Stoics and Epicureans

The Hellenistic period began with Alexander the Great taking the throne of Macedon in 336 B.C., and it lasted to the death of Cleopatra VII of Egypt in 30 B.C. Alexander's successful invasion of the Persian Empire has been noted as a starting point. The period came to a close after the Near and Middle East, between Rome and the Iranian kingdom of Parthia was divided.

Stoicism was a new philosophical movement that began during the Hellenistic period. Stoicism got its name from the porch in the Agora at Athens were people gathered and held lectures. Zeno of Citium (334-262 B.C.) is credited with being the founder of stoic philosophy. It is, however, the follow-up to materialism and Plato. The ultimate goal of stoicism is wisdom. The idea of the philosopher had been of a supreme power which was a principle rather than a person (Bryant, p. 28). The main edict given by stoicism was that one should be free from all worldly demands, and achieve wisdom by recognizing that one needs to harmonize personal desires and nature. Being frugal and unconcerned is the worldview of the stoic person. The stoic theory of knowledge turns about the enquiry after a criterion or standard by which what is true in our notions may be distinguished from what is false (Zeller, p.74). The Stoics did hold the position that emotions like fear and envy either came from, or out of, false thinking, and that a person who would be considered a sage was one who had attained moral and intellectual perfection and would not experience this type of faulty thinking. Stoics also adhered to the idea that the soul was a blank slate and that character was developed experientially from the outside world.

The fundamental idea of self-discipline has its roots in stoic philosophy. Epictetus being a student of Zeno helped firmly implant stoicism into the Roman culture. Of all of the Greek philosophical system transplanted to Rome, Stoicism was probably the most successful (Albert, p. 66). The Stoics identify as a moral people those who live in accordance with the dictates of reason (Albert, p. 67). They actually believe that happiness does not depend on having material wealth or success, but on the character of the individual is based on rationality or logic arising from knowledge. The origins of knowledge, in the Stoic system, enter the mind through the senses. This is the where the blank-slate theory comes in to the picture. The knowledge which enters through the senses is inscribed on the blank-slate.

From the ethical perspective, virtue is a good in itself. Good consists of acting in accordance with nature. Therefore, stoicism is somewhat deterministic in its approach because it says that a person can do nothing but conform to nature, and when there is a balance between virtue and nature wisdom is obtained. The stoic teaches that the universe is governed by absolute law without exceptions. They also teach that the essential nature of humans is reason. Seneca had a famous saying which seems to sum their ideas up, “Live according to nature.”

Epicurean philosophy, unlike the Stoic philosophy which embodied forms and ideas, was born from Atomism. Atomism basically says that 2 thing make up the universe, moving atoms and void (a giant black nothingness) which is basically a radical materialism. Epicurean philosophy is a mutually dependent system which says that the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), a pragmatic theory of knowledge, an account of nature built on a form of atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic explanation of evolution, that spans the creation of the world to the appearance of human civilization. To put their system into layman’s terms is means they believe happiness equals pleasure. Epicureans believe that they should never do something without considering the pleasure it will yield. The level of pleasure received has a direct correlation on if it should be done. The real flaw in their thinking is that is pleasure equals the absence of pain, then to not be living would be preferable to life at all. According to Epicurus, it is not the state of the body, but the state of the mind. Bodily pleasure is of short duration, and has much of a disturbing character about it (Zeller, p. 451). However, Epicureans should be consistent in their beliefs and they are not. If they are consistent with their principles, (they) cannot deny that the bodily pleasure is the earlier form, and likewise the ultimate source, of all pleasure (Zeller, 451).

A mark of Epicureanism is friendship. The Epicurean philosopher places a high value on friendship because it is one of the greatest methods of achieving pleasure. Friendship provides the greatest security. They believe that a life without friends is lonely and full of trouble.

The basis for the Epicurean thought process is very empiricist and anti-skeptical. They believe that all of our knowledge comes though the senses, similar to the Stoics, and that we can trust the senses when used correctly. Unlike the Stoic belief that virtue is a good in and of itself, Epicureans believe that virtue contributes to happiness. There is a huge difference in this belief between the schools of thought. Virtue, or doing right because it is right (Stoicism), and virtue, or doing right because it makes one happy (Epicureanism) can often lead to very divergent places. If it makes me happy to take your car, am I doing the right thing? The Epicurean type of virtue, more often than not, leads to plain old hedonism, which means that the only good is found in what brings me pleasure, and anything else of value is only a tool to use to bring me the pleasurable experience. Epicurus, however, offered some idiosyncratic views about pleasure which is supposed to lead to a virtuous life without as much hedonistic influence. Hedonistic behavior is often attributed to Epicurean philosophy, but it is a common misconception.

In The Extant Remains, Bailey offers a final thought from Epicurus that gives insight to his eternal outlook,

“Some men throughout their lives gather together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death. Against all else it is possible to provide security, but as against death all of us mortals alike dwell in an unfortified city...[But] I have anticipate thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to thee or any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well. We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content…Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself, and with a companion like yourself, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings is not like a mortal being” (Albert, p. 63).


Crudelius est quam mori semper timere mortem
It is crueller to be always afraid of dying than to die

Albert, D. P. (1984). Great Traditions In Ethics. Belmont: Wadsworth, Inc.

Bryant, J. H. (1866). The Mutual Influence of Christianity and The Stoic School. London: Macmillan and Co.

Zeller, D. E. (1870 ). Stocis, Epicureans, and Sceptics. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

t

Philippians 4

One thing I have learned from Paul’s letter to the Philippians is when others make special sacrifices to meet the needs of those in positions of vocational ministry; they should be honored in special ways by the local church as well.

Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him, because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me (Philippians 2:29-30, NIV).

This is similarly pictured in the way the apostles showed their appreciation to Barnabas when he exhibited unusual generosity to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 4). They obviously changed his name to conform to his generous attitude. Being called “son of encouragement” would be a lasting reminder to ever one he met how Barnabas reflected the unselfishness of Jesus.

Epaphroditus is, in the local church, what Barnabas was to the leadership in general. He went beyond the call of duty to help Paul, and he did it for those people who made the local church he pastured.

So many ministers dedicate large portions of their lives serving others. They do so often neglecting their own families to take care of the people God has entrusted them to shepherd. They are always on call. They work long and mostly unnoticed hours each week. They lead public lives that, for the most part, belong to those they serve. The pay rarely matches the time, education, dedication, and experience they have, and this part is often the same for Christian business people as well. Most of the minister I come in contact with rarely complain or feel sorry for themselves. They have voluntarily chosen to follow Jesus, and serve Him and others.

However, these ministers are often the last to be recognized or shown special appreciation. They are often taken for granted, misunderstood, and criticized when they try to take time off. If they ask for a raise, they are called materialistic. Church members are often quick to point out the bad apples in the ministerial bunch who have abused their roles, and taken advantage of others. With the bad ones clouding their view, they paint all ministers with the bush of contempt.

There are exceptions, and some churches are very generous toward their pastor and other ministers. The church, in general, needs to take a look at what Paul said about Epephroditus and how the Philippian church was supposed to honor his efforts.