Samantha Akins
Michael Teske
CLAS RELI305
December 2017
Epicureanism-Stoicism
Among the different philosophical schools there are differing views on the natures of the gods, and since there can essentially be only one truth in this matter, the views are at odds with each other. To establish a background, Epicureanism was founded by Epicurus, a Greek philosopher from 300 B.C. Only small fragments of his work survived, so one of the fullest reliable sources of his Greek philosophical ideas is De Rerum Natura “On the Nature of Things”. Another work that helps establish the ideas of these different schools of beliefs is Nature of the Gods, where Cicero, an academic, discusses this topic with an Epicurean, Velleius, a Stoic, Balbus, and his friend
…show more content…
Therefore, the universe consists of matter and empty space. Epicureans believe that matter is composed of extremely small and indivisible particles- this atomic theory comes primarily from the ideas of Democritus and Leucippus, fifth century B.C. philosophers. These inanimate atoms supposedly vary in size and shape, and this helps to account for diversity of objects that arise from their myriad of combinations. According to Lucretius, the point of Epicureanism is to free mankind from a fear of death and the gods, or a tyranny of religion. Another major part in this philosophical system is that the soul is also made of atoms, which disperse at the time of the death of the body- the soul and the body die together. Death brings a state of nothingness and should not be feared. The gods as well should not be feared, because they are immortal beings who reside in interplanetary spaces. They are Anthropomorphic beings, whose atoms are being constantly replenished, meaning that they never die. In this school of thought, gods are completely uninvolved in human affairs and they partake of an ultimate bliss and inner tranquility, which men must imitate. As a result of these beliefs, Epicureans assert the futility of prayer, sacrifices to the gods, etc., and insist that there is no predestination and that prophecy is …show more content…
He tells that the gods possess the immortal form, which Epicureans feel to be the most beautiful form. And while in other schools of philosophy, people fear the consequences and the wrath of the gods, the Epicurean gods do not wish to impose trouble on themselves or others, so that humans may live a carefree and fear-free life. When Cotta hears this, he quickly points out the flaws of Epicureanism, such as that there are flaws in their arguments that gods exist- if these gods live such a life of idleness, why would they need a human body? Secondly, the Epicurean idea that all things are made up of atoms implies that gods are also made of atoms, implying that they have a beginning and an end, thus making them
First, as a premise, Epicurus asserts all good and bad consists in sense-experience. In his ethics, he is a hedonist, who believes pleasure is the highest good and pain is the worst and found on the instinct that people refuse pain without reason. So, he defines things cause pleasure as good and things cause pain as bad. Therefore, the sense-experience,
I only see him being right if you look at death as something that is a positive idea. When death gets looked at as nothing but not looked at as something positive in the same sense, people are going to grieve about it. Epictetus’ argues we should not grieve because death is natural. Well if we look at it that way, then grieving is a natural emotion also. We cannot control what comes to us naturally. The grieving process can end up becoming a long stressful process. Therefore grieving can become a huge problem in someone’s life that can cause him or her to become irritable and intolerable to others. According to Epictetus’ philosophy, the point of life is to be happy. Grieving is going to cause your life to be the opposite. Attempting to ignore death is only going to cause us to think about it more. Constantly thinking of the loss of your loved one is going to cause you to think of them. Most likely, he or she will go on to think of the memories they had with their loved one and then continue to go through the grieving
Saint Thomas of Aquainas may have been one of the greatest thinkers who attempted to bridge the proverbial gap between faith and reason. His Sacred Doctrine which was the initial part of his Summa Theologica was the basis for his conclusion about the existence of God. Aquinas tended to align his beliefs close with Aristotle's supposition that there must be an eternal and imputrescible creator. In comparison, Anselm's impressions were influenced largely by Plato. In his text Proslogion he outlined his Ontological argument that regarding the existence of God. It was simply that God was the ultimate and most perfect being conceivable, and that his state of existing is greater than not existing therefore god, being perfect in every way, must exist. This is where their paths divide, and although they essentially reach the same determination they paint the picture quite differently.
Epictetus represents a myriad of concepts. One concept of which being that one should live with the awareness of human imperfection and finitude. He expresses the sentiment that one is able to relinquish the feelings of disrespect and desire by allowing all that is ill-fated to appear before one’s eyes each day. Epictetus states, “Let death and exile and everything that is terrible appear before your eyes every day, especially death; and you will never have anything contemptible in your thoughts or crave anything excessively” (XXI). It is important that we are attentive to the fact that there is much unhappiness and despair in this world. If we do not expose ourselves to such matters, these things will consume us.
As said before, this is an unanswerable question, but to find a few conclusions it would be essential to look back at what Epicurus thought of what was life all about and to look back at what Gramsci meant about be a partisan. Equally important, is to look back at how these two philosophies influenced literature and art, by reading Sartre's thoughts on the engaged writer and by recalling to our minds some i...
Now that's done. Epicurius's argument is essentially that there is no point at which we are harmed by death, and therefore death is not bad. Specifically, he formulates his argument in the following way:
Stoicism was the belief that emotions were only because of an error in judgment and those that were true intellectuals would be able to forgo all emotion. They felt that all things, including God and the soul were material, because they felt that in order to have true pairs, body and soul, God and the world, that both must be the same substance. (Stoicism [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]) While Epicureanism was the belief that pleasure is the absence of pain and confusion. To truly follow this line of belief, the believer must seek reas...
of Gods existence. The factors that go into their views on reason will be compared and accented within this essay. The order of the universe is knowable to Descartes. He proves these by
The mindsets of people in society are often heavily influenced by the conflicts and circumstances that are common within the time-span in which these people lived. In times of war, people may be more patriotic; in times of pestilence, people may be more pious. Whether cynical or optimistic, the understandings of these mindsets allow for a better insight into how theses people lived their lives and the philosophies that guided them. In the case of the philosophers Plato and Epictetus, their philosophies sprang up amidst collapsing cities and exile. Plato and Epictetus’ philosophies differed due to their individual experiences in that Plato believed that all is not what it seemed, while Epictetus believed that what was presented should only matter if they are within an individual’s concern.
Epicurus. The Epicurus Reader. Trans. Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
The central concern of theorists is to establish a form of constitution that a society will likely succeed. Political success according to Aristotle is determined by the happiness of the citizens of the society. Aristotle’s vision of a perfect government all begins with the character of the citizenry leading to the happiness of a whole state. Through his studies, Aristotle came to the conclusion that in order to achieve a perfect constitution it is essential to break down a society into parts and observe each individually. Aristotle’s teachings were stressed on moderation in government and in life. The importance of human character lead to his interpretation of happiness and a perfect society.
Epicurus, the founder of Epicureanism, saw death as a total extinction with no afterlife to ensue, he regarded the universe as infinite and eternal and as consisting only of space and atoms; where the soul or mind is constructed of indestructible parts that can never be destroyed. He sought to free humanity from the fear of death and of the gods, which he considered the main cause of unhappiness.
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
Through out history there have been questions of where we come from and how we got here. It all comes down to the question of God’s existence. God’s existence has never been questioned during the times of when Christianity, Judaism and Islam were born. The question of God’s existence comes from our new way of thinking after these religions. Science has made us think of how things work in our world and brings Gods existence into question. There were no scientific studies done during the days of Jesus to prove that God exists, so where did the people in history get this idea of God from? Many philosophers have been questioning and giving their ideas of God and his existence. The ideas that we may have of God is usually connected with religion and our beliefs. One philosopher that touches on this topic is Descartes. Descartes gives his ideas on God’s existence and his out look on our selves compared to God. Most religions believe that there is a God and that he has created everything around us. Everyone has a different answer to this question that they think is the right one. Throughout this paper, I will be discussing God’s existence, while looking at Descartes ideas and through different perspectives of whether or not God exist as well.
Throughout studying many myths, I came up with many new observations. Many questions came into my mind about these myths. Greek mythology takes us back to a time when people had a connection with nature and when nature played a major role in people’s lives. The religious beliefs of the people who wrote the myths are found in the background of these myths; however, they are not to be read like religious texts. The myths try to offer explanations of “how”, which makes us think deeply about the purpose of these myths and the questions they draw to our minds. According to the myths we studied in class, the world created the gods, not the other way around. The gods were always created in the image of man, which shows how much men were important in their society. Furthermore, many of these Greek myths show us the difference between the views of the Greek then and our view towards many aspects of the society, including nature. Monsters appear in Greek myths and have different representations and roles. Greek mythology reflects a view of the Greeks towards the world and how certain aspects of their lives are similar and different to modern society.