Stoics and Epicureans

        Months ago Nikki and I were at the funeral of her grandfather, and while there I had a conversation with Scott that needed to be expounded on but the burial was about to start and it was neither the time nor place. The conversation went thus as Sawyer wanted to be her normal defiant self:

Morgan: "Sawyer you cannot always do what you want, you have to be a little bit of a Stoic like your dad"

Scott: "Are you a stoic Morgan?"

Morgan: "A little bit"

Scott: "Well, if I ever write a fantasy novel I will have a picture of you leaning on your sword looking wistfully into the sunset"

I thought that was an interesting thing to say but the burial was starting and I didn't have time to tweak him on his Stoic usage. His view of Stoicism has more of a "contemplative warrior monk" than its true philosophical leanings. It is not his fault though, that is what our western romanticism has turned it into.

I thought about sending him a Facebook message but A) I don't really like to book face and B) this is something that everyone can consider. The only downside is that I am not sure if Scott even looks at this... but that will have to resolve itself later. So here is a super basic primer on Stoicism; something I know very little about as there has been volumes of texts devoted to the subject.

Stoicism arrived as a philosophy in 300 BCish. The proposition of the belief at its most basic is thus: In order to be "good" you must become the best version of yourself... and in order to be the best version of yourself you must endure hardships. Stoics are people who give up pleasure because it will make them a better person. For instance, a soldier should sleep on the ground because it will make him tougher, and tougher soldiers can fight better. Or one should sit up in a chair straight because that is proper posture and proper posture makes you a better person even though slouching is far more comfortable.

People who work out are stoics, as are people who make themselves read a classic book that they don't want to but it is a classic and therefore it must be good for you right? I am a stoic when it comes to food. I hate olives... I HATE them. but you can ask Nikki, I will still eat them. I do this because I always eat everything on my plate even if I don't like it therefore it makes me a better person. Fussy eaters who leave food they don't like on their plates would be the exact opposite of stoics... they would be epicureans.

Epicureanism is the philosophical school opposite of that of Stoicism. While Stoics believe you become good by giving up pleasure, Epicureans believe you become good by indulging in pleasure. If they don't want to do something then they don't do it and if they do want to do something then they do it. Procrastinators such as myself give into Epicurean philosophies on a regular occasion.

This dual of the pleasures between Stoics and Epicureans is important for a number of reasons. The first is that it is important for our understanding of history. Much of our history is derived from the polarity of Rome and Greek cultures. The Greeks were epicureans - they always went to the theatre, had big feasts and had lots of orgies. Rome were Stoics. So while they had theatres, feasts and orgies, if you were a good Roman you didn't attend these parties. Instead you had discipline by reading, debating and all around not giving into "the flesh". As you can see this cycle has continued through western civilization from one extreme to the other. Even our church history has cycled through these philosophies.

Another reason an understanding of these two philosophies is important for Christians is for our understanding of Jesus. It is interesting to note that Jesus is an Epicurean more often than he is a Stoic. He is always doing what he wants on the Sabbath, he eats when he wants to, he talks to whom he wants to, he goes to wild parties and drinks a lot. There are times when he is stoic, such as the desert temptation or possibly the Garden of Gethsemane praying, but for the most part he is Epicureanistic far more than Stoic. An interesting thought for our far more stoical churches.

The prophets and especially John the Baptist are good examples of Stoic figures. They live in the desert, they eat locusts and they where terrible clothing. In Scripture John is the Roman and Jesus the Greek.

All of this translates into the importance of our own lives. I think that both extremes are dangerous and we need to move ourselves to the radical middle. I know I fall into the Stoic side a little too often. That is why I work too much and eat food I don't like. For me, coming to the realization that I don't have to deny myself the worldly pleasures for God to love me has been instrumental in my acceptance of other cultures and even religions. However, I also acknowledge that we are shifting in our society to the other side of the pendulum and so in the centuries ahead perhaps we will need more Stoicism. Time and reflection will tell.

I apologize for being so long winded but as I have said huge volumes of texts have been written on this polarity of philosophies. I hope that the muddied waters have been cleared a little bit and that we can all reflect on the love we can find in both philosophies.

Morgan