Epicureans
and Stoics have viewpoints that are very questionable and hard for me to agree
with in some respects. Epicureans seem to believe in minimizing harm in order to
maintain happiness/ pleasure while Stoics believe in following where reason
leads. I can’t image going through life without a purpose or hope that
something awaits you beyond this earthly life. Epicureans seem to believe that
death is the end of the body and soul. I feel it is a very depressing thought
that once you die that is it for you. The life you lived won’t amount or count
for anything except to end in death. Stoics, however, seem to operate solely on
logic. One must perceive everything through reason and logic and not have any emotion.
We even discussed how on page 61, section 26 advises people to have a logical
mindset when something tragic happens to them and to act as they would when
something tragic happens to someone else. The comparison of a broken cup to a
person’s life seems inadequate to me and not worth comparing because they are
two very different things. A cup can be replaced or fixed. A person’s life is irreplaceable.
There may be other scenarios in which this mentality is acceptable like with
the broken cup or as mentioned in class—dealing with unreasonable customers,
one needs to keep a reasonable mindset and appease them. In instances of life
and death, the view can’t be simply applied and accepted. Concerning the
Epicureans standpoint on acquiring pleasure and happiness and minimizing pain,
I can understand the goal to achieve a peaceful and tranquil life and to avoid
chaos would be joyous. However, reaching this pleasurable state in this life
and to keep it until death would be difficult because of the unpredictable
nature of the world and life’s events. Epicureans believe in clinamen (or “swerve’);
they realize that unpredictable events do happen. Therefore, to obtain and keep
aponia (freedom from pain) for all of one’s life would be pretty impossible.
Although Epicureans and Stoics have some reasonable arguments for their beliefs,
I don’t completely agree with all of them.
One of the most interesting things I have noticed about each of the different philosophies, is how they all seem to simultaneously make sense and not make sense. As if each one is close, but missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Each philosophy needs the others to create the whole picture. Epicureans and Stoics make me think of our personality class, when Prof Rivera said that most of the psychologists were simply trying to outdo each other in the varying trait theories. They were all some what similar, just missing certain important aspects that the others might have possessed. There needs to be a balanced between this peaceful/tranquil life and not allowing our emotions to rule our decisions and actions. Balance.
ReplyDelete