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.
Is the easiest answer to the question really going to be the best one?
ReplyDeleteSpell it out for me. What exactly is the Epicurean missing? You seem to say "happiness" even though the Epicurean aims to maximize it in his life. I don't get it. Of course the Epicurean does not achieve 24/7 happiness, but he surely has more of it than a lot of us because he feels no guilt over neglecting duty or anything else that doesn't lead to long term pleasure.
What exactly is a Stoic missing? Again, you don't spell it out clearly but seem to suggest happiness. Remember, however, a Stoic's life isn't necessarily devoid of happiness; the Stoic just chooses not to have it as a goal, believing that personal happiness is no more special than any other feeling.
Remember, what sustains a Stoic, makes life worth living as it were, is the belief that what happens in life as happens for a reason. Whether what happens in life makes me feel happy or sad isn't important. The mere fact that it happened makes it sacred. Thus, my own survival in light of what life throws at me, not my own happiness, is what I concern myself with. I demonstrate that I accept the rationality of life by not giving up, no matter how it makes me feel.
Remember, a Stoic can "smell the roses" he's just not going to say one smells better than another.
The matter boils down to this: What's a sounder core value: to endure as best you can or to be as happy as you can?