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.
I really appreciate the way you started off your post. You don’t start off with a position you plan on defending but rather investigate the issue and weigh what position ultimately makes sense for you. That’s exactly what you’re supposed to do. Brava.
ReplyDeleteYou then conclude, “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.” Fair enough, but I don’t get how this isn’t a Stoic point of view. Remember, 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. In other words, a Stoic can enjoy a surprise birthday party but he's not going to hint to anyone that he wants one because he doesn't. A Stoic can have a drink on a Tuesday night but he'd be just as fine without one. Does this make him "passionless"?
Remember, what a Stoic is passionate about, what 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 him feel happy or sad isn't important. The mere fact that it happened makes it sacred. Thus, his own survival in light of what life throws at him, not his own happiness, is what he concerns himself with. He accepts the ultimate rationality of life by not giving up, no matter how it makes him feel. This is why the Latin concept of “Carpe diem” or “Seize the day” is actually associated with Stoicism, not Epicureanism. Carpe diem is a simple way of saying "No matter what life throws at me, I'm not going to let it bring me down. I’m going to deal with all aspects of life head on, not avoid any of it.”
It all boils down to what do you see as a sounder core value: to endure as best you can or to be as happy as you can? Which should you follow (or is there a third option)?