Major Questions in Philosophy - Essay Example

Philosophy Question Discuss Epicurus view that fear of death and fear of the gods are the chief sources of unhappiness in life. According to Epicurus, exactly what is unhappiness? How does the philosophical understanding of nature enable people to overcome the two main forms of fear and thereby achieve happiness? Why is a quiet private life the best choice for the person who desires to be happy? Epicurean philosophy believed that the fact that Gods could mete out sufferings to humans even after their death, was a major cause of anxiety and apprehension among people. (Lecture 9: From Polis to Cosmopolis: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World: 323-30BC: Hellenistic Philosophy). It believed that since the source of unhappiness was the body itself, happiness could be derived only when the body became devoid of any kind of pain or suffering, and their psyches relieved from the traumas of the world. Epicurus advocated a rational approach to life to circumvent the fear of gods and fear of death. They feel confident that both god and death are not concerned with human beings. Both have a wide variety of tentacles to grapple or monitor in addition to human beings. The Epicurean outlook on death is quite a poetic truth that envisages: death can not inflict pain on us since we would be no more after death; and we need not fear any pain of death as death do not capture us when we are alive. According to this ideology, there is no need to fear death, since by the time of death, the body ceases to bear sensation and therefore, the pangs of death may not be experienced. Thus, humans need not fear what they cannot feel, or endure, which is death. Again, according to Epicurean theory, unhappiness is the outer manifestation of inner anxieties and fears caused by material longings. The physical pain and sufferings one endures is also a part of this unhappiness. According to him, absence of unhappiness could be rendered by man’s constant engagement in working for peace and harmony within himself. Leading a pleasurable life, enjoying the company of philosophical friends/ associates and not worrying too much about worldly affairs could also lead to happiness. (Lecture 9: From Polis to Cosmopolis: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World: 323-30BC: Hellenistic Philosophy). Epicurean philosophy delineates that happiness and tranquility are not attainable by man otherwise than by obtaining what is desired with propensity of not falling prey to it. The Epicurean philosophy deals much with the laws of physics. It does not spell anything for or against the concept of God. An overall perception of this philosophy reveals that personification of gods in any form is useless. The tremendous flow of nature itself is immeasurable to human race. As such, gods could be conceived of something created by mankind, which provide solace to people with piety. Since God is felt to be the Great with no equals, how can we just reduce the same to very small human beings alone? If we are right in affixing such a Great potency to God, then we become fools that God is concerned with human beings alone. Thus it concurs with Democritus that, in a world of colliding atoms, and where science has an explanation for almost all activities on earth, there could be no room for divine activity. Further, every one knows that death is inevitable for anything that is born, and thus it would be foolish to worry about it. This philosophical aspect of life helps mankind to avoid the fear of death and the fear of Gods Coming to the aspect of why a quiet and happy life would be the best alternative for a person who seeks happiness, it is seen that it is the involvement with people and worldly affairs which robs man of his inner peace and tranquility and makes him prey for a plethora of evils and misdeeds. Thus by leading a private life, without much of social attachments or commitments, he is, in effect, reconciling himself to his own peace. By leading a chaste, noble and honorable life, along with quiet and happy one, he is ensuring his own happiness and well being, complete with sound body and mental health Question 2: The Stoics argue that tranquity is the key to happiness and that indifference (apatheia) is the key to tranquility. What, exactly, is indifference? What is the wise person supposed to be indifferent about? How is such indifference supposed to make happiness possible? A pre-condition and contributory factor for happiness is virtue, or goodness, morality, etc. Similarly, the converse of happiness or misery is vice, or immorality, depravity, or even sin. Aspects that do not belong, either to virtue, or vice, are termed as indifferents.” They were called “indifferents” because the Stoics held that these things in themselves neither contribute to nor detract from a happy life. Indifferents neither benefit nor harm since they can be used well and badly.” (Stoic ethics: Good, evil and indifferent). Indifferents are important since they help distinguish between good and evil. When a person is confronted with an issue, he has to decide whether it is a virtue, or a vice, the consumption of which would either be a detriment or a benefit to him. There could also be a situation when he is indifferent to it. For instance, talking truth is a virtue; similarly providing shelter and refuge to someone fled from a perpetrator is also a virtue. If at any later stage if one is forced to tell the truth to the perpetrator, can truth telling be considered as a virtue? At this situation the enforcement to tell a lie or hiding the fact is termed to ‘preferred indifferent’. Thus, indifferent in real terms actually suggests abstinence, or disregard. This could either be for a virtue, or for a vice, though normally indifferents are shown towards negative aspects of life and living. A wise man is supposed to be indifferent to the evils and vices on the earth, or disprefered indifferents, since it could cause incalculable damage and ruination to his health, well being and family comforts. It could also be seen in terms of selecting preferred indifferents usually because it “promotes the natural condition of a person, and so selecting them is usually commended by reason.” (Stoic ethics: Good, evil and indifferents). Again it is seen that wise men need be indifferent about disease, death, injuries, pain, sufferings, anguish, torment, agony, grief and bereavement. These are undesired, or dispreferred indifferent, that could only pile up more misery and sorrow for the receiver. However Stoics lend a flexible hand in relaxing their rigid structure of virtue and allow one to adopt or follow some dispreferred indifferents at some unusual circumstances. In order to support their doctrine of unified virtues, Stoics have laid that different taxonomical virtues are unified but apply to different spheres of action. The indifferents, whether preferred or dispreferred are not capable of causing happiness or unhappiness. It is the selecting mode and its application that makes the difference between bliss and anguish. Thus, while right selection and implementation of preferred indifferents could benefit the user, the choice of dispreferred indifferents could add to his cup of woes. Sometimes, a person may be in a dilemma which indifferent to choose from, since both may be pleasurable and satisfying. Under such conditions, he needs to use his discretion and discriminatory powers and assess the long term effects of choosing one alternative over the other. Conclusively, “It is the virtuous use of indifferents that makes a life happy, the vicious use that makes it unhappy.” (Stoic ethics: Good, evil and indifferents). Question 3: The Epicureans and the Stoics attempt to show people the way to lead the good (i.e. happy) life under the conditions of empire. These conditions include was, political corruption, increasing debt, a widening gap between rich and poor, and the excessive indulgence of appetites. But they also include the development of new forms of multinational, multiethnic society. Compare and contrast the two philosophies as responses to these conditions. Is one superior to the other? Be sure to discuss the cosmological orientation of the two philosophies as well as their differing attitudes to political involvement. Comparisons between Epicureans and the Stoics: It is seen that both these philosophies emanated from a sense of disillusionment with the Greek administration and rule of law. For one thing, the Greek rulers especially post-Alexander era, attached greater importance to an urbanized and complex structure, devoid of human feelings and insensitive to the aspirations of the masses. Epicurean philosophy does not seem to have laid any specific stricture in relation to administration of a social structure. The loss of identities by the citizens in an urbanized atmosphere and the subsequent internal conflict could however be explained by Epicurenian philosophy, which does not consider even injustice as an evil. The philosophy even challenges the existence of absolute justice. Highly fluid agreement made in reciprocal association that may at any time differ from the previous one could not be taken as a model of absolute justice. The changes occurred in social structure and culture after the era of Socretes is simply explained by Epicureneans as evolutionary changes that could only be perceived with a compulsory acceptance. The Principal Doctrine 35 of Epicurus as translated by Robert Drew Hicks postulates : It is impossible for the person who secretly violates any article of the social compact to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for right on to the end of his life he is never sure he will not be detected. This evidently explains the fall of even the greatest empires in the world. In a similar tone Stoic views could be made use of for explaining the existence of imbalances in a society as this philosophy too does not talk anything direct on the issues of a society and its changes. The attainment of noble goal of ‘Wisdom’ in which a person achieves perfect consistency in the operation of his rational faculties is given much importance by Stoics wherein the need for vitally urgent transformation of society or human race is craved for. Both these beliefs were reflective of the major changes that affected social, political and cultural fabric during the Hellenistic regime. The rulers or the administrators were not concerned about the plight of the poor masses and were indulging in acts that established their hegemony over the people. Again, it is seen that both the Epicurean and Stoics wanted reforms as a part of national and political development, and also the need for the masses to play a more engaging and dominant role in administration of their own rights and privileges under monarchy. Contrasts between Epicureans and the Stoics: The fundamental ethos of both these ideologies was different. Epicureans do not view pleasure as evil. Their observation towards pleasure is quite rational. They feel certain objects of pleasure that bring pleasure to senses also entail annoyances along with them in a stronger manner than the pleasure itself. This philosophy was straightly upright in its view that fighting against sensations would certainly leave one without any standard of reference. Without stopping the discriminatory approach in our attitude, abrupt rejection of sensations shall simply throw us into mess and greater confusion. However, the Stoics believe that life follows a certain well defined structure, or logos (rationale). It is necessary for people to identify life’s plan and live according to it. The logic of perfect living is to be mastered if one were to live in peace with oneself and the world. There is no question of abstinences from worldly or political affairs, to attain peace. Coming to the cosmological orientation of the two philosophies, there are major areas of differences. The Stoics believe that planetary movements follow certain well defined and structured basis, which cannot be challenged. “Consequently, all events that occur within the universe fit within a coherent, well-structured scheme that is providential. Since there is no room for chance within this rationally ordered system, the Stoics metaphysical determinism further dictated that this cosmic Nature is identical to fate.” (Stoic ethics: definition of the end). Epicureans however, deny any divine hand in the celestial phenomenon and believe that physics has plausible answers to planetary movements and outer-space occurrences, and men’s belief in planets and other heavenly bodies need to be rooted in scientifically tempered and rationalized. Both Stoicism and Epicureanism have their validation in the prevailing conditions in Greek during that era. The social context and political scenario justified the proliferation of these doctrines. However, it would be wrong to assume one’s supremacy over the other. Both had valid premises and strong arguments that could sway public opinion and also shortcomings that needed to be rectified. Epicureans emphasized living by nature. They do not go against pleasure seeking, although they are strong in adopting natural path to attain pleasure. Their views on God and human fear of Death are quite indigestible for masses. While Stoics believe that humans need to seek and achieve the Plan of living and abide by it, working and living in harmony with nature and their environment, Epicureans feel that leading a private and peaceful life is necessary in order to realize the ultimate happiness. Epicureans differ from Stoics in their contemplation of living in that while the former seeks rational approach comprising wisdom and just, the latter advocates joining the endeavors of the mainstream to live a full and satisfying life dedicated to the welfare of others. References Lecture 9: From polis to cosmopolis: Alexander the great and the hellenistic world: 323-30BC: Hellenistic Philosophy. The History Guide: Lectures on Ancient and Medieval European History. (Provided by the Customer). Stoic ethics: Good, evil and indifferent. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Provided by the Customer) Read More