Although I have an Epictetus Bot already made over at BoodleBox, I thought it might be fun to set one up with OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The path I follow is the same process I go through when setting up any custom GPT these days.

Step 1 – Set up a Project

Now that I appreciate the value of ChatGPT Projects, I uploaded the source files, all of them from Project Gutenberg or using freely available text (really, that was only useful for Seneca – Letters to Lucilius):

Aside: While I’ve read Enchiradon, the Golden Sayings, I’ve only skimmed the Teaching of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Believe it or not, my first introduction to Seneca was when I was in high school, reading Seneca in the library while my mother, a veteran math educator in the Republic of Panama, completed requirements for teaching in Texas.

As a young man, more culture-shocked boy from Panama than anything else, I was not experienced enough to do more than appreciate the wisdom in Seneca sourced texts, but eventually was glad to flip back to the fiction section, where I discovered Simon Asch’s Moses. What a terrific read that was.

Still, spending time in a library with great philosophers does have its effects.

After putting the Project Files in, I dropped in several versions of the instructions. I worked with ChatGPT 5.2 to refine these instructions. I went back and forth several times. After getting the desired results, I moved to Step 2.

Step 2: Creating the GPT

This involved uploading the source materials from Step 1, the revised “final” version of the instructions, and the profile pic. Since I like this one below, I used it again:

Now that the GPT is created, it’s time to try it out.

Give Epictetus GPT a try

Step 3: Trying Out Epictetus

For fun, I posed a scenario like this one from Dear Abby’s Off the Rails:

DEAR ABBY: My wife’s family is rather enmeshed. They have never really accepted me and are rude and unkind toward me. Recently, her father’s attitude has shifted from rude to downright hostile. He has tried to physically assault me. (I didn’t fight back.)

They watch our kids three days a week. I appreciate it and try hard to be a respectful and good person, but I am not sure what to do. My wife is unable or unwilling to take a strong stance against her father’s behavior. Any advice? — PUNISHED IN PENNSYLVANIA

This is classic stuff, isn’t it? I didn’t set this GPT up to handle these kinds of real life scenarios…Let’s see how Epictetus GPT responds:

PUNISHED IN PENNSYLVANIA — A Stoic response

I will proceed in the manner Epictetus himself would use: not to soothe, not to arbitrate family dynamics, but to clarify what belongs to you, what does not, and what your duty requires.

---

A. Situation Reframed (Stoic Terms)

You are dealing with three separate matters, which must not be confused:

1. Your father-in-law’s behavior — rudeness, hostility, and attempted physical violence.
   This is not under your control.
2. Your own conduct — restraint, refusal to retaliate, continued civility.
   This is under your control, and so far seen to be exercised correctly.
3. The arrangement involving your children — reliance on hostile people for their care.
   This is a mixed case: circumstances are external, but your judgment about what is acceptable is yours alone.

Your distress does not come from insults or threats themselves, but from the belief that you must tolerate what is degrading or dangerous in order to preserve harmony or convenience.

---

B. Stoic Anchor (Source Text)

“Of things some are in our power, and others are not… If you suppose that what is not your own is your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed.”
— Epictetus, Enchiridion §1

And more pointedly:

“If a person gave your body to anyone whom he met on the road to be abused, you would be vexed; but you give your mind to be disturbed by anyone who abuses you, and are ashamed of it.”
— Epictetus, Enchiridion §28

Finally, on dangerous associations:

“Do not wish to associate with people beyond your own powers, or you will either abandon your own character or hate them.”
— Epictetus, Discourses II.13

---

C. Modern Vernacular Translation

• Other people’s aggression is not yours to fix.
• Your dignity does not require their approval.
• Continuing to place yourself — or your children — in the reach of someone who has shown violence is not endurance, but confusion about duty.

Stoicism does not command submission to abuse. It commands clarity.

---

D. Stoic Message for This Situation

You did one thing exactly right: you did not retaliate. That preserved your character.

But Stoicism does not require you to:

• remain physically exposed to someone who has attempted assault,
• pretend that hostility is harmless because it comes from “family,” or
• trade your children’s safety for convenience.

Epictetus is explicit: philosophy trains us to choose our associations wisely, not to endure everything indiscriminately.

If a person is dangerous, the rational response is distance, not argument.
If a situation corrupts your peace or threatens bodily harm, the rational response is withdrawal, not resentment.

Your wife’s inability or refusal to confront her father is hers, not yours. You may state your position calmly and firmly — once — and then act according to reason rather than hope.

---

E. Optional Stoic Reminder

You are not required to be liked.
You are required to act with reason, self-respect, and care for those entrusted to you.

No man is free who must place his safety and dignity in the hands of another’s temper.

What Specific Action?

I decided to ask further, “What action would you recommend to the person in this situation?” The GPT generated the following:

I will answer plainly, as Epictetus would, and I will recommend action, not reflection alone.

---

A. The Action, Stated First

The recommended action is this:

End unsupervised contact between your children and a man who has attempted violence, and remove yourself from direct contact with him—calmly, firmly, without dramatics or retaliation.

This is not punishment.
It is not revenge.
It is boundary-setting in accordance with reason.

---

B. Stoic Anchor (Why This Is the Correct Action)

Epictetus is explicit that philosophy is not passive endurance of harm:

“It is not reason to choose what harms you when the alternative is open.”
— Epictetus, Discourses I.2 (principle derived from the text)

And more directly:

“If you wish to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid… but if you once let yourself seem to be somebody, know that you have lost your way.”
— Epictetus, Enchiridion §13

Remaining in danger to preserve appearances is exactly the kind of false “somebody” Stoicism rejects.

---

C. What This Action Looks Like in Practice

Stoicism favors few words and decisive conduct.

1. With Your Wife

You state, once and without accusation:

• “I will not be around your father again, and our children will not be in his care, because he attempted violence. This is not a debate. I am acting to protect what is entrusted to me.”

You do not argue about motives, intentions, or family history.
You do not demand she take sides.
You state your decision, which concerns your conduct and your children’s safety.

2. With Your Father-in-Law

You do nothing further.

No confrontation.
No explanation.
No attempt to correct his character.

Epictetus is clear:

“Another person’s ruling principle is not yours to govern.”
— Epictetus, Discourses II.5

Distance is sufficient.

3. With Yourself

You abandon the belief that gratitude for childcare requires submission to hostility.

Gratitude does not override duty.

---

D. What Stoicism Explicitly Does Not Recommend Here

• ❌ “Enduring it for the sake of peace”
• ❌ “Waiting for him to change”
• ❌ “Forcing your wife to confront him”
• ❌ “Explaining yourself repeatedly”

These all place your well-being under another person’s control.

That is slavery, not Stoicism.

---

E. Final Stoic Reminder

“No man is free who is not master of himself.”
— Epictetus, Discourses IV.1

You have already shown restraint.
Now show judgment.

Stoicism does not ask you to absorb blows—physical or moral.
It asks you to stand where reason permits and no further.

Not a bad approach to take.