While the Epicurean view of happiness sounds more appealing to me, and more the way I think most people try to live, there are clearly holes in the philosophy. If everyone lived every day for themselves, just pursuing their wants and desires, many people would be rendered helpless. People without the resources to do whatever they wanted, and still survive, would be miserable and more common. Because of people donating money, others have more access to necessities and things to fulfill their deires. But, if Bill and Melinda chose not to run a charity because they wanted to pursue their own desires instead, maybe less people would have access to health care. Epicureanism seems to be selfish, and only a very small portion of the population would be able to follow its philosophy, with the rest of the population in utter misery. No one would consider the impact of their actions on others before acting. But, I don't think Epicureanism is a form of life-avoidance. Epicureans seek out pleasure, and although they find pleasure in what is going on in the now, that doesn't mean that there are no goals. If pleasure is achieved along every step of the way to a goal, Epicureanism would still be present. Goals sometimes bring as much satisfaction as a cup of hot chocolate after sledding for two hours. Since pain is usually present in every aspect of life, and Epicureans try to find pleasure in every aspect of life, Epicureanism is not avoiding life.
If the entire world followed the philosophy of stoicism, more people would be generally happy. If everyone lived their lives with others in mind happiness would be achieved for everyone because of someone else's thoughtfulness. But, that's an ideal world. If one person failed to keep someone else's happiness in mind carrying out their everyday actions then unhappiness would take over. Stoicism definitely avoids going after personal dreams, which is restricting. Even though stoicism promotes harmonious relationships between people more than epicureanism, stoicism would allow less people to be personally ecstatic. It's hard to be ecstatic with life without stepping on anyone else's feelings. Stoicism is more of a way of life avoidance than Epicureanism since it involves taking less opportunities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that avoiding opportunities is avoiding a big part of life but don't you think pain is a big part of life? Stoics avoid all pain and suffering and I feel like too many important things in life involve pain and suffering so to avoid that would be to avoid life. I think to experience life you have to experience all parts of life including taking as many opportunities as you can as well as experiencing both pain and pleasure.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I doubt an epicurean would neglect to consider how their actions affect other people. Yes, they might consider it in light of their own self interests, but it's generally in people's interests not to hurt others and create enmity and stress. His/her reasons might be selfish, but an epicurean may end up causing less hurt.
ReplyDeleteAlso, epicureanism is definitely life avoidance! Part of life is pain, and epicureans want to avoid that. Is that bad? Not necessarily. I don't think it is, at least. Epicureans seek out pleasure, and as pleasure's a part of life epicureans seek out life. So, they both avoid and seek out life? Yes. For example, a person may choose to be in a relationship. That person is both seeking companionship and avoiding being single (and perhaps, in his/her case, loneliness). Is that bad? After all, he/she is avoiding a part of life.
Some nice distinctions drawn between the two philosophies.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Stoics can and do have personal goals. However, they don't allow their happiness to be tied to the achievement of those goals. In fact, they don't hold a lot of stock in happiness at all--happiness comes and goes all of the time, and it always will. This is the critical difference. They take each day as it comes.
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 or completion of my goal, 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.