Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SuspiciousRelation43 t1_j6owoo0 wrote

Reply to comment by YourUziWeighsTwoTons in Happiness is an essentially nihilistic ideal — it is the best goal to follow when there is nothing else on the table. A meaningful life on the other hand can embrace more of life including struggles and suffering because it is oriented towards a higher ideal by thelivingphilosophy

I myself had a strawmanned idea of what Epicurus was, then quickly realised that he is pretty much a moderate Stoic. Not completely ascetic, but still recognising that pleasure must be disciplined not only for objective well-being, but for the very ability to experience pleasure itself.

7

YourUziWeighsTwoTons t1_j6p2odx wrote

Right. Epicurus makes a distinction between the different kinds of pleasures to be sought after that serves a similar function as the distinction the Stoics make between things which are in our power to control, and things that are outside of our control. Both schools of thought recognize that human beings become vulnerable to the experience of harm when we focus ourselves on matters that are not natural to us. And so, a Stoic and an Epicurean would both be quite disciplined in how they approached life.

They would definitely give very different accounts of what made their lives "good," but I bet unless you asked them to give you their reasons, you probably wouldn't be able to easily tell one apart from the other.

The Epicurean would likely be a little more of a recluse, whereas a Stoic might be more inclined to be "in the world" and interacting with the community at large, which she believed she had a duty to participate in. I don't think the Epicurean would feel the same way, and might be more likely to live "off the grid" as it were. The Stoic's "Off the Grid" would be her Inner Citadel.

4