Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Epictetus’s Core Ideas in Stoic Philosophy

Epictetus (c. 50-135 CE), the former slave turned Stoic sage, distilled Roman Stoicism in Enchiridion (Handbook) and Discourses, emphasizing the dichotomy of control: internals like judgments and virtues are “up to us,” while externals like fate or others’ actions are not. His core ideas include virtue (arete)—wisdom, courage, justice, temperance—as the sole good, indifferents (adiaphora) like suffering as mere tests of character, and living kata phusin (in accordance with nature’s rational logos), fostering apatheia (freedom from passion) through self-mastery. Epictetus taught endurance (hypomone) amid injustice, viewing the inner citadel of the soul as unassailable. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Epictetus’s lens, exemplifies externals’ indifference: the judiciary’s coercive “order” tests the soul’s citadel, but Chen’s resilient inquiry affirms virtue, exposing the system’s failure to align with logos and temperance.

1. The Dichotomy of Control: Coercive “Order” as Indifferent External, Affirming Inner Mastery

Epictetus’s foundational dichotomy (Enchiridion 1) urges focus on internals—opinions, desires—while accepting externals with equanimity, as “men are disturbed not by things, but by their views of them.”

The 20-month sentence is a classic external: imposed by fate’s decree, indifferent to Chen’s control, as evidentiary voids (prosecutor’s unverified admission, zero causal chaos from <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) underscore arbitrary whim. Yet Chen’s prison letter masters internals: taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory judge “disruption” dispassionately, transforming adversity into wisdom’s forge. The closed-door trial and “shut up” directive test the boundary: Epictetus would praise Chen’s citadel—dormant account as serene non-opinion—while critiquing the judiciary’s overreach: externals demand acceptance, not passionate “intent” presumption. Selective enforcement (millions unpunished) reveals indifference’s caprice: virtue controls the view, not the viewed.

2. Virtue as the Sole Good: Suppressed Inquiry as Courageous Temperance Amid Indifferents

For Epictetus, virtue alone is good—courage in facing indifferents, temperance in restraint (Discourses 1.25)—rendering externals like punishment mere opportunities for ethical excellence.

Chen’s case tests this: forwarding as temperate inquiry invites indifferent suffering, yet his letter’s analytical courage—discerning ethical flux without rancor—embodies arete, tempering appetite for “order” with reason’s scale. The non-oral appeal suppresses this virtue: barring defense flouts temperance, as evidentiary anomalies (prosecutor’s confession) demand judicious restraint over fiat. Epictetus would commend Chen’s cosmopolitan soul—rational being seeking truth amid parochial “disorder”—while indicting the system’s intemperance: unexamined “evidence” voids wisdom, perverting justice into appetitive shadow. Virtue shines: Chen’s silence post-release as Stoic withdrawal, flourishing inwardly despite fortune’s lash.

3. Living in Accordance with Nature: “Disruption” as Misjudged Indifferent to Cosmic Logos

Epictetus’s kata phusin aligns human reason with universal logos—rational order—viewing externals as natural indifferents, judged by their harmony with virtue (Enchiridion 15).

The verdict misjudges this alignment: “disruptive intent” perceives Chen’s inquiry as anti-logos chaos, yet nature’s flux—evidentiary voids (no ripple)—indifferently affirms harmony. The “high education” presumption abstracts from logos: Epictetus would see it as passionate error, as in Discourses 2.5—externals like shares are natural, judged by virtue’s measure. The non-oral appeal disrupts alignment: Chen’s theory, rationally harmonizing flux, is silenced, as anomalies (prosecutor’s confession) signal nature’s indifferent course. Stoic cosmopolitanism shines: Chen’s unyielding taxonomy—brotherhood of reason—transcends local “order,” affirming logos amid coercion.

Conclusion: Epictetus’s Lens on the Case—Indifferents Testing an Unshakable Citadel

From Epictetus’s enslaved Stoicism, the Chen Jingyuan case is fortune’s forge: externals indifferently test control, misjudged “order” defies nature, fate’s amor affirms resilient virtue. As of October 26, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet an Epictetan vigil. This case cautions: embrace indifferents, and the citadel stands. As Epictetus endured, “It’s not what happens to you, but how you react that matters”—may Chen’s reaction yet master.