I doubt an epicurean could legitimately criticize a stoic for living their life in the manner of their philosophy; an epicurean's attempts to maximize pleasure in the long term, and if a stoic finds pleasure in overcoming difficulties and challenges, then an epicurean should encourage that stoic to do so. Similarly, an epicurean might find pleasure through hard work and overcoming adversity. If this is so, a stoic would have no problem with that epicurean. However, he or she should still have no problem if the epicurean derived pleasure from simple, natural, and easier life occurrences. The stoic seems to place great value in the end achievement, particularly if that achievement happened after overcoming adversity. This fails to acknowledge that the epicurean's "smaller" pleasures make the large successes worthwhile, and therefore just as valuable.
Personally, neither philosophy seems complete. While it's true that an ideal epicurean would help others (foreseeing that giving help would make him/herself more likely to receive help, etc.), the assistance would be not out of a sense of charity, but out of a cold, calculated decision to further personal gain. Truly caring about others is deemed silly.
An epicurean might counter that as there's only this life, one's own pleasure is the only thing that matters. And if it gives one pleasure to help others, then by all means one should. I get that argument, to a certain extent, but I still feel that through our common humanity there lies at the very least a duty to help and care for others. At best, we help others because we truly care about others, not out of self interest or a resigned sense of duty. Why must there be a reward in an afterlife to make charity necessary or worthwhile?
And that's where the stoics join in the fray. They believe that all events happen for the best, that neither failure nor success should faze one, and that people have a duty to be a force for good. It seems inexplicably passive to unblinkingly accept that all events happen for the good of all (the earthquake in Haiti, for example) and unnecessarily and purposefully cold to force oneself to not be excited or saddened by the events in one's life. What's the point in living if people frown upon and discourage emotions and emotional reactions? Humans (clearly) are not robots; the memorable moments in our lives are the emotional ones. Sadness makes happiness that much sweeter by comparison, and avoiding the worst of the emotions isn't worth discarding the best.
Epicureans and stoics aim to live life to the fullest. They both want to get the most possible out of their lives, but because of their goal both philosophies end up avoiding key parts of life. Epicureans, through their selfishness, miss genuine connections to others. Stoics, through their focus on achievement, miss simple, natural pleasures. In the end, both philosophies are ones of life-avoidance.
A very ariculate, clearly presented argument. All that's missing is an alternative (since these both come up short). Do you have one? If not, then which of these are better, given the shortcomings they present?
ReplyDelete