It might be my contrarian nature - when I was a teenager, I asked for a Zune instead of an iPod. So in the great debate of classical revival, my instincts tell me to swing Epicurean.
The ultimate goal of Stoicism is “living in agreement with nature.” The ultimate goal of Epicureanism is “freedom from fear of God.”
These are both reductive statements; Stoicism places high value on a life of virtue and Epicureanism places high value on pleasure.
What happens more often than not in contemporary conversation, however, is that the goal of the Epicurean is physical, material hedonism, shirking away from society, and “not feeling the troubles of their own life” (to paraphrase Seneca). But let’s look under the hood.
The Epicurean is tasked with defining pleasure, which is done in four different ways: mental vs physical pleasure and constant (katastematic) vs active (kinetic) pleasure. Because of the immediacy and subsequent end of kinetic physical pleasure (such as eating), greater emphasis was placed on katastematic mental pleasure - constant mental pleasure. What does this mean, practically? It’s hard to hypnotize yourself into a state of constant wellbeing. For the Epicurean, this meant freedom from mental pain: freedom from fear and anxiety - freedom from the fear of God being the highest possible pleasure.
The Stoic is tasked with defining virtue, largely. Correct me if I’m wrong! Obviously, this mini-essay is in favor of Epicureanism and I saved myself the pain of over-researching for a forum post.
So what is virtue? Stoics seem to define this as participation in society - this is where the Stoic “most correctly” criticizes the Epicurean.
I don’t disagree that virtuosity in life may be best defined when one is in “full participation” - action within the social sphere. However, I wonder how well we understand our intentions and limitations, especially when considering the possibility that every social interaction is an exchange of power1.
So is it virtuous to participate in a society that takes advantage of you - whether you know it or not? Is it more or less virtuous to participate in a social interaction wherein you are taken advantage of? Is it more or less virtuous to participate knowingly or unknowingly of your complicity in being taken advantage of? Does it matter?
Perhaps you could say I am an apologist for those who are abandoning or opting out of social participation. Largely, I argue for self-education.
Foucault, who I hope is replacing Marx as the over-assigned philosophical read in undergraduate education, argued that revolution begins with the reclamation of the individual physiology. This is in contrast with Marx’s claim that revolution begins with taking back the means of production.
If you were to follow through with reading on the Four Dimensions of Power, you may come to the conclusion that Foucault implies that through reclamation of individual physiology, you reclaim your capacity for violence, which is the most fungible and flexible power resource over which the individual has immediate and tangible physical agency to develop. Implicit in this is also that the tools of “mental” or “psychic” power (education) have been coopted: i.e. “they” brainwash you, and even in the pursuit of developing the ability to “mentally coerce" someone (argue for a point of view), you may just be mentally coercing yourself into another position of psychic submission toward an authority that may not be in your best interest2. But there is no argument as to how much weight you can carry: how much force a strike you may blow contains.
A bit edgy!
What is not implicitly implied (ha) in Foucault, however, is the power found in pain-free movement; a physical health that is defined by transcending the definition of physical autonomy.
“Health” is largely becoming another method of coercing behavior into a certain mode of standards, but that’s another essay. Health as defined as capacity for physical action that is free from pain - to me that is power. And it is a power that is rather pleasurable - although to argue for it might be even more.

Footnotes

  1. Some light reading on the Four Dimensions of Power. You may also like Keith Johnstone's chapter on Status Transactions in Impro.
  2. However, to follow a terminus of thought involving the invention of the weapon: invention of technology is arguably a superior way to ensure physical safety and/or assert power.
this territory is moderated
I've long been a fan of stoicism (or at least the small portion of it that I think I understand).
From your "mini-essay", I feel like I've perhaps given the Epicureans short-shrift. Would you say the two schools are fundamentally incompatible, or just that they emphasize different values?
reply
I would not say the two schools are fundamentally incompatible. I believe in an à la carte sampling when it comes to philosophy, provided it makes sense. I may be naïve.
I think a stoic approach is very applicable when a person is facing situations of responsibility, whereas an epicurean approach is probably more favorable to moments of privacy and friendship.
My gripe with stoicism is my impression that the school emphasizes emotional austerity/asceticism ("freedom from the passions") over emotional engagement with life. I admit it's likely a shallow read of the philosophy.
However, I wonder if a sensory-based embrace and appreciation of life is something fundamentally human that people can miss out on when they overvalue emotional austerity.
reply
I started appreciating stoicism when I realized the popular conception of it as anti-emotion is a bit off base. In that respect it's sort of the flip side of the point you make about how the epicureans are misperceived.
I believe that "freedom from the passions" is more about not being ruled by your emotions than it is about not having them. The Vulcan line "We control our emotions so that they do not control us" comes to mind.
reply
Epicureans are the only group understand less well than bitcoiners.
reply
Damn it, I meant to say "understood".
reply
Amazing! These used to be boring for me and for most other as a teenager and your mini essay reminds me my pain of not understanding these schools of philosophy while I was pursuing graduation. But as I grew up I slowly realized that these aren't boring at all. They are as worthy as an scientific innovation is. For those who aren't well versed in philosophy, this essay is about two of the Hellenistic schools of philosophy (i.e., schools which came after Aristotle). While differing in their fundamental tenets, both philosophical schools recognized the goal of philosophy to be the transformation of the self into a sage.
reply
22 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 19 Mar
So is it virtuous to participate in a society that takes advantage of you - whether you know it or not? Is it more or less virtuous to participate in a social interaction wherein you are taken advantage of? Is it more or less virtuous to participate knowingly or unknowingly of your complicity in being taken advantage of? Does it matter?
I think pleasure is more relevant to sociality than virtue is. Being asocial is a lot like being asexual regardless of the reason for being either. Sex and sociality are pleasurable for most humans even where they imply a hierarchy, some form of power exchange, or risk. The epicurean risks non-pleasure in pursuit of great pleasure, don't they? That's my impression. It's the stoic, as far as I can tell, that is careful about risky pleasures.
Largely, I argue for self-education.
For self-education vs social participation? It seems like a stretch to declare them at odds. What would you argue? Self-education is objectively more pleasurable than social participation?
reply
The epicurean risks non-pleasure in pursuit of great pleasure, don't they? That's my impression.
This is actually a major stoic critique of epicureanism! I don't disagree, although I may be more a fan of hedonic calculus to assess my options :-)
And as an aside and prelude to my next comment, epicureans highly valued friendships, and devoting a great amount of time to their friendships. They eschewed political participation, thinking it a bit illusory.
What would you argue? Self-education is objectively more pleasurable than social participation?
No, absolutely not. That statement, when written, was directed to the young aspirant of change who perhaps has an idea of what they want to do in the world, but still requires far much more perspective than they have (and they don't even know it).
If I had to choose between an evening with a great mind in the form of the book and a real friend, I would choose a friend any night of the week.
This does betray my epicurean perspective, however, that I value socializing with friends over political/social participation. And I think lifetime-wise I would be more pleased with great friendships over virtuous placement in a public hierarchy - which, again, betrays an epicurean (as opposed to stoic) value set.
reply
deleted by author
reply