Personally, I am not a huge fan of adversity. I’ve always felt that when it comes to misfortune, a little goes a long way. Sure, overcoming adversity can lead to happiness, but I’d much rather have just cut out the middleman and been happy to begin with. Strategically, I think it best to minimize the experiences that I find unappealing (such as pain and poverty) so that I can maximize the time I’ll have for appealing experiences. For example, the less time I spend being poor or sick, the more time I’ll have to be rich and healthy. Both Epicureanism and Stoicism are philosophies of life-avoidance, in that they attempt to avoid one aspect of life in order to embrace a different aspect. Although the philosophies differ in the experiences and aspects that they value, this is to be expected. Different people value different things, and as a result, not everyone wants to lead their lives the same way. Rather than being a weakness, the idea of life-avoidance is the greatest strength in both philosophies.
A.R.
You admit to learning toward Epicureanism in here, the reason being that life is short and you might as well fill it with "appealing experiences." So, are you also saying you shouldn't bother yourself over the condition of your fellow human beings? As long as you have what makes you happy, let the rest "eat cake" (or dirt or nothing at all)? Do you truly believe we have no responsiblities what so ever in life?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you seem to say that both philosophies are strong because they both put something on a pedestal and hold it in high esteem. But doesn't WHAT you put on the pedestal matter? If so, what is the best thing put up there?
How can the idea of "life avoidance" be a great strength? If life avoidance was a good thing, then aren't you advocating suicide, the ultimate form of life avoidance?