5 ms·

A nicely entertaining read. Does anyone else find the author's characterisation of Stoicism a little reductive? My reading of the Stoics has been limited so far

A nicely entertaining read. Does anyone else find the author's characterisation of Stoicism a little reductive? My reading of the Stoics has been limited so far, but at least as far as Marcus Aurelius writes one of the primary Stoic paths to peace and virtue is through helping others.

Tim0theus 7y ago
Yes I did, I think the contrast is much better explored in this lecture: http://rickroderick.org/102-epicureans-stoics-skeptics-1990/ http://rickroderick.org/102-epicureans-stoics-skeptics-1990/ Worth listening if you have the time.
- mjfisher 7y ago
  That looks absolutely perfect for me. I've found some Stoic attitudes and practices a great help over the past year or so, but suspect there's some really valuable knowledge from the other schools I've yet to learn about. I'm working my way through Seneca's letters at the moment. He keeps quoting Epicurus, so that's a pretty decent recommendation right there! Anything that builds out context around that era of philosophy is massively interesting to me. Thank you very much :)
taberiand 7y ago
I agree, my understanding of Stoicism leads me to the same conclusion. Epicureans and Stoics seem to have always had a friendly rivalry going on, though they feel a lot like two sides to the same coin. In some ways, to me, Epicureanism is what a Stoic does on their day off.
- mcguire 7y ago
  The rivalry isn't always friendly. If your connotation of epicureanism involves "pleasures of the flesh", it's probably because stoics painted them as hedonists.
billfruit 7y ago
If I'm not wrong, the author is a noted critic of the Stoics and especially of the recent revival of interest in Stoicism, and their promotion of Epicureanism may well be originating from that end. So I guess we can't trust them to give an impartial view of Stoicism.

5 ms·

A nicely entertaining read. Does anyone else find the author's characterisation of Stoicism a little reductive? My reading of the Stoics has been limited so far

by mjfisher 7y ago

Tim0theus 7y ago
Yes I did, I think the contrast is much better explored in this lecture: http://rickroderick.org/102-epicureans-stoics-skeptics-1990/ http://rickroderick.org/102-epicureans-stoics-skeptics-1990/ Worth listening if you have the time.
- mjfisher 7y ago
  That looks absolutely perfect for me. I've found some Stoic attitudes and practices a great help over the past year or so, but suspect there's some really valuable knowledge from the other schools I've yet to learn about. I'm working my way through Seneca's letters at the moment. He keeps quoting Epicurus, so that's a pretty decent recommendation right there! Anything that builds out context around that era of philosophy is massively interesting to me. Thank you very much :)
taberiand 7y ago
I agree, my understanding of Stoicism leads me to the same conclusion. Epicureans and Stoics seem to have always had a friendly rivalry going on, though they feel a lot like two sides to the same coin. In some ways, to me, Epicureanism is what a Stoic does on their day off.
- mcguire 7y ago
  The rivalry isn't always friendly. If your connotation of epicureanism involves "pleasures of the flesh", it's probably because stoics painted them as hedonists.
billfruit 7y ago
If I'm not wrong, the author is a noted critic of the Stoics and especially of the recent revival of interest in Stoicism, and their promotion of Epicureanism may well be originating from that end. So I guess we can't trust them to give an impartial view of Stoicism.