Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism were the three main Hellenistic schools of philosophy (i.e., schools which came after Aristotle). What they all had in common was the idea of ataraxia - freedom from disturbance - by teaching what not to care about.
While differing in their fundamental tenets, Epicureans and Stoics both recognizedthe goal of philosophy to be the transformation of the self into a sage.
A sage is one who has attained a ‘plenitude of being’, or ‘perfection of being’, unattainable to us fallible creatures, and therefore, like wisdom, an unrealizable ideal. No human being can ever become a sage. Nevertheless, although ideals can never be attained, they can be progressed towards, and the progression towards a greater state of perfection of being was the goal,
Epicureanism:
Seneca, a Stoic who appreciated the philosophy of Epicureanism, noted the main difference between his Stoic school and the school of Epicurus. Epicureanism is a philosophy which stresses the importance of ‘training one’s desires’.
Man is miserable, thought Epicurus, because he desires things that he need not desire. If we would but learn or habitualize ourselves to desire only those things which are necessary and natural to us as human beings, we would be able to bathe in the ‘pure joy of being’; that is, learn to understand how pleasurable it is just to exist. The Epicurean sage (one who has attained the ideal of Epicureanism), is one who, given that his basic needs are met (shelter, food, etc.) is able to rival ‘the gods’ in happiness.
Stoicism:
Stoic philosophers, in contrast to Epicureans, believed that there are many things outside of our control in life, and therefore many things which could befall us and make our lives very difficult. Sickness, loss, poverty, death and other tragedies which commonly befall human beings are things which in general we have little control over. Should a terrible ill must come upon us, in many cases there is little we can do except wait and hope the terrible storm will soon pass, and not wipe us away for eternity.
Unlike Epicureans, the Stoic philosophers stressed that to be alive means to be open to the many troubles which can arise in our lives at no fault of our own, and that the attainment of happiness is not merely a matter of ceasing to desire things we need not desire. What is required in order to live a successful life according to the Stoics is courage, moral strength, and wisdom. Surely bad things will happen to us, and moreover surely we will have desires for things the attainment of which will not benefit us. But one who has become a true Stoic, a Stoic sage, will bear the vicissitudes of fortune with strength, understanding, and equanimity; and will refrain from acting upon or giving to his base desires/impulses.
Or, in the words of the Stoic philosopher Seneca…
“The difference here between the Epicurean and our own school is this: our wise man feels his troubles but overcomes them, while their wise man does not even feel them. We share with them the belief that the wise man is content with himself. Nevertheless, self-sufficient though he is, he still desires a friend, a neighbour, a companion. Notice how self-contented he is: on occasion such a man is content with a mere partial self – if he loses a hand as a result of war or disease, or has one of his eyes, or even both, put out in an accident, he will be satisfied with what remains of himself and be no less pleased with his body now that it is maimed and incomplete than he was when it was whole. But while he does not hanker after what he has lost, he does prefer not to lose them. And this is what we mean when we say the wise man is self-content; he is so in the sense that he is able to do without friends, not that he desires to do without them. When I speak of his being ‘able’ to do this, what I am saying in fact amounts to this: he bears the loss of a friend with equanimity.” (Letters from a Stoic, Seneca)
Skepticism:
Philosophical skepticism is both a philosophical school of thought and a method that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge. It is generally agreed that knowledge requires justification. It is not enough to have a true belief: one must also have good reasons for that belief. Skeptics claim that it is not possible to have an adequate justification.
Skepticism is not a single position but covers a range of different positions. In the ancient world there were two main skeptical traditions. Academic skepticism took the dogmatic position that knowledge was not possible; Pyrrhonian skeptics refused to take a dogmatic position on any issue—including skepticism. Radical skepticism ends in the paradoxical claim that one cannot know anything—including that one cannot know about knowing anything.
Skepticism can be classified according to its scope. Local skepticism involves being skeptical about particular areas of knowledge, e.g. moral skepticism, skepticism about the external world, or skepticism about other minds, whereas global skepticism is skeptical about the possibility of any knowledge at all.
Skepticism can also be classified according to its method. In the Western tradition there are two basic approaches to skepticism. Cartesian skepticism —named somewhat misleadingly after René Descartes, who was not a skeptic but used some traditional skeptical arguments in his Meditations to help establish his rationalist approach to knowledge— attempts to show that any proposed knowledge claim can be doubted. Agrippan skepticism focuses on the process of justification rather than the possibility of doubt. According to this view there are three ways in which one might attempt to justify a claim but none of them are adequate: one can keep on providing further justification but this leads to an infinite regress; one can stop at a dogmatic assertion; or one can argue in circular reasoning, never reaching a viable conclusion.
Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment