Epicurus understands as well as we do that we are by nature social beings, but having once placed our good not in the spirit but in the husk which contains it, he cannot say anything different.
On the other hand, he firmly grasps the principle that one must not admire nor accept anything which is severed from the nature of the good: and he is quite right.
How can we be social beings, if, as you say, we have no natural affection for our offspring? Why do you advise the wise man not to bring up children? Why are you afraid that they may bring him into troubles?
Does the mouse he rears indoors cause him trouble? What does he care then, if a tiny mouse begins crying in his house? But he knows that if once a child is born, it will not be in our power not to love it nor care for it.
—from Epictetus, Discourses 1.23
For the few students who are still exposed to ancient philosophy, their experience is usually limited to a hasty contrast between Plato and Aristotle, stressing all the differences instead of seeking out a complementarity.
Almost completely ignored is the wider range of Greek and Roman thought, including the Cynics, the Stoics, the Skeptics, and the Epicureans. This is unfortunate, as both the breadth and the depth of the human condition are best revealed by examining the full spectrum of historical expression.
The Stoics, for example, stood in a sort of opposition to the Epicureans, even as they also sought to find some common ground, especially regarding the critical importance of a temperate life. For all that could be shared, however, they diverged on an understanding of first principles, and their disagreements can help us to better reason about our own assumptions.
Though it surely requires further elaboration, I at least begin with my own general summary of their views:
For the Stoic, the greatest human good is the pursuit of virtue and the avoidance of vice, in a Universe ruled by Providence.
For the Epicurean, the greatest human good is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, in a Universe ruled by the swerving of atoms.
It would do us all a world of good to consider such foundations to our thinking, instead of merely taking them for granted. In the current fashion, most of us would discover how we are implicitly working from Epicurean premises, though we then twist them into a base hedonism the Epicurean would find truly frightening.
In this brief chapter, however, Epictetus confines himself to a single aspect of the division. To what extent are we called to be social animals, to encourage affection and cooperation with our fellow humans?
Now it might at first seem that the Stoics, with their stress on self-reliance, would think poorly of family bonds or political engagements, while the Epicureans, with their stress on achieving the satisfaction of desires, would support relationships of utility, and yet quite the reverse ends up being true.
The Stoics constantly appeal to our communal nature, since we are made as parts of a whole, while the Epicureans are deeply apprehensive about family and the public square, since they too easily serve as unnecessary distractions from a balanced contentment.
Epictetus observes how Epicurus must admit that our physical nature makes social interactions unavoidable, and yet wonders why he simultaneously looks down on them as a nuisance. In particular, Epictetus challenges Epicurus on his rejection of marriage and children.
Is a child really such a burden? Must the philosopher cast aside his natural instinct to give the gift of life in order to find his own happiness? I regularly come across similar claims regarding children as hardships, though all the media grandstanding and bickering on the matter is pointless without first isolating the source of the human good.
Perhaps the Epicurean wishes to avoid a certain circumstance because it interferes with his peace of mind, but the Stoic considers any circumstance as an opportunity for his peace of mind.
I suggest that one reason for this variance is from whether we find happiness in how we come to feel or in how we choose to act. When life presents challenges, is it best to hide them away or to joyfully embrace them?
The good man is not driven to despair by such a little thing as the squeaking of a mouse, nor, when it comes to the much bigger things, will he deny his love to his offspring. The consistent ethic here is one of treating all the situations we face with the same commitment to justice, of being completely pledged to service over gratification.
No comments:
Post a Comment