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.
I disagree in that I don't believe both philosophies dictate distance from feeling/emotion. While I agree that the Stoics do not allow strong emotional reactions, I think the Epicureans do encourage feeling. They don't encourage anything to do with pain, however they definitely encourage acting on your desires which will automatically yield feelings of pleasure.
ReplyDeleteI'm don't agree with your stance on epicureanism. You say that epicureanism is about bettering yourself in a way that isolates you from other people. I took the tower analogy in a different manner; the epicurean is a human and reacts with other humans normally, but is able to see the truth about human nature (from the tower). The epicurean knows that the constant toils of others to achieve a better life are mostly fruitless, and so the epicurean does not try to get ahead in life in order to enjoy life at the time.
ReplyDeleteWhat Epicureans are trying to do is to minimize their exposure to these other kinds of emotions, placing happiness on a pedestal, as it were. Are you arguing that those other emotions--ones most of us see as negative--are just as worthy of being on the same pedestal as happiness? If so, you are a Stoic! At any rate, Epicureans must experience other emotions, so it's not really accurate to say they don't suffer.
ReplyDeleteYour point about Stoics missing out on happiness also needs to be teased out a little more. 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.
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)?