Epicureanism versus Stoicism

Epicureanism and Stoicism were two philosophical schools of the Hellenistic period that were active at the same time. Although their founders, Epicurus (see image above) and Zeno, were contemporaries who settled in Athens within a few years of each other, the doctrines of Epicureanism were fixed once and for all by their founder, whereas those of Stoicism had a long development.

Epicurus and his philosophy

One problem we have in determining the facts of Epicurus’s life is that his story has come down to us, in part, via the writings of Stoics who were all too willing to discredit his philosophy. However, we can be fairly certain that he was born around 342 BC and died in 270 BC. He came from the island of Samos, started teaching his theories in 311 BC and established his school in Athens in 307 BC.

He suffered from ill health for much of his life, and his personal habits were extremely frugal, his diet consisting mainly of bread and water. However, he based his teachings on the view that pleasure is the beginning and end of life, and the pleasures of the body must precede those of the mind. You cannot think happy thoughts on an empty stomach.

He held that static pleasure is better than dynamic pleasure. In other words, the state of being free of pain is more desirable than the process of achieving pleasure. It is better to eat moderately, and never suffer hunger, than to build up an appetite and eat a huge meal to satisfy that appetite.

Likewise, sexual passion is not a good thing, because it is a pursuit of dynamic pleasure. Curiously, he was fond of children, so he relied on others not to follow his advice.

The goal of life, according to Epicurus, is therefore to avoid pain and fear. He saw religion as a source of fear, and therefore to be rejected. This led him to materialism, and the belief that the soul dies with the body.

He and his followers had no interest in science or in finding explanations for natural phenomena. The course that caused least pain was the wise one to follow, whatever its scientific foundation.

Although Epicurus had a number of followers, the very nature of Epicureanism’s somewhat laid-back approach to life meant that they were restricted to a cultured elite who had only a moderate impact on the lives of their fellow human beings. It is important not to confuse them with Hedonists, for whom the active seeking of pleasure, as opposed to the avoidance of pain, is the main aim of life.

Zeno and Stoicism

Zeno the Stoic was a Phoenician from Cyprus, born during the latter half of the fourth century BC. On arriving in Athens he studied philosophy, particularly that of Plato, through which he came to admire the attitude of Socrates towards bodily discomfort, an attitude that would have been anathema to Epicurus. However, he rejected much of the rest of Plato’s philosophy.

Incidentally, the name “Stoic” comes from the Greek “stoa”, meaning “porch” and referring to the Painted Porch in Athens where Zeno taught. He founded his school in around 308 BC.

For Zeno, what mattered most was the pursuit of virtue, and science and philosophical thinking only had value insofar as they contributed to making a man virtuous.

The Stoics held that the universe was deterministic, everything being determined by natural laws. There was a Supreme Being who ordained everything that happened, which was always for the ultimate benefit of human beings. Even bed bugs are useful, for reminding us not to stay in bed too long! (But what about wasps? Has anyone ever worked out what they are for?!)

The Stoic universe was cyclical. Everything would end in a huge, pre-determined conflagration, but then be born anew, to repeat the same cycle, over and over again.

Virtue consists of having a will that is in agreement with Nature. Wicked people obey God’s law, because they have no choice, but they do so involuntarily. The virtuous do so out of their own choice.

To the modern mind, Stoicism is a barren and unattractive philosophy, because a man’s virtue is an end in itself, not the action he performs as a result of being virtuous. It is also a cold philosophy; the death of a wife is not to be regretted as long as it has no effect on the virtue of the husband.

Epicurus valued friendship, but the Stoic would say that a friendship must end if the friend’s misfortune threatens to destroy your state of calmness.

The Stoic is not virtuous in order to do good, but he does good in order to be virtuous.

Stoical thinking was far more influential in the Greek world, and in the Roman world in later years, than was Epicureanism. This may sound strange to us, given the apparent relative unattractiveness of Stoicism, but the later history of Christianity may give us some clues as to why this may have been.

There has always been a certain strain in Christianity that is “holier than thou”. The prig has always been assured of his own virtue, and delights in pointing the finger at those he considers less virtuous. Many religious sects maintain that strict adherence to a set of rules is of greater importance than any harm caused to individuals as a result of so doing.

This would appear to reflect a strong tendency that goes back many centuries and which is found in many societies. The Pharisees of ancient Palestine clearly had their counterparts in the Stoics of ancient Greece.

There is much that is unsatisfactory about both Stoicism and Epicureanism, and neither philosophy is a sound basis for modern living. However, elements of both can be seen in the way many people have conducted themselves in the centuries since Epicurus and Zeno.