Common ground in epicureanism and stoicism?

I'm not sure that this topic will be of interest to many of you guys, but I figured I'd post it anyway because I am interested in seeing what other people have to say about this: there was a dichotomy between Epicureanism and Stoicism in the ancient world, and in The Book by Alan Watts, it is suggested that dichotomies produce a "third" way of understanding which isn't a blend of both, but understanding that both can be valid at the same time. I wonder how we would apply that to Epicureanism and Stoicism? I've put a brief summary of these philosophies below, which of course isn't comprehensive and even the ancient practitioners disagreed on exactly how each of the philosophies should be practiced. I'm not an expert in either of these!

Stoicism -- believes that suffering is a choice because we put "good" or "bad" on certain circumstances, thus, it is necessary to avoid becoming overly attached to things which are not entirely under our control (money, popularity, appearance, etc) and instead place value in those things which are firmly under our control (our beliefs and acting in ways which honor our beliefs.) Stoics practice "negative visualization" to imagine losing everything, which then makes them appreciate what they do have more, instead of taking it for granted. And conversely, be prepared to lose it should the situation arise. Justice and morality is black and white, as the highest virtue is in living a just and moral life. Later stoics like Marcus Aurelius (who did not self identify as a stoic, but is widely cited as such) would have said that virtue lay in cooperating with others for mutual benefit, although how "mutual benefit" is defined obviously varies.

Epicureanism -- unlike the adjective epicurean, Epicureanism is NOT a philosophy of hedonism, but rather of moderation. Too much of any one thing is bound to cause unhappiness, and therefore, enjoying what we can and finding pleasure through living modestly is the highest form of life. Epicureans disdained involvement in politics, instead finding the greatest value in friendship. Epicureans also did not believe in God's involvement in the life of mankind, if Gods even existed. What is known is what is perceived through the senses. Morality lies in shades of gray. Lying, for instance, may not be immoral if no one was harmed, whereas a stoic may object on principle.

The meeting place that I see is in the desire to be a decent human being who is able to "work well with others," in whatever capacity that entails. Although even by drawing a direct comparison like that, I wonder if I'm missing the point, since Watts would probably consider that a classification. And it seems like "how to live a good life" is very much a part of that religious place that isn't described with words, but felt.

Thoughts?

Wow, Alex, what a sobriety ! not even a little verse of the Tao Te Ching ! :silly:

Archaic Smile wrote:
The meeting place that I see is in the desire to be a decent human being who is able to "work well with others," in whatever capacity that entails. Although even by drawing a direct comparison like that, I wonder if I'm missing the point, since Watts would probably consider that a classification. And it seems like "how to live a good life" is very much a part of that religious place that isn't described with words, but felt.

Thoughts?

Love the post.
Great detail on the two philosophies.
I think most if not all philosophies/religions could meet at "do good and play well with others".
could you tell me more about the third way?

First of all, I love this!!
It sounds to me like the only place where they don't coincide is in the morality department. Understanding the other parts together translates to someone who follows their bliss, doesn't take more than they need, and appreciates what they have because they can imagine having nothing. Sounds like finding a balanced life to me!
The morality bit is tougher. The stoics seemed to believe in a hard-and-fast system of morals (which they most likely believed existed outside of humanity, which seems like they must have believed in an outside power), while the epicureans saw it as more subjective.....

Thanks for your kind words, everyone! I honestly didn't think anyone would be interested in this, and I wondered whether I should have posted it in my journal.

To answer your question, Donkey -- the "Third Way" is described in "The Book" by Alan Watts, Chapter 6 -- "IT," but as I understand Watt's meaning, the "Third Way" is understanding that contradictory things can be true at once. He points to the wave / particle nature of light as an example of this, and in scholarship, to the "prickly" method of looking to measure everything and reduce it to fine detail, or to understand things holistically and generalize (the "gooey" way). Both are valid even if they disagree with each other at times.

Do the Epicureans outline how to define and engage in determination of moderation to their approach? If Stoicism served as an approach in that type of moderation then it might have made it a target for those Epicureans as they fought their own demons to moderate self 'pleasure'. The nature of pleasure would likely feed the ego making moderation difficult... perhaps generating antipodal sentiment amongst both sides perhaps!?

Maybe a epicurean approach using stoicism to define the nature of the requisite moderation!!? Or did I just really show my ignorance on philosophy there
:blush:

Well, Stoicism also involves avoiding the passions: murderous rage, consuming lust, and others like it. I don't think you mentioned that part. Still, that could be common ground between the two as I feel moderation would include moderating one's emotions.

Its interesting that two competing philosophies could have this much in common! I'm more of a Stoic myself and I have to point out how much Stoicism has in common with Taoism, which is partially why I'm also a Taoist.

Tao Te Ching 80 :

If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labour of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labour-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighbourhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it.

Neither in Stoïcism nor Epicureanism would one renounce everything. One just doesn't let anything become painful. These two philosophies are very similar to one another in that Stoïcism favours aligning one's desires from the point of what 'is the case' (we live in a world where things break, people die at the hands of other people, and corruption exists ... &c) and can thus operate from there. For Epicureans, pleasure is the ultimate good, but one avoids excess in what is pleasant lest it become source of unpleasantness (i.e. luxurious food which becomes unavailable is then unpleasantly missed, or too much really good wine gives rise to a really nasty hang-over). In both, one is encouraged to contentment with what one has, with what one can do, with the way things are ...

Alex, do you see Tao as the middle way perched between stoicism and Epicureanism? Or are they three unrelated philosophies that share a few common characteristics?