Category: Stoicism

Epicureanism

Epicureanism can be regarded as the philosophy of Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 341 and 270 B.C (Konstan, pars. 1).

Epicureanism constitutes an interdependent system that harbours the following views: the main purpose of human life as being the achievement of happiness as a result of absence of physical pain and mental disturbance; empirical approach to knowledge; utilization of atomic materialism in the describing nature; and finally a natural account of evolution, from earth formation to human civilization (Annas 20).

In his physical theory Epicurus believed that the basic constituents of nature were undifferentiated matter, in the form of discrete, solid and indivisible particles which fell below the threshold of perception, in addition to empty space (Konstan, pars. 4).

He created a distinction between the atom which cannot be broken due to its nature, and the leased conceivable volume of matter. He asserted that atoms could be described as being minima as parts but were not minima themselves (Annas 23).

Epicurus described the human soul as being composed of atoms. He asserted that everything was basically made of atoms and space. Secondly, he pointed out that an entity that was basically incorporeal was incapable of acting or being moved by along with the body in the way the soul does. He often maintained that the atoms of the human soul were principally fine and were distributed in all parts of the body.

He attributed the ability to sense and experience pain or pleasure to the presence of these atoms all over the body. He further explained that a human body devoid of the soul atoms was unconscious and inert and that when the soul atoms were disarranged in a manner that it could no longer support conscious life, the souls atoms are scattered and could no longer retain the ability to sense (Barnes 56).

On the platform of radical materialism which was in line with the ideas of Plato, Epicurus argued that the human soul had no chance of surviving after death and hence punishment in the afterlife was unlikely. He linked the fearful nature of human beings towards death to the prospect of punishment in the afterlife. According to him, the fear was the main cause of anxiety in individuals.

This anxiety in turn resulted into extreme and irrational ideas (Konstan, pars. 6). He believed that if the fears and the resultant desires were done away with, then humans will be left to seek pleasures, both physically and mentally, and to which they are naturally obliged to follow.

Epicureanism explained how the irrational fears come up and thus gave meaning to the concept of an evolving society. However, Epicurus acknowledged that behaviours of thought that were profoundly ingrained in individuals could not be changed easily.

The philosophy of Epicurus was based on the theory that all good and bad derive from the sensations of pleasure and pain (Konstan, pars.6). Anything that is good was thus considered to be pleasurable while all bad things were seen as painful. Thus pleasure and pain formed the basis for the moral distinction between what can be said to be good or bad (Long 105).

Pleasure as defined by Epicurus stood for the absence of pain but different scholars and rival schools of thought have often misinterpreted it to mean the uncontrolled quest for pleasure. What he really meant was the absence of mental and physical pain which could result in a state of calmness that is devoid from any fear. Epicurus usually warned against excesses because they often resulted in pain.

For example, he was against ardent pursuit of love. He encouraged friendships but only defined them as essential components to the achievement of pleasure. He discouraged people against fearing death by claiming that when one dies, he doesnt feel pain of death due to the fact that he no longer exists and therefore feels nothing (Long 106).

Epicurus believed that the Gods were neutral and were not in anyway interfering with human life. He asserted that the gods too were composed of atoms and had souls which were constituted by atoms. But unlike the souls in human beings, those found in the gods were held forever. According to Epicureanism, gods did not bother themselves with human beings.

They neither punished the evil nor rewarded the righteous. He associated the gods with eternal happiness that was to be emulated by humans. The problem of evil is explained in the epicurean paradox that asserts God is omnipotent, God is goo, but evil exists (Konstan, pars. 7).

On ethics Epicurus was one of the earliest philosophers to describe justice as a social duty. He defined justices an agreement neither to harm nor to be harmed (Konstan, pars.7). He believed that the essence of living under an authority that prescribes laws and punishments was basically to protect individuals from harm and thus enable them to pursue happiness.

In a nut shell system incorporated advice on how people should perceive certain things. For instance, he advised people to stay away from politics if possible to avoid trouble, he also urged individuals not to think that gods were concerned bout them and their behaviours and the prospect of punishment in the afterlife.

He regarded the role of sex and marriage in life as being dubious and acknowledged that friendship was an essential part of life. He advised people to maintain an open mind when there is no way verification could be achieved while reflecting on various meteorological and planetary phenomena and explanations for processes as gravity and magnetism (Barnes 47).

And as an ethical guideline, Epicurus encouraged individuals to minimize harm and maximize happiness both for themselves and others.

Three Arguments of Stoicism and Epicurean defences

Stoicism can be identified as one of the newer schools of thought of the Hellenistic era. The stoics basically held that emotions rose due to faulty judgement and that an individual who attained intellectual and moral maturity was immune from them (Baltzly, pars. 1). Three of the best arguments advanced by the stoics are explained below.

God as being present throughout the creation process and directing it to the last detail

The stoics argued that God is similar to one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles of the universe (Baltzly, pars. 8). One of the principles is matter which they see as being basically inert or that which receives an action. The stoics see God as being eternal or a smart fire that designs matter forms as per the plans it has set.

The plan in this case is repeated over time beginning with a state in which everything is fire, followed by the synthesis of elements, to the formation of the world as we perceive it and then back to fire in a sort of an endless cycle.

The planning fire is compared to a sperm which contains the basic principles of everything thing that will eventually develop. With the same reasoning the stoics also refer to God as fate. And to them, God does not guide the universe from outside but rather from inside (Baltzly, pars. 6).

Epicurean defence

Epicureanism emphasized the neutral role played by the Gods. Unlike the stoics position that God played a role in human life, the epicureans believed that everything including gods, souls and all matter were made of atoms and the gods do not direct human life.

According to the epicureans the gods possessed souls just as humans. The only difference was that their souls adhered to their bodies without escaping unlike in the human beings where the bonds were not strong (Long 163).

Epicurean teaching explained that gods were so far to have any effect or interest in human life. They believed that the gods had nothing to do with the creation of the universe and could not offer blessings or punishment to human beings. Contrary to the stoic belief that God was intrinsic, the epicureans believed that the gods are extrinsic and were far away.

The stoic argument that virtue is the most important human attribute (Annas 67)

Stoicism upheld that the most important aspect of human life was virtue which relies on the strength of will (Konstan, pars. 10). The stoics emphasized that humans should strive to do right regardless of personal ambition or material. They pointed out that everything good or bad that happens in ones life always happens for a reason to be found in ones own actions.

They advocated for self control as a means of overcoming the negative feelings and emotions. They believed that the resultant state of the mind was essential for better comprehension of life and spirituality (Long 78). For the stoics, anger, envy and jealousy were to be avoided and that the clearest road to wisdom was freedom from passion (Barnes 41).

Epicurean defence

Similar to the stoics, the epicureans also advocated for virtuous livelihoods. However, unlike the stoics who asserted that the most important aspect of human life as by virtue which relies on the strength of will, the epicureans mainly focused on the attainment of pleasure as the most important aspects of human life (Annas 173).

Epicurus philosophy was based on the notion that all good and bad derive from the sensations of pleasure and pain (Konstan, pars. 5).

While the stoics felt that people were obliged to strive to control themselves in order to deter negative emotions, the epicureans saw the fear of death and punishment from gods as a major stumbling block towards the attainment of pleasure which was benchmarked by perfect mental peace (Konstan, pars. 8-9).

Epicureans mainly advocated for good virtues due to their contribution towards the achievement of the greater pleasure. Epicurus believed that if harm was minimized on an individual as well as others then maximum happiness could be achieved.

Arguments for the human soul

The stoic considered the human soul as a fragment of the universal divine force that was not completely sundered from the parent stock (Barnes 67). The described the human soul as pneuma, which was described as having concurrent movements both inward and outward which accounted for its tensile form.

The pneuma was described as having the ability to pass through every body when in an outward movement and therefore giving them the qualities that they possessed. Its movement towards the inside was responsible for their unification. According to the stoics, the fact that pneuma acted it was considered to be a body and its blending with matter was considered to a through and through affair (Konstan, pars. 10).

Using this description, the stoics put forward a theory of mixture that enabled them to explain the idea of two bodies existing at the same place at the same time (Baltzly, pars. 8). Pneuma was thus to be found in plants and animals. In rational animals, the pneuma hard other functions other than issuance of commands.

This other functions include planning, thinking and deciding (Baltzly, pars. 9). The stoics attributed all the functions of the body that included movement including physiological functions such as digestion to the soul.

Epicurean defence

Unlike the stoics who thought the soul to be a breath like material compound of two of the four stoic elements, fire and air, Epicurus believed that the soul was composed of atoms just like any other matter but did not elaborate what constituted the atoms (Konstan, pars. 7).

According to him, the atoms in the human soul were composed of known elements and additional nameless materials which were responsible for the ability to perceive.

The ability of the living organisms to move, rest or warm them was attributed to fairly known substances or materials in Epicureanism but sense perception was left out on the basis that it was not party to the known or named elements (Konstan, pars. 11). The epicurean thinking attributed the mental functions of cognition, emotion and desire to the soul (Konstan, pars.12).

Works Cited

Annas, Janet. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford : Oxford University press, 1993. Print

Baltzly, Dirk. Stoicism The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Web.12 April 2011. <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/stoicism/>.

Barnes, Joseph. The Presocratic Philosophers. London : Routledge, 1982. Print.

Konstan, David.  Epicurus The stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. 2009. Web.12 April 2011. <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/epicurus/>.

Long, Arthur. The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.

Introduction

Stoics and Epicureans postulated their philosophies regarding life to enhance peoples understanding of various strategies that they can deploy to boost their happiness or manage diverse challenging circumstances. Ancient scholars such as Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Epicurus authored various texts addressing different dimensions of life. Hence, it is crucial to not only examine Stoic and Epicurean philosophies of life in detail but also debate the role of pleasure, emotions, and desire in shaping a persons overall well-being.

The Stoic Philosophy of Life

The Stoic philosophy of life is concerned with the attainment of inner peace by overpowering adverse situations, exercising self-control, gaining consciousness of an individuals impulses, and realizing various goals within the allocated short time. Stoicism emphasizes the idea of leading a fulfilling life and the determination to become a better human being. In their respective teachings, namely, Enchiridion and Meditations, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius provide insightful thoughts regarding the philosophy of life as depicted in the course of peoples search for happiness and improved livelihood.

In the text Enchiridion, Epictetus teaches about the importance of mastering the art of self-control, especially when one experiences adverse circumstances. For instance, Epictetus asserts, Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be (29). Embracing Epictetus response during devastating situations caused by others or adverse circumstances is appropriate because it ensures that an individual does not take unnecessary actions out of anger. Hence, in line with this philosophers perspectives, it is vital for people to appreciate the need for overlooking some circumstances, especially when one does not have a suitable way of directly controlling them.

Developing the perception that some appearances do not reflect the reality of life helps to reinforce ones ability to cope with adverse situations. However, the question of facing realism in particular circumstances also arises, regardless of whether individuals are in control or not.

For instance, in the case of the appearance of an earthquake, salvaging oneself from the unpleasant manifestation is instinctual. This situation presents Epictetus idea of responding to adverse circumstances as considerably questionable. Nonetheless, since it is impossible to completely avoid unpleasant situations in life, bearing such experiences without demonstrating a significant degree of disturbance is necessary.

Meditations, which forms part of Marcus Aurelius work, provides further exemplifications of the Stoic philosophy of life. This philosopher was a student of the Great Epictetus. Specifically, Aurelius emphasizes the need for understanding that some bad appearances do not last forever. Thus, according to Aurelius, there is life after failure. As revealed in his text, Meditations, Aurelius poses the question, For with what art thou discontented? With the badness of men? Recall to thy mind this conclusion, that rational animals exist for one another, and that to endure is a part of justice, and that men do wrong involuntarily (Aurelius 33). Drawing from this quote, the realization of success or prosperity usually comes at a cost in the form of failure.

Consequently, according to Aurelius, adopting positive thoughts once an individual faces failure is a crucial step towards fostering their endurance to failure and resilience to succeed (Aurelius 33). For example, failing to launch a business successfully does not imply that ones ability to fulfill their dreams of achieving profitability has been shattered. Therefore, as emphasized in Aurelius Meditations, one needs to avoid blaming others, unjustly terminate their employment contracts, or take any action that can result in harm since nature has its way of presenting pleasant appearances.

The Epicurean Philosophy of Life

The Epicurean philosophy of life emerged from the postulations of Epicurus in his work, Letter to Menoeceus. Specifically, the Epicurean conception of life holds that the greatest good is the pursuit of modest pleasures, which facilitate the attainment of calmness, freedom from fear, as well as relief from bodily pain. Epicurus believes that the ultimate goal of life is to attain happiness through the establishment of friendship, embracing humility, and refraining from pain, as well as anxiety (Epicurus 28). He presents death as nothing (Epicurus 29) to people and hence the reason they should not allow it to deprive them of the happiness they deserve. The Epicurean philosophy holds that living peacefully is analogous to living a virtuous life.

Epicureans and Stoics disagree on various issues regarding their philosophies of life. For example, the issue of avoiding painful experiences in life is very contentious between Epicureans and Stoics. In particular, according to Epicureans evading pain requires an individual to live an uncomplicated life that is characterized by meaningful friendships. Epicurus addresses the topic of the fear of death to underline the importance of getting rid of anxiety and apprehensiveness associated with agonizing situations.

In his Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus asserts, The most frightening of bad things, death, is nothing for us, since when we exist, death does not exist, and when death exists, we do not exist (Epicurus 29). Many people fear death due to the pain they may endure before dying, as well as the agony inflicted to the bereaved. Therefore, to experience the best life, Epicureans discourage the idea of avoiding the pain of death before it materializes. However, when they stop existing, death takes over their existence.

Conversely, Stoics argue that pain is part of nature. Hence, according to them, accommodating its appearance is logical. For instance, Epictetus argues that harsh situations are just natural appearances, which do not reflect the reality. Epicureans regard pain as a natural thing that requires people to live with it positively. As illustrated in the text Enchiridion, Epictetus argues, Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them (Epictetus 30).

This particular quote emphasizes Stoics belief that individuals need to adopt a mindset, which allows them to think about pain as a natural occurrence. Therefore, while Stoicism supports the realization of happiness amid an individuals subjection to tragedies or obstacles in life, Epicureans refute this position by viewing pain as an avoidable instance for people who wish to promote contentment, despite the challenges they encounter in their day-to-day operations.

The Role of Pleasure, Emotion, and Desire in Human Well-being

We should view pleasure, emotion, and desire as aspects that negatively affect individuals ability to reason, hence compromising their happiness in life. Led by Epictetus and Aurelius, Stoics usually disregard the emotions of pleasure and desire due to their negative effect on peoples well-being. For example, when someone faces unpleasant emotions or experiences undesirable circumstances, Epictetus advises them to Be prepared to say that it is nothing to you (Epictetus 29).

Hence, in line with Stoics perspectives, living beyond ones emotions or feelings is necessary to achieve true happiness. Epicureans view pleasure, emotion, and desire as necessary for the realization of happiness. Regarding pleasure, Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus reveals, For we are in need of pleasure only when we are in pain because of the absence of pleasure (Epicurus 30). Hence, according to Epicureans, issues concerning the pursuit of pleasure and the desire for happiness determine the ultimate goodness in a persons life.

Assessing Stoics and Epicureans Positions

Amid the inevitability of unpleasant occurrences, people should strive to improve their well-being by avoiding pain and welcoming gratifying circumstances. Hence, I agree with the position held by Epicureans regarding the role of pleasure, emotion, and desire in influencing an individuals health. Although some people may object to my position claiming that people have minimal control of what happens around them, I am convinced that that seeking pleasure in a virtuous manner is appropriate because it allows a person to develop positive emotions and desirable experiences. I am not persuaded to change my position that human beings have control over their emotions.

Thus, in agreement with Stoics viewpoints, using this ability to attain pleasure and desire is recommended instead of expecting ones well-being to improve without making any efforts to avoid painful experiences and emotions.

Conclusion

Stoics and Epicureans agree and disagree on various issues regarding life. As revealed in this paper, both of them concur that leading a virtuous life results in finding happiness. Nonetheless, they disagree on the idea of avoiding pain. While Stoics view pain as a natural circumstance that does not need to be evaded, their counterparts advocate the strategy of avoiding it. Overall, I agree with Epicureans on their views regarding the role of pleasure, emotion, and desire in shaping peoples well-being because one needs to nurture positive emotions to attain pleasure and desirable outcomes.

Works Cited

Aurelius, Marcus. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by George Long, Blackie & Son, 1910.

Epictetus. Enchiridion. Translated by George Long, Dover Publications, 2004.

Epicurus. Letter to Menoeceus. The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia, edited by Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson, Hackett Publishing Company, 1994, pp. 28-31.

There have been conflicting explanations about the real meaning of a happy life and enjoyment. Many scholars and philosophers have come up with various opinions about happiness one of them being a famous philosopher known as Epicurus. Different philosophers have come with conflicting opinions which have made it difficult to have a common definition of happiness (Kelly 131).

To make the matter worse, there is an argument that happiness is not the same as enjoyment. It has been a great challenge to harmonize both religious and philosophical definitions of a happy life and it is therefore the decision of each person to choose which definition to follow (Kelly 131). This paper will examine Epicurus prescription for a happy life and at the same time compare Epicureanism and Stoicism.

According to Laertius recordings, Epicurus regards pleasure as the main goal for a happy life. According to Epicurus, pleasure is the end of life and all the actions of human beings are normally geared towards attaining the chief good. Pleasure is meant to free human beings from trouble and pain. Epicurus has received a lot of criticism by declaring that pleasure is the ultimate end but this according to him is just a misinterpretation of his opinions (Pellegrin 234).

According to Epicurus, a happy life should be characterized by having a healthy body and a peace of mind. Pleasure is actually the end of life that bring brings good health and peace of mind. Epicurus goes ahead to affirm the fact that he is an advocate of a sober life and clarifies the type of pleasure he meant. According to Epicurus, a debauched kind of pleasure is not the type of pleasure he was talking about since this type of pleasure only ends in the moment of enjoyment (Pellegrin 234).

Epicurus reiterates that real pleasure is the absence of pain in the body and having a peaceful soul and not sensual pleasures such as eating and drinking. Other forms of pleasure that Epicurus is not in support of include exotic delicacies, the pleasure of love together with other sensual pleasures (Pellegrin 236).

According to Epicurus, it important to have sound judgment and tranquility in order to live a happy life. In order to have a peaceful soul, human beings are supposed to avoid all false notions and mistaken opinions. Comfort and peace are the only components of pleasure emphasized by Epicurus which he sees as the only sources of stability.

When pain is completely removed, it marks the beginning of pleasure since a person is relived from uneasiness (Enfield 78). According to Epicurus, there is no way a person can claim that they are in pain and at the same time claim to be having pleasure. Epicurus refutes claims of neutral feelings and calls for a clear distinction between pain and pleasure. The complete absence of pain is perceived by Epicurus as the point of pleasure and there is no way this can be measured.

Epicurus speaks from a humane point of view and particularly focuses on dealing with pain. He does not in any way agree with stoics whom he thinks that their philosophies about a happy life are based on vain fiction (Enfield 78). Epicurus is very realistic in his claims and does not in any way promise what is not possible. Epicurus also argues that all the activities of men are motivated by pleasure that brings comfort and a peace of mind.

This type of pleasure that eliminates pain is very definite and stable compared to other forms of sensual pleasure. Having a healthy body and a peaceful mind is the ultimate end of all goods (Enfield 112). This type of virtue together with other supporting virtues is what makes a man to be referred to as wise or a woman to be termed virtuous. Self-constraint and clear headedness are the qualities needed to prevent the body from lust and greed.

According to Epicurus, motion and action are not part of true pleasure. Epicurus was always against debauched pleasure but the stoics always misunderstood him. Epicurus and the stoics have never agreed especially on the definition of pleasure. Stoics insist that Epicurus definition of pleasure included excessiveness (Enfield 89). The stoics are strong advocates of morality and their misunderstanding of Epicurus opinions caused a lot of strife.

Sordid and sensual pleasures that resulted into lust and other vices were preached against by the stoics and any person perceived to support such forms of pleasure was highly condemned. It was very unfortunate for Epicurus to receive unfair condemnation because the stoics had completely misunderstood his opinions despite his attempts to clarify his claims. The stoics used this as a perfect opportunity to enlighten the people since it was not an easy thing during those days (Enfield 89).

Epicurus defines a Wiseman as one who is contended with what they have without having a disturbed mind. A peaceful mind free of anxiety makes one to be merry. According to Epicurus, happiness is achieved when there is a peace of mind that is consistent regardless of the overwhelming expectations and desires in life. Contentment is the key to living a happy life and not the worldly pleasures and riches.

It is the desire of all beings to have pleasure and contentment but many of them do not know how to achieve them. Seeking pleasure from feastings and other sensual means is waste of time since riches and luxury offers temporary pleasure (Bellioti 45). Pastimes can not in any way bring consistent pleasure and the only way of living a happy life is being temperate and just. A feeling of happiness, satisfaction and tranquility comes from ones own conscience and not from having fancy things (Bellioti 45).

The mind controls a persons happiness since it is able to feel the past, the present and the future compared to the body that only feels the present. The pleasure and pain of the body has a very minimal contribution to a persons happiness. Although the pain of the body can also affect the feeling of the mind, but it only occurs in the present.

Happiness is supposed to be consistent and therefore present feelings that are temporary can not be used to define true happiness (Bellioti 45). This argument and other arguments made Epicurus to differ greatly with other philosophers and in most cases the stoics.

Epicurus was of the opinion that pleasure could only be attained by those people who sought virtue. This was misunderstood by stoics who accused him of advocating for debauchery and sordid pleasure. Stoics argue that it is necessary for human beings to seek virtue for itself and not for the sake of pleasure.

According to stoics, virtue should be sought for itself and not for anything else. Stoics argue that by Epicurus declaring pleasure as the ultimate goal of seeking virtue, he was expressing his support for debauchery and sordid pleasure (Kelly 236).

The stoics insist that Epicurus had sensual pleasure in mind when he was expressing his opinion on happy life and they perceive that as being immoral. On the contrary, Epicurus had pure thoughts that advocate for people having a peace of mind together with bodily comfort without pain. According to Epicurus, seeking this kind of pleasure promotes virtue and leads to a happy life (Kelly 236).

Stoics do not dispute the fact that virtue includes living happily and therefore there is nothing wrong by Epicurus stating that happy life should be desired for itself just like the stoics claim that virtue must be sought for itself. The stoics claim that a good and happy life can only be attained by virtue alone. This type of argument is not in any way different from Epicurus and therefore their criticism of his philosophy on pleasure and happy life are uncalled for (Kelly 247).

Comparing the philosophy of the stoics together with that Epicurus, there is a common understanding that virtue is not entirely sought for itself but for other things such as a happy life. There is no way people can talk about a happy life without mentioning pleasure (Pellegrin 62).

Despite Epicurus clarifying the type of pleasure he meant, the stoics still criticize him. Stoics agree that happiness can not be attained in a divine way but must be sought after. Despite them disputing Epicurus ideologies on happiness, the stoics agree that virtue and happiness can not be separated.

Works Cited

Bellioti, Raymond. Roman Philosophy and the Good Life. New York: Lexington Books, 2009. Print.

Enfield, William. The History of Philosophy: From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Present Century. New York: Abe Books, 1837. Print.

Kelly, Joseph. The Life of Early Christians. New York: Liturgical Press, 1997. Print.

Pellegrin, Pierre. A comparison to Ancient Philosophy. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.

Introduction

Although people desire to live a happy life, they face many challenges in their struggles to attain it. In a bid to understand the real meaning of life, many philosophers provided different approaches, which people need to use to achieve their life goals. In this view, moral theories question morality of approaches that people use to accomplish their aims. According to Aristotle, characters of people and the lifestyles that they choose to live determine their actions and morals. Hence, this paper discusses the Epicureanism and Stoicism philosophies, which have distinct theories that stipulate how people can attain happy life.

Epicurean Moral Theories

Epicureanism encourages people to attain happiness by eliminating physical pain and any form of anxiety in their lives. In his teachings, Epicurus encourages the pursuit of a pain free life with limited struggles. If one can afford a shelter and do away with hunger, then one can lead a happy life. Epicureanism discourages people from engaging in luxurious lifestyles, which lead to unattainable anxieties.

According to Epicureanism teachings, one should not compete with the rich because it is a futile exercise. It is essential to have friends who are the like-minded persons of yours. Epicureanism discourages the fear of death, but it views death as the end of physical and mental life. When people die, there is complete loss of consciousness and pain. Moreover, Epicureanism does not object to the existence of a God, but argues that the gods, which live in space, are not interested in human beings.

Contrastingly, critics argue that Epicureanism does not reflect morality. The unrestrained search for pleasure to alleviate pain leads to overindulgence. According to the critics, Epicureanism supports laziness because it encourages satisfaction in basic needs such as shelter and food. Additionally, Epicureanism encourages development of withdrawal attitude, which leads to neglect of the human spirit of socialization. As it encourages people to associate with like-minded friends, Epicureanism is a barrier to development. The perception of pain in the Epicurus teachings is a paradox because in the everyday life, people can feel pain in instances of sickness and accidents, but not necessarily due to hunger.

Stoic moral theories

Stoicism does not encourage pleasure as Epicureanism does. It postulates a holistic account of self-sufficiency, self-preservation, unbiased thinking, and embraces the virtue of wisdom. Stoicism is rooted in moral virtue, which holds that happiness results from wisdom. Stoicism insists on management of feelings that can affect the interpersonal relationships such as anger and fear. The teachings of stoicism indicate that a wise person is happy despite underlying emotions and problems. Stoics say that suicide is a result of an extreme suffering due to lack of wisdom. Hence, Stoicism advocates for the brotherly love and supporting one another, while lazy and coward individuals are considered as outcasts of the community.

Stoicism teachings contain precious moral virtues. However, criticism of the free rider problem arises. One persons action could cause the whole society to benefit or suffer. Stoic views are indifferent to natural issues such as instant love, food, and friendship, which are natural occurrences that are impractical.

Conclusion

The ideological perception of happiness and the way of attaining it are different in the two theories. Stoicism accepts the existence of situations beyond control, and despite the criticisms, stoicism contains pragmatic values that nurture wisdom, happiness, and virtues. It offers sound advice that illuminates the path of our actions and tender useful solutions to the frequent challenges of life. On the other hand, Epicureanism suggests an absolute control of actions. Epicureanism teachings are impracticable in real life and persons adopting them need to learn and attain a blissful life.

Epicureanism

Epicureanism can be regarded as the philosophy of Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 341 and 270 B.C (Konstan, pars. 1).

Epicureanism constitutes an interdependent system that harbours the following views: the main purpose of human life as being the achievement of happiness as a result of absence of physical “pain and mental disturbance”; empirical approach to knowledge; utilization of atomic materialism in the describing nature; and finally a natural account of evolution, from earth formation to human civilization (Annas 20).

In his physical theory Epicurus believed that the basic constituents of nature were undifferentiated matter, in the form of discrete, solid and indivisible particles which fell below the threshold of perception, in addition to empty space (Konstan, pars. 4).

He created a distinction between the atom which cannot be broken due to its nature, and the leased conceivable volume of matter. He asserted that atoms could be described as being minima as parts but were not minima themselves (Annas 23).

Epicurus described the human soul as being composed of atoms. He asserted that everything was basically made of atoms and space. Secondly, he pointed out that an entity that was basically incorporeal was incapable of acting or being moved by along with the body in the way the soul does. He often maintained that the atoms of the human soul were principally fine and were distributed in all parts of the body.

He attributed the ability to sense and experience pain or pleasure to the presence of these atoms all over the body. He further explained that a human body devoid of the soul atoms was unconscious and inert and that when the soul atoms were disarranged in a “manner that it could no longer support conscious life, the soul’s atoms are scattered and could no longer retain the ability to sense” (Barnes 56).

On the platform of radical materialism which was in line with the ideas of Plato, Epicurus argued that the human soul had no chance of surviving after death and hence punishment in the afterlife was unlikely. He linked the fearful nature of human beings towards death to the prospect of punishment in the afterlife. According to him, the fear was the main cause of anxiety in individuals.

This anxiety in turn resulted into extreme and irrational ideas (Konstan, pars. 6). He believed that if the fears and the resultant desires were done away with, then humans will be left to seek pleasures, both physically and mentally, and to which they are naturally obliged to follow.

Epicureanism explained how the irrational fears come up and thus gave meaning to the concept of an evolving society. However, Epicurus acknowledged that behaviours of thought that were profoundly ingrained in individuals could not be changed easily.

The philosophy of Epicurus was based on the theory that all good and bad derive from the sensations of pleasure and pain (Konstan, pars.6). Anything that is good was thus considered to be pleasurable while all bad things were seen as painful. Thus pleasure and pain formed the basis for the moral distinction between what can be said to be good or bad (Long 105).

Pleasure as defined by Epicurus stood for the absence of pain but different scholars and rival schools of thought have often misinterpreted it to mean the uncontrolled quest for pleasure. What he really meant was the absence of mental and physical pain which could result in a state of calmness that is devoid from any fear. Epicurus usually warned against excesses because they often resulted in pain.

For example, he was against ardent pursuit of love. He encouraged friendships but only defined them as essential components to the achievement of pleasure. He discouraged people against fearing death by claiming that when one dies, he doesn’t feel pain of death due to the fact that he no longer exists and therefore feels nothing (Long 106).

Epicurus believed that the Gods were neutral and were not in anyway interfering with human life. He asserted that the gods too were composed of atoms and had souls which were constituted by atoms. But unlike the souls in human beings, those found in the gods were held forever. According to Epicureanism, gods did not bother themselves with human beings.

They neither punished the evil nor rewarded the righteous. He associated the gods with eternal happiness that was to be emulated by humans. The problem of evil is explained in the epicurean paradox that asserts “God is omnipotent, God is goo, but evil exists” (Konstan, pars. 7).

On ethics Epicurus was one of the earliest philosophers to describe justice as a social duty. He defined justices an agreement “neither to harm nor to be harmed” (Konstan, pars.7). He believed that the essence of living under an authority that prescribes laws and punishments was basically to protect individuals from harm and thus enable them to pursue happiness.

In a nut shell system incorporated advice on how people should perceive certain things. For instance, he advised people to stay away from politics if possible to avoid trouble, he also urged individuals not to think that gods were concerned bout them and their behaviours and the prospect of punishment in the afterlife.

He regarded the role of sex and marriage in life as being dubious and acknowledged that friendship was an essential part of life. He advised people to maintain an open mind when there is no way verification could be achieved while reflecting on various “meteorological and planetary phenomena and explanations for processes as gravity and magnetism” (Barnes 47).

And as an ethical guideline, Epicurus encouraged individuals to minimize harm and maximize happiness both for themselves and others.

Three Arguments of Stoicism and Epicurean defences

Stoicism can be identified as one of the newer schools of thought of the Hellenistic era. The stoics basically held that emotions rose due to faulty judgement and that an individual who attained intellectual and moral maturity was immune from them (Baltzly, pars. 1). Three of the best arguments advanced by the stoics are explained below.

God as being present throughout the creation process and directing it to the last detail

The stoics argued that God is similar to one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles of the universe (Baltzly, pars. 8). One of the principles is matter which they see as being basically inert or that which receives an action. The stoics see God as being eternal or a smart fire that designs matter forms as per the plans it has set.

The plan in this case is repeated over time beginning with a state in which everything is fire, followed by the synthesis of elements, to the formation of the world as we perceive it and then back to fire in a sort of an endless cycle.

The planning fire is compared to a sperm which contains the basic principles of everything thing that will eventually develop. With the same reasoning the stoics also refer to God as fate. And to them, God does not guide the universe from outside but rather from inside (Baltzly, pars. 6).

Epicurean defence

Epicureanism emphasized the neutral role played by the Gods. Unlike the stoics position that God played a role in human life, the epicureans believed that everything including gods, souls and all matter were made of atoms and the gods do not direct human life.

According to the epicureans the gods possessed souls just as humans. The only difference was that their souls adhered to their bodies without escaping unlike in the human beings where the bonds were not strong (Long 163).

Epicurean teaching explained that gods were so far to have any effect or interest in human life. They believed that the gods had nothing to do with the creation of the universe and could not offer blessings or punishment to human beings. Contrary to the stoic belief that God was intrinsic, the epicureans believed that the gods are extrinsic and were far away.

The stoic argument that virtue is the most important human attribute (Annas 67)

Stoicism upheld that the most important aspect of human life was virtue which relies on the strength of will (Konstan, pars. 10). The stoics emphasized that humans should strive to do right regardless of personal ambition or material. They pointed out that everything good or bad that happens in one’s life always happens for a reason to be found in one’s own actions.

They advocated for self control as a means of overcoming the negative feelings and emotions. They believed that the resultant state of the mind was essential for better comprehension of life and spirituality (Long 78). For the stoics, anger, envy and jealousy were to be avoided and that the clearest road to wisdom was freedom from passion (Barnes 41).

Epicurean defence

Similar to the stoics, the epicureans also advocated for virtuous livelihoods. However, unlike the stoics who asserted that the most important aspect of human life as by virtue which relies on the strength of will, the epicureans mainly focused on the attainment of pleasure as the most important aspects of human life (Annas 173).

Epicurus philosophy was based on the notion that all good and bad derive from the sensations of pleasure and pain (Konstan, pars. 5).

While the stoics felt that people were obliged to strive to control themselves in order to deter negative emotions, the epicureans saw the fear of death and punishment from gods as a major stumbling block towards the attainment of pleasure which was benchmarked by perfect mental peace (Konstan, pars. 8-9).

Epicureans mainly advocated for good virtues due to their contribution towards the achievement of the greater pleasure. Epicurus believed that if harm was minimized on an individual as well as others then maximum happiness could be achieved.

Arguments for the human soul

The stoic considered the human soul as a “fragment of the universal divine force that was not completely sundered from the parent stock” (Barnes 67). The described the human soul as pneuma, which was described as having concurrent movements both inward and outward which accounted for its tensile form.

The pneuma was described as having the ability to pass through every body when in an outward movement and therefore giving them the qualities that they possessed. Its movement towards the inside was responsible for their unification. According to the stoics, the fact that pneuma acted it was considered to be a body and its blending with matter was considered to a “through and through” affair (Konstan, pars. 10).

Using this description, the stoics put forward a theory of mixture that enabled them to explain the idea of two bodies existing at the same place at the same time (Baltzly, pars. 8). Pneuma was thus to be found in plants and animals. In rational animals, the pneuma hard other functions other than issuance of commands.

This other functions include planning, thinking and deciding (Baltzly, pars. 9). The stoics attributed all the functions of the body that included movement including physiological functions such as digestion to the soul.

Epicurean defence

Unlike the stoics who thought the soul to be a “breath like material compound of two of the four stoic elements, fire and air”, Epicurus believed that the soul was composed of atoms just like any other matter but did not elaborate what constituted the atoms (Konstan, pars. 7).

According to him, the atoms in the human soul were composed of known elements and additional nameless materials which were responsible for the ability to perceive.

The ability of the living organisms to move, rest or warm them was attributed to fairly known substances or materials in Epicureanism but sense perception was left out on the basis that it was not party to the known or named elements (Konstan, pars. 11). The epicurean thinking attributed the mental functions of cognition, emotion and desire to the soul (Konstan, pars.12).

Works Cited

Annas, Janet. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford : Oxford University press, 1993. Print

Baltzly, Dirk. “Stoicism” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Web.12 April 2011. <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/stoicism/>.

Barnes, Joseph. The Presocratic Philosophers. London : Routledge, 1982. Print.

Konstan, David. ” Epicurus” The stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. 2009. Web.12 April 2011. <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/epicurus/>.

Long, Arthur. The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.

Introduction

Stoics and Epicureans postulated their philosophies regarding life to enhance people’s understanding of various strategies that they can deploy to boost their happiness or manage diverse challenging circumstances. Ancient scholars such as Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Epicurus authored various texts addressing different dimensions of life. Hence, it is crucial to not only examine Stoic and Epicurean philosophies of life in detail but also debate the role of pleasure, emotions, and desire in shaping a person’s overall well-being.

The Stoic Philosophy of Life

The Stoic philosophy of life is concerned with the attainment of inner peace by overpowering adverse situations, exercising self-control, gaining consciousness of an individual’s impulses, and realizing various goals within the allocated short time. Stoicism emphasizes the idea of leading a fulfilling life and the determination to become a better human being. In their respective teachings, namely, Enchiridion and Meditations, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius provide insightful thoughts regarding the philosophy of life as depicted in the course of people’s search for happiness and improved livelihood.

In the text Enchiridion, Epictetus teaches about the importance of mastering the art of self-control, especially when one experiences adverse circumstances. For instance, Epictetus asserts, “Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, ‘You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be” (29). Embracing Epictetus’ response during devastating situations caused by others or adverse circumstances is appropriate because it ensures that an individual does not take unnecessary actions out of anger. Hence, in line with this philosopher’s perspectives, it is vital for people to appreciate the need for overlooking some circumstances, especially when one does not have a suitable way of directly controlling them.

Developing the perception that some appearances do not reflect the reality of life helps to reinforce one’s ability to cope with adverse situations. However, the question of facing realism in particular circumstances also arises, regardless of whether individuals are in control or not.

For instance, in the case of the appearance of an earthquake, salvaging oneself from the unpleasant manifestation is instinctual. This situation presents Epictetus’ idea of responding to adverse circumstances as considerably questionable. Nonetheless, since it is impossible to completely avoid unpleasant situations in life, bearing such experiences without demonstrating a significant degree of disturbance is necessary.

Meditations, which forms part of Marcus Aurelius’ work, provides further exemplifications of the Stoic philosophy of life. This philosopher was a student of the Great Epictetus. Specifically, Aurelius emphasizes the need for understanding that some bad appearances do not last forever. Thus, according to Aurelius, there is life after failure. As revealed in his text, Meditations, Aurelius poses the question, “For with what art thou discontented? With the badness of men? Recall to thy mind this conclusion, that rational animals exist for one another, and that to endure is a part of justice, and that men do wrong involuntarily” (Aurelius 33). Drawing from this quote, the realization of success or prosperity usually comes at a cost in the form of failure.

Consequently, according to Aurelius, adopting positive thoughts once an individual faces failure is a crucial step towards fostering their endurance to failure and resilience to succeed (Aurelius 33). For example, failing to launch a business successfully does not imply that one’s ability to fulfill their dreams of achieving profitability has been shattered. Therefore, as emphasized in Aurelius’ Meditations, one needs to avoid blaming others, unjustly terminate their employment contracts, or take any action that can result in harm since nature has its way of presenting pleasant appearances.

The Epicurean Philosophy of Life

The Epicurean philosophy of life emerged from the postulations of Epicurus in his work, Letter to Menoeceus. Specifically, the Epicurean conception of life holds that the greatest good is the pursuit of modest pleasures, which facilitate the attainment of calmness, freedom from fear, as well as relief from bodily pain. Epicurus believes that the ultimate goal of life is to attain happiness through the establishment of friendship, embracing humility, and refraining from pain, as well as anxiety (Epicurus 28). He presents death as “nothing” (Epicurus 29) to people and hence the reason they should not allow it to deprive them of the happiness they deserve. The Epicurean philosophy holds that living peacefully is analogous to living a virtuous life.

Epicureans and Stoics disagree on various issues regarding their philosophies of life. For example, the issue of avoiding painful experiences in life is very contentious between Epicureans and Stoics. In particular, according to Epicureans evading pain requires an individual to live an uncomplicated life that is characterized by meaningful friendships. Epicurus addresses the topic of the fear of death to underline the importance of getting rid of anxiety and apprehensiveness associated with agonizing situations.

In his Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus asserts, “The most frightening of bad things, death, is nothing for us, since when we exist, death does not exist, and when death exists, we do not exist” (Epicurus 29). Many people fear death due to the pain they may endure before dying, as well as the agony inflicted to the bereaved. Therefore, to experience the best life, Epicureans discourage the idea of avoiding the pain of death before it materializes. However, when they stop existing, death takes over their existence.

Conversely, Stoics argue that pain is part of nature. Hence, according to them, accommodating its appearance is logical. For instance, Epictetus argues that harsh situations are just natural appearances, which do not reflect the reality. Epicureans regard pain as a natural thing that requires people to live with it positively. As illustrated in the text Enchiridion, Epictetus argues, “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them” (Epictetus 30).

This particular quote emphasizes Stoics’ belief that individuals need to adopt a mindset, which allows them to think about pain as a natural occurrence. Therefore, while Stoicism supports the realization of happiness amid an individual’s subjection to tragedies or obstacles in life, Epicureans refute this position by viewing pain as an avoidable instance for people who wish to promote contentment, despite the challenges they encounter in their day-to-day operations.

The Role of Pleasure, Emotion, and Desire in Human Well-being

We should view pleasure, emotion, and desire as aspects that negatively affect individuals’ ability to reason, hence compromising their happiness in life. Led by Epictetus and Aurelius, Stoics usually disregard the emotions of pleasure and desire due to their negative effect on people’s well-being. For example, when someone faces unpleasant emotions or experiences undesirable circumstances, Epictetus advises them to “Be prepared to say that it is nothing to you” (Epictetus 29).

Hence, in line with Stoics’ perspectives, living beyond one’s emotions or feelings is necessary to achieve true happiness. Epicureans view pleasure, emotion, and desire as necessary for the realization of happiness. Regarding pleasure, Epicurus’ Letter to Menoeceus reveals, “For we are in need of pleasure only when we are in pain because of the absence of pleasure” (Epicurus 30). Hence, according to Epicureans, issues concerning the pursuit of pleasure and the desire for happiness determine the ultimate goodness in a person’s life.

Assessing Stoics and Epicureans’ Positions

Amid the inevitability of unpleasant occurrences, people should strive to improve their well-being by avoiding pain and welcoming gratifying circumstances. Hence, I agree with the position held by Epicureans regarding the role of pleasure, emotion, and desire in influencing an individual’s health. Although some people may object to my position claiming that people have minimal control of what happens around them, I am convinced that that seeking pleasure in a virtuous manner is appropriate because it allows a person to develop positive emotions and desirable experiences. I am not persuaded to change my position that human beings have control over their emotions.

Thus, in agreement with Stoics’ viewpoints, using this ability to attain pleasure and desire is recommended instead of expecting one’s well-being to improve without making any efforts to avoid painful experiences and emotions.

Conclusion

Stoics and Epicureans agree and disagree on various issues regarding life. As revealed in this paper, both of them concur that leading a virtuous life results in finding happiness. Nonetheless, they disagree on the idea of avoiding pain. While Stoics view pain as a natural circumstance that does not need to be evaded, their counterparts advocate the strategy of avoiding it. Overall, I agree with Epicureans on their views regarding the role of pleasure, emotion, and desire in shaping people’s well-being because one needs to nurture positive emotions to attain pleasure and desirable outcomes.

Works Cited

Aurelius, Marcus. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by George Long, Blackie & Son, 1910.

Epictetus. Enchiridion. Translated by George Long, Dover Publications, 2004.

Epicurus. “Letter to Menoeceus.” The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia, edited by Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson, Hackett Publishing Company, 1994, pp. 28-31.

Introduction

Although people desire to live a happy life, they face many challenges in their struggles to attain it. In a bid to understand the real meaning of life, many philosophers provided different approaches, which people need to use to achieve their life goals. In this view, moral theories question morality of approaches that people use to accomplish their aims. According to Aristotle, characters of people and the lifestyles that they choose to live determine their actions and morals. Hence, this paper discusses the Epicureanism and Stoicism philosophies, which have distinct theories that stipulate how people can attain happy life.

Epicurean Moral Theories

Epicureanism encourages people to attain happiness by eliminating physical pain and any form of anxiety in their lives. In his teachings, Epicurus encourages the pursuit of a pain free life with limited struggles. If one can afford a shelter and do away with hunger, then one can lead a happy life. Epicureanism discourages people from engaging in luxurious lifestyles, which lead to unattainable anxieties.

According to Epicureanism teachings, one should not compete with the rich because it is a futile exercise. It is essential to have friends who are the like-minded persons of yours. Epicureanism discourages the fear of death, but it views death as the end of physical and mental life. When people die, there is complete loss of consciousness and pain. Moreover, Epicureanism does not object to the existence of a God, but argues that the gods, which live in space, are not interested in human beings.

Contrastingly, critics argue that Epicureanism does not reflect morality. The unrestrained search for pleasure to alleviate pain leads to overindulgence. According to the critics, Epicureanism supports laziness because it encourages satisfaction in basic needs such as shelter and food. Additionally, Epicureanism encourages development of withdrawal attitude, which leads to neglect of the human spirit of socialization. As it encourages people to associate with like-minded friends, Epicureanism is a barrier to development. The perception of pain in the Epicurus’ teachings is a paradox because in the everyday life, people can feel pain in instances of sickness and accidents, but not necessarily due to hunger.

Stoic moral theories

Stoicism does not encourage pleasure as Epicureanism does. It postulates a holistic account of self-sufficiency, self-preservation, unbiased thinking, and embraces the virtue of wisdom. Stoicism is rooted in moral virtue, which holds that happiness results from wisdom. Stoicism insists on management of feelings that can affect the interpersonal relationships such as anger and fear. The teachings of stoicism indicate that a wise person is happy despite underlying emotions and problems. Stoics say that suicide is a result of an extreme suffering due to lack of wisdom. Hence, Stoicism advocates for the brotherly love and supporting one another, while lazy and coward individuals are considered as outcasts of the community.

Stoicism teachings contain precious moral virtues. However, criticism of the free rider problem arises. One person’s action could cause the whole society to benefit or suffer. Stoic views are indifferent to natural issues such as instant love, food, and friendship, which are natural occurrences that are impractical.

Conclusion

The ideological perception of happiness and the way of attaining it are different in the two theories. Stoicism accepts the existence of situations beyond control, and despite the criticisms, stoicism contains pragmatic values that nurture wisdom, happiness, and virtues. It offers sound advice that illuminates the path of our actions and tender useful solutions to the frequent challenges of life. On the other hand, Epicureanism suggests an absolute control of actions. Epicureanism teachings are impracticable in real life and persons adopting them need to learn and attain a blissful life.