Epictetus thought that fortitude and self control were the
keys to having clear and logical thought.
This logical thought brought about a happy life because reason led ones
life in the right direction. For Epictetus, nature was thought to also operate on
reason and that when things happened, there was no sense in
trying to change nature.
So if following this path is supposedly based on logic and
reasoning, why is being a stoic so difficult for people? When Dr. Johnson asked
if anyone was in the class was a stoic, nobody raised their hand, but a lot of
people agreed when she asked if they wanted to be a stoic. If people wanted to
be a stoic, why is it so difficult to be one?
I believe that people aren’t stoic because so much of what
we do and how we feel is irrational. People love to be irrational, to be angry
at something for no reason, or to be sad just because. It’s hard to not be
ruled by our passions and emotions, to give into the sadness just because we
feel like it. It’s also hard to not become attached to anything. Epictetus said,
“Never say about anything ‘I have lost it,’ but instead, ‘I have given it
back.’” And then goes onto talk about saying if your wife or child dies, all
you should say is that you’ve given them back. There is no way that if my child
died I would be able to sit there and causally say, I’ve given them back. I
would be irrationally sad and depressed if my own child had died. I think that
it is natural for one to be irrational at times and wish that nature didn’t
have to be the way it is. I know that nature isn’t going to change and that
these kinds of things are going to happen, but I don’t think that it makes me
not lead a good life to wish that it would change or not happen to me. I
wouldn’t want to give up my passions to live life like that. I like the
extremes, if I’m very upset when my wife/child dies, that must mean that I
loved them a lot and was very happy when I was with them. Though at the time I
think it would be nice to be able to not feel the sadness and think about it
logically, I don’t think that I could live my life in this way.
My question for everyone is if they really would want to be
stoic and to not feel the passions that usually control ones life? Would that
really make somebody feel like they are living a better life and lead them to
more happiness? If this is the choice to make one happy, why is it so difficult
to live this way?
Matt Wagner
I think that it is not necessarily that we want to go through life being generally stoic, but rather we want to be able to go into a stoic state during hard times. To go back to the example about the death of a spouse and children, it is more reasonable for a person to have a desire to not feel the pain of their deaths. This does not mean that the spouse and children are not loved; it just simply means that they are so loved, the pain and extreme sadness of their loss would be unbearable. However, when it comes to matters of positive passions, such as love, or even petty passions, such as jealousy, I don't think that we would want to give those up. Emotions such as these are what make us feel human and alive. Therefore,to answer your question whether or not being stoic could lead to one's happiness, the answer is technically yes. In theory, we would only want to be stoic when faced with situations that would not make us happy.
ReplyDelete- Jessica Ealy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that emotions can be completely irrational and unpredictable, which is why it is very difficult for some people to be “true stoics.” The same doubts can be had for epicureans, where achieving happiness and a tranquil life is dependent on (ataraxia) freedom from fear and (aponia) absence of pain, because for many people that is nearly impossible to achieve. When the class said they wished they were more stoic, I believed that to be because feelings and emotions require a lot of energy from a person, can be unpleasant to deal with, and often makes the individual feel off set. Especially in our culture today where feeling “in control” is a popular quality in a thriving individual, the idea of becoming a master of one’s emotions (which make you feel weak) by practicing the stoic ideal of having self control would sound appealing to many. People don’t want to fall prey to their passions (something you undergo not something you do) but rather to have reason lead one’s life. The stoic way of cultivating (eupathos) proper reason sounds alluring because it protects people from their emotions and the vulnerable state emotions put you in and if you aren’t vulnerable then nothing can hurt you. -Morgan
ReplyDeleteMatthew: When Epictetus says minimizing emotions bring happiness, I do not think he is defining happiness in the same way we do today. His happiness is more of an inner peace and tranquility rather than a state of elation. You can certainly be pleased with the neutral state, but it will be a calm sort of pleasure. So no, I do not think that being a stoic is the path to happiness, but rather to a fulfilled and calm state of life.
ReplyDeleteJessica: I agree that we would much rather pick and choose our philosophy through life than to stick with one course, especially when it comes to something as difficult as stoicism. When we are accepted into the graduate school of our dreams, we are much more likely to listen to Epicurus; when our dog dies, we choose Epicetus; when we are faced with a morally ambiguous situation, we apply Aristotle's golden mean to our decision making. Everything is situational, and while skipping all over the philosophical map may seem capricious, it seems to be the most logical decision.