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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your explanations of both of your arguments. I feel that your examples also catch the meaning of both Epicureanism and stoicism. But for your example about stoicism, what would happen if death could be avoided? Would a Stoic still accept death or would they try and survive?
ReplyDeleteYou do a nice job differentiating the two philosophies, but I'm not sure you've argued convincingly that neither philosophy involves life-avoidance. Epicureans, for instance, clearly wish to avoid pain. They don't embrace it. Yet, pain is very much a part of life (as evidenced by how much snow I've shoveled over the last week). How are they not avoiding it? Perhaps more importantly, is there a problem with avoiding it?
ReplyDelete