In reality, both Epicureanism and Stoicism involve sorts of life-avoidance. Epicureans aim to avoid pain, Stoics aim to avoid strong emotions. Quite frankly, neither seems perfectly realistic -- pain is an intrinsic aspect of human existence, as adversity is generally unavoidable. Similarly, as adversity is unavoidable, negative and positive emotions are unavoidable. To live without pain or emotion is to never live.
That being said, I tend towards Stoicism in my own life. Growing up, my parents have always impressed upon me the importance of recognizing what is and is not within my control. Stoicism dictates that one should not allow herself to bemoan (or celebrate, for that matter) an occurrence that is not under her control. I suppose I live my life with a modified brand of Stoicism. While no one can completely avoid feeling sorrow and anger and joy, I believe it is very possible (and very necessary) to resist feeling too frustrated about situations we can do nothing to change.
For me, both philosophies bring into question the situation of the death of a loved one. Epicurean philosophy aims to relieve a person of the fear of death, yet I can’t help doubt that a person could be totally mentally and emotionally prepared for a friend or family member passing away. In fact, I would think that the lack of a spirit or soul that persists beyond death in Epicurean philosophy would make it even more difficult for an Epicurean to cope in this situation. Similarly, Stoicism states that a person must have apatheia, or lack of passion, to exist free from worry. But even a person who believes we should not cry over situations we can’t control must feel sorrow and emotional pain after the passing of a loved one.
Ultimately I think a philosophy that stresses avoidance of pain or emotion cannot really help someone deal with the death of a loved one. Pain and strong emotions are essential elements of everyone’s lives, and we cannot realistically deny them. So while I think that Stoicism (and Epicureanism for that matter) may be necessary or helpful on a day-to-day basis, neither of them can emotionally prepare someone for a situation such as death or war.
You say Epicureanism and Stoicism will ultimately fail you when life goes drastically wrong. Why? Because it's not realistic that an Epicurean or a Stoic won't feel something negative when this happens.
ReplyDeleteCan you tell me why you are so sure of this? If I truly come to accept the Epicurean belief the best course in life is to minimize pain, then why is it a sure thing that I will grieve when a family member dies? If I truly come to accept the Stoic belief that what happens in life as happens for a reason, then why is it a sure thing that I will cry when a friend dies on the battlefield? You seem to be saying it's unrealistic for humans to hold to their convictions in the face of adversity. But perhaps humans don't hold to convictions in the face of adversity because they never had them to begin with. Isn’t this really the case in our modern age?
If you do believe we can hold on to our convictions but the challenge is finding one, then tell me what 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)?