power to withhold payment or end the relationship if they don’t have the influence they want. Likewise, the trainer has the power to end a relationship but it is an issue of income for them that may keep them in the relationship. In all instances these are simply opinions and specific cases in each scenario may lend themselves to different power relations.

Tamra Brathwaite

The power lies within you.

Please give credit to whom credit is due.

Other works by Tamra Brathwaite...

You know me? You sit down and you create a profile of who I am what I’m suppose to be how I suppose to act

Look up... When there is no where else to go Look up ...when there’s no one els… When there seem to no way Has it ever dawn on you

Crushed, distressed Feeling pressured on every side Lonely, frustrated Can’t seem to make it slide What else? What more?

I believe in God for the unthinka… It doesn’t matter where I am It doesn’t matter who I am Where am from or where I’ve been God is working through my mess

Worry, it’s over I took you in ‘cause I thought yo… You got stuck on my heart like cra… I wanted you…no... not necessarily It just so happen that in my dilem…

Get Covered by the Blood There is an enemy Satan is His name Destruction is his mission Rebellion, that’s his game

Lord, I’m weak But thou art strong I’m insufficient yet you complete me I’m unwise

Nietzsche on Truth, Lies, the Power and Peril of Metaphor, and How We Use Language to Reveal and Conceal Reality

By maria popova.

“The need of reason is not inspired by the quest for truth but by the quest for meaning,” Hannah Arendt wrote in her incisive meditation on the vital difference between thinking and knowing . “Knowledge consists in the search for truth,” Karl Popper cautioned in considering truth and the dangers of relativism . “It is not the search for certainty.”

But in an uncertain world, what is the measure of truth and where does the complex, conflicted human impulse for knowledge originate in the first place?

That is what Friedrich Nietzsche (October 15, 1844–August 25, 1900) examined a century before Arendt and Popper in his 1873 essay “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense,” later translated by W.A. Haussmann and included in the indispensable Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche ( public library ).

Half a century before Bertrand Russell admonished that, in a universe unconcerned with human interests, the equally naïve notions of optimism and pessimism “spring from self-importance, and are best corrected by a little astronomy,” Nietzsche paints the backdrop for the drama of truth:

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of “world history,” but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no additional mission which would lead it beyond human life. Rather, it is human, and only its possessor and begetter takes it so solemnly — as though the world’s axis turned within it. But if we could communicate with a gnat, we would learn that he likewise flies through the air with the same solemnity, that he feels the flying center of the universe within himself. There is nothing so reprehensible and unimportant in nature that it would not immediately swell up like a balloon at the slightest puff of this power of knowing. And just as every porter wants to have an admirer, so even the proudest of men, the philosopher, supposes that he sees on all sides the eyes of the universe telescopically focused upon his action and thought.

The desire for knowledge, Nietzsche argues, stems from the same hubristic self-focus and is amplified by the basic human instinct for belonging — within a culture, what is designated as truth is a form of social contract and a sort of “peace pact” among people. A century before Laura Riding observed that “the task of truth is divided among us, to the number of us,” Nietzsche writes:

A uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time. The liar is a person who uses the valid designations, the words, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real. He says, for example, “I am rich,” when the proper designation for his condition would be “poor.” He misuses fixed conventions by means of arbitrary substitutions or even reversals of names. If he does this in a selfish and moreover harmful manner, society will cease to trust him and will thereby exclude him. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception. It is in a similarly restricted sense that man now wants nothing but truth: he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth. He is indifferent toward pure knowledge which has no consequences.

Suggesting that language itself can become a tool that conceals rather than reveals truth — something Anna Deavere Smith would echo a century later in her observation that “some people use language as a mask [and] create designed language that appears to reveal them but does not” — Nietzsche probes at these linguistic conventions themselves:

Are they perhaps products of knowledge, that is, of the sense of truth? Are designations congruent with things? Is language the adequate expression of all realities? […] What is a word? It is the copy in sound of a nerve stimulus. But the further inference from the nerve stimulus to a cause outside of us is already the result of a false and unjustifiable application of the principle of sufficient reason… We speak of a “snake”: this designation touches only upon its ability to twist itself and could therefore also fit a worm. What arbitrary differentiations! What one-sided preferences, first for this, then for that property of a thing!

Half a century before the Nobel-winning Indian poet and philosopher Tagore asserted that “relationship is the fundamental truth of this world of appearance,” Nietzsche adds:

The various languages placed side by side show that with words it is never a question of truth, never a question of adequate expression; otherwise, there would not be so many languages. The “thing in itself” (which is precisely what the pure truth, apart from any of its consequences, would be) is likewise something quite incomprehensible to the creator of language and something not in the least worth striving for. This creator only designates the relations of things to men, and for expressing these relations he lays hold of the boldest metaphors… It is this way with all of us concerning language; we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things — metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities… A word becomes a concept insofar as it simultaneously has to fit countless more or less similar cases — which means, purely and simply, cases which are never equal and thus altogether unequal. Every concept arises from the equation of unequal things. Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept “leaf” is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects. This awakens the idea that, in addition to the leaves, there exists in nature the “leaf”: the original model according to which all the leaves were perhaps woven, sketched, measured, colored, curled, and painted — but by incompetent hands, so that no specimen has turned out to be a correct, trustworthy, and faithful likeness of the original model… We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us.

With this, Nietzsche returns to his central premise and distills the notion of truth as a social contract in language:

What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions — they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.

And yet what Nietzsche tenders is not relativism but a framework for differentiating between truth and lie, rooted in the understanding that language — a human invention and social adaptation — is too porous a vessel for holding pure reality beyond the anthropocentric:

To be truthful means to employ the usual metaphors. Thus, to express it morally, this is the duty to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie with the herd and in a manner binding upon everyone… From the sense that one is obliged to designate one thing as “red,” another as “cold,” and a third as “mute,” there arises a moral impulse in regard to truth. The venerability, reliability, and utility of truth is something which a person demonstrates for himself from the contrast with the liar, whom no one trusts and everyone excludes. As a “rational” being, he now places his behavior under the control of abstractions. He will no longer tolerate being carried away by sudden impressions, by intuitions. First he universalizes all these impressions into less colorful, cooler concepts, so that he can entrust the guidance of his life and conduct to them. Everything which distinguishes man from the animals depends upon this ability to volatilize perceptual metaphors in a schema, and thus to dissolve an image into a concept.

He illustrates this transfiguration of physical fact into abstract concept in the recognition, construction, and articulation of “truth”:

If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare “look, a mammal” I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. That is to say, it is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be “true in itself” or really and universally valid apart from man. At bottom, what the investigator of such truths is seeking is only the metamorphosis of the world into man. He strives to understand the world as something analogous to man, and at best he achieves by his struggles the feeling of assimilation. Similar to the way in which astrologers considered the stars to be in man’s service and connected with his happiness and sorrow, such an investigator considers the entire universe in connection with man: the entire universe as the infinitely fractured echo of one original sound-man; the entire universe as the infinitely multiplied copy of one original picture-man. His method is to treat man as the measure of all things, but in doing so he again proceeds from the error of believing that he has these things [which he intends to measure] immediately before him as mere objects. He forgets that the original perceptual metaphors are metaphors and takes them to be the things themselves.

Our purest contact with reality, Nietzsche suggests, lies in breaking free from the trap of language and standing in absolute attentive presence with the actuality of what is before us — beyond classification, beyond description, beyond constriction into concept:

Only by forgetting this primitive world of metaphor can one live with any repose, security, and consistency: only by means of the petrification and coagulation of a mass of images which originally streamed from the primal faculty of human imagination like a fiery liquid, only in the invincible faith in this sun, this window, this table is a truth in itself, in short, only by forgetting that he himself is an artistically creative subject, does man live with any repose, security, and consistency.

Long before Rachel Carson invited the human imagination to experience reality from the perspective of marine creatures and before cognitive scientists explored what the world looks like through others’ eyes , Nietzsche adds:

It is even a difficult thing for [man] to admit to himself that the insect or the bird perceives an entirely different world from the one that man does, and that the question of which of these perceptions of the world is the more correct one is quite meaningless, for this would have to have been decided previously in accordance with the criterion of the correct perception, which means, in accordance with a criterion which is not available. But in any case it seems to me that “the correct perception” — which would mean “the adequate expression of an object in the subject” — is a contradictory impossibility. […] So far as we can penetrate here — from the telescopic heights to the microscopic depths — everything is secure, complete, infinite, regular, and without any gaps. Science will be able to dig successfully in this shaft forever, and the things that are discovered will harmonize with and not contradict each other. How little does this resemble a product of the imagination, for if it were such, there should be some place where the illusion and reality can be divined. Against this, the following must be said: if each us had a different kind of sense perception — if we could only perceive things now as a bird, now as a worm, now as a plant, or if one of us saw a stimulus as red, another as blue, while a third even heard the same stimulus as a sound — then no one would speak of such a regularity of nature, rather, nature would be grasped only as a creation which is subjective in the highest degree.

Nietzsche shines a sidewise gleam on the abiding question of whether mathematics — that supreme catchpool and calculator of the laws of nature — is discovered, a fundamental fact of the universe, or invented, a human language:

After all, what is a law of nature as such for us? We are not acquainted with it in itself, but only with its effects, which means in its relation to other laws of nature — which, in turn, are known to us only as sums of relations. Therefore all these relations always refer again to others and are thoroughly incomprehensible to us in their essence. All that we actually know about these laws of nature is what we ourselves bring to them — time and space, and therefore relationships of succession and number. But everything marvelous about the laws of nature, everything that quite astonishes us therein and seems to demand explanation, everything that might lead us to distrust idealism: all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and inviolability of our representations of time and space. But we produce these representations in and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins. If we are forced to comprehend all things only under these forms, then it ceases to be amazing that in all things we actually comprehend nothing but these forms. For they must all bear within themselves the laws of number, and it is precisely number which is most astonishing in things. All that conformity to law, which impresses us so much in the movement of the stars and in chemical processes, coincides at bottom with those properties which we bring to things. Thus it is we who impress ourselves in this way.

Nietzsche examines the relationship between language and science, and their analogous functions in the human quest to fathom reality:

We have seen how it is originally language which works on the construction of concepts, a labor taken over in later ages by science. Just as the bee simultaneously constructs cells and fills them with honey, so science works unceasingly on this great columbarium of concepts, the graveyard of perceptions. It is always building new, higher stories and shoring up, cleaning, and renovating the old cells; above all, it takes pains to fill up this monstrously towering framework and to arrange therein the entire empirical world.

He locates the common impulse undergirding both language and science:

The drive toward the formation of metaphors is the fundamental human drive, which one cannot for a single instant dispense with in thought, for one would thereby dispense with man himself.

Two centuries after Pascal, whom Nietzsche greatly admired, examined the difference between the intuitive and the logical mind , he ends by considering the tradeoffs between these two orientations of being — the rational and the intuitive — as mechanisms for inhabiting reality with minimal dissimilation and maximal truthfulness:

There are ages in which the rational man and the intuitive man stand side by side, the one in fear of intuition, the other with scorn for abstraction. The latter is just as irrational as the former is inartistic. They both desire to rule over life: the former, by knowing how to meet his principle needs by means of foresight, prudence, and regularity; the latter, by disregarding these needs and, as an “overjoyed hero,” counting as real only that life which has been disguised as illusion and beauty… The man who is guided by concepts and abstractions only succeeds by such means in warding off misfortune, without ever gaining any happiness for himself from these abstractions. And while he aims for the greatest possible freedom from pain, the intuitive man, standing in the midst of a culture, already reaps from his intuition a harvest of continually inflowing illumination, cheer, and redemption — in addition to obtaining a defense against misfortune. To be sure, he suffers more intensely, when he suffers; he even suffers more frequently, since he does not understand how to learn from experience and keeps falling over and over again into the same ditch. He is then just as irrational in sorrow as he is in happiness: he cries aloud and will not be consoled. How differently the stoical man who learns from experience and governs himself by concepts is affected by the same misfortunes! This man, who at other times seeks nothing but sincerity, truth, freedom from deception, and protection against ensnaring surprise attacks, now executes a masterpiece of deception: he executes his masterpiece of deception in misfortune, as the other type of man executes his in times of happiness. He wears no quivering and changeable human face, but, as it were, a mask with dignified, symmetrical features. He does not cry; he does not even alter his voice. When a real storm cloud thunders above him, he wraps himself in his cloak, and with slow steps he walks from beneath it.

Complement “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” with Adrienne Rich on what “truth” really means , Toni Morrison on the power of language , and Bertrand Russell on our only effective self-defense against the manipulation of realty , then revisit Nietzsche on depression and the rehabilitation of hope , how to find yourself , what it really means to be a free spirit , and why a fulfilling life requires embracing rather than running from difficulty .

— Published March 26, 2018 — https://www.themarginalian.org/2018/03/26/nietzsche-on-truth-and-lies-in-a-nonmoral-sense/ —

www.themarginalian.org

PRINT ARTICLE

Email article, filed under, books culture language nietzsche philosophy science, view full site.

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy . (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

A Conversation With President Zelensky

In a wide-ranging interview, president volodymyr zelensky of ukraine challenged the west’s hesitations..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From The New York times, I’m Sabrina Tavernise. And this is “The Daily.”

[SPEAKING UKRAINIAN]: [LAUGHS]:

Five years ago, a TV personality and comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, won the presidency in Ukraine in a landslide victory.

[SPEAKING UKRAINIAN]:

And then — [ALARM BLARING]

— after three years in office, he faced the biggest challenge of his presidency and of his life.

This is only the beginning for Russia on the Ukrainian land. Russia is trying to defeat the freedom of all people in Europe.

He rose to that challenge, beating back one of the world’s largest armies. But now —

We urgently need Patriot systems and missiles for them. And you can imagine what our soldiers feel when they simply have nothing to respond to enemy fire.

The tide has turned against him.

Please do not ask Ukraine when the war will end. Ask yourself, why is Putin still able to continue it?

Today, my colleague Andrew Kramer sat down with Zelenskyy to talk about the fight of his life and how it might end. It’s Tuesday, June 4. So, Andrew, you’ve been covering Ukraine for many years, and you first met President Zelenskyy back in 2020 before Russia invaded. Tell us what he was like back then.

There’s just an incredible density of events that have filled Zelenskyy’s tenure as president. I had an opportunity to interview president Zelenskyy in 2020. And this was during COVID, so it was a Zoom interview. And it was really a different era for Zelenskyy. He had just come in as president. He was baby-faced. He was a fresh presence in Ukrainian politics. And at this moment, he was trying to reset relations with the United States. There had been tensions with the Trump administration, and he wanted to turn a new page in bilateral relations.

And by tension with the Trump administration, you mean, of course, that Zelenskyy was in the middle of the first Trump impeachment. We may all forget, but Trump made a phone call to Zelenskyy, asking him to investigate not only Joe Biden, but also his son, Hunter Biden. And Trump hinted that the US would actually withhold military aid if Zelenskyy didn’t do that.

That’s right. The perfect phone call. That’s what President Trump called it. And during this time, Zelenskyy became briefly a known figure in the United States. But in Ukraine, he was known as a charismatic leader. He was a television personality before becoming president, and he had campaigned on an idea of a new morning in Ukraine. He would crack down on corruption. And a central element of his campaign had been to make peace with Russia.

It’s pretty interesting to remember, actually, that Zelenskyy started as someone who thought it was possible to make peace with Russia. That’s who he was as a politician when he started out.

And he had wide support. He was elected with 73 percent of the vote. So a lot of Ukrainians believed that he would actually be able to achieve this. But this had really fallen apart. And by the time I talked to him late in 2020, the prospects for these negotiations were very unclear. And it was, for this reason, more important than ever for the Zelenskyy administration to shore up support from the United States.

So that was 2020. A lot has changed. Clearly, at this point, Zelenskyy is not making peace with Russia anymore. You sat down with Zelenskyy a couple of weeks ago. Why did you want to talk to him again now?

Well, it’s a very interesting and critical moment in the war. The tide has turned in the war. Russia is pressing all along the front and American aid had been stalled for six months. And it was passed recently in congress, but it hasn’t yet arrived. So it’s a moment where Zelenskyy has his back against the wall. And what Zelenskyy has really zeroed in on is that the NATO countries and the United States should allow Ukraine to use donated Western weaponry to hit targets inside of Russia.

Now, of course, firing American weapons into Russia has really been a red line for the United States through the more than two years of this conflict because Russia is a nuclear armed power. And there have always been fears in the background that this would be provocative, this would be escalatory, and would really raise the risk of a wider war. So we wanted to understand how Zelenskyy was making that argument for Biden to allow him to use American weapons to hit targets inside of Russia, despite the risks.

So tell me about your interview. Start from the beginning.

Are we — are we recording now?

I’m rolling, yeah.

Well, we walked into the presidential administration through a very tight security. It’s always an interesting experience arriving at the presidential office in Kyiv. There are sandbags and anti-tank barriers around the building.

Andrew, you’ll set up on the right closest to the president.

Yeah, if we can get Andrew —

We made our way through the compound to a ceremonial reception hall. This was in a 19th century building with exotic plaster moldings on the walls called the House of Chimaeras.

OK? It’s OK for you.

And I went to interview Zelenskyy with my colleagues, Phil Pan, the international editor, and Bill Brink, the Ukraine editor.

You’re going to have to catch him later.

We waited there for about an hour before the president showed up.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hi, I’m sorry I’m late.

Hi. Mr. president, nice to meet you.

Welcome. How was trip?

When he walks into a room, you immediately notice that he’s there, that he’s a presence.

Mr. President, I believe you know Andrew Kramer. He’s our bureau chief here.

Well, we had an interview, but it was by Skype in 2020, I think.

Maybe. I’m sorry. It was in another life.

And he is a little bit shorter in real life than he might appear on television. And war has changed Zelenskyy. He looks haggard. And for the last two years, he’s been bearded and wearing only military fatigues. In this case, it was a green t-shirt and green trousers. But he did seem to be holding up all right. He looked healthy and he was very energetic.

Thank you so much for coming. We can sit.

After some small talk in English —

Can we check Ukrainian translation? Talk with us.

He switched into Ukrainian, and we spoke with him through a translator.

The Biden administration has prohibited Ukraine from using American made weapons to strike inside Russia out of concern for escalation, including the risk of nuclear war.

And our very first question was about this red line.

Your government has urged a change to this policy given the situation on the battlefield right now. Why?

Thank you so much. Well, first of all, Biden administration was really against the use of the Western weapons. That’s important to mention.

And he became quite animated. He was gesturing. He was using his skills as a public speaker to convey what he felt was a very important point.

They are striking with the missiles from Russian territory. So how can we protect ourselves from these strikes?

And he was saying that it’s really not possible for him to fight when the Russians can gather their forces and fly their airplanes in Russia and then attack Ukraine, when he is not allowed to strike back as they gather across the border.

They are in the closest villages and settlements to the border from Russia, knowing that we will not respond.

He was conveying this sense of fighting with one hand tied behind his back. And they have to endure the attacks from Russia, the bombings and the artillery strikes, and they’re not allowed to hit back.

That is their big, big advantage.

He talked about the Northeastern part of Ukraine, near Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv. It’s been a target of Russian attack. It’s bombarded almost daily. And it’s now one of the focal points of the war.

To defend Kharkiv, Ukraine has been forced to divert soldiers from elsewhere to fight this Russian incursion with the city at their backs.

Russia is piling up the troops. They are —

And Zelenskyy was telling us that his intelligence can see the Russians unloading from trains weaponry and equipment just across the border in Russia, but he’s not allowed to strike it because of the restriction on the use of Western weaponry. And so he said he has no choice but to watch them prepare to attack.

And he had a very vivid image for this. He was saying that he sees the Russians gathering on that side of the border.

That means that tomorrow, they will not give us flowers. They will give us death.

And that he knows they aren’t coming with flowers, but they’re coming with death.

If we know that tomorrow they are not celebrating with us, but they are killing us, why can’t we use our weapons to demolish them in the point of collection of the arms?

In other words, what he was saying was that they’re basically sitting ducks. And if you could only use these big, powerful American weapons to shoot inside of Russia to take the war to Russians, then that could turn the tide of the war. But the Americans were just not letting him do that.

That’s right. And he’s also asking for very specific weaponry to do this. And it really speaks to Zelenskyy’s life over the past 2 and 1/2 years. His country depends on an arsenal of weaponry from allies who have often been reluctant to provide it. And he finds himself often coming with what amounts to a shopping list to these Western nations, describing what his military needs in any particular circumstance.

We can get, in the end of the day, from NATO countries.

And what he told us —

— Patriot systems. Seven.

Was that he needed seven Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems.

Our analysts told us we need 120, 130 F-16s.

And 120 to 130 F-16 airplanes. And these kind of requests, well, understandable. His soldiers are engaged in combat, they’re suffering casualties, and civilians are being killed. So it’s of dire importance to Zelenskyy. But these type of requests have sometimes grated on Western politicians, so much so that last summer, the British minister of defense had said in response, and really in frustration, that, Zelenskyy, we’re not Amazon. Don’t come with a shopping list.

And this, of course, has been the view of the US administration as well. Hey, guy, we just gave you $60 billion. Have some gratitude.

OK, so it’s clear why shooting American weapons into Russia would help Zelenskyy. But how is he viewing the risk of Russia retaliating and potentially setting off a nuclear war? Because, of course, that’s why the US drew this red line in the first place, right?

Well, this is really the question of the hour on escalation.

What do you say to the people who argue that it is too risky to allow Ukraine to use these weapons inside Russia because of the risk of escalation?

There are no risks of escalation.

And when we asked about this, Zelenskyy asked us, in a sense, to get inside Putin’s head a little bit and understand how he sees this playing out.

He was saying that Putin is an irrational actor, so obviously somebody to be feared.

That he could use the nuclear weapon then when he failed to conquer us during the first year of the war.

But if he were to use nuclear weapons, he would have used them in the first year of the war when Russia was down and Ukraine was up. And he was also saying that —

He did not use it because he really loves his own life.

Putin, he’s irrational, but he would also fear for his own life.

And he understands that that’s it. The door will be totally locked to Russia, fully locked if he uses nuclear weapons. It’s a fact. And no one will be able to do anything with that, even his fans among the politicians. They won’t be able to do anything because the use of the nuclear weapon is not the red line. This is a totally different level. That’s it. This is the World War III.

Using a nuclear weapon would obviously be risking World War III, and Putin would understand the consequences of this. So these were Zelenskyy’s explanations of why he felt the Russians were bluffing on the nuclear question.

So Zelenskyy’s conclusion was that the nuclear threat really isn’t real, that it’s not that much of a risk then for the West to let Ukraine cross that red line. Use those American weapons to shoot at Russians inside Russia.

Yes. And then last week, apparently, Biden was convinced by Zelenskyy’s arguments. The Biden administration and administration officials announced that American weapons could be used to hit targets inside of Russia. The decision to shift was weighing the risk of losing Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv, or having it bombed into oblivion against a very small risk of a nuclear war. A large risk of losing a city and a small risk of nuclear war. But there were caveats.

The American permission only allowed the use of American weapons on the border and in response to Russian military attacks across the border on Ukraine. And it didn’t cover the most powerful rocket in the arsenal that the United States has provided, the attack-guided rocket. So we won’t see Ukrainian attacks on large Russian cities using American weapons, such as rocket attacks on Moscow. But it is evidence that the Biden administration has shifted a red line.

And it seems significant, even if it’s limited. So the red line maybe isn’t actually so red. What do you think this tells us?

It tells us that Zelenskyy has been persuasive with his style of public performance, with his style of reaching out directly to voters in the countries that are allies with Ukraine. He has pushed Western leaders to shift on red lines and to continually provide more military support for his military and change their policies on how they assist Ukraine.

But Zelenskyy has another challenge. It’s something he doesn’t talk about nearly as much, but it’s just as important to winning the war. And this is a challenge inside Ukraine, in Ukrainian society.

We’ll be right back.

So, Andrew, you said that there was another big potential problem for Zelenskyy, and that was a problem in Ukrainian society. Tell me about that.

In short, it comes down to this. Not enough men want to fight, and Zelenskyy doesn’t know how to make them. He has been drafting men in relatively small batches throughout the country. And those who have signed up in the beginning, they are still serving at the front and have been fighting continuously for two years. So there’s fatigue of soldiers who are fighting and in the Army. And there’s also reluctance of those who have not yet been drafted to be drafted into the military.

So, Andrew, I’m really thinking about this with you and remembering back to those early days when you and I were walking around the streets of Kyiv and going into draft offices, and seeing everybody who signed up, right? History professors. I think you even interviewed a male stripper at some point that we were remarking on. Everybody wanted to fight. But that is very different now. What happened? What changed?

It’s now been two years, and there’s been a lot of dying. If you look at the number of men serving in the Ukrainian military now, including some units like the National Guard and border guards, it’s about 1 million men under arms. Out of that 1 million, about 10 percent have died so far. We don’t know the exact number of casualties in the Ukrainian army, but estimates are in the range of about 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers who have been killed over two years of war.

One thing that I found really remarkable when you travel around in villages and towns is that there are almost always dry flowers all over the roads because there are funerals so often. And they put these flowers down, and then they have processions. So military vehicles will come very slowly carrying the body in a hearse. And people will get out of their cars and they’ll kneel on the side of the road while this procession goes by. And it’s these sort of scenes that are really frightening to men who are eligible for the draft and who know what it would mean to be called up and sent into the trench fighting.

And how many men are eligible for the draft?

In Ukraine, there are 3 to 4 million men who could be drafted and could be serving in the military. So they could be fighting a war of attrition with Russia with a larger army, where they’re able to mobilize and equip these additional soldiers. But they haven’t done this, and there’s been quite a bit of reluctance. So they’re at a moment now where they need soldiers, but the patriotic wave from earlier in the war has really washed over. And at this point, they’re going to have to use the power of calling up men against their will in order to continue fighting this war.

What does that look like in Ukraine now?

Well, the call-up of men from villages in some areas of Ukraine has been so great that there are villages without men. There are villages where women, when they see the draft officials coming into town, they have swarmed these vehicles and are protesting to protect the few remaining men in these areas. There have been roadblocks put up in Kyiv and other towns to stop cars and check draft registration documents on the street. And sometimes, men are asked to report to basic training within as little of a week after being stopped at one of these surprise checkpoints.

And this has been disruptive. And men are fearful of being caught in one of these roadblocks and approached by draft officials. And there are even social media apps that track where they’re moving around town. For example, in Kyiv, there’s an app called Weather in Kyiv. And it’ll say it’s raining on a certain intersection. And that would mean that the draft officials are there and men should avoid that area.

Interesting. And is Zelenskyy acknowledging this challenge? The challenge of trying to get men to fight in the war.

Politically, Zelenskyy has disassociated himself from the challenges of the draft. He’s said this is a problem for parliament or for the military. It’s politically very unpopular. And he hasn’t, for example, given major speeches calling on Ukrainians to sign up and explaining the draft policies.

In our interview, he did, though, acknowledge the toll of the war on Ukrainian society. And he described this as divisions.

Some people are at war. Some people are not.

That there had been some rift in society between men who were fighting and men who were not fighting.

It is really serious because the society begins to divide.

And for somebody trying to steer a country in a war, this could be a problem.

This separation in the society, this division, at this moment, the enemy can use it.

So given that fewer and fewer people want to fight, and war is obviously fundamentally about fighting, where is Ukrainian society’s head right now on this war? And what is their appetite to stop it? Do people want to call it quits, agree to just, OK, lob off a third of their territory and give it to Russia and finally be done with this? Or is a full draft, mass mobilization finally going to be on the table?

Well, this is what makes Zelenskyy’s situation now so interesting is he’s in a bind. He’s ruling a country that on the one hand, there’s massive support for continuing the war. There’s incredible anger at Russia. Still seething anger at Russia over this war, and no desire to negotiate. On the other hand, you have fewer and fewer people actually willing to fight. So Zelenskyy is caught between these two positions, and it’s a difficult moment.

OK, to summarize here, Zelenskyy has been pushing on these red lines abroad. He’s getting stuff. He made some progress last week, but it seems like it’s not enough to dig himself out of the hole he’s in. And at home, there’s kind of a similar dynamic. He’s done these small batch drafts of men, but that also seems like it’s not enough to really win. And now he’s in this very hard place. And to put it very bluntly, it seems like a losing place.

Well, this is probably the moment of most uncertainty for Zelenskyy and for Ukraine since the beginning of the war. There’s no popular decision for Zelenskyy. Drafting more soldiers is unpopular. If he doesn’t draft soldiers and settles in a ceasefire negotiation, that will also be unpopular. Zelenskyy is really squeezed between two fires. And this is all against the backdrop of Russia escalating an offensive that’s expected to continue through the summer.

How is he coping with this? This is a lot on his shoulders.

Well, this is something that we asked in the interview.

I just wanted to ask if you could say a few words about your own life as a wartime president. And maybe —

And we talked to him on what was the 817th day of the war.

I’m not afraid of working for many hours and to do my work and many other works. But the hardest is the emotions. You understand that. Emotions.

He doesn’t tell jokes like he used to. One aspect of the war is that his life as a comedian has really come to a close, and he’s become a much more serious public figure.

And I wake up very early and —

He said that he deals with some of the stresses of leadership by working out in the morning.

I can see my wife more often. She’s in the office. But I see my children not that much.

And he was most expressive and went on at some length about his family.

He said that through the course of the war, his children have grown up. His daughter is now 19. His son is 11. And he said that he would spend time with his son working on Spanish homework.

I don’t know Spanish, in fact. But I’m interested just in some time to spend with him, whatever he does.

And these are the happiest moments. And here, I can relax.

Andrew, how did you end the interview?

I asked him what he would do after the war. And I thought his answer was telling.

So what are your plans after the war?

[LAUGHS]: [SPEAKING UKRAINIAN]:

I would like after the war — after the victory, because those are different things.

He said there’s a distinction between the end of the war and victory.

I think that my plans depend on that. So I would like —

And then he described what would happen after victory. He would spend time with his family and his dogs. But what he left unsaid was what his life would look like if Ukraine lost the war.

And what would it look like?

Well, one scenario is that he could die at the end of this. [MUSIC PLAYING]

He’s been the target of 10 assassination attempts, according to his government. Another possible outcome would be that Ukraine could lose a large chunk of its territory in a settlement agreement. So it’s understandable why he didn’t go into the details, but it was still remarkable that he acknowledged just for a moment this vulnerability, this idea that there could be an outcome for Ukraine other than victory.

Andrew, thank you.

Thank you, Sabrina. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Here’s what else you should know today.

[PEOPLE CHANTING]

On Sunday, Mexican voters elected the country’s first woman and first Jewish president, Claudia Sheinbaum.

[SPEAKING SPANISH]

It was a landslide victory for the 61-year-old climate scientist and former mayor of Mexico City. Sheinbaum, a leftist, had campaigned on a promise to continue the legacy of Mexico’s current president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Under Obrador, millions of Mexicans were lifted out of poverty. But he was also criticized for failing to control rampant cartel violence. The election was the largest in Mexico’s history, with the highest number of voters taking part. And it puts a Jewish leader at the helm of one of the world’s largest predominantly Catholic countries.

And President Biden is expected to sign an executive order on Tuesday, allowing him to temporarily seal the US border with Mexico when the number of migrant crossings exceed a certain threshold. The order would suspend protections for asylum seekers in the US, and represents the most restrictive border policy instituted by Biden, who is under intense political pressure to address illegal migration. Polls suggest that there is growing support, even inside the president’s own party, for more aggressive border measures. The executive order is likely to be challenged in court.

Today’s episode was produced by Nina Feldman, Claire Toeniskoetter, Rob Szypko, and Diana Nguyen, with help from Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Lisa Chow. Contains original music by Marion Lozano and Elisheba Ittoop, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sashko Chubko.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. See you tomorrow.

• June 6, 2024   •   23:38 The Fight Over the Next Pandemic
• June 5, 2024   •   30:42 Biden’s Push to End the War in Gaza
• June 4, 2024   •   29:17 A Conversation With President Zelensky
• June 3, 2024   •   32:07 How Trump’s Conviction Could Reshape the Election
• May 31, 2024   •   31:29 Guilty
• May 30, 2024   •   25:21 The Government Takes On Ticketmaster
• May 29, 2024   •   29:46 The Closing Arguments in the Trump Trial
• May 28, 2024   •   25:56 The Alitos and Their Flags
• May 24, 2024   •   25:18 Whales Have an Alphabet
• May 23, 2024   •   34:24 I.C.C. Prosecutor Requests Warrants for Israeli and Hamas Leaders
• May 22, 2024   •   23:20 Biden’s Open War on Hidden Fees
• May 21, 2024   •   24:14 The Crypto Comeback

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Andrew E. Kramer

Produced by Nina Feldman ,  Clare Toeniskoetter ,  Rob Szypko and Diana Nguyen

With Michael Simon Johnson

Edited by Lisa Chow

Original music by Marion Lozano ,  Elisheba Ittoop and Sophia Lanman

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

Five years ago, a TV personality and comedian, Volodymyr Zelensky, won the presidency in Ukraine in a landslide victory. When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of the country three years later, he faced the biggest challenge of his presidency and of his life. Despite initial success beating back one of the world’s largest armies, the tide has turned against him.

Andrew E. Kramer, the Kyiv bureau chief for The Times, sat down with Mr. Zelensky to discuss the war, and how it might end.

On today’s episode

Andrew E. Kramer , the Kyiv bureau chief for The New York Times.

Background reading

Read The New York Times’s interview with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine .

Explaining the debate over Ukraine’s use of Western weapons .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Special thanks to Oleksandr Chubko .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Andrew E. Kramer is the Kyiv bureau chief for The Times, who has been covering the war in Ukraine since 2014. More about Andrew E. Kramer

Advertisement