Saturday, February 13, 2010
Even though Epicureans and Stoics differ in their points of view, I think that they both end up achieving the same thing. Stoics achieve happiness over a long time and work, while Epicureans achieve happiness by living in the moment. a Stoic would criticize an Epicurean for maybe having fun by going out to bars every night with friends and having a job that doesnt really go anywhere. An epicurean would criticize a Stoic for working really hard to get that promotion so they can retire comfortably. Both views however lead to happiness which is the important thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you that both views are different ways of achieving happiness but do you also think they are both ways of avoiding life? You're argument makes sense but it doesn't say whether one philosophy has more life-avoidance than the other.
ReplyDeleteYou need to read the question a bit more carefully. The pursuit of short-term happiness is typically associated with Hedonism, not Stoicism. Stoics do not concern themselves with immediate, personal happiness--merely longevity. They don't see winning the lottery as any better than a lightning storm wrecking their home.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Epicureans, Stoics don't calculate how to get the most pain free (or happiest) future--they simply believe that everything happens for a reason and try to live with it. Don't confuse the idea of living in the moment ("carpe diem") with the idea of short term pleasure. Carpe diem is a simple way of saying "No matter what life throws at me, I'm not going to let it bring me down. I’m going to survive.”
You're right that Epicureans look at the long term, but only in a narrow way. They look at how to minimize pain in their life. That is their only long term goal.
What I wanted to know is if Stoics have a point when they say that Epicureans make a mistake in trying to live a life free from as much pain as possible.