Epicureans and Stoics-LHP 4-5. Weiner 6, 12. Rec: FL 7-8. HWT 6-8 ... Don't forget to finish with Pyrrho first-see Questions Feb 1
2. How is the modern meaning of "epicurean" different from Epicurus's? Do you consider yourself epicurean in either sense of the term?
3. What famous 20th century philosopher echoed Epicurus's attitude towards death? Do you agree with him?
4. How did Epicurus respond to the idea of divine punishment in the afterlife? Is the hypothesis of a punitive and torturous afterlife something you take seriously, as a real possibility? Why or why not?
5. What was the Stoics' basic idea, and what was their aim? Are you generally stoical in life?
6. Why did Cicero think we shouldn't worry about dying? Is his approach less or more worrisome than the Epicureans'?
7. Why didn't Seneca consider life too short? Do you think you make efficient use of your time? How do you think you could do better?
- What was Kepos? What did Voltaire say we should cultivate? What do you think that means, philosophically?
- What inscription greeted visitors to Epicurus's compound? And Plato's Academy? Which would you personally find more inviting?
- Whose side in School of Athens was Epicurus on, and why? Do you agree?
- What is tetrapharmakos, and how might it help you distinguish Epicurus from Epictetus?
- Every life is what, according to Epicurus? Do you agree that this is grounds for celebration?
- Which American founding father declared "I too am an Epicurean"?
- What does Eric think happens if you follow the "good enough" creed?
- A common Stoic exhortation is... ? What is its core teaching? Do you think this is too passive?
- What did Diogenes learn from philosophy?
- What does it mean to say Stoics are not Spock?
- What did Epictetus have in common with Socrates?
- What is premeditatio malorum? Do you agree with Eric's daughter's assessment of it? Or with his, of her?
- What's "the View from Above"? Does it help you put events in your life in a better perspective?
- Have you experienced the death of someone close to you? How did you handle it?
- Do you care about the lives of those who will survive you, after you've died? Is their continued existence an alternate (and possibly better) way of thinking about the concept of an "afterlife"?
- Do you consider Epicurus's disbelief in immortal souls a solution to the problem of dying, or an evasion of it? Do you find the thought of ultimate mortality consoling or mortifying?
- How do you know, or decide, which things you can change and which you can't?
- Were the Stoics right to say we can always control our attitude towards events, even if we can't control events themselves?
- Is it easier for you not to get "worked up" about small things you can't change (like the weather, or bad drivers) or large things (like presidential malfeasance and terrorist atrocites)? Should you be equally calm in the face of both?
- Is it possible to live like a Stoic without becoming cold, heartless, and inhumane?
- What do you think of when you hear the word "therapy"? Do you think philosophers can be good therapists?
- Do you think "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" is an appropriate goal in life? Can it be effectively pursued by those who shun "any direct involvement in public life"?
- If the motion of atoms explains everything, can we be free?
- Is it true that your private thoughts can never be "enslaved"?
Epicureanism: The Original Party School
Permanent Link to this Comic: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/133
==
Philosophers in this comic: Epictetus. In The Enchiridion Epictetus gives the advice that in order to avoid suffering, we should not become too attached to particular things, so that when they inevitably end we are not caused undue harm. He starts with the fairly straightforward example of a cup that we like breaking:
With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed.
He then proceeds immediately to what seems a quite more drastic example:
If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.
Some may find that living in such a way is strange, to say the least.
Permanent Link to this Comic: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/264
==
Stoicism Man...The Next Great Stoic competition... Stoic apathy
Tetrapharmakos
The etymology of “tetrapharmakos” is quite simple: “tetra” means “four” and “pharmakos” means “remedy” or “medicine.” They are both Greek words.
Originally, the term refers to a compound of four actual drugs: wax, tallow, pitch, and resin. Later, it’s used metaphorically by Philodemus, one of Epicurus’ disciples, to refer to the core principles of happiness in Epicureanism, since both of them function as a “cure” and are four in number.
Philodemus put together the tetrapharmakos from fragments of his master’s teachings, and summarized them into four points:
- Don’t fear God.
- Don’t worry about death.
- What is good is easy to get.
- What is terrible is easy to endure.
H02 - LHP Question 5
ReplyDeleteThe basic idea of the Stoics is that people should only worry about things that they can change, and their aim is to have a calm state of mind. I'm not very stoical in life. I'm usually quite the opposite.
H02 - LHP Question 6
ReplyDeleteCicero believed that we shouldn't worry about dying because the soul lives forever. I personally find Cicero's ideas more troublesome than that of the Epicureans. For me the idea of my body dying and my soul still being around in some way is more unnerving than the thought of dying and there being nothing afterwards.
I wonder how many believers in a supernatural afterlife secretly feel the same way.
DeleteH02 - LHP Question 7
ReplyDeleteSeneca believed that life wasn't too short, but people use the time they have badly. I believe that I use my time somewhat efficiently. I could do better if I spent more of my time actually doing things instead of spending it trying to decide what I want to do.
HO2 - HWT the Three Great Founders of American Pragmatism are Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and Jown Dewey.
ReplyDeleteFor the general discussion questions:
How do you know, or decide, which things you can change and which you can't?
From my own personal account, I'd say that I decide if I can change something based on the question of "Can I put in work to effect the outcome?" If I cannot affect the outcome whatsoever than there is no point in getting bent out of shape about it. Although unfortunate things occur, and it can be devastating there is no point in making it your whole life. From there it's up to you on how much work you are willing to put in to change your outlook on life.
What do you think of when you hear the word "therapy"? Do you think philosophers can be good therapists?
When I hear therapy, I think of your typical, neutral-colored room with a nice older gentleman or young brunette lady talking to you softly about your issues. Although this can be correct, I also know for many that this is not the case. My younger sister went to therapy except it was a mental hospital where she resided for weeks on end. I have a friend who went through therapy, and the therapist and my friend would scream back and forth because that the only way he could communicate properly. Therapy is not the same for everyone and that is why I cannot properly say if a philosopher would be a good therapist. For me, absolutely not. For someone else, discussing life and the many ways that people viewed it could very well be a good thing.
"properly"-! This suggests to me a Monty Python skit, the shouting therapist. And have you tried philosophical counseling? How can you be absolutely sure it's not for you?
DeleteOne of my very favorite quotes of all time is this passage from Epicurus- “Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.”
ReplyDeleteEpicurus had a few ways to deal with the fear of death. To approach the end with indifference (a lot easier said than done) is maybe his most notable. Everyone has a natural fear of death, I think even Epicurus would admit this, However, a conscious and consuming fear of death is no way to live. I think the distinction can be characterized in the difference between fear and bravery- Bravery is resolve -- staunch acceptance in the face of death, and truly I think that is the most anyone can hope for.
"Everyone has a natural fear of death"-- maybe instinctively, but I've known plenty who philosophized their way past this. Consider Montaigne and his horse accident (which we'll discuss).
DeleteIt is interesting how the Epicurean today is synonymous with hedonistic. I think this is exactly the opposite of Epicarus' teachings. Hedonism is entirely based on self indulgence, tossing all hope of control and restraint to the wind. While Epicurus saw the pursuit of happiness of the utmost importance, this happiness did not rely on material or carnal desire, but rather the restraint to accept what you already have with gratitude.
ReplyDeleteSomeone should buy and re-brand periodicals like The Epicure, to better reflect the value of the simple life as originally articulated by Epicurus.
Delete1. According to Epicurus, fear of death is based on what, and the best way to live is what? Are (or were) you afraid of death, or of dying? Are you more afraid of losing others?
ReplyDeleteEpicurus thought fear of death is based on bad logic and you should overcome your fear of death to have a better life. He thought the best way to live is simply. If you have simple, easily fulfilled desires, they will come true and you will be happy. I would say I am more afraid of the process of dying than death itself.
2. How is the modern meaning of "epicurean" different from Epicurus's? Do you consider yourself epicurean in either sense of the term?
The modern meaning of epicurean is the opposite from epicurus’ own. While the modern term means having an extravagant lifestyle, epicurus actually advocated for a more simple lifestyle. I would not necessarily consider myself epicurean either way.
Living is itself a process of dying, which is why Seneca, Lucretius, Montaigne and others said philosophizing is learning to die. I'd rather say it's learning to live. But those are flip-sides. It's both.
Delete1. According to Epicurus, fear of death is based on what, and the best way to live is what? Are (or were) you afraid of death, or of dying? Are you more afraid of losing others?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Epicurus, the fear of death is based on bad logic and a waste of time. The best way to live would be to live “a very simple lifestyle, be kind to those around you, and surround yourself with friends.” I am not afraid of death or dying but I am afraid of losing others, especially if they/their family isn’t Christian because that means that they have death without hope. It’s the worst loss to experience.
2. How is the modern meaning of "epicurean" different from Epicurus's? Do you consider yourself epicurean in either sense of the term?
The modern meaning of “epicurean” is someone who loves eating fine foods and lives in luxury, whereas Epicurus’s meaning is to be moderate and not give into those greedy appetites or “more” mentality. It’s quite the opposite. I consider myself to be an Epicurean in Epicurus’s sense of the word because I do believe in the less is more mindset in most aspects of my life.
3. What famous 20th century philosopher echoed Epicurus's attitude towards death? Do you agree with him?
Ludwig Wittgenstein echoed Epicurus’s attitude towards death. I agree with the idea that death is not something we should fear, but I disagree with Epicurus’s ideas on the afterlife.
4. How did Epicurus respond to the idea of divine punishment in the afterlife? Is the hypothesis of a punitive and torturous afterlife something you take seriously, as a real possibility? Why or why not?
Epicurus responded to the idea of divine punishment in the afterlife by saying that the “gods” aren’t interested in their creation enough to get involved. I take the afterlife seriously. As a Christian, I believe in heaven and hell, and I understand that these are true consequences to the actions we take here on earth. I also know that I have a relationship with God and live according to how the Bible teaches we should, so I am not afraid of death but rather excited to finally meet my maker.
5. What was the Stoics' basic idea, and what was their aim? Are you generally stoical in life?
The stoics basic idea was that we should only worry about the things that we can control. Generally, I would say that I am stoical in life because why stress over something as little as what other people think about me or what the weather is because ultimately, I can’t control it. I can control how I let these things affect me and I choose not to let them.
4. Some of my best friends believe in heaven, not so many in hell. I respect that. But I also agree with Russell: “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment..." Teaching small children to believe in that, no matter the motivation, engenders much fear and misery. I don't think "inhumane" is inaccurate.
DeleteNo need to reiterate answers to the questions that others have already answered. But you can certainly comment on them, indicate your own views etc.
DeleteWhat's the sense in believing in a "good place" version of the afterlife without also believing in a "bad place" version. There will always be good and bad in the world, and hell- at least in Christianity- is for those who hear the word and reject it. The emphasis here being the rejection of the truth of the Word. Those who don't get the opportunity to hear the word do not fall into the category of going to hell. Therefore, I don't feel that it is inhumane to believe and understand that there are both positive and negative consequences to the way we choose to live here on earth. Because that is the main point, ultimately it is our choice. It is a fact that there are both negative and positive consequences on earth so where is the logic that there wouldn't be both in the afterlife.
DeleteLHP
ReplyDelete2. The modern epicurean is a person who enjoys an expensive and lavish lifestyle. However, this is extremely disconnected from Epicurious' actual way of life. He believed you should enjoy the simple and cheap things that way you will never be disappointed by having that which you cannot attain.
Weiner
10. The Stoics are not disconnected from reality and emotions, they are merely in control of them. Stoics do enjoy good things and they dislike bad things, however they do not let their emotions control them.
But if you ever met a stoic who was as emotionally buttoned-down as the average Vulcan, you'd probably think they were "disconnected" and not truly in control. So a defender of stoicism will insist that the Vulcan image is a caricature.
DeleteHannah Ferreira H01
ReplyDeleteHWT 1. According to Epicurus fear of death is based on bad logic, and the best way to live is to surround yourself with friends, be kind, and overall live a simple lifestyle. I am not really afraid of death anymore, I used to be. I am more afraid of dying being a painful process if I get sick or something. Overall, I am more afraid of losing the most important people in my life before myself.
**Little History of Philosophy, not HWT
ReplyDeleteHannah Ferreira H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 3. Ludwig Wittgenstein echoed Epicurus’s attitude toward death and he said that “Death is not an event in life,” basically saying that we don’t experience death because it removes the possibility of experience. I would agree with the sentiment but not necessarily the statement literally. Because death happens to us, I would still say it is an event, even if we don’t necessarily experience it. But the people around us experience our death.
Hannah Ferreira H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 5. Their basic idea was to not worry about things we cannot change. Their aim was to have a calm state of mine. I try to be generally stoic even if I don’t subscribe to the whole philosophy. There are definitely things I can change that I work hard, but I trust that the rest will figure itself out.
2. How is the modern meaning of "epicurean" different from Epicurus's? Do you consider yourself epicurean in either sense of the term?
ReplyDeleteNowadays, “epicurean” refers to someone who is indulgent and gives into desires. However, this is the exact opposite of Epicurus’ values. Epicurus believed that in order to eliminate suffering and find happiness, you must live simply in order to more easily satisfy your desires and not living insatiably. I think I relate more to Epicurus’ version of the term because I don’t need a lot to be satisfied. While I definitely always haven’t been that way, I have actively tried to have simpler desires because I have learned, as Epicurus taught, that doing so can bring happiness.
5. What was the Stoics' basic idea, and what was their aim? Are you generally stoical in life?
ReplyDeleteStoics concerned themselves with what was in their control. Their aim was to cultivate a calm life brought about by being in complete control of their emotions. I generally try to be stoical in life. In the past, thinking stoically about painful situations helped me reframe my thoughts in a positive way. Even though the book talks about how stoicism is kind of synonymous with indifference, I don’t see it that way. I think that if something bad were to happen to me, and I were to think stoically about it, I would be able to accept the situation with more calmness and try to find a productive way to deal with it. I definitely think I have grown more stoic through practice, but not in an indifferent way.
LHP 3
ReplyDeleteThe twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein echoed Epicurus’s attitude toward death. He did this by saying that death is not a part of life, so there is no way for us to experience it, suggesting that there is no need to fear it.
I agree that we don’t have to fear death because it something that we will not experience. However, what I do fear is a painful death, the part that may hurt before death.
LHP 5
ReplyDeleteThe Stoics’ basic idea is that we should not worry about things that are out of our control. Through this philosophy, they aimed to reach a calm state of mind.
I don’t think I am very stoical in life because I am a chronic-worrier. I tend to get stressed out about the things that are completely out of my control. This is definitely something I need to work on.
LHP 7
ReplyDeleteSeneca didn’t consider life too short because he believed that people were just not making good use of the time they were given.
I am trying to make efficient use of my time. I am in college, so I am trying to use the time that I am given to do something that matters and will hopefully be useful to my community when I graduate. I definitely can do a better job at this though, as I sometimes waste hours on my phone instead of being present and doing something more beneficial with my time.
8. What does the author say might be the cost of stoicism? Is it possible to be stoical but also appropriately compassionate, caring, sensitive to others' suffering, etc.?
ReplyDeleteThe author says the cost of stoicism is that being indifferent to everything can cause you to become cold. However, I think that it is possible to be stoical while still having “human” emotion. Since stoics mainly focus on what’s in their control and can “master” their emotions in this way, they are able to handle difficult situations with more ease. However, I don’t think this negates their other emotions – it just means they are able to better control them.
FL 1
ReplyDelete"They were rationalists and pragmatists, men who liked money and fine living but didn't expect to get rich overnight..."
FL 2
Jonathan Edwards was a Massachusetts minister who was known as the Last Puritan. He was also at the center of what was called the Great Awakening.
He was like Anne Hutchinson in the sense that he was known as a mystic visionary who was consumed by the Bible but also the subjective visionary experience of holiness.
1. According to Epicurus, fear of death is based on the false belief that we will be there to experience our death, when in fact our experience will end just before death. He said that the best way to live is to live a very simple life and surround yourself with friends so that you will maximize pleasure and minimize suffering.
ReplyDeleteI am not particularly afraid of death. I’m not religious, and I don’t believe in an afterlife of any sort, so I don’t see any reason to be afraid. I think that I do worry about death through the extension of other things, though, like worrying about my future and whether or not I will be able to support myself or achieve the things I want in life before I die. I am afraid of losing others, but it’s something I can’t predict or control, so I try not to think about it too much.
5. The Stoics’ basic idea was to not stress over what you can’t control, and their aim was to eliminate emotions in all situations possible.
I think I try to be stoical in life, but only because of how much I stress over things I can’t control. It seems like no matter how hard I think, I can never really stop worrying about some things.
7. Seneca didn’t consider life too short because he thought that most of us used our time badly, and that we actually have quite a lot of time.
I definitely do not make the most efficient use of my time, but then again, efficient to what ends? I don’t even know my goal in life, so how can I be efficient in working towards a goal I haven’t discovered yet? I try to just tell myself life is a journey. I could be more efficient in figuring out what do to with my life, for sure. I spend too much time engaging in mindless entertainment to say I use my time efficiently.
8. The author says that the cost of stoicism is that we may become coldhearted and perhaps less human. Personally, I think it is definitely possible to be stoical and appropriately compassionate and caring towards others. First of all, if someone comes to you to vent, I don’t think you should force your stoical beliefs on them, even if that’s what you’re thinking inside. I think you should comfort them, and show them you care, and perhaps your stoical beliefs will be absorbed telepathically as they realize that they need not worry about what they can’t control.
Weiner 2: What inscription greeted visitors to Epicurus's compound? And Plato's Academy? Which would you personally find more inviting?
ReplyDeleteThe inscription at Epicurus's compound read, "Stranger, your time will be pleasant here. Here the highest good is pleasure." The inscription at Plato's Academy read, "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here." The inscription outside of Epicurus's Garden is much more inviting. At the entrance of Plato's Academy, I would immediately feel judged for how knowledgable I may or may not be in common things such as geometry. But at the Garden, I would feel welcome no matter my level of intelligence or social status.
LHP 8. What does the author say might be the cost of stoicism? Is it possible to be stoical but also appropriately compassionate, caring, sensitive to others' suffering, etc.?
ReplyDeleteHe says that our happiness may be reduced in the face of events that we can't control. It is possible to be stoical but also emotionally aware to others. I feel as if I have a good grasp on my emotions and that I can control how much I let things that are out of my control effect me. However, I feel as if though I have remained a very compassionate and loving person throughout my life and own philosophical journey.
Weiner 5. Every life is what, according to Epicurus? Do you agree that this is grounds for celebration?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Epicurus, every life is the fortuitous product of chance, or in other words, a miracle. I agree that this is grounds for celebration. The chance of me existing is 1 in 10 ^2,685,000. The fact that I exist at this specific time exactly as I am is about 1 in 400 trillion. To beat the odds of not existing is a feat that should be celebrated more.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. According to Epicurus, fear of death is based on what, and the best way to live is what? Are (or were) you afraid of death, or of dying? Are you more afraid of losing others?
- The fear of death according to Epicurus is based on bad logic and a waste of time. He thought the best way to live was to enjoy the moments we were in now and to make ourselves happier all throughout life. As for if I am afraid of death/dying, I think a little bit most certainly. It is not the actual death itself I am afraid of, but rather the opportunities I will be missing out on should I leave this world. I would definitely say I am afraid of losing other people over myself.
3. What famous 20th century philosopher echoed Epicurus's attitude towards death? Do you agree with him?
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, as he believed "Death is not an event in life." To a certain extent yes, I feel like death itself is not a concept one should entirely worry about. Yet I do feel it is important to note it is the end no matter what, and thus we should live every day as happily as possible.
8. What does the author say might be the cost of stoicism? Is it possible to be stoical but also appropriately compassionate, caring, sensitive to others' suffering, etc.?
- The cost of stoicism is you become less in touch with your emotions, and become less humane and more cold. I think you can approach most subjects stoically, yet still hold some emotion. I can think of people who work as officers, detectives, therapists, etc. who all have to deal with really traumatic matters. Yet, some are still able to maintain a marriage or relationship and therefore are in touch with some emotions in their lives.
1. According to Epicurus fearing death was a waste of time and based on bad logic because we will not be able to feel whatever happens to the body after death.
ReplyDelete2. The term is totally different because the modern definition is someone that enjoys expensive wine and luxurious food. While Epicurus believe in eating a simple diet so you near want for more.
LHP 1: He believed fearing death was a waste of time because we will not be consciously aware of what is happening after death.
ReplyDeleteLHP 2: The definition of this os very disconnected now from what it used to be. Now people see it as living lavishly, while Epicurious saw it as living simply.
LHP 3: Wittengstein "Death is not an event in life," This ties to Epicurious' belief that death is not something to be worried about because we will no longer be living, and not aware of what is occurring
2. How is the modern meaning of "epicurean" different from Epicurus's? Do you consider yourself epicurean in either sense of the term?
ReplyDelete-it is different because Epicurus had the idea of living simply and wants less, to the end of lessening suffering and gaining more pleasure; but the modern term is more towards one who seeks just pleasure and nothing else. I would not consider myself epicurean (in either sense) for i do not think keeping struggle to a minimum and pleasure to the highest, i think each person should suffer towards an end, whether that end is a specific goal or ideal.
5. What was the Stoics' basic idea, and what was their aim? Are you generally stoical in life?
- the idea was to not worry about what one cannot control and focus only on what they can, they aimed for a more calm and anxiety-less life. I try to be stoic, if i can't change something then why worry, and if i can change it then also why worry?
Adriana Ramirez Speis H03
ReplyDelete4. How did Epicurus respond to the idea of divine punishment in the afterlife? Is the hypothesis of a punitive and torturous afterlife something you take seriously, as a real possibility? Why or why not?
Epicurus did not believe in an afterlife where we were conscious and aware. We simply cease to exist. As the author says, we "won't be there" to experience anything postmortem. I'm a Christian, so I believe that hell will be a place completely devoid of God's presence. Everything good comes from God, so I don't want to imagine what would happen in a place without him. I believe the 'torture' itself would be a life apart from Him.
Adriana Ramirez Speis H03
ReplyDeleteWeiner 1. What was Kepos? What did Voltaire say we should cultivate? What do you think that means, philosophically?
Kepos means 'the garden' and referred to the lush home that Epicurus purchased just outside of Athens. Voltaire believed we must cultivate our garden. Because the Kepos became the grounds for Epicurus' school, I believe the philosophical meaning of cultivating our garden is to cultivate our minds and homes. I like this idea. As the text mentions, both gardening and philosophy require discipline and commitment.
1. He said fear of death was based on bad logic. The best way to live was to have a simple lifestyle, be kind, surround yourself with friends. I’m more afraid to lose others because I won’t be able to perceive my own death. I do fear for the others that have to deal with the death without me, though.
ReplyDelete3. Ludwig Wittgenstein said that death was not an event in life. I do agree, we don’t have any senses attached to our own death; everyone else will experience our death but not us.
5. We should only worry about things we can change. They aimed for a calm state of mind. I like to try to be stoical, but I know I get easily upset by any inconveniences around me.
ReplyDeleteTessa Wallace H03. 2. The modern form of the word epicurean means someone who loves eating and drinking fine food and wine who indulges in luxury things. The way Epicurean thought was that if you did this then you would fall into a nonstop cycle of wanting it and always craving something that you would not be able to have. I think that I am more towards the way of how Epicurean thought then the modern day meaning. I think I don’t crave the luxury things that the modern day meaning suggest.
Tessa Wallace H03. 3.The twentieth century philosopher was Ludwig Wittgenstein he echoed the idea of Epicurean that death was not an event of your life. I think that this is partly true. I think that it is not an event that happens that we will remember of our life, but it will lead into what happens to us after death. Being a Christian I believe that it will lead to you either living eternity with Jesus or without him. So, I think that this has some truth to it, but it is not exactly how they described it.
Tessa Wallace H03. 3.The twentieth century philosopher was Ludwig Wittgenstein he echoed the idea of Epicurean that death was not an event of your life. I think that this is partly true. I think that it is not an event that happens that we will remember of our life, but it will lead into what happens to us after death. Being a Christian I believe that it will lead to you either living eternity with Jesus or without him. So, I think that this has some truth to it, but it is not exactly how they described it.
2. How is the modern meaning of "epicurean" different from Epicurus's? Do you consider yourself epicurean in either sense of the term?
ReplyDeleteThe modern meaning of epicurean is someone who likes to indulge in the luxuries of life especially things like food and drink. This meaning of epicurean is different from Epicurus's because he wanted people to live a more minimalist lifestyle as to not create desires for something you might not get. I don't think I would describe myself as epicurean in either sense of the term. I believe that because I don't usually live a luxurious or indulgent lifestyle but I also wouldn't describe myself as a minimalist.
1. According to Epicurus, fear of death is based on what, and the best way to live is what? Are (or were) you afraid of death, or of dying? Are you more afraid of losing others?
Epicurus believes fear of death is based on bad logic and a waste of time and the best way to live is to live a simple life, be kind to others, and surround yourself with friends. I believe I'm less afraid of dying and more afraid of how I will die.
Adriana Ramirez Speis H03
ReplyDeleteWeiner 3. Whose side in School of Athens was Epicurus on, and why? Do you agree?
Epicurus was an empiricist who relied on his senses. This is practical and more similar to Aristotle than Plato who focused on abstract ideas and forms. While I have my issues with Aristotle, I do fall more on the scientific side. As I mentioned in a previous post, I do appreciate pondering on some abstract ideas, but I will live my day to day life and make decisions based on the facts. If I see a train coming on a railroad, I will not try to beat it because I know that the speed and force it is traveling at could cause me some serious harm, no matter how inconvenient waiting for it to pass is.