Stoicism vs. Epicureanism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 чер 2024
- Stoicism and Epicureanism are two philosophies that have been rivalling each other for centuries but what is the difference between the two and is any of them superior? Often epicureanism is simplified by to hedonism, which actually does not align with the original concept that Epicurus had in mind and even stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius recognized that Epicurus spread some words that they agreed with.
Support me on Patreon:
/ personalpower
The Stoicism Book List*:
www.amazon.com/shop/personalp...
Books I read and Tech Stuff I use*:
www.amazon.com/shop/personalp...
Get a FREE audiobook*:
amzn.to/3nSPkoF
Power Up Facebook Group:
goo.gl/fqnoPU
*affiliate links, I get a little kickback if you sing up or buy something
This video betrays an unfortunate and profoundly shallow understanding of Epicurean philosophy. I would implore any serious knowledge seeker to go straight to the primary literature and read Epicurus' extant letters, doctrines, and sayings for themselves. They can be found online for free or picked up very affordably off the internet.
reading primary literature is always a great idea as I myself am not huge on the epicurean front. That being said I still believe that I have a proper understanding of the philosophy. Could you point out what points I made that are represented in an unfortunate light? I'm always open for criticism and I'd really like to hear some more details.
@@PersonalPower Sure! One of the concepts within Epicurean philosophy is what is called the 'hedonic calculus', which is a tool to assist us in making prudent choices and avoidances. It stems from his Vatican Sayings, 71, which states that you must "Question each of your desires: “What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is achieved, and what if it is not?”" By selecting only those pleasures that do not yield greaters pains alongside - perhaps surprisingly, but nonetheless essentially - those pains that do lead to greater pleasures, we rationally create better lives for ourselves. This is the rule for most action in Epicurean philosophy and should be applied in all situations. Therefore, when it comes to politics, we must proceed with prudence. Epicurus' general recommendation to not pursue a life of political fame stems from the observation that it will not provide for that individual's lasting security and happiness. This does not mean that we do not engage in politics. There are no moral absolutes or specific behavioral dictates within Epicureanism, and most Epicureans I know are politically involved on some level.
Also, you are correct when you say that Epicureans do not place virtue as the end of life, but rather pleasure, but you did not mention his Principal Doctrines, 5, which states that: "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the person is not able to live wisely, though he lives well and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life." This shows us that for the Epicurean, virtue and pleasure go hand in hand and are inextricable from one another over the arc of one's life.
@@PersonalPower As a word of general and honest advice, by your admission I hope I can safely presume you are not familiar with the primary literature. It would be a service not only to yourself, but to all the people who watch your videos for you familiarize yourself more intimately with a concept before speaking on it in an attempt to educate, especially in the case of Epicurean philosophy, which is a 2,300 years old school of philosophy that has a lively and actively engaged community.
EDIT: I rewatched your video and listened more carefully to your statements and I find that I do not have as strong of a disagreement as I thought I had, so I must apologize to you for my tone. I will leave my comment up so that people can still get the recommendation to go to the primary literature. Take care.
@@youngepicurean8282 Spot on, I agree the video wrongly portrays Epicureans as somewhat egoistic, disconnected, and even hermits. Some parts were also lacking with respect to religious beliefs (and death), ataraxia, etc. Still, a cool video and an interesting concise comparison
Hi, man. I hope you are doing well. I consider Epicureanism as a life philosophy , but do not have any idea, how exactly apply Epicurean lifestyle. So , in Stoicism, there are lots of techniques which oriented to practice cardinal virtues, but I have no idea about Epicureanism . Can you describe your Epicurean routine, give the key points?
My thinking system has stoicist structure. But on the other hand I have epicurean behavior in social interactions. I can determine myself as living like a stoicist talking like an epicurean, I think.
seems like a good balance!
Why do you need to fit either label? Just use what makes you happy and abandon what you dont.
You make a ton of great points. Working on a paper on this exact subject right now and I’ve been having so much trouble finding good discussion about it, thank you!
Thanks for the kind words and good luck with the paper!
I like Stoicism and consider myself to be somewhat of a Stoic, but I’ve been more interested in Epicureanism and find myself relating to it a little more. From reading the literature of ancient stoics, stoicism can seem to be too strict at times. Which is probably the biggest problem I have with it
Great video! Thank you 😊
Glad you liked it!
This is actually a central question in many philosophies and religions! In Buddhism, that question is also central. "Sila" or "Virtue" is a vehicle that allows you to reach deeper stages of meditation and ultimately insight and freedom from suffering/happiness. However, Buddhists acknowledge the positive influence you have _on others_ by living virtuously. Living a virtuous life always leads to the well-being of you and others around you (regardless if you desire it or not - which is also explicitly stated ;D).
it is indeed a very central question and actually one that everyone should ask themselves
People tend to focus on Epicurus' warning on politics a lot. He warned equally about wealth and sex but people seldom bring those up. What's important is that if someone wants to be an Epicurean or not, and then get involved in politics or not the choice and hedonic calculus is the same: Are you ready to eat that pain for whatever positives you're getting out of it later, even if altruistic? "And we consider many pains to be better than pleasures, if we experience a greater pleasure for a long time from having endured those pains...It is proper to make all these decisions through measuring things side by side and looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, for sometimes we treat a good thing as bad and a bad thing as good."--Epicurus' Letter to Menoikeus.
Lately I've been trying to follow Stoicism but now I kinda got interested in Epicureanism, in its simplicity, minimalism and pursuit of happiness. But I don't think it would beat Stoic's Amor Fati and Memento Mori!
Maybe you'll find a way to get the best of both worlds!
@@PersonalPower That's right. They both (all philosophical sects for that matter) have their own strengths and values so I can drive what's best for my life from them.
Epicureanism it is in my opinion is deeper than stoicism.
interesting, but admittedly stoicism does not claim to be super deep instead it tries to be very practical
@@PersonalPower stfu stoa is 🤡
I don't think I understand Epicureanism the same way that you do.
To me, involvement in politics and community is perfectly acceptable in Epicureanism. Take for example Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Emperor Trajan -- all Epicureans, *_and not coincidentally the three people most responsible for the creation of the Pax Romana,_* -- the greatest period of peace and prosperity in human history (two centuries in the entire Mediterranean basin). The key to me is that Epicureanism is the state of your mind and your gift to the people you affect, regardless if your occupation is politician or store clerk. Epicureanism gives you a well of happiness from which you can drink even in the most trying circumstances, and your internal governor not to induce pain in others.
I choose stoicism 🔥🔥
Good decision bro!
I really like both of these philosophies and feel myself mixing them quite a bit. I am also attracted to Buddhism. Lots of overlap.
To me, it seems that both need to be harmonized. I feel that we should be involved in politics, but only to the extent that it helps others. Many are in politics for the sake of being in politics. Also, helping our fellow man gives us actual pleasure. So, we should do that.
The problem lies that many people try to do both and justify the transition when it’s convenient.
Since there is a very striking similarity with the personal philosophy I cooked up on my own over the years, I was initially attracted to Stoicism because I knew nothing of Epicureanism. Since then, I have become more familiar with the latter and find it more closely matches my conclusions, so Epicurus would be my choice.
Hey, if Seneca can often quote and admire Epicurus as a wise philosopher, than I think there must be great benefits to both ways of thinking.
Indeed there are benefits to both but that all depends on personal preference and choice
Until recently I was trying to live according to stoicism, but I found that my current ideals made it easier to be more epicurean which is probably exactly what it should do according to Epicureanism, pick the easy one because it makes me happier
Its good that you tried both! So many people just pick one without ever testing the other.
Among some, I had couple of friends, all of whom considered themselves to be "Stoic". They all had these common features of being most of the time indifferent toward their friends and loved ones, narcissists, careless, and sometimes sly and unkind. I'm not at all indicating that "Stoic" philosophy made them as such. But it seemed to made, (as later I read in Nietzsche works) that Stoicism is more embraceable for tough-skinned people. And, unlike Epictetus or Seneca, I believe Stoicism is the echo of a dying society, while Epicurean philosophy is the call for embracing life.
yeah some people that pursue soticism certainly end up like that but it should not be that way.
still, I don't think stoicism is going away any time soon but I guess it does depend upon the social circle society you are in.
@@PersonalPower Your concluding sentence cannot be more important. Keep up the good work Benjamin.
Epictetus was a Stoic who spoke against involvement in politics.
there are many stoics arguing with each other and disagreeing on many things. I wanted to give a simplified summary (that comes in at the price of leaving out some aspects or perspectives) and that included the political aspect and most stoics do lean towards an involvement in politics.
Where did he speak against political involvement?
@@followyourideas He criticized the character of people inclined to political involvement. Exactly where, I can't say. Philosophically, Stoicism teaches emphasizing controlling oneself rather than others. Politics is largely attempting to control others.
@@2Hesiod if you don't have any references your argument is mute.
@@followyourideas Aren't you silly? It is a very well known and easy to locate quote than is undeniable and if you cannot lift a finger to find out you don't deserve help.
The Dude Abides!👌
👍👍
You remind me of the main actor of "The color of pomegranates" 👀 Btw cool video
I usually just hear "you look like the dude from peaky blinders" this something new :D thanks, I'm glad you liked the video!
There are more similarities than differences but that's subjective in itself. One might never achieve balance if you force to pick a side.
I agree that picking a side is not ideal in some cases and that balance is the key. However, in most cases picking a side can make ones life significantly easier as it provides an "easy to follow guide". This alleviates the decision making process quite a bit. By not picking a side one needs to evaluate every decision individually whereas picking a side allows you simply to ask "does this align with philosophy x?" Most people don't dive super deep into any philosophy instead they want some easy practical help when it comes to every day decisions and in that situation picking a specific philosophy is the practical balance between not being involved in philosophy at all and being completely immersed in it.
Taking the easiest route is only human but that inevitability leads to an unbalanced life. Good Health requires for example exercise, this is a controlled stress, controlled stress is crucial to fortitude and good health. Going without is important as hedonism as an extreme. I'd agree that people want to have it easy but this subject would attract more advance thinkers, so it isn't necessarily having to preach to Joe average. Like alot, epicureanism has suffered from dogma. Religion in this incidence is possible reason over time. I'd love to say I follow pure stoism but I'd have to admit Im likely not as pure virtue as stoism describes is somewhat difficult to achieve in modern life. Work in progress :-)
I love both. Maybe a balance.
it's hard to practice Epicureanism here, because of all the injustices and our tyrannical government, being apolitical here is no longer a choice!
Do you belief injustice is unique to modern times?
Ummmm.....Being apolitical is a choice. And, so what? It's not like getting involved in politics will ever make any significant difference, anyway.
Epicureanism all the way
Epiureanism seems to be a better fit to Existentialism. It would be surprising to see someone with a sartre picture picking stoicism 😂
@@PersonalPower agree😂
Looking for happiness only for oneself is a mistake. Actually this is "the" mistake!
This is where oriental philosophies such as Buddhism or Hinduism step in and can truly help us about the notion of " ego".
When you read Senèque, Marc Aurèle or Epictète you can almost touch the "impersonal". Stoicism and Epicurism are not playing in the same league.
The choice, for an enlightened mind, is self-evident!!!
Sadly, I haven't picked up any oriental philosophies yet
@@PersonalPower They are quite interesting and at times can provide alternative views or help find balances between the various philosophies.
Ultimately, I think it is balance, moderation, and also the events that are surrounding us in life. In one of the books I have of Hume there is a discussion of whether logic or feelings ultimately determines the actions and views we have of life. While Hume may side on logic as ideal in that section the explanation is that it can not be ultimately determined.
Thinking lately my question is whether positivism is a better description of the stoicism and even the epicureanism that has made its way into the beliefs and practices in reaction to the world we are currently finding ourselves. That virtues of positivity, growth, and similar are going beyond a balance to have aspects of vice or damage. The pendulum swing!
Anyways, yes the oriental philosophies are quite interesting. Looking at the Vedas, The Gita, Confucius, and Taoist thoughts can be a fun journey.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it" ~Aristotle
Are u german? Sounds a bit like you are
Yes I am
I like Epicureanism a lot it's just more practical and aligned with human nature... And I like that politically is just about leave me alone.
I give to the stoics that pain will Eventually come and one shall endure it, like it or not, But I would also say that most suffering is avoidable, so no need to endure it in the first place.
And I would say that virtous action lead to pleasant outcomes so that is just a mean to an end...
Virtous behavior would not be pursued by the stoics If it make humans miserable
I don't quite agree with the last statement. Often we face decisions where we can either do the virtuous, morally correct thing or the thing that might be inappropriate but beneficial for us.
What if politics make us happy?
Go for it
LOL!!! You don't really need a particular philosophy in order to "be apathetic towards politics", because anybody can literally this on their own based on their own personal choices. :-D
That is indeed true. You don't actually need any philosophy to define what you value at all 😂 but then again it may make life easier to have some guidance
@@PersonalPower Okay! Fair enough. :-)
Stoicism clearly didn't work judging from the life of Seneca
I am certainly following the Stoic philosophy and principles! I think Epicureanism is a selfish philosophy for a few "esthetes". I like the way you clarify the main differences between these two philosophies. Thank you for the nice video.
Glad you liked the video!
U blink alot
Yeah that happens when I record. Itsa result of remembering what I wanted to say and studio lights. + a lil nervosity
If you are young and not radical you are heartless; if you are older and not conservative you are brainless. I grew up on that guide. In philosophy I put it this way. If you are young and not epicurean you are insentient; if you are older and not stoic you are senile. I use a quiver of wisdom. The seasons of life are ever changing. So must you.
I totally agree that one needs to change through the seasons of life but boiling it down to being epicurean at a young age and stoic at an older age seems like a bit of an oversimplification and I'm not just saying that because the statement would mean that I'm either insentient or secretly old.
NPC