Stoics = Epicureans

Epicureanism, taken far enough, becomes Stoicism.  Stoicism, taken far enough, becomes Epicureanism.

People often use the term "epicurean" to refer to somebody who is only interested in short-term, material pleasures, like eating delicious food. But Epicurus was actually a brilliant philosopher - yes, he said that pleasure was the goal of human life, but he specified that there were higher and lower pleasures, and that the highest pleasure is the appreciation of wisdom. He also considered friendship to be a profound source of meaning. True happiness, he thought, could be attained if we learn not to desire transient things but instead focus on the deepest, highest, most meaningful joys. Once one understands epicureanism in its proper context, it's very similar to Stoicism.
 
On the other side of the coin, people often use "stoic" to mean some kind of macho, bad-ass, unfeeling, joyless, hard heart of stone. But if you take stoic philosophy seriously, it's not about constantly trying to prove to everyone what a manly emotionless jerk you are, hustling and slaving away at some Silicon Valley job or whatever. Fundamentally, it's a path to achieving happiness by becoming "indifferent" (adiaphora) to external consequences like wealth and reputation. A Buddhist monk is closer to being a stoic than a cold-blooded killer soldier. Happiness - contentment - is the goal. In this sense, Stoics are really not that different from Epicureans.
 
That said, there are some real, important differences between the two traditions, especially in terms of epistemology and ontology. The stoics tended to believe in a whole complex metaphysical cosmology involving the cyclic creation and destruction of the universe, whereas the epicureans were more nonchalant about the existence or non-existence of the supersensible. But perhaps even these differences can be resolved through a clever enough interpretation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more

Why I Love Religion

Image
  I'm too much of a materialist to agree with people like Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher and Sam Harris. They see world problems such as war, sexual repression, the oppression of women, terrorism, and so on as being caused by religion. As a materialist, I find the notion that an idea could cause these things to happen rather dubious. Dig a little deeper, and one always finds economic forces behind all of these problems.  Rather than scapegoating and blaming the existence of systemic problems on the interior beliefs and thoughts of individual human beings, I think it's a better use of our time to focus on how privilege and oppression can be embedded in structural institutions.  Religion isn't the enemy.  Indeed, by vilifying religion, we risk alienating ourselves from potential allies in the struggle against real material economic interests that run contrary to our own. My name is "Ian."  When I was growing up, this was an extremely unusual name.  No one that I
Read more