3 answers
Peter Kirkwood asked 3 questions regarding Epicureanism and Stoicism on the Facebook discussion forum of the Epicurus page. I quote his questions with my answers:
1.Is Epicureanism, in fact, a closed system, and if it is, is this to its disadvantage?
My answer: Yes, it is a closed system of dogmatic philosophy and lifestyle and I see no disadvantage in this. Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy stated that the Epicureans “served a useful purpose by their protest against the increasing devotion of the later pagans to magic, astrology, and divination; but they remained, like their founder, dogmatic, limited, and without genuine interest in anything outside individual happiness. They learnt by heart the creed of Epicurus, and added nothing to it throughout the centuries during which the school survived.”
If you find a philosophy leading to happiness why should you change it or look further?
2.Further, to what extent do you think it is possible to disagree with historical Epicurean teaching and yet still realistically consider yourself “an Epicurean”?
My answer:I believe that if you accept and follow Epicurus’s core ethical teachings and practice them in your daily life you may call yourself an Epicurean, even if you disregard his physics and theology.
3.If you identify as an Epicurean, why do you do so in preference to, say, identifying as a Stoic, given that both traditions have effective techniques for achieving ataraxia/apatheia?
My answers:
Ataraxia does NOT equal apatheia – but this would be a topic for a new discussion.
Seneca and Marcus Aurelius borrowed generously from Epicurus and some of the psychagogical techniques and educational exercises of both schools were very similar, as pointed out by Hadot, Rabbow and others.
Besides the few similarities and the many important and very pertinent differences enumerated above by Bob we should also keep in mind that
- Stoicism changed a lot from Zeno’s materialism to Marcus Aurelius’s quasi-platonism
- Stoics never managed to make their determinism consistent with their belief in beneficent providence.
- Stoics never had anything like the Epicurean school-communities
- Stoics actively participated in power games whereas with Epicureans it was the exception
- Stoics always preached reason, virtue, and duty but seldom walked their own talk
- Stoicism was the philosophy of Greek aristocrats and Roman patricians whereas the followers of Epicurus were mostly higher middle class with no political ambitions.
In DeWitt’s words:” Epicureanism presented two fronts to the world, the one as repellent as the other was attractive. Its discouragement of the political career was repellent to the ambitious, its denial of divine providence to pious orthodoxy, and its hedonism to timorous respectability. Its candor, charity, courtesy, and friendliness were attractive to multitudes of the honest and unambitious folk.” (Epicurus and His Philosophy)
FREE Report about stress
Download instantly your copy!