To say that to follow either philosophy is to avoid life is misleading. I do think it can't be argued that both philosophies miss the characteristics of life that really make life worthwhile.
Epicureanism guarantees a maximum amount of pleasure for a limitted amount of pain. That sounds rather enjoyable. No one likes to get hurt and everyone likes to feel good. But, at the end of the day, it seems like something's missing. It doesn't sound satisfying to me.
It's Thursday night. It was a snow day and you had a lot of fun sledding. You got inside before you got too cold and had some hot chocolate. Then, you played some video games until you went back outside to build a snow man. The day comes to a close and you decide to end it with a hot bowl of soup watching NBC's smashing line up of shows. That sure sounds like fun.
But, to me, it sounds unsatisfying. One of the leading problems is lack of social interaction. Can we have a unified society when everybody pursues their own interests? If my life was in danger, who would be willing to help me? The worst symptom of this kind of philosophy is the lack of a legacy. Because you live your life for yourself, your death is meaningless. Even if there are records of your existence, they don't matter because all your accomplishments were accomplishments in making yourself feel pleasure. Epicureanism only allows one to live life during life. The accomplishments of a person's life lived for others allows that person to live forever through their deeds for as long as those deeds are remembered, in my opinion.
Stoics focus on altering their attitudes when things happen because they accept that things always happen. Accepting that everything that happens is for the best reinforces a positive outlook on life and allows us to adjust ourselves to that which happens around us.
However, I do have a problem with the focus. The focus is still rather self-centered. The goal is self-preservation, which means that all actions towards other people are done for the benefit of the individual. Compassion in this society is not real compassion. It is for material benefit.
Now, does Stoicism avoid life? Less so than does Epicureanism. Stoicisms acceptance of pain in the achievement of long term goals is a value that should be well regarded. In Stoicism, people try to accomplish things out of themselves, which stimulates science and art for the benefit of mankind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Epicureanism isn't marked by a lack of social interaction. I conducted extensive outside research (yeah, Wikipedia), and there's a lot more emphasis on friendship than we talked about in class. Epicurus is quoted in Cicero's "On Goals" as saying, "of all the things which wisdom has contrived which contribute to a blessed life, none is more important, more fruitful, than friendship." This makes sense because a good friendship is a mutually beneficial arrangement which would bring you personal pleasure in the long run. So a good Epicurean wouldn't be living a solitary existance.
ReplyDeleteAlso, many of the elements of your Thursday-night scenario are material, fleeting pleasures, which Epicureanism does not promote. An Epicurean lifestyle promotes pleasure in the long-run, so while having a good day may be a part of that, it certainly wouldn't form the basis of it.
I don't understand why not having a legacy renders your life meaningless. Look at this comparison: In Scenario A, you go to your deathbed thinking you've left a lasting legacy, and you end up being remembered and honored for years to come. In Scenario B, you go to your deathbed thinking you've left a lasting legacy, and you end up being completely forgotten about the next day. Now, unless you believe in an afterlife (which an Epicurean would not), there is absolutely no difference to you between these two scenarios. Your life is exactly the same either way. So isn't the want for a legacy kind of superficial and meaningless? It just seems like vanity to me.
There does seem to be some confusion over the two philosophies in your post. Here's an extended metaphor that might help clarify:
ReplyDeleteYou're the batter up. The pitcher, Life, is going to throw some balls at you. How better to play the game?
A. Take the Stoic approach and swing at everything--good pitches and bad--and live for each and every pitch, doing your best to hit each one, disregarding their quality. Carpe pitchum.
OR
B. Take the Epicurean approach and swing at only the pitches that look good to you—the ones you'll likely hit out of the park—and live for those moments when you make contact with the ball, disregarding the game all together if it becomes unfulfilling.
What's a sounder core value: to endure or to be happy?