Both epicureanism and stoicism strike me as life-avoiding philosophies. Stoicism avoids life by not being emotional in any way, and accepting everything as fate; and if there is no way we can control things, there is no reason to get invested in them and have emotions about what happens at all. Epicureanism avoids life by doing the opposite: being invested only in emotions. Epicureaism is all about getting the most out of life, being happy all the time and only thinking about yourself.
It seems to me that stoicism avoids life more than epicureanism. Stoicism completely avoids any emotion or attachement to anything. Epicureanism preaches attachment to only yourself. It avoids everybody else and all personal feelings and complexities in life other than personal satisfaction. A person who doesn't have any emotions at all could be easily described as avoiding life entirely. A person who thinks only about themselves all the time could be described as selfish, egotistical, or avoiding some parts of life, but it would be wrong to say they are totally avoiding life if they have an interest in keeping themselves happy.
Both of these philosophies, in my opinion, seem to be ways of dealing with life. Epicureanists seem to compare their life with everyone else's and Stoics seem to as you said "accept everything as fate". Either way these people do think about other people, it's the context that counts. You could be thinking "I have what this person doesnt..." or "This person is connected to me..." They are social philosophies. Even though Epicureanists are supposed to be recluses in their ivory towers they still look at and experience people.
ReplyDeleteNo Epicurean has a stress free life, free from sadness or anger. Remember, they actually have to give up things that provide only short term happiness. What 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)?
Both of these philosophies accept life, especially a stoic. A stoic deals with both the good and bad aspects of life: not breaking down when something goes wrong. A stoic doesn't avoid all aspects of life, only the unpleasant ones. In that sense, Both take on life.
ReplyDelete