Emotional Attachment

We analysed the varying viewpoints of Epictetus and Lucretius in class and the main comparative arguments that overlap between these two philosophers is the need to be indifferent.  Epicureans sought to maximize happiness by minimizing pain where as in Stoicism followers looked for the perfect middle point in their passions, not too little and not too much.  Furthermore, there is an order or reason to nature.  Although unexplainable events may occur (chaos), the world is structured and we as humans must 'maintain a will in accord with nature' (Class Notes).  Therefore it is in our benefit to remain indifferent to sadness and destruction in the world.  This is most apparent in the analogy correlating the breaking of a cup to the death of a child.  Cups will break and people will die however it is wrong to be distraught over your own personal belongings or offspring as opposed to someone else's.  This is the most common pain that humans experience, not physical but rather mental.  From loss of possessions, ending of relationships, to feelings of regret or remorse, mental pain is the most abundant and stems from all the relationships that we as humans create for ourselves.  Is being indifferent not the same as lacking emotional attachment.  To live a true stoic/epicurean lifestyle you cannot attach emotions of feeling to anything.  Unless you somehow manage to treat all people and possessions with the same amount of sentiment or compassion.  I do not believe this is even remotely possible, so the only option must be to void your life off all relationships and feelings.  To be a perfect stoic or epicurean is to be indifferent to the chaos of the world and in doing so you must remain emotionally unattached.