Epicurianism and stoicism are both life-avoidance philosophies. They are extreme but in opposite ways. An epicurean does everything to be above the pain, in their own "citadel" while stoic does not let neither pain nor joy affect him either way.
To me, at least, relationships are a huge part of life. Life is just an ever-changing group of people with whom you have either a platonic or romantic relationship with.
Both philosophies make relationships with other humans pretty much impossible. Both are incredibly unfeeling.The epicurean is off, protecting himself from pain and laughing at all the common people and their pain. The stoic doesn't let anything affect him. Not joy, not sorrow, not love. How can you have any sort of relationship with either of these people, platonic or romantic? It just wouldn't function.
Epicurianism just seems like a foolish, childish philosophy. Stoicism at least mostly makes sense. Being able to let go of things that are out of your control and to accept that bad things happen and not to let them affect you is an awesome thing to strive for. But there is no balance in this philosophy. It is all work, duty and levelheadedness. There needs to be a balance between all that and striving for personal happiness.
Good point -- although if you are a parent, doesn't stoicism dictate that you will dedicate yourself to your duty as a mother or father? I don't think it completely deprives you of relationships with other people. Your duty could be to your friend, parent, child, or romantic partner
ReplyDeleteI don't think an Epicurean is not allowed to form relationships. The point is that they should not feel guilty about ending them if they sense that it's going to become a miserable experience in the long term.
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 emotion; the Stoic just chooses not to have good emotional feelings as a goal, believing that personal happiness is no more special than any other feeling.
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)?