I'm no philosopher either, but a few clarifications might be made here.
Both Epicureanism and Stoicism had a physical world view, but concentrated
perhaps more on ethics. For Epicurus and his follows, following Democritus,
reality consists of matter in motion in void space. Even the soul is
material and disintegrated upon the death of the living being. Human beings
should not fear an afterlife of punishment--there was no realm of Hades to
go to. Even the gods, who lived in interstellar space (anachronistic, I
know, but close), are material and too far away to influence humans. This
is the only life one lives, so live in a way that one achieves happiness.
Happiness is acquainted with pleasure--not hedonism, but living simply, in
moderation, and avoiding whatever is hurtful. Epicurus' prescription for
living well was "cultivate your garden and stay out of politics," not all
that bad advice for a pagan. The best source for Epicurean physics and
ethics is Lucretius' "De rerum natura" ("On the Nature of the Universe").
The Stoics, in my understanding, did not see matter as evil and to be
controlled. They had a strong notion of Providence and identified god with
the universe: there is a world soul that animates all of matter, a "Logos"
which they identified with god. We human beings are "little logoses"
because our souls share in the world soul. The Stoics emphasized living
"according to nature," i.e., living in harmony with this deterministic
universe. Happiness comes from the suppression (or control) of the emotions
(the passions). Since all things are determined, one removes anxiety from
life by living in accord with that truth. Moral virtue is the only good,
and pursuing it the highest calling. Doing the best one can is all that
matters; one should be indifferent to that things that most people pursue
(wealth, pleasure, etc.), and accept whatever comes in life.
I have greatly oversimplified both philosophies, and it needs to be
pointed out that Stoicism especially underwent development at various times
in its history. It has often been noted that the later form of Stoic ethics
had a strong influence on some of the early Church fathers, and some have
purported to find it in Paul, who grew up in Tarsus, a major Stoic center.
The lists of vices in Galatians, e.g., are standard Stoic lists, and Paul
sometimes uses a form of propositional logic (if this, then this) that
resembles Stoic logic, though others have argued that Paul learned this from
the rabbis. (Leander Keck maintains that in Romans Paul alternates between
rabbinical and philosophical forms of argumentation.) Whatever the facts,
it is true that someone in the ancient world saw such resemblences that they
forged a series of letters between Paul and his Stoic contemporary, the
philosopher Seneca. Pelagius has been accused of Stoic influences, but it
that is so, he was in good company, Ambrose and others.
Bob Schneider
rjschn39@bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mccarrick Alan D CRPH" <MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil>
To: "'ASA List'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Epicurean philosophy
> What was the general Epicurean world view ?
>
> I am no philosopher but,
>
> I always took it to be an interesting counter-point to a Stoic view.
> They both held to a view that the world of ideas was superior to the
> physical world, but treated the physical world differently. To a
> Stoic, the evil physical world polluted the mental/idea world and
> should therefore be avoided or suppressed. To an Epicurean, the two
> worlds do not impact each other. The physical world of little import
> could be indulged or not since it didn't matter.
>
> I was not aware of a strong stand that either took on the gods
> (although that in itself is a stand - the gods don't matter much if
> at all).
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> >I can make sense of this in connection with the Epicurean view that
> >everything is atoms and the void, with falling atoms connecting and
> >disconnecting in all possible combinations. Consequently, every
> >combination exists someplace.
>
> This certainly sounds like the pre-big bang view of an infinite
> universe (in time and space) in which there is plenty of time for all
> outcomes (this specific universe included) to occur.
>
> Al McCarrick
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 12:04:56 EDT