GRADING FOR BLOG POST 4 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG POST 4 (ON ROMAN PHILOSOPHY) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO THE QUESTION OR POST COMMENTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

Epicureanism vs Stoicism

I would say that most children and young adults are Epicureans. We are at an ambitious time period of our lives. So naturally, we will pursue goals that give us pleasure, and avoid those that bring us pain. Stoicism on the other hand, seems to grow with age. For example, working adults tend to find a certain pleasure in grinding away long hours so as to earn money to fuel their family’s well being.

There are points to be made from each type of philosophy. A young athlete talented in football may dominate on the field with ease. He takes pride in his talent, and how it enables him to succeed over his peers. His Epicureanism side loves this edge of life, and has no reason to complain. However, this athlete may find the academic side of his life to be very challenging, and prefers not to put himself through the stress of keeping up with his school workload. A Stoic would thrive in this situation, and push through the academic stress so that at the end of the day he would be able to take pride in his academic success.

Personally, I believe that these two philosophies go hand in hand with life. The fact of the matter is, when happiness is placed in front of us whether it be in one form or another, it is almost certain that the steps we take to obtain this happiness will vary between our many different experiences.

In Response to Hannah Kenton's "Epicureanism v. Stoicism "

My computer is not letting me post comments the regular way, so for the time being I am posting my comments as separate posts.

I really liked the way that you approached the question posed to the class. Before concluding which philosophy you preferred, you thought about what you are trying to get out of life. You realized that both philosophies attempt to avoid different things, and that people may find the avoidance of these things acceptable or unacceptable depending on what they are trying to experience in their lifetimes. I thought that this was a unique and effective way to go about answering the question.

In Response to Zoe Loversky's "Epicureanism v. Stoicism"

My computer is not letting me post comments the regular way, so for the time being I am posting my comments as separate posts.

I found your post really interesting and especially enjoyed the point you made in the last sentence of your second paragraph. You said that "sometimes you must suffer in order to reach a higher level of contentment." I completely agree with this statement. However, I believe that an Epicurean would likely accept this statement as truth as well. Epicureans seek the maximization of pleasure in both the short term and the long term. As a result, I believe that they would be willing to accept small doses of suffering in the short run in order to achieve larger amounts of pleasure in the future, and that they could do this without contradicting their philosophy.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Both epicureanism and stoicism strike me as life-avoiding philosophies. Stoicism avoids life by not being emotional in any way, and accepting everything as fate; and if there is no way we can control things, there is no reason to get invested in them and have emotions about what happens at all. Epicureanism avoids life by doing the opposite: being invested only in emotions. Epicureaism is all about getting the most out of life, being happy all the time and only thinking about yourself.
It seems to me that stoicism avoids life more than epicureanism. Stoicism completely avoids any emotion or attachement to anything. Epicureanism preaches attachment to only yourself. It avoids everybody else and all personal feelings and complexities in life other than personal satisfaction. A person who doesn't have any emotions at all could be easily described as avoiding life entirely. A person who thinks only about themselves all the time could be described as selfish, egotistical, or avoiding some parts of life, but it would be wrong to say they are totally avoiding life if they have an interest in keeping themselves happy.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Epicureanism is based almost completely on making oneself comfortable, looking out for yourself only, caring about, you guessed it, yourself. Stoicism is based on duty and morality. Don’t look to make yourself happier, because that is not in the grand design of Reason, or fate. Stoics focus on fulfilling their duty, playing their part in nature, be happy knowing that everything will turn out in the end. An epicurean wants to gain as much knowledge as possible to release their mind from worry, relieve it of stress, take comfort in their citadel of knowledge that raises them up and separates them from anyone else. A stoic wants to gain as much knowledge as possible to gain reason, and understanding of nature that brings you closer to equilibrium with nature. A stoic’s knowledge that there is a bigger picture, a grand scheme of Reason, a natural fate for all things is what is to be their source of happiness. They don’t need to complain, or celebrate, or criticize, there is no reason for it, because really, you didn’t do anything worth celebrating for or suffering anything worth complaining over seeing as fate dictates all actions. The most important thing for stoics to do is to do their duty, completing and carrying out fate. In order to understand this, and be happy in the stoic sense, you must learn and be in harmony with nature, if you attach yourself to any externals, you will not be in balance with nature therefore not carrying out fate properly, and therefore not reaching happiness. An epicurean does not believe in a grand design, or really action for anything but themselves. The ultimate goal is to make themselves and only themselves happy. Have friends because they make you happy, but don’t help someone if it discomforts you, other people should have the common sense to look after themselves. Don’t steal because, just think of the discomfort you would suffer if you got caught. However a stoic would not steal because it would not be doing your moral duty. Stealing, and the desire to steal, would put you out of harmony with nature. An epicurean is solely concerned with their own comfort, their own pleasure, and their own standing as they don’t believe in any sort of fate or grand design (if there are gods, they aren’t concerned with humans). A stoic is similarly concerned with their own standing, but they believe that in the end, everything will have reason and that everything will have balance so they should not concern themselves with emotion and do their duty in order to achieve/ fulfill their ultimate goal/ role in fate’s design.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Epicureanism and Stoicism are both ways of dealing with happiness. Epicureanism is happiness in the long term that is all about you. You are constantly comparing yourself to others and looking down on other people. The example from our seminar reading from the Nature of Things actually has an epicureanist looking down on people from a tower and comparing himself to them. Epicureanism is also about bettering yourself but in a way that allows you to isolate yourself further from those around you. Education is the key to enlightenment and happiness because having knowledge will give you the edge over people and make you happy that you have learned all these things at the end of your life. In my opinion I would rather have moments of happiness during my life, although not as many as a hedonist.

Stoicism seems to be a rather singular lifestyle too but not in the way that still manages to keep everyone together. According to the stoics we are all parts of a divine being therefore we are all the same and it would be harmful to ourselves to harm one another. But stoicism also states that "wisemen are free from passion". To free yourself from strong emotion is to achieve ataraxia through distancing yourself from things that cause emotion.

Each of these philiosophies dictate distancing yourself from experiences that could make you feel anything. In that ultimate goal they aren't much different. It's how you get there.

Epicureanism v. Stoicism

Humans are, for the most part, instinctive Epicureans. We seek comfort and pleasure, sometimes despite the pain and costs to others. We are selfish. Stoic values are often upheld in that many people believe in fate, God(s), and that the soul is eternal. Both philosophies are selfish. Epicureans are selfish in that they want only pleasure. Stoics are selfish in that their relationships and emotions do not weigh them down. Epicureans strive for the absolute best and Stoics simply do not care. While both philosophies are regarded as incredibly influential to this day, I do not think that either should influence society any longer. People nowadays seem to be raised in a manner that asks them to be more selfless than either of these philosophies allow. I don't believe that experiences, relationships and mere human nature could allow people to be this selfish, unfeeling, cold and just rather ridiculous.

Epicurianism vs Stoicism

Epicurianism and stoicism are both life-avoidance philosophies. They are extreme but in opposite ways. An epicurean does everything to be above the pain, in their own "citadel" while stoic does not let neither pain nor joy affect him either way.

To me, at least, relationships are a huge part of life. Life is just an ever-changing group of people with whom you have either a platonic or romantic relationship with.

Both philosophies make relationships with other humans pretty much impossible. Both are incredibly unfeeling.The epicurean is off, protecting himself from pain and laughing at all the common people and their pain. The stoic doesn't let anything affect him. Not joy, not sorrow, not love. How can you have any sort of relationship with either of these people, platonic or romantic? It just wouldn't function.

Epicurianism just seems like a foolish, childish philosophy. Stoicism at least mostly makes sense. Being able to let go of things that are out of your control and to accept that bad things happen and not to let them affect you is an awesome thing to strive for. But there is no balance in this philosophy. It is all work, duty and levelheadedness. There needs to be a balance between all that and striving for personal happiness.

epicureanism vs.stoicism

Epicureanists and Stoics believe in self equality but to two different extremes. Epicureanists believe that men should be free from passion and completely unmoved/unaffected by emotions. Stoics believe that men should have a sense of balance in nature and view themselves as a particle of nature.

Epicureanists encourage the idea that strong individuals are given birth through the lack of connection to personal objects/emotions. Though many individuals may criticize this ideology as cruel and unrealistic, epicureanists believe that by freeing yourself from passion and other binding emotions you can truly understand the true “nature of things”. One of the significant advantages of this idea is that having freedom from your emotions allows you to be unharmed/unaffected by painful(sad) emotions. However, the disadvantage is that having a lack of emotions disables an individual from having a sense of connection with other individuals and ultimately life experiences.

Stoics encourage the idea that strong individuals are given birth through their personal connections to nature. They believe that by having close binds with nature, you are more easily able to examine your conscience. They also believe that by welcoming every situation calmly you create a better balance in nature. One significant advantage of this ideology is that you would be able to have a deeper connection with everything in nature, even the simpler things in life that we may sometimes overlook/not appreciate. Another advantage is that you would ultimately have a more positive outlook on life. A disadvantage of this theology is that viewing everything with a positive outlook, it can sometimes make it very difficult to see both the good and the bad in every situation.

Epicureanism v. Stoicism

Before I could decide which group avoids life more, I thought about how I define the fulfillment of life and, in turn, the avoidance of life. I decided that the people who live their lives to the fullest are those who take risks, those who indulge in the things that give them pleasure, and those who aren't afraid to strive for what they want. So given this definition, people who avoid life are those who do not take risks, those who do not indulge in anything, and those who do not try because they are afraid of failing.

Based off these conclusions, I believe the Stoics avoid life much more than the Epicureans do. The Epicureans do what they please, and avoid anything that has the potential to cause them pain. While this avoidance of pain doesn't really fit into my criteria for a fulfilled life because there is a lack of risk, the Epicureans still strive for what they want. The Stoics, on the other hand, do not participate in activities that make them happy because they do not want to show emotion. This suppression of feelings is totally against human nature and I think it is a recipe for unhappiness.

Although the converse side of this is the Stoics actually want to focus on work and avoid intense feelings. So if this is what they want, then wouldn't they be living their lives to the fullest as well? There are valid arguments for both sides, but in my opinion the Stoics avoid life more by avoiding emotion, which is the key to living a happy and fulfilled life.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

People are naturally epicureans. It is human nature to seek out pleasure and avoid suffering. Epicureanism is often seen as cold and uncaring, but consider a person who genuinely gains pleasure from performing random acts of kindness. Are they not also an epicurean? Everyone who is kind to people does so because something about it brings them pleasure, even if it is simply that they like feeling like they did the right thing. In that sense, everyone is an epicurean.

Stoicism is more of an ideal than anything realistic. People can try to discipline themselves as much as they can, but at the end of the day they are just repressing their natural desires, most of the time unsuccessfully. It is not possible to be a stoic. It is however possible, and even natural, to be an epicurean. Even someone who claims to be a stoic is doing so because they derive some form of pleasure from feeling they are performing their duties, which technically would make them an epicurean.

Epicureanism is the most realistic way to live, simply because it is impossible not to follow it.

From a practiced Epicurean and an aspiring Stoic, I, like Siddhartha, would like to find the middle path. As children and adolescents, I think most of us are natural Epicureans. We are attracted to those things that give us pleasure and avoid those things that give us pain. This pattern works pretty well until we get closer to adulthood. We start realizing that if we limit ourselves to just activities that are fun in the moment, we start losing out on the possibilities for our lives. For example, if a kid is a naturally great singer, he/she might take choral arts and spend a lot of time performing. But if that same kid is not a good athlete, he/she might just give up on sports. By only taking on activities that are easy, we lose out on many experiences. Who is to say that there is more pleasure in being very successful at something that comes easy for you than succeeding at something that requires great effort.

I think the choice between Epicurean and Stoic values is one that everyone faces as they grow up. There just isn't any way to become a responsible adult without taking on some Stoic practices. For example, a parent has to be willing to do without sleep to care for a newborn baby, or work at a job they hate to pay the rent. These sacrifices give the adult pleasure because they feel good about taking care of their family. On the other hand, if a parent loses the ability to just have fun and play like a kid, they can become depressed and angry.

When I think of these things, it makes me wonder if both Epicureans and Stoics have good ideas. Maybe the best choice is a middleway that incorporates both philosophies.

Blog Response 4: Life-Avoidance in Epicureanism and Stoicism

In reality, both Epicureanism and Stoicism involve sorts of life-avoidance. Epicureans aim to avoid pain, Stoics aim to avoid strong emotions. Quite frankly, neither seems perfectly realistic -- pain is an intrinsic aspect of human existence, as adversity is generally unavoidable. Similarly, as adversity is unavoidable, negative and positive emotions are unavoidable. To live without pain or emotion is to never live.

That being said, I tend towards Stoicism in my own life. Growing up, my parents have always impressed upon me the importance of recognizing what is and is not within my control. Stoicism dictates that one should not allow herself to bemoan (or celebrate, for that matter) an occurrence that is not under her control. I suppose I live my life with a modified brand of Stoicism. While no one can completely avoid feeling sorrow and anger and joy, I believe it is very possible (and very necessary) to resist feeling too frustrated about situations we can do nothing to change.

For me, both philosophies bring into question the situation of the death of a loved one. Epicurean philosophy aims to relieve a person of the fear of death, yet I can’t help doubt that a person could be totally mentally and emotionally prepared for a friend or family member passing away. In fact, I would think that the lack of a spirit or soul that persists beyond death in Epicurean philosophy would make it even more difficult for an Epicurean to cope in this situation. Similarly, Stoicism states that a person must have apatheia, or lack of passion, to exist free from worry. But even a person who believes we should not cry over situations we can’t control must feel sorrow and emotional pain after the passing of a loved one.

Ultimately I think a philosophy that stresses avoidance of pain or emotion cannot really help someone deal with the death of a loved one. Pain and strong emotions are essential elements of everyone’s lives, and we cannot realistically deny them. So while I think that Stoicism (and Epicureanism for that matter) may be necessary or helpful on a day-to-day basis, neither of them can emotionally prepare someone for a situation such as death or war.

Time Constraints: Life-Avoidance as a Strategic Decision

The average life expectancy for a white male living in the United States is approximately 75 years; I’m about a quarter of the way there. At the very most, I have 70-80 years left before I pass away, and at the least, I could die later tonight. Due to these time constraints, there are only so many experiences that any one person can have in their life.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of adversity. I’ve always felt that when it comes to misfortune, a little goes a long way. Sure, overcoming adversity can lead to happiness, but I’d much rather have just cut out the middleman and been happy to begin with. Strategically, I think it best to minimize the experiences that I find unappealing (such as pain and poverty) so that I can maximize the time I’ll have for appealing experiences. For example, the less time I spend being poor or sick, the more time I’ll have to be rich and healthy. Both Epicureanism and Stoicism are philosophies of life-avoidance, in that they attempt to avoid one aspect of life in order to embrace a different aspect. Although the philosophies differ in the experiences and aspects that they value, this is to be expected. Different people value different things, and as a result, not everyone wants to lead their lives the same way. Rather than being a weakness, the idea of life-avoidance is the greatest strength in both philosophies.

A.R.

Epicureanism v. Stoicism

Epicureanism is essentially the seeking of joy and delights while avoiding disturbance and pain. Stoicism is basically the impassivity to all the wonder and sorrow that fills the world. Very few people are 100% on one side or the other due to the repercussions each life style has on every day life.

To be an Epicurean, one must have the notion that going out on a tuesday night and getting very drunk is totally acceptable (as long as you enjoy it). However this happy-go-lucky lifestyle can have a negative toll on an epicureans well-being. What if a paper was due the following day? What if that paper determines your grade in a college class? What if that grade is the difference between getting hired or not? There are other aspects to life other than basking in pleasure, and sometimes you must suffer in order to reach a higher level of contentment.

On the other side, there is Stoicism. Although a society would surely get things done in a swift and efficient manner, there would really be no heart put into anything. Everyone would simply do there duty and then move on to another passionless task. Instead of going out on a tuesday and partying it up, they would never go out at all (only celebrating if it was their duty- like a birthday).

While the first lifestyle seems to overly pursue pleasure, the second avoids and deny's such urges. In the regular day-to-day life a normal person would usually follow both Epicureanism and stoicism: Letting lose on the weekends and working hard when necessary. In that sense life can be enjoyed in many different ways.

In a nut shell, epicureans and stoics both avoid life but in different ways and to different extremes.

Epicureans avoid life by experiencing little pain and discomfort. Epicureans live their life with happiness and constantly seek pleasure. From a personal definition life contains a multiple of emotions: anxiety, stress, sad, angry, and happiness to name a few, and to be fully engrossed in life one must experience these emotions. With this in mind, epicureans only experience one of many emotions and never experience life as whole as they constantly please them selves, not caring about outsiders. As a result of constantly seeking pleasure, an epicurean may become egocentric and commanding (behavior that is unprofessional and hard to deal with) if their pleasure level is not met. An individual who follows the beliefs of epicureans will never encounter the troubles of life, stress or hardships within families that are all needed to fully experience life. Though, others may argue that to fully understand what if feels like to be in a state a pleasure one must experience all other emotions.

To the contrary, stoics believe that pleasure does not exist in life and nor does any other types of emotions. Stoics live their lives as if nothing phases them, nothing moves them to express emotions. These beliefs seems hard and sad for me to believe, as emotions are necessary in life to fully experience reality. Because emotions encompass life, inhibiting emotions therefore states that one avoids life all together. An stoic will not show emotion when their daughter/son gets married or when their pet dies. On the other hand, not experiencing emotion in a difficult situation such as being bullied or being involved in a fight may help an individual not be traumatized like an other individual may be.

With the above examples in mind, stoics avoid life at a higher level than epicureans, as stoics don't experience emotions rather epicureans experience at least one emotion, pleasure. Though both avoid life altogether but by different means

Blog Response 1

The easiest answer to this question is that both epicureanism and stoicism are avoiding life equally. Epicureanism, while supposedly allowing the epicurean to follow their desires, leaves people cold and unfeeling, to the point where they cannot experience basic joys of life, like friendship. If a true epicurean had a friend, it is not because they simply enjoyed being around this person, but because they feel as if they can get ahead in life because they are friends with this person. So maybe this person would befriend someone very disagreeable and unlikable only because this "friend" could get them ahead in life, leaving the epicurean devoid of any real friends. The stoic on the other hand, would make friends out of duty, not because he had any desire to do so. He would make friends with the person he was expected to be friends with, and be as good as a friend as he is expected to. However, I feel as he too would not get as much out of the experience as is possible, because stoics are not supposed to feel either grief or joy, the latter especially playing a big part in friendship.

The problem with the two is that neither stops to "smell the roses". The epicurean continues forward, always trying to make the decision that will best benefit himself later in life; he makes friends that will help him later on, sacrificing his current happiness. The stoic ignores the roses more conciously; unless happiness is his duty, it is not the most important thing, so he will not take the the time and effort to strive for it.

So both the epicurean and the stoic are missing out on a major portion of life, but I think that the epicurean is more so avoiding life because while the stoic is fulfilling his goal of life for the most part by doing his duty, the epicurean is not fulfilling his goal of happiness because he is denying himself happiness in those aspects such as denying himself the pleasures of friendships and other things that epicureans view as pure conveniences.

BLOG POST 4: EPICUREANISM V. STOICISM

An epicurean might see a stoic as foolish since they condemn their natural urges and do not hold in high esteem personal happiness. A stoic might criticize the epicurean aim of a life with minimal pain since it seems to dismiss the pleasure that can be found in achieving a difficult goal and overcoming adversity. In short, each see the other’s philosophy as one of life-avoidance.

Weigh in on this debate, articulating your point of view. Please back up your opinions with an explanation and specific examples. Feel free to bring in other dimensions of these philosophies discussed in class (the role of experience and our thoughts in our happiness, the role of duty--those things we may not want to do but need to do--in our happiness, etc.)

POST DUE: Tuesday, February 22 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Friday, February 25 by the start of class.

Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.