Epicureanism Vs Stoicism | Overview and Explanation

Thank you for an amazingly concise and easy-to-understand and absorb lesson. Loved it.

Some people are half Epicurean and half Stoic in character. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

I was an stoic in the sense accepting pain , but now I am an epicurean avoiding unnecessary pain like mimetic desires while accepting that my body can never be free from hedonistic tendencies all the time

Peace and blessings to you along the journey

interesting

I heard twenty seconds and you already told two lies

Who came here from DND video where author mentioned he wanted Orcs debating epicureanism vs stoicism? 😅

Amazing video!

Well well well

Thank you for making this video!

I'm somewhere in between, aren't most of us, complicated humans? Naturally I'm a hedonist, but I know it's not a healthy way to be, consequences I've learned along the highway of life. So how about Epicurian/Hedonist/trying to be Stoisist?💗

The constant quest for pleasure and dopamine is not sustainable,it is harmful and self-destructive. Our lives are a constant struggle to find balance between pain and pleasure. Our pain goes away the day we die. Stoicism is the path to follow, just like Buddhism.

Stoics were not theistic, they were pantheistic and believed in an idea of deity that was a universal energy of nature, and so was not personal like Zeus. No idea where you got that from. In fact, the stoic idea of a primordial fire which is the root of creation and the universe is a theme that makes an appearance in the dark souls series

Thank you

This video is explaining compromise between two ideals in a disagreement and how to learn from two different walks of life. Very interesting

I am genuinely impressed by epicureanism, its more closer to current scientific worldview. But some principles of stoicism are of immense practical value.

great video. Keep up the good work!

Stoicism collapses under the free will argument!

Imma just do both, the rest of you can nitpick.

Epicureanism and Stoicism share the same fatal flaw: they both collapse in on themselves under careful and thorough examination at an epistemological level, and in devastating fashion — each worldview takes for granted certain presuppositions which do not comport with central tenants of the accepted philosophy. Once the thinker is made aware of just one inbuilt, foundational self-refutation, he/she ought to observe how the logical implications only create a snowball effect of apparent internal incoherencies.

Epicureanism and Stoicism are simply competing modes of rendering the preconditions for rational thought unintelligible.

Excelent!

Those who do not love Epicurus have a stunted and twisted sense of pleasure. It's almost Puritanical and equally fixated on an angry god who hates anything fun. Which is surprising as I would think they would recognize the satisfaction of a job done well. We humans really need to give up this unnecessary god fixation. It's strange to hear admonishments of childlike idealism from authoritarians who have daddy issues. XD

Its simple,
At work: An extreme stoic cynicism approach
Life outside work: light hearted epicurean eastern approach

The greatest disagreement I have with the stoics I read, however much I agree with them, is that they simultaneously hold that omnipotent, omniscient, humanoid creators of the Universe exist, that we are their very appendages, and that superstition or divination are to be avoided as they distract from virtue. Clearly in the Ancient world, this contradiction was not sensed, for in their lack of scientific knowledge, people relied on belief in the gods to survive and stay sane. This is my proposed amendment to the beautiful philosophy: the stoic of the Modern world, if they are indeed virtuous and thus value incorruptible, infallible truths (often being the humble admittance of the gaps in our knowledge), must understand that any gaps the ancients filled with their gods, apart from the very origin of the Universe itself, can and will be explained by science, and that by fostering belief in a higher power as the panacea of uncertainty, we are endorsing superstition that is inherently divisive, non-harmonious, and is in many unacceptable cases the culprit of global genocide and misery. This MUST be avoided if we are to live good lives, for it is to indulge in fictions that please the individual and neglect the very real, very present world that surrounds us all. 

With Zeno, Epictetus, Seneca, Aurelius, and any of the religious stoics' troublesome error corrected, now the truly fruitful contemplation may occur: how is a good human, by the most commonly agreed upon estimations of 'good', to live? Should they, like Epicurus, focus within themselves in the constant pursuit of happiness hinged upon personal health and wellbeing, or should they dutifully, gracefully, patiently, and as healthily as possible, dare to swim against the flow of the world in an attempt to bring hitherto unknown prosperity to themselves AND those around them, yet accept that it is unlikely they will reach the collective Ideal as long as the majority of those whom they serve either object to or refuse to emulate their service? The former has their answers. The latter, the modern stoic, must learn to be at peace with paradox.

Anyone else think it is odd that Dante put Epicurus jn hell because of his beliefs about the afterlife when the stoics and possibly Aristotle has almost the same belief?

If a high amount of pain leads to great amount of pleasure later such as exercising, is it seeking pleasure then? Isn't there a paradox in Epicureanism when it comes to tasks that require discipline?

I can see similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism in their shared emphasis on guiding individuals towards freedom and inner peace, irrespective of external circumstances. What do you think?

Well done comparison.

I genuinely think there are more things in common than differences between the "original" non-demonized version of Epicureanism and Stoicism. Misinterpretations and probably wrongly translated concept of "pleasure" I think brought this marked and improper dichotomy.

YES!! this is what I've thought for years, but wasn't able to put into words :)

Sounds like Epicureanism & Stoicism compliment each other and fill in the details of what the other could not or simply did not view important enough to explain.

Our societies simply embraced Stoicism more due to its marketing appeal.

my pain of sources are people.

Seneca prejudicially tainted my opinion of Epi since he considered it womanly and sloth like
This was a good side by side for someone like me, but I still lean stoic

Philosophy exam in 2 days, about to watch this video see if it can help...........

Stoicism has caused me more pain than worth. Though it's helped me take matters into my hand, it's transformed many men into emotionless men who shame other men for reacting emotionally which is natural.

Came here after deciding to live my life more stoically. Now I'm considering whether epicureanism is actually more for me, especially the theistic vs anti-theistic element is in favor of epicureanism for me. However I still intend to read the great stoic works of Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, but also gonna read Epicurus. Investigate/Experience/Discover both philosophies myself and make a more informed decision, maybe mix-and-match where possible. I want to change my personal philosophy, my way of looking at the world and living my life on a fundamental basis for the rest of my life, no reason to rush it.

Right now the "friends" part is the biggest problem, after my divorce I'm pretty socially isolated and it's not exactly easy finding new friends at close to 40.

I totally agree with Epicurus.

Thank you. This helped me a lot. Been a fan of stoicism for about 6 years now but I'm also on welfare and don't believe in all the virtues. Epicureanism hit all my major believes in how I want to live my life. Kind of similar to Arthur Schopenhauer too when I think about it.

Outstandingly well-researched and beautifully composed. Both Epicureans and Stoics have been grossly misrepresented over the millennia. It’s good to see the misinformation corrected in the public informational space.

These are the philosophy's you should start learning around 8 to 10 years old, I'm 62 but I'm grateful to start learning now.

Thank you!

Stoics have been slandering Epicureans for over 2,000 years.

why cant you combine the two? why cant you test yourself and deal with and conquer the obsticles of life and the mind.....freeing yourself from externals etc. ( stoicism)...while improving your circumstances, improving yourself bringing you more piece of mind and " pleasure" .?

I think the best is the marriage of the two dealing with the hard or obstacles of life while improving yourself and your mind...bringing you more piece of mind, satisfaction abd pleasure.

Im pretty sure Seneca and Marcus Arillieus took part in many pleasures in their upper class life style. so.

i always called myself a Stoicurean.

These thumbnails are getting wild!

I can see why the Stoics say it's effeminate. Without the placing of the virtues and God as the highest good, society goes down the toilet, as is evident in today's western society. You need men to do the right thing regardless of outcome.

I my self practice the epacouren way with the excess of the word we live in today and most people in the western society become more obese climate change lonely and religious ideology leading into wore.and the political system is based upon ever-increasing GDP and the wealth gap between the1 percent and99percent .you would do well to stay away from religion that has one primary goal of total control of society as for the prosut of sex is out of control with women being valued as sexual objects porn porn addiction and probably40-50 percent of the population have attachment problems in relationships. As far as birth rates they have drastically reduced under the present system we don't live in a world we're women can't control he birth of children. And men and women divorce at such hi numbers that most would be well advanced not to get iin such relationships .I don't think epacouren philosophy was advocating not having children. After all we are talking about a time when transmission of diseases were very common by sex. Epacouren philosophy welcome all to the garden even slaves and women extremely progressive the time when large parts of the population were treated as breeding stock or property. Thank you friends😊