Philosophical WI: No Stoicism

Epicurianism =/= Hedonism. That's a common mistake, as "theory" of Evolution or between philosophical materialism, and "materialism".

Epicureanism is a light form of "hedonism" that lacks the demonization and exagerationthat was later attached to it. It is a form of hedonism.
 
Wouldn't that lead to mor people vying for power then??
Depends of the power balance then. But rather than concurrence for power, I would see a more or less passive acceptence to personal power by a greater individualism, making clientelism a more one-to-one relationship in politics.

All of this assuming a rival philosophy didn't pop up, right?:p
Well, yes, but other moralist philosophies, without stoicism, are likely to be dominated by at least materialism part of epicurianism.
Stoicism gone, you'd have neo-socratic philosophies being more present and there were not too interested in politics but about a well-being.
You may end with a more important philosophical cynism, granted.
 
Epicureanism is a light form of "hedonism" that lacks the demonization and exagerationthat was later attached to it. It is a form of hedonism.

No. The main difference between both, is that Epicurists' goals is to avoid suffering, when Hedonist's goals are to reach pleasure.
Basically to not pursue things that are objectivly harming you; against obtaining pleasure without harming other people.

Hedonism, furthermore, tends to have a moral background for its choices : as such pleasure is okay, because nodoby is harmed.
Epicurism, on the other hand, tends to consider the same thing to be harfmul for one, and not for the other, the goal being to reach a compromise instead of an exchange.
 
No. The main difference between both, is that Epicurists' goals is to avoid suffering, when Hedonist's goals are to reach pleasure.
Basically to not pursue things that are objectivly harming you; against obtaining pleasure without harming other people.

Hedonism, furthermore, tends to have a moral background for its choices : as such pleasure is okay, because nodoby is harmed.
Epicurism, on the other hand, tends to consider the same thing to be harfmul for one, and not for the other, the goal being to reach a compromise instead of an exchange.

Isn't bliss/pleasure The ideal homeostasis, and pain/overindulgence a result of poor humors, imbalance or perversion?
 
Isn't bliss/pleasure The ideal homeostasis, and pain/overindulgence a result of poor humors, imbalance or perversion?

Depends on your definition of pleasure : for Epicure (I assume we're talking of an original epicurism there, without possible modifications), the difference between them is the result of a reflexio, a passive/contemplative consideration.

It's not only a matter of what should be pursued, but why and how they are. Hence the opposition with Aristippos, that privilege the sensation reguled by the reflexion.
Basically, one put reflexion and material consideration at the mesure of what's pleasurable, the other put analysed sensuality.

It made me think that Aristippos and cyrenaic school could have a more important place in a stoician-less world.
 
Top