Debate Between The Epicureans And The Stoics - Term Paper Example

? DEBATE BETWEEN THE EPICUREANS AND THE STOICS Understanding ten debates between the Epicureans and the Stoics and determine which of the two arguments is plausible in the understating philosophy of life, it is vital the each of these philosophical aspects are understood well and their applications determined. The Epicureans were contributed by Epicurus who was a Greek philosopher who lived between 341 BC and 270 BC. Epicurus founded the Garden in Athens in which he and his followers lived and practiced Epicurus’ philosophical ways of life. At the entrance of this place, they hanged a writing stating that Stranger, here you will do well to tarry. Here our highest good is pleasure’1. From this writing among others, the Epicureans are considered hedonists who believe that humanity should fulfill their earthly desires and pleasures and should never try or live according to the will of God in the same way as the Stoics. In other words, they note that humanity should try to live in some sort of happiness and pleasure while they are still on earth or before their death. Notably, the contribution attributed to these two schools of thoughts can be narrowed down to the Aristotelian school of thought that dictates that "the sort of person one is and the lifestyle one adopts will indeed have an immediate bearing on the actions one performs." Nonetheless, the Stoic is more plausible than the Epicureans school of thought. The Epicurean school of thought is divided into two axial lines of desires including natural and unnatural fulfillments. Some of these fulfillments may be considered necessary in life while others are considered unnecessary. Form these distinctions; it is apparent only some of the natural and necessary desires can be fulfilled while the other branch of categories, the unnatural and unnecessary desires are irrelevant and cannot be fulfilled. Nearly all the unnatural and unnecessary class of desires prescribed by Epicureans never exists. This is because only what natural desires are truly necessary and they are what exist. In other words, even the natural and unnecessary desires are never vital to the human life; thus, they must be considered void since they never satisfy human needs but they can only lead to confusion and disturbance of inner self sufficient or the autarkeia2. Notably, from this classification of desires, it is apparent that their something or desires that are never necessary in human life and living them as means of self-fulfillment will only lead to destabilization of an individual’s inner self sufficiency. These two schools of thoughts also address their concerns on pleasure. Epicureanism classifies sexual intercourse as natural but unnecessary desire. In this case, Epicurus does not spell out total abstinence from sexual pleasures, but he thinks that such pleasure should be sampled carefully so that they are not confused with natural and necessary human desires. Epicurus once stated "Sexual intercourse never helped anyone, and one must be satisfied if it has not harmed3." In other words, he was noting that natural but unnecessary desires should be enjoyed while balancing such acts carefully in clear thinking minds. According Epicurus, for an individual “To enjoy these unnecessary desires and to not make of them necessities, to take free pleasure in the unnecessary, this is the highest achievement4." However, this contribution varies Stoics that states that former believes makes make a person more virtuous that they can easily and effective sample natural and unnecessary without them being overwhelmed by these choices. In other words, Stoics contributes the fact that all human desires are governed by some natural forces that humanity must be answerable to; thus, it worth examining and individuals’ experience in order to define his or her next move. Additionally, Stoics argue that pleasure may lead threaten an individual tranquility; thus, it should be avoided at all costs. Additionally, other than pleasure, these two schools of thoughts also have different understanding on the relationship concept; however, under the same concept they have similar esteem. In discourse, Epictetus argues that friendship can only occur after removing all the attachment within the involved parties’ external world. According to Epictetus, the material attachment will only lead to conflicts among and or between friends. In his example, Epictetus says that humanity should never always think that if animals pay they are friend, according to Epictetus; these playing animals are only friend for the period they are playing, but that is not always the case and "To see what friendship is, throw a piece of meat among them and you will learn5." According to Epictetus, such friendship also exists among human being when there are material attachments. For instance, according to Epictetus, whenever a man clams to love his son “throw a bit of land between you, and you will learn how your boy wishes to give you a speedy burial, and you pray for the boy to die6." Therefore, according to Epictetus, only when humanity detaches their friend from materials values that are when true friendship or love will exist. However, according to Stoic philosophy, only a wise man will know what is good and what is wrong; therefore, through this understanding that an individual can know his or her true friend. Hence, according to Stoic not only is friendship possible, but it is only through Stoic that friendships are possible. However, it is significant to note that Stoic commands certain degree of external interest when it comes to friendship. For instance, turning away from true friendship is merely reductive especially when such friendship relationship is pegged on obvious interests including economic stability or naked self-perception7. According to Stoic, these obvious interests are usually inculcated to a person right from birth. From these arguments, it worth noting the Stoic philosophy is more plausible than Epicurus philosophy. For instance, dealing with friendship relations, it worth noting that one person can never love everyone naturally, in other words, there are some loves or friendships that are pegged on an individual’s obvious interests that are usually built in a person from birth8. However, it cannot stated that friendships that are pegged on material benefits are pegged on love as well, persons who value material friendship or love are self-entered persons and they are never defined with the Stoic philosophical love. Nonetheless, external interests are usually synonymous to an individual’s judgment on good or evil. Therefore, according to Stoic friendship, an individual can only determine true friendship by factoring friendship and love pegged on all these factors including the external interests of a person. From these two sets of arguments, the contributors Stoic and Epicurus have dealt with some element of humanity and pleasure. According to Epicurus philosophy, humanity should live their life with enjoyment degree; however, on the other hand, Stoic philosophy advises humanity to lead their life in the ways pleasing God. These concepts have greatly influenced the ways of live in the world for ages. For instance, Epicurus ideas are currently influencing how scientific happiness influences the world today. Most people have chosen to compare the pleasure and pain involved in leading Epicurus and Stoics’ principles. Additionally, these schools of thought have influenced public policies. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that application of either of these principles must be well argued; otherwise, their applications in the daily life may be misleading and inaccurate9. Moreover, it worth adopting Stoic sides of arguments since they seem to be well informed and unbiased in thinking and contributing ideas. The most vital contribution forwarded by Stoic that people should embrace is that every action to be taken by an individual depends on the personal judgment on such actions. In other words, wisdom plays vital part in the lives of individuals and only wise people can make sound judgment including determining what parties are their true friends as well as knowing what kind of activities or pleasure to engage into or avoid. Bibliography Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Foster, John Burt, and Wayne Jeffrey Froman. 2002. Thresholds of western culture identity, postcoloniality, transnationalism. New York: Continuum. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=436057. Gill, Christopher. 1995. Greek thought. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press for the Classical Association. Gordon, Pamela. 2012. The invention and gendering of Epicurus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Manetti, Giovanni. 1993. Theories of the sign in classical antiquity. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press. Sullivan, William F. 2005. Eye of the heart: knowing the human good in the euthanasia debate. Toronto [u.a.]: Univ. of Toronto Press. Bottom of Form Read More