Stoics Vs. Epicureanism

After Aristotle’s rein, a new age on philosophy took subject matters into a new direction, emphasizing on emotion, and unorthodox methods. Two of the four iconic philosophical groups who greatly influenced society on how to obtain happiness were the stoics and the Epicureanism. The difference between these groups and their predecessors was not their end goal, like happiness, but the unconventional ways they chose to achieve their idea. Take for instance Epicureanism, they emphasized “on an ideal for living though what they called ataraxic or tranquility of soul, while Stoicism took the approach of controlling their reactions in inevitable events. In spite of both groups different methods, philosophers spawned these groups under the same circumstances.
At the time the Peloponnesian war had just ended and “with the breakdown of the small Greek city-state, individual citizens lost the sense of their own importance and ability to control their social and political destiny” (Stumpf, Fieser 102).
The creation of stoicism and epicureanism was the result of the public’s emptiness, as the ideas that the groups provided gave individuals a notion of how gain a better understanding of one’s role in life.
A Epicurean way of life staggers on the importance of the regulation and the continuous consumption of pleasure in the hopes to obtain a lifestyle with no pain. For an Epicurean the body and soul have a unrelenting appetite for pleasure, and how we choose to feed this hunger is what deciphers if one gains happiness. Humans are seen as cog placed in a complex system of life that drive beings to pursue pleasure. James Fieser and Samuel Enoch Stumpf described a Epicurean perspective the best as if, “the origin of all things in a mechanical way and placed humans into the scheme of things as just another small mechanism whose nature leads us to seek pleasure “ (Stumpf, Fieser 104). Although there is an infinite amount of ways to fulfill a human’s pleasure, they believed beings hold a responsibility
in regulating the traffic of desire. For instance, if an individual is placed in front of an all-you-can-eat buffet a common response would be to over eat, however a epicurean would only eat a modest amount. The reason for this bizarre response is because in their belief a wise person satisfies themselves by the minimum of his or her nature. A person who indulges themselves too much in pleasure won’t be able to quickly and easily satisfy their needs, thus not gaining any happiness. It is also believed that people need to know the difference in pleasures and their various values. In the eyes of the philosophers of Epicureanism there are natural and necessary pleasures. As examples of these desires are food, which is both necessary and natural. An example of natural desire are some sexual acts and a final example of neither necessary and natural are luxury items. The ultimate pleasure of human nature for a true Epicurean is Repose. To be more specific it is the “absence of bodily pain and the gentle relaxation of the mind” (Stumpf, Fieser 105). Basically, Epicureanism tries to limit a human’s consumption of pleasure so they won’t have to experience the pain of the absent of that specific pleasure.
Unlike Epicureanism, Stoicism seeks happiness through wisdom, meaning “wisdom by which to control what lay within human ability and to accept with dignified resignation what had to be” (Stumpf, Fieser 106).
In other words Stoics know they cannot control situation that are given to them but they are able to control their attitude towards them. They felt it was useless to fear the inevitable because humans are unable to escape this, therefore its rational to control the fear we have towards that situation. Not to confuse this feeling of no fear with not caring, Stoics try to keep the fear of the future to as minimum as possible. Living by the motto ‘”nothing to fear but fear itself’” (Stumpf, Fieser 106). One of the core differences between an Epicurean and a Stoic way of life is how they deal with emotion. Stoics believe that a human’s responsibility is to control their attitude and to practically ignore innate emotion, with this in mind they see reactions like fear as a setback that can result to anxiety. Epicureanism on the other hand sees the body as car and pleasure like fuel. An Epicurean is expected to be more aware of their pleasures and their reactions, because if they react too much then they are pleasuring too much from the experience, forbidding them from
happiness. Although stoicism and Epicureanism are as different as a hotdog and a salad, both base their foundation on limitations. Take for instance the boundaries a Epicurean must take, they cannot indulge too much in the simple pleasures of life like exotic foods or relationships or these pleasures will inflict pain on to the individual. Now comparing this lifestyle to the Stoic way of living, where they must confine their reaction, an individual can see both groups value the tranquility of life. These two groups teach their followers how to savor their moments by not reacting to a situation too much to the point of delusional fear or indulging themselves in an experience instead of soaking it in.
Im drawn more to the Epicurean life due to the fact that I feel that the fundamentals of human characteristics is to be intact with emotion. I don’t agree with the stoic method of simmering an individual’s reaction, because it’s as if telling an elephant not to curl its trunk or a forcing a sunflower to gaze towards the moon instead of the sun. even though emotion has its impulsive disadvantages, what is the point of wisdom without the reaction of enthusiasm? what is courage to delve into the exploration of discovery without the initial emersion of fear into that unknown?