5 ms·

Epicurus is compelling, but I ultimately reject his philosophy in favor of Stoicism / Academic Skepticism for two reasons: a) The Epicurean belief that emotion

Epicurus is compelling, but I ultimately reject his philosophy in favor of Stoicism / Academic Skepticism for two reasons: a) The Epicurean belief that emotional disturbance/perturbation is basically bad stymes emotional thriving. In a podcast with fellow Stoic Massimo Pigulicci, therapist and Stoic Scholar Donald Robertson points out that this idea is very close to the statement "anxiety is bad", a belief that correlates strongly with a host of pathological mental conditions/states. b) The Epicurean aversion to anxiety pushes us away from political engagement and many other activities that root us in the murk of life. That being said, there are still many profound insights to be gleaned from Epicurus' thought.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zvmaz 4y ago
I am sorry but I did not understand your comment. As for Stoicism, it is a very hard philosophy to live by if one is not temperamentally inclined to the "serenity to accept the things [one] cannot change, Courage to change the things [one] can, and Wisdom to know the difference".
- seizethecheese 4y ago
  But the harder it is temperamentally, the more useful it is.
  - zvmaz 4y ago
    I don't know. It certainly is an interesting intellectual movement. Bertrand Russell wrote scathingly of Stoicism in his History of Western Philosophy [1], to which Massimo Pigliucci, the author cited above in the comment, responded [2]. I tend to be sympathetic to Russell's critique now, as Stoicism did not "work" for me. [1] https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy/page/n266/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy/pa... [2] https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/bertrand-russell-got-stoicism-seriously-wrong/ https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/bertrand-russ...
- dashoffset 4y ago
  If one is already temperamentally inclined to the "serenity to accept the things [one] cannot change, Courage to change the things [one] can, and Wisdom to know the difference", then they may not need Stoicism.
jschveibinz 4y ago
I just watched a video on YT that suggests a way to harmonize Stoic with Epicurean philosophies. It's worth watching, in my opinion. https://youtu.be/1hl4hBb4_y4 https://youtu.be/1hl4hBb4_y4
eimrine 4y ago
1. What is good about anxiety except of political engagement point? 2. Does a Wise Man (from a Stoicism's point of view) really must to care about politics more than just learning? From my understanding there are things that are way better than politics, for example Math. Anyway we the small men are compelled to go wherever the society goes and the more number of big brains will care about this, the less really cool things will we receive. Stupid men can not obtain mathematical knowledge for us, so maybe they are better utilized by doing politics? While wise men will do some really awesome things?
- zdragnar 4y ago
  What is good about anything bad? Only what you learn from it. Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA) is a condition where a person is incapable of feeling pain- the pain sensing nerves aren't properly wired up into the brain. On the one hand, wonderful! You'll never have to suffer the effects of physical harm. On the other hand, you'll never learn the motor control and dexterity needed to interact with potentially dangerous objects, and may go extended periods of time not realizing that, for example, a fractured bone has become infected. Experiencing anxiety is a primer for the brain to cope and endure difficult situations. Without it, you are essentially setting yourself up for failure when something out of your control happens.
  - daniel_reetz 4y ago
    A very interesting question in philosophy is "Why do people like scary movies?" - being scared is uncomfortable! A related question might be "Why do people eat spicy food" - I mean, it's painful! When you explore the answers to these questions, you may develop an appreciation for the magic of the dark, the anxious, and the frightening.
lmm 4y ago
My problem with Stoicism is that it seems to offer no mechanism for correcting your thinking; it tells you to detach yourself from whether your actions have good or bad outcomes (since you can't control that) and only concern yourself with whether you have acted well, but if you're not concerned about outcomes then your reasoning about whether you have acted well becomes purely circular. > The Epicurean belief that emotional disturbance/perturbation is basically bad stymes emotional thriving. In a podcast with fellow Stoic Massimo Pigulicci, therapist and Stoic Scholar Donald Robertson points out that this idea is very close to the statement "anxiety is bad", a belief that correlates strongly with a host of pathological mental conditions/states. More so than Stoicism? Stoics are notorious for emotional equamnity, a lot of the philosophy is about avoiding distress when things go badly and anxiety when they may go badly. It hardly seems like a philosophy that encourages or supports anxiety. > The Epicurean aversion to anxiety pushes us away from political engagement and many other activities that root us in the murk of life. I don't think being "rooted in the murk of life" should be a goal in itself. As with any other kind of pain or suffering, Epicureanism would tell us that political engagement may be worth enduring if the ultimate benefits outweigh the costs. But I don't think we need to be pushed towards more political engagement than currently; quite the opposite, we need a philosophy that can tell us when it's worth stepping back.
codersfocus 4y ago
I've always thought of Socrates (A sort of zealotry / strong will) as the opposite to Epicurean avoidance for pain.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zvmaz 4y ago

I am sorry but I did not understand your comment. As for Stoicism, it is a very hard philosophy to live by if one is not temperamentally inclined to the "serenity to accept the things [one] cannot change, Courage to change the things [one] can, and Wisdom to know the difference".

seizethecheese 4y ago
But the harder it is temperamentally, the more useful it is.
- zvmaz 4y ago
  I don't know. It certainly is an interesting intellectual movement. Bertrand Russell wrote scathingly of Stoicism in his History of Western Philosophy [1], to which Massimo Pigliucci, the author cited above in the comment, responded [2]. I tend to be sympathetic to Russell's critique now, as Stoicism did not "work" for me. [1] https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy/page/n266/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy/pa... [2] https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/bertrand-russell-got-stoicism-seriously-wrong/ https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/bertrand-russ...
dashoffset 4y ago
If one is already temperamentally inclined to the "serenity to accept the things [one] cannot change, Courage to change the things [one] can, and Wisdom to know the difference", then they may not need Stoicism.

jschveibinz 4y ago

I just watched a video on YT that suggests a way to harmonize Stoic with Epicurean philosophies. It's worth watching, in my opinion. https://youtu.be/1hl4hBb4_y4 https://youtu.be/1hl4hBb4_y4

eimrine 4y ago

1. What is good about anxiety except of political engagement point? 2. Does a Wise Man (from a Stoicism's point of view) really must to care about politics more than just learning? From my understanding there are things that are way better than politics, for example Math. Anyway we the small men are compelled to go wherever the society goes and the more number of big brains will care about this, the less really cool things will we receive. Stupid men can not obtain mathematical knowledge for us, so maybe they are better utilized by doing politics? While wise men will do some really awesome things?

zdragnar 4y ago
What is good about anything bad? Only what you learn from it. Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA) is a condition where a person is incapable of feeling pain- the pain sensing nerves aren't properly wired up into the brain. On the one hand, wonderful! You'll never have to suffer the effects of physical harm. On the other hand, you'll never learn the motor control and dexterity needed to interact with potentially dangerous objects, and may go extended periods of time not realizing that, for example, a fractured bone has become infected. Experiencing anxiety is a primer for the brain to cope and endure difficult situations. Without it, you are essentially setting yourself up for failure when something out of your control happens.
- daniel_reetz 4y ago
  A very interesting question in philosophy is "Why do people like scary movies?" - being scared is uncomfortable! A related question might be "Why do people eat spicy food" - I mean, it's painful! When you explore the answers to these questions, you may develop an appreciation for the magic of the dark, the anxious, and the frightening.

lmm 4y ago

My problem with Stoicism is that it seems to offer no mechanism for correcting your thinking; it tells you to detach yourself from whether your actions have good or bad outcomes (since you can't control that) and only concern yourself with whether you have acted well, but if you're not concerned about outcomes then your reasoning about whether you have acted well becomes purely circular. > The Epicurean belief that emotional disturbance/perturbation is basically bad stymes emotional thriving. In a podcast with fellow Stoic Massimo Pigulicci, therapist and Stoic Scholar Donald Robertson points out that this idea is very close to the statement "anxiety is bad", a belief that correlates strongly with a host of pathological mental conditions/states. More so than Stoicism? Stoics are notorious for emotional equamnity, a lot of the philosophy is about avoiding distress when things go badly and anxiety when they may go badly. It hardly seems like a philosophy that encourages or supports anxiety. > The Epicurean aversion to anxiety pushes us away from political engagement and many other activities that root us in the murk of life. I don't think being "rooted in the murk of life" should be a goal in itself. As with any other kind of pain or suffering, Epicureanism would tell us that political engagement may be worth enduring if the ultimate benefits outweigh the costs. But I don't think we need to be pushed towards more political engagement than currently; quite the opposite, we need a philosophy that can tell us when it's worth stepping back.

codersfocus 4y ago

I've always thought of Socrates (A sort of zealotry / strong will) as the opposite to Epicurean avoidance for pain.