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.
But a successful Epicurean does not experience pain--is anyone ever able to shirk pain their entire life? Just as it is unrealistic to expect a Stoic to actually free themselves from the desire for pleasure, it seems unrealistic to expect an Epicurean to actually free themselves from pain.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about epicureanism being a natural tendency is very interesting, and I'm inclined to agree. But to expand on Jessie's comment, an epicurean is also supposed to reign in their desires to exceed. Epicureans are supposed to be content and happy with their life as it is currently, because trying to advance their situation won't make them happy. I think it is human nature to want to better their life, whether that means always trying to get a better job, a better significant other, more money, and so on. An epicurean isn't supposed to be searching for more.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways I agree that stoicism and Epicurean-ism overlap in the way you describe. However, pain is a natural part of human life and as a result, at some point we must all be stoics as well.
ReplyDeleteAre you really answering the question here? Maybe the world is made up of mostly Epicureans, but I want to know if it is a life-denying philosophy and whether Stoicism is any less life-denying. No point in even trying to follow one of these philosophies if they require you to turn your back on life itself.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what to make of Epicureanism being a more “realistic” way to live. Do you mean it’s EASY to be an Epicurean? I suspect if you don’t spend some quality time thinking about what “happiness” and “absence of pain” means to you, you’ll probably end up miserable and hurting.
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)?
This point really made me think: “Stoicism is more of an ideal that 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…” He says – “even someone who claims to be a stoic is doing so because they derive some sort of pleasure from feeling they are performing their duty…” Maybe he is right! Maybe there is nothing but pleasure seeking and the whole distinction between epicurean and stoic is ways of living is meaningless. Maybe we are just pleasure seekers and what gives us pleasure is determined partly by social rules. This is a really strange thought, but what if stoic ideas are really just a way of getting us to follow the rules and enjoy it? I think Will makes a good point that maybe Epicureanism is the only way that is real. I would just add that social rules, laws etc with all the disciplines and punishment that makes us follow those rules, makes living by the rules an epicurean choice.
ReplyDelete