POSTING FOR QUESTION #5 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 5 (ROMAN VIEWS OF HAPPINESS) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 5 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

Epicureans vs. Stoics

I think if I was asked at a young age if I were an Epicurean or a Stoic, I would definitely say Epicurean. They live in the moment. Seize the day. As a young person that's exactly what you want to do. Spend nice summer days with your friends without any worry in the world. You enter the world and it's tough, but to overcome diversity is sweet. Live without any pain. No emotions. No attachments. It makes perfect sense. Without any pain or stress, you can only live with pleasure and happiness in the day, and can only hope to be just as happy the next. But wait. Kids form attachments to the smallest of things. Teddy bears, a blanket, their parents. To live without attaching yourself to anything would be like living as a Spartan boy. You grow up to only become a warrior. Your mother gives you up at an early age, and you are forced to fend for yourself. This is the only way people can't form attachments: by learning not to attach at an early age. Otherwise, you will have pain, suffering, and other things. More realistically people will have experienced heartbreak: maybe from a lover, or maybe from the loss of a loved one. A person, therefore, must accept that, and learn to avoid and/or fight these sorrows head one. You can be happy, but some things are just more important sometimes. I think that I am a epicurean because I form attachments and make plans to be happy in the future instead of not knowing day to day. I plan to go to college, and live my life, and get a good job, and make a good income for my family. Once I reach these goals I will be satisfied with my life.

P.S. to Mr. B,
I have not had internet access. Sorry for it being late. Will bring note to class.

Epicurean vs Stoicism

As much as I would like to be a stoic, for the lone reason that their philosophy is based on living in the moment and living for today not thinking about tomorrow I feel that as I get older I am slowly leading towards an Epicurean point of view. When your younger I believe you tend to look for short-term happiness because as a teenager you realize that no one is immortal and one day you'll have to act like a grown up. However towards the end of high school adults, teachers or parents, make it clear that you can't only focus on the short-term because in the end you won't be prepared for life. An adult tries to plan ahead and for the future. They want to make sure that when they reach a certain age they won't have any worries of any kind and be set for the rest of their life. I think that this dimension of age also plays a role in whether people will have an epicurean point of view on life or a stoics.

Roman views of happiness

Epicurean's look for long term happiness, and a happy life as a whole, where Stoics look for short term happiness, or happiness from day to day. I feel that Epicurean's views of happiness are more of a way of life avoidance that that of the stoics. They do not look to enjoy life from day to day, and make many sacrifices in order to live an overall happy life. I feel that one should live each day to the happiest and best we can. Though I make sacrifices of happiness, such as putting time aside in my afternoon to do homework and going to school on Monday through Friday, I still try to put aside time to have fun with friends every day. The stoics look for pleasure every day, which I think makes them embrace life rather than avoid it.

Stoicism & Epicureanism

Although I admit I am still not totally sure I understand Stoic and Epicurean philosophies, what I believe to be the major difference between the two is the timeframe that each one focuses on. Stoics seem to focus more pleasure in the here and now, while Epicureans view happiness as a more long term process. While I try to live my life as more of a stoic, thinking about what would make me happy in that exact moment, i realize that a lot of things i do are a result of Epicurean thinking. I do consider the immediate effect and how i will feel directly after making a decision, I think a large part of the decision making process is considering what the long-term effect will be. For example, it's saturday and my friends call me to see if i want to hang out. I do, but i also know that i have a huge project due the following monday. Going out with my friends would make me happier in the moment, but i know that getting a good grade in the class would make me happier in the long run so i would probably opt for the project. For this reason i think that Epicureanism plays a larger role in society today, but stoic beliefs are not ignored.

ROMAN VIEWS OF HAPPINESS

epicurean philosophy looks towards the long term of form of happiness meanwhile Stoic philosophy look towards immediate pleasures.
i believe both philosophy are right to a certain extent. for Stoics they are just following what they want witch is immediate pleasure. u cant really blame them for want that to me it just like a natural instinct that they willing give into. and in a way they don't need to plan for the future since if you keep living in the present your looking for constant pleasure and that turns into your future.
but for Epicureans they want to look ahead to achieve there future goals and are willing to sacrifice immidaite or future pleasures. to me they are like kids saving up money to buy a expansive toy the see all the other kids buy small cheap things but there willing to wait for the big prize.
to me both seem like a good way to go about life just one requires more patience and the other is very fickle.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Epicureans seek happiness in the avoidance of pain. Stoics seek happiness in indifference to pain. These philosophies are at odds with each other because they differ at a base level: the idea of pain. Epicureans see pain as an unpleasant thing, something to be avoided at all costs, while stoics see pain as something to cope with. To a stoic, happiness is an idea and so is sorrow. If you can control the way you think about things, as is the stoic way, then you can be happy even when in pain (not to bring up masochism). Epicureans avoid pain, but they might accuse stoics of avoiding reality because, to an epicurean, pain always leads to suffering. Stoics simply do not see the connection between pain and suffering as an unbreakable one.

For example, allow me to introduce Bob the Epicurean and Steve the Stoic. They are both in Mr. Boswell’s Humanities class, and the final exam is fast approaching. They both know that the exam is going to be full of pain if they don’t study for it. In an effort to avoid this pain, Bob the Epicurean studies his notes on the class. Steve the Stoic, however, knows that he can control his response to the pain of the exam and he can be happy. During the exam, Bob knows the answers and avoids the pain of failing. Steve has a happy attitude and fails miserably. After the exam, both are happy.

Stoicism seems the more logical philosophy to me because a stoic can be as happy as s/he wishes, no matter their lot in life, while an epicurean must constantly struggle to make choices that will bring them the least amount of pain.

Roman Views of Happiness

I'm not exactly sure I quite understand what the two philosophies mean, but this is what I think they mean. Epicureans way of living is to think about long-term happiness, and how their actions in the present will better contribute to their future happiness. Stoics believe in happiness in the present and the short-term pleasure. They believe that if you do things that make you happy at that moment, then you will always be happy. Stoics try to make the most of the day, and not bother doing anything that makes them unhappy.
I think that both ideas are really interesting. I don't think I can choose one I like more though. I like the Epicurean philosophy because I think you should do things that you may not like now, so that you can succeed in the future. For example going through school so that you can get a good job, and getting a good job so you can live comfortably and happily.
I like the Stoic philosophy because I have always wanted to live in the moment and I always admired people that did. If it wasn't the cultural norm to go to high school, then college, then work, I don't think I would. I would do things that make me happy on a day-to-day basis. I would live my life to the fullest and not do anything that I don't want to do. Why wouldn't I be happy in the future if everyday I did something that made me happy? The answer to that is I would be happy. I would forever be happy because I would only do what I want.
I don't think this is a great way to run society but I think it would be so fun to try it out.
Both philosophies are really interesting, but I don't know if I can choose one I like better.

A Defense of Stoicism

True Stoicism, much like truth or absolution in anything, is an abstraction. If a life's experience is defined as a series of emotional responses to external stimuli (a common, though not necessarily Stoic definition), then he who calls himself a true Stoic is either a liar or not truly living at all. It is the rare (and, often, comatose) man who can completely repress the emotions of joy and sorrow, of lust and anguish, of fear and loathing. I, personally, can not avoid feeling or expressing great pain or ecstasy, no matter how much I attempt to contain myself and the emotional stirrings within.

However, just because true Stoicism is an impossibility does not mean it can not be an excellent model for modern living. Indeed, for those educated in its ways, Stoicism appears to be the most logical path to a life completely devoted to progress, accomplishment and self-fulfillment. Too often are we so bogged down in our internal drive to experience great lengths of physical and psychological pleasure that the higher and more honorable quests for accomplishment are forgotten and cast aside. Think of how many more papers Einstein could have written had he not been forced to wrangle with his infamous marital issues, or how great Napoleon's empire would have been had he not allowed his romantic troublings cloud his judgment.

The Epicurean believes that the ultimate goal of a lifetime is gradual pleasure, but even this thinking is flawed. Even the most minute pleasure steals effort from less selfish ventures. Who wants to live this way? I don't, and I don't know anyone who does. However, those who do have the tools and the capability to live a life that is fulfilled to its highest potential.

Stoicism vs Epicureanism

I believe that our society is more Epicurean than Stoic. School is based on the principle of a better future. The happiness and satisfaction of a good education comes after you finish high school and then again after you finish college if you choose to do so. Although everyone would like to be more like a stoic, enjoying life and living in the moment, its not always best in the long run. For example: someone who enjoys the rush of gambling and chooses to gamble on a daily basis will enjoy their life especially when they win big. But the chances of losing are much greater than the chances of winning. Therefore they will eventually run out of money trying to satisfy their addiction and will be unhappy. So although a stoic lifestyle would a lot of fun it wouldn't be as wise as if you lived a Epicurean lifestyle.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Epicureans choose not to indulge in actions that would allow them happiness for only a short period of time, but instead think about long-term happiness. Stoics, on the other hand, prefer to find happiness in smaller periods. I mostly agree with the Epicurean point-of-view, because I think that planning ahead makes me happier than if I were to only focus on the present. Looking at "the long run" makes me more comfortable. Take the often used example of school: I am planning on doing my homework and getting good grades so that I will graduate and continue on to do something that I really care about and enjoy. Because of this, I sometimes have to do things that make me unhappy (work). A stoic would skip the homework and partake in something more enjoyable, but may not do well enough to get into, say, a good college. For this reason, I feel more secure looking at life in an Epicurean way.

Roman Views of Happiness

I'm going to be honest. Sitting in a classroom and being given the dictionary definition of a Stoic or an Epicurean; it's difficult for me to get a grasp on what they truly mean. However, assuming my interpretations of both are correct, I believe the Epicureans have the right idea. Stoics are all about a sort of divine inspiration. They see happiness as a strategy for survival. Survival? Thats not the first word that pops into mind when I think of happiness. I think the Stoics are missing the point that happiness is a component of a good life. They believe that everything happens for a reason. They preach an aprohairotic principle, in other words; no control. It does seem like a sort of life-avoidance when viewed in the Stoic light. Why go through life simply trying to get to the next day. The whole concept of low regard for oneself on the surface may seem pretty pleasant. However, it doesnt mean that esteem is going towards the benefit of the society.
The Epicurean philosophy despite being superior, in my opinion, still has some flaws. It seems very similar to the teachings of Buddhism though, doesnt it? The idea of peace of mind, and realease from pain on the surface seems very pleasant. However, there is just something missing. Is it truly that simple? No, it praises the idea of simple pleasures, however, the bodily desires are seen as inhibiting the body's potential. For instance, we are allowed to eat, but to eat too much would cause one to stray from the path. Maybe thats not such a bad thing, cutting down on eating. However, we have all had that time where we just want to bloat ourselves. This philosophy prevents that. While it preaches on enjoying life's simple pleasures, it denies us those pleasures we take for granted.

Epicurean vs Stoic

Epicureans seek happiness in their lives as a whole, thinking about how their actions will affect them in the long run. Their ultimate goal is peace of mind. Stoics on the other hand seek more immediate happiness, focusing more on the here and now. They accept everything as it is, believing that everything that happens is for the best. Although I believe that the Stoic practice of accepting the universe as it is with no regrets and no fear of death is great, I believe that Epicureanism is the better philosophy. Although I would love to spend my time just hanging out with friends I don’t, instead I spend my time with schoolwork and extracurricular activities. I do this because although hanging out with friends would give me immediate happiness in the long run it would only do me harm. I would end up stressed out at 3 in the morning doing all my work last minute or I would simply do poorly in school. With bad grades and no extracurricular activities I would be unable to get into a good college. Without a college degree I would be unable to get a job that pays well and that I enjoy doing. Instead I do what my not be as much fun now so that in the future I can have a happy and fulfilling life.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Logically, I think we are more of an Epicurean society. Much of our society is based on long term happiness, even if it causes annoyance in the short term. At the minimum, people spend 16 years (12 Elementary-High School, 4 College) of their lives being educated. Of course, a good majority of us do not enjoy a healthy amount of tasks we are given. I don't like doing math at all, but I must do well in it to go to another school (college), where I must do well in order to graduate and begin the career that all of this work has led to. If you want to be a doctor, Epicureanism is the way to go. If being a doctor will make you happy, you must spend 20 years possibly of schooling to achieve this goal. This is something that would surely along the way contain numerous tedious tasks you do not enjoy, but after all that work, you would achieve your happiness goal.
Stoicism is more about short term happiness. My instincts often tell me to sit around doing nothing and forget about my work until the very last second, because I like TV and Video games more than homework. However, I must think about "Future Tim". I don't want Future Tim to be up late and be stressed because Present Tim wanted to watch TV. Also, Future Tim wouldn't do well on his test if he was very stressed. While "living in the moment" and always doing what gives you instant happiness can work for a while, eventually it leads to the opposite effect.

Stoicism Vs. Epicureanism

I believe that stoicism is a more realistic view of life so it is therefore a better view. if you are Epicurean and spend your entire life searching for endless pleasure you will be unable to comprehend the bad things that happen to you in your life, as bad things happen to everyone. whereas where a stoic will be able to accept these things and move on, an Epicurean will not know how to react as they seek a sheltered existence. There is a time for both pleasure and pain in life, Stoics realize this and that there is no way to have one without having the other, there is no pleasure without pain and there is no pain without pleasure. stoics realize that you have to balance the two in order to have a meaningful existence.

Epicureanism vs Stoicism

I, on the other hand, find the philosophies of Epicureanism and Stoicism to be those of living life to the fullest, not one of life-avoidance; albeit each philosophy achieving this objective through different means. Regardless of what the epicureans or the stoic philosophers might say about each other, I believe that they are not avoiding life as they each define it.

Epicureans try to maximize happiness and minimize pain thoughout their lives, not just day by day, which requires, on the part of the epicurean, long-term thought and planning. Epicureans believe that the only evil is pain and that the only good is happiness in the form of peace of mind or tranquility; to get rid of the pain, one needs to get rid of thoughts of death. For example, facing the death of a loved one, an epicurean, instead of being preoccupied with the inevitable grief, would try to come to terms to it, accept it (not avoid it) and move on (not dwell on the pain as most people would do for long periods of time). While in the eyes of many this would not be appropriate respect to the dead, for the epicurean dwelling on this pain would not maximize the happiness in one's life, it would diminish it.

Stoics embrace the true nature of things as they see it, embrace their place in the universe and accept the notion that the leading principle of the world is reason, thus everything which happens in the world is not only natural, but also for the best. This force of reason is not to be confused with cold indifference; reason is aimed for the good of the whole. Stoics lead their lives day by day (seize the day), not knowing whether each day is their last; focusing on only those things which are in their control. One major factor which is not in the control of any one person is fate. For example, when the time comes to die, you should not fight it, just accept that your time on earth is done and die. Like an epicurean, stoics maintain that death is a part of life and should not be dwelled upon. Contrary to what an epicurean philosopher might maintain, a stoic neither denies the notion of happiness or pleasure. But for them these notions are to be found in the world as is, a world governed by order and reason. So the question, in my view, is not that of life-avoidance, but of embracing different visions of life and all that it entails, including pleasure, happiness, order and reason.

Epicurean or Stoic?

Epicureans look for long term happiness over the course of life, while Stoics try to seek happiness in short durations. I try to look at life through a stoic perspective, simply because its easier to generate happiness over short periods of time as opposed to happiness in the long run. From the point of an Epicurean, me going to school for the last eleven or so years in order to get my diploma next may so that I may further my completion of goals in order to achieve my vision really makes me wonder if it is all really worth it. At what point do I say that it is? From a stoic point of view, I could find pleasure in something as simple as eating a cheeseburger, or even better, a Chipotle burrito. Of course I would not do this every day, but there are so many options in order to generate short term pleasure as opposed to that in the long run. I'm more of a "live in the moment" sort of person. Take it in, enjoy it while I can. Sure I may not enjoy the academic part of school, but the social part I enjoy. In a year or so I may never see my friends here again. Why wouldn't I enjoy each little moment I have left?

Epicurean vs Stoic

As discussed in class an Epicurean finds happiness in the long term goals while a Stoic aims for more immediate happiness. I feel that it would be better to look at life from an Epicurean view point. I feel this mainly because if you try hard for a longterm goal then you will view your life as being happy later on. For example, if i were to wake up every morning and go to school to learn and get my highschool diploma and eventually go to collage, then I will most likely become somewhat succesful later in life. This will allow me to do what i want to do later and I will then be happy. When looking at this from a Stoic point of view, they may see them selves as doing what makes them happy every day leading to ultimate happiness. I personally dont think that this would lead to overall happiness because i like to look at things in the long term, and when looking at this philosophy in the long term i can see some flaws with it. If i did the things that make me happy everyday such as skiing, it is fairly expensive and it would soon drain my funds. Although skiing is a large part of my life eventually I would have to stop because i would not have the means to pay for it anymore. It is important to have a mixture of short term and long term happiness in life in order to achieve the ultimate goal of overall happiness.

Blog Post #5: Roman Views of Happiness

An epicurean might see a stoic as foolish since they condemn their natural urges and do not hold in high esteem personal happiness. A stoic might criticize the epicurean aim of a life with minimal pain since it seems to dismiss the pleasure that can be found in achieving a difficult goal and overcoming adversity. In short, each see the other’s philosophy as one of life-avoidance.

Weigh in on this debate, articulating your point of view. Please back up your opinions with an explanation and specific examples. Feel free to bring in other dimensions of these philosophies discussed in class (the role of experience and our thoughts in our happiness, the role of duty--those things we may not want to do but need to do--in our happiness, etc.)

POST DUE: Tuesday, February 9 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Thursday, February 11 by the start of class.

Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.