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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, happiness is the key to survival. Being happy is often what motivates us to continue on in life.
ReplyDeleteI don't think stoics try to go through life trying to get to the next day but rather make the most out of the day and make sure they don't waste their time doing anything but what makes them happy.
ReplyDeleteWhen you begin a blog post, I prefer it when you don't think you know what something means. No harm in that. By the time you're done, the idea is to have a little bit better idea, which seems to have happened here. Good. Now, about what you wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou’re right. Survival is primary to a Stoic, not happiness. It may sound a little strange or off-putting, but there is some logic to this.
Remember, what sustains a Stoic, 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 me feel happy or sad isn't important. The mere fact that it happened makes it sacred. Thus, my own survival in light of what life throws at me, not my own happiness, is what I concern myself with. I demonstrate that I accept the rationality of life but not giving up, no matter how it makes me feel. In other words, a good stoic always does his/her homework. An Epicurean, on the other hand, may or may not. It just depends on how they think it will benefit them.
What is a better way of living life? Calculating my long term happiness—which is hard to do and doesn’t always pay off—or just not worrying about happiness, believing it will come and go no matter what I do?