Monday, February 21, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hadn't thought about Epicureans and Stoics as being selfish before and I think that's a really interesting way to look at it. I think the Epicureans are definitely selfish since they do what they please. But I think the Stoics are in more of a gray area on the selfishness/selflessness scale. They devote themselves to work which doesn't necessarily benefit only them, and I think that is a pretty selfless thing to do. However it's possible that the work benefits them and only them, which would certainly make them selfish.
ReplyDeleteI think you may be combining epicureanism with some aspects of hedonism. While they do sound to be self-serving philosophies they don't do whatever they want because it will make them feel good. Epicureanists are more thinking in the long term. They dont harm people because they look down on them. Stoics think in a different aspect. I cant hurt this person because on some fundamental this person is me and I don't want to hurt myself. But I hadnt thought of Epicureans that way.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to argue that Epicureans aren't selfish like you say, but you haven't convinced me that looking out for yourself is a philosophy of life-avoidance (which is what the question asked you to do). Go further and connect the dots--if you are selfish, are you avoiding life? You seems to say we must look out for others and not worry so much about feeling good ourselves--that's fine, but why is that better?
ReplyDeleteI don't know that you can fairly categorize Stoics as selfish and uncaring. 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)?
I very much agree with your point that there are not as many epicureans/stoics in this modern day world. However, i believe people are still as selfish as those two philosophies entail (but in different ways). Continually, there is no part of that that is really 'life avoidance', only selfishness.
ReplyDelete