Its true that indifference (apatheia) or freedom from pathological forms of emotional suffering in Stoicism is synonymous with virtue. Thats because passions are essentially faulty value judgements, according to the Stoics, and apatheia is therefore freedom from these sort of irrational beliefs about the intrinsic value of external things, with regard to our ultimate fulfilment in life (eudaimonia). However, the Stoics emphasised that there are also physical sensations and automatic emotional reactions or, if you prefer, physiological sensations that precede full-blown emotions (propatheiai) which fall outside of this sphere, because they are not under our direct voluntary control. Seneca gives many specific examples such as blushing, trembling, shaking, sweating, stammering, etc., all of which may happen even to a Stoic sage, when hes in sudden danger. The Stoics do not seek to avoid physical pain or uncomfortable proto-passions, though, in order to preserve their tranquillity. On the contrary, they often actively embraced situations which would evoke pain and stress so that they could better exercise the strength of character that consists in virtue. (Moreover, the good feelings [eupatheiai] of love, joy, and peace that the Stoics valued were said to supervene upon virtue, temporarily, and were therefore side-effects or consequences of virtue and not something to be pursued for their own sake, for several reasons.) Again, the traditional contrast between Stoicism and Epicureanism, was that Stoics married, had children, and engaged in public life, whereas the Epicureans typically did the opposite and withdrew from public life, were advised not to marry or have children, and to remain with a circle of close friends. Zeno marched briskly up and down a public walkway on the edge of the Athenian marketplace where, like Socrates, he would debate philosophy out in the open with strangers and critics from opposing schools. Epicurus lived outside of the city where he discussed philosophy in the peaceful confines of a private walled garden, among a close circle of his personal friends. Were told, I think by Plutarch, that one of his mottoes was: Live in obscurity, for this reason. For Stoics, indifference is exercised in the face of adversity, and pain, by learning to rise above it. Hence, they also describe magnanimity, which they take to be a kind of aloofness from external things, to be a cardinal aspect of the virtues. For Epicureans, tranquillity (ataraxia) is typically achieved by living a pleasant life, insofar as possible, withdrawing from and avoiding the sort of things that typically cause pain and stress. To put it very crudely indeed, Stoicism is perhaps more like the way of the warrior, and Epicureanism more like monasticism, in some respects. The Stoics consistently attacked this conception of the good life, which they considered morally corrupt, and the least worthy of all competing philosophical schools. For example, they tend to complain that by making friendship of value only as a means to preserving ones pleasure and peace of mind, the Epicureans create fair-weather friends, who potentially should (if following the doctrines of their school) turn their back on their friends when things become stressful or challenging. Its notoriously difficult for Epicureans to deal with questions such as what they should do if, during WWII, their life would have been more pleasant and tranquil by collaborating with the Nazis than by helping fight them or facing anxiety and risk by protecting the people they were persecuting. Aacording to Diogenes Laertius, in his life of Epicurus, the Stoic Epictetus: calls him preacher of effeminacy and showers abuse on him. Which is probably a fair appraisal, judging by the fierce criticisms of Epicureanism found in Epictetus surviving Discourses. Its true, of course, that Seneca mentions Epicurus favourably in the first 31 of his Letters to Lucilius, but he also makes it clear that he fundamentally disagrees with his philosophy, and is very critical elsewhere. Some scholars believe that Seneca was deliberately attempting to find common ground in order to allow a philosophical exchange to flourish with those who had embraced Epicureanism but were considering converting to Stoicism. (This would be consistent with a Stoic practice that seems common and appears derived from Zeno, which recommends always first trying to identify what another author can teach us about virtue before proceeding to criticise them.) Whatever you say for or against Epicureanism and Stoicism, though, these are definitely two very different philosophies of life, and not to be confused. Thats probably more obvious if you bear in mind the examples of the historical figures associated with each school such as the very different lifestyles and characters of the founders, Zeno and Epicurus, themselves.
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:52:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015