The Daily Stoic - Philosophical Antagonists? The Real Story of Stoicism and Epicureanism

Episode Date: August 18, 2024

The stereotypes of Stoics as emotionless brutes and Epicureans as self-indulgent pleasure-seekers is not just misleading, but is an injustice to the two philosophies. Tune in to learn the similarities, differences, myths, stories, and history behind Stoicism and Epicureanism.🗞️ Check out the Daily Stoic article on Epicureanism and Stoicism: Lessons, Similarities and DifferencesNarrated by: Kat Pichik📕 Read more about Diotimus the Vicious in Lives of the Stoics by Ryan Holiday | https://store.dailystoic.com/📚 Grab a copy of The Art of Living: The Classical Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and Effectiveness by Epictetus | https://www.thepaintedporch.com/✉️ Want Stoic wisdom delivered to your inbox daily? Sign up for the FREE Daily Stoic email at https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail🏛 Get Stoic inspired books, medallions, and prints to remember these lessons at the Daily Stoic Store: https://store.dailystoic.com/📱 Follow us:  Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, and FacebookSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can listen to the daily Stoic early and ad free right now. Just join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app or on Apple podcasts. We've got a bit of a commute now with the kids and their new school. And so one of the things we've been doing as a family is listening to audiobooks in the car. Instead of having that be dead time, we want to use it to have a live time. We really want to help their imagination soar. And listening to Audible helps you do precisely that. Whether you listen to short stories,

self-development, fantasy, expert advice, really any genre that you love, maybe you're into stoicism. And there's some books there that I might recommend by this one guy named Ryan. Audible has the best selection of audio books without exception and exclusive Audible originals all in one easy app.

And as an Audible member, you choose one title a month to keep from their entire catalog. By the way, you can grab Right Thing right now on Audible. You can sign up right now for a free 30 day Audible trial and try your first audiobook for free. You'll get Right Thing right now totally for free. Visit audible.ca to sign up. Welcome to the weekend edition of the Daily Stoic Podcast. On Sundays, we take a deeper dive into these ancient topics with excerpts from the Stoic texts, audiobooks that we like here or recommend here at Daily Stoic, and other long-form wisdom that you can chew on on this relaxing weekend.

We hope this helps shape your understanding of this philosophy, and most importantly, that you're able to apply it to your actual life. Thank you for listening. Hey, it's Ryan Holiday. Welcome to another episode of The Daily Stoic Podcast. There's a famous Will Durant quote, he says, "'A nation is born stoic and it dies epicurean.'" Right, people use this word lowercase stoic, they use this word lowercase epicurean, and they really have almost nothing to do with the philosophy, right? These are stereotypes.

Lowercase stoic, you know, he's meaning disciplined, he's meaning stern, he's meaning discipline. He's meaning stern. He's meaning restrained. He's meaning Spartan and then by Epicurean we mean lover of pleasure. We mean decadent We mean weak. We mean soft. We mean removed from the world and in the ancient world This isn't really what the schools, uppercase Stoicism and lowercase Stoicism had anything to do with. So look, I spent a lot of time defining Stoicism

and combating some of these perceptions of lowercase Stoicism. I spend less time doing that on Epicureanism because that's not the philosophy I talk about. But the Stoics had no real problem with Epicureanism. I mean, they disagreed with it, but Seneca is very, very familiar with the works of Epicurus and he's reading them

and he's talking about them and he's taking what he likes from them. There's probably no philosopher that Seneca quotes more than Epicurus. We have a great edition of Epicurus in the Painted Porches that I really love called the Art of Happiness, which I will link to in today's show notes.

It's worth reading. Like Seneca says, you know, we should read like a spy in the enemy's camp. So I don't want to overstate it. Like they were rival schools and in lives of the Stoics, I tell this little story about a Stoic named Diotimus. Let me plug that in here for you. Cause it does show the degree

which there was real rivalry and disagreement between the two. Diotimus the Vicious, born unknown, died unknown, possibly around 100 BC, origin unknown. It was Shakespeare, the great observer of the Stoics, who would say in his most stoic play no less that the good we do in life is easily forgotten, but the evil that we do lives on and on. Perhaps no stoic philosopher illustrates this principle more than Diotimus, of whom so little is known. We

don't know when he was born. We're not sure when or how he died. We know only a few of his beliefs. For instance, that the chief end in life was well-being and that the pursuit of virtue was how we got it. Who did he study under? We're not sure about that either. Sources suggest that he knew Posidonius, but that's it.

How was he introduced to philosophy? Who were his parents? Who were his students? How did he help them? How did he live? What acts of kindness did he perform? What honors did he decline? Again, we know nothing of any of this. He is a cipher to us. All we know about him is from a single act of indisputable malice, one that has baffled historians and students of Stoicism for more than 2,000 years. It's an act that seems so pointless, so petty, so comically at odds with the teachings of the philosophy that Diotimus claimed to adhere to that it almost sounds made up. Sometime around the turn of the first century BC, as the philosophies of Epicurus enjoyed a resurgence in Athens amid the rising splendor and power of Rome, Diotimus sat down and forged more than 50 licentious letters

intended to slander the reputation of the founder of that rival school. Indeed, he went much further than that. Diatemus portrayed Epicurus as some kind of depraved maniac, a reputation that Epicurus has struggled to completely shed even to this day in order to bolster the Stoic arguments against the philosophy.

Part of the motivation was no doubt self-defense. The Epicurean school at this time was ascendant, and under the leadership of the prolific Apollodorus, who in addition to writing some 400 books, was nicknamed the Garden Pirate. We are told by Diogenes Laertes that Apollodorus had taken to smearing Chrysippus, claiming that the Stoic had filled his books with quotes he had stolen from others. Such slander of the Stoic had filled his books with quotes he had stolen from others. Such slander of the Stoic's great fighter would need to be addressed. Tyotimus chose to respond to slander with slander.

He decided to commit a crime worse than what Apollodorus was falsely alleging against Chrysippus. For a school that praised logic and truth as much as virtuous behavior, Tyotimus's actions would have been inexcusable. Even if Epicureanism was now posing some kind of existential threat to Stoicism, it hardly justifies the commission of literary fraud. If it is not right, do not do it, Marcus Aurelius would write in his Enulation of Stoic doctrine. If it is not true do not say it. The Stoic is supposed to be beyond grudges, beyond revenge, beyond silly competition or the need to win arguments. Certainly they're not supposed to do anything let alone lie or mislead out of spite. Somehow,

somewhere, Diotimus went astray. And to what end? To discredit a school that was also earnestly seeking to lead its students toward the good life? It would be then Diotimus' sole contribution to the history of Stoicism, to make himself a cautionary tale. He proved that the Stoics were hardly perfect

and that no matter how much training or reading we have done, a snap decision made in the moment can undo all of it. What might Rutilius Rufus have thought to know that at roughly the same time he was being brought up on false charges by his political enemies, another Stoic was hard at work posthumously framing Epicurus, but such as life and history, complicated, contradictory, and often disappointing. Athenius citing Demetrius of Magnesia says that Zeno of Sidon, who succeeded Apollodorus as head of the Epicurean school, tracked Diotimus down and filed suit against him.

The court sided with Zeno and sentenced Diotimus to death, which is a rather extreme form of justice, and certainly not one Rome would have tolerated. While it's unlikely that the death penalty would have been given for something as common as slander, there can be no doubt that a strong fine and exile from Athens were imposed, and greater than that, a personal shaming. This is the mistake we make.

We fight fire with fire and end up burning ourselves. No one remembers who started it and our scars stay forever even if we manage to survive the blaze. When we are angry, it's almost always better to wait and do nothing. And as far as our enemies go, if possible, we ought to let them destroy themselves. Diotimus's infamy stained his fellow stoics to enough of an extent, for example, that it prompted Posidonius to write what was certainly a more measured book against Diotimus's accuser, Zeno of Sidon, than he might otherwise have intended.

It's not as if such an honorable man would have defended Diotimus's forgeries. Instead, it's likely that he needed to shift the focus away from the student and towards the school, clarifying what Stoicism's actual objections to the teaching of Epicurus were. Did Posidonius apologize for Diotimus? Did he disavow the man's despicable tactics? Did he correct Apollodorus's own slander against Chrysippus, one hopes, but one does not know. Still, it remains interesting that we have no record of any other stoic disavowing Diatemus's crime. At the time, or in generations after, Seneca, who writes expansively on all sorts

of philosophers and their behaviors, and about the Epicureans more than 80 times across his surviving works, never once mentions this incident and the sad failing of his own school. Perhaps the desperation of the intra-academic squabble hit too close to home. It has never been easy to understand the bitterness of disputes between classical scholars, Samuel Johnson once observed.

Small things make mean men proud, he said, and vanity catches small occasions, or that all contrariety of opinion, even in those that can defend it no longer, makes proud men angry. There is often in commentaries a spontaneous strain of invective and contempt, more eager and venomous than is vented by the most furious controvertist in politics against those whom he is hired to defame. He could not have captured the folly of Diotimus better, nor could Shakespeare's funeral oration of Caesar been any more apt. For in that play, the once stoic Brutus's single deed, the assassination of Julius Caesar, would come to overwhelm and obscure everything else the man would do in his life.

And so it went for Diotimus, a philosopher who may well have had many interesting and profound things to say about the pursuit of moral perfection and wellbeing, but instead is known to us only for his evil and vengeful decision to attempt to destroy the reputation of the founder of his rival's school. to destroy the reputation of the founder of his rival's school.

Obviously I disagree with what Dio-Timus did. It was pointless. So what I wanted to do today was bring you a piece we put together for Daily Stoic on Epicureanism and Stoicism, some lessons, some similarities and differences. I think this should be really helpful to you. It was helpful to me and I think you'll really like this. So let's just get into it. And hopefully

you learn something. Epicureanism and Stoicism Lessons, Similarities and Differences Stoic and Epicurean, two words that do not mean what people think they mean. The image of the Stoic is the unfeeling, emotionless brute, and the Epicurean as the pleasure-loving, self-indulgent hedonist. Stereotypes always fall short, but in this case, the common understanding of what it means to be a follower of the Stoics or Epicureanism has dealt two vibrant philosophies a grave injustice. Both philosophies were founded in Athens around 300 BC as the lives of both Zeno and Epicurus, the founders of the two schools, overlapped. They both counseled that we should avoid excessive pleasure and desires. And to settle an important

point early on, Epicureanism did not advocate for excessive self-indulgence the way we may think they did, just as the Stoics were not unfeeling and reject emotions. One starting point, which might surprise many, is that it is worth noting just how much the Stoics borrowed from the opposing and rival philosophical school. While the Stoic philosopher Seneca did offer a critique of Epicurus in his letters from a Stoic, it would be unfair not to mention the numerous times he positively quoted him. In one letter, he writes,

My thought for today is something which I found in Epicurus. Yes, I actually make a practice of going over to the enemy's camp, by way of reconnaissance, not as a deserter. A cheerful poverty, he says, is an honorable state. In another, Seneca says this to his correspondent Lucilius. I'm still turning over the pages of Epicurus, and the following saying, one I read today, comes from him. To win true freedom, you must be a slave to philosophy. Why was Seneca quoting a rival school, you may ask?

This was of course a question he had foreseen. Quite possibly you'll be demanding to know why I'm quoting so many fine sayings from Epicurus rather than ones belonging to our own school. But why should you think of them as belonging to Epicurus and not as common property? Or as he once poignantly remarked, I'll never be ashamed to quote a bad writer with a good saying. But this is true to form for Seneca. He was looking for wisdom, period. It didn't matter where it came from. This is something that a lot of fundamentalists, in religion, philosophy, anything, seem to miss.

Who cares whether some bit of wisdom is from a Stoic or an Epicurean? Who cares whether it perfectly jibes with Stoicism? What matters is whether it makes your life better, whether it makes you better. It is the same attitude Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius had, evoking Epicurus in one of his notes to self in Meditations. And in most cases you should be helped by the saying of Epicurus, that pain is never unbearable or unending, so you can remember these limits and not add to them in your imagination. Epictetus, for his part, one of the other three major Stoic philosophers, does not borrow

from Epicurus. Instead, he calls him preacher of effeminacy and showers abuse on him, as Diogenes Laertius would say. Let's now examine the differences between the schools. Stoicism claims that living justly and virtuously is the highest good that one can experience, and that pleasure and pain are to be treated indifferently, while Epicureanism claims that we should seek to maximize our own pleasure, mainly by removing pain from our lives. Pleasure, as Epicurus regarded it, was the beginning and end of the blessed life.

And you've probably also heard of the famous garden of the Epicurean school and its motto as inscribed on the gate, Stranger, you would do good to stay awhile, for here the highest good is pleasure." For Epicureans, virtue was a means to an end, that is, pleasure, whereas for Stoics it was their guiding principle and the foundation of their way of life. As the Stoic philosopher Seneca said, let virtue lead the way, then every step will be safe. As you can probably conclude, although the ways that both philosophies recommend we live are very similar, they ultimately point us towards differing ideals.

They both offer ways to avoid pain in life, in Epicureanism by living very simply and having strong friendships, and in Stoicism by fully accepting the course of nature. Epicureans claim we can be happy like the gods if we live free of anxiety, especially the fear of death and fear of the gods, and satisfy our basic desires. Epicureans believed in the atomistic theory of the world, and thought that when we died, the atoms that made up our soul become disorganized and then we no longer exist. As Epicurus said, the most terrible evil, death, is nothing for us, since when we exist, death does not exist, and when death exists, we do not exist.

The Stoics sought to live in accordance with nature, emphasizing living in agreement with what happens, rather than rebelling against and lamenting what we cannot change. As the Stoic philosopher Epictetus said, tended to question the plans of the whole body. Alice and Matt here from British Scandal. Matt, if we had a bingo card, what would be on there? Oh, compelling storytelling, egotistical white men and dubious humour. If that sounds like your cup of tea, you will love our podcast, British Scandal, the show where every week we bring you stories from this green and not always so pleasant land.

We've looked at spies, politicians, media magnates, a king, no one is safe. And knowing our country, we won't be out of a job anytime soon. Follow British Scandal wherever you listen to your podcasts. Epicureans and Stoics also differ on how to avoid suffering. Stoics believe that all pain stems from our perceptions and that we have the ability to not suffer when things typically considered bad happen to us. Epictetus again, man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them. The Stoics teach that one can be happy no matter what obstacles or tragedies they might face. By accepting all that happens to us in life and understanding that we are never harmed

unless we believe we are, we can avoid suffering and live a joyful life. Epicureans believe that avoiding pain means not fearing the gods or death and not desiring things that are not both natural and necessary. Peace of mind should be maintained by living simply and having strong friendships with people you can count on. Their ideal for life was to withdraw from public life, Epicurus' principle, laith biosas, or live hidden, often by staying close to home to avoid all complex desires and spend a lot of time with close friends. As Epicurus said, of all the means to ensure happiness throughout the whole life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.

The Stoic way of life does not involve withdrawing from society at all, however, and it is considered unvirtuous to do so. The Stoics understand that we have obligations to each other and that public life depends on participation. A Stoic is supposed to fulfill his or her role in society and accept it even if it is a humble or stressful position. Failing to be a good citizen violates one of the four core Stoic virtues, justice.

Both Epicureanism and Stoicism recommend not harming others or breaking the law, but for different reasons. Remember, the Stoics value virtue above all else, to the point that they believed that virtue was all when needed to be happy, and all else should be viewed with equanimity. In other words, virtue gives meaning to life. Epicureans view virtue much more practically. Epicurus said that you should not break the law because the fear of being punished would detract from your happiness, claiming that injustice is not an evil in itself. However, this fails to consider those who don't feel bad breaking the law, the people who are most likely to break it.

Epicureans also believed in the importance of the social contract, the agreement not to harm each other, and described morality in terms of this agreement. Treating your friends correctly is important because it is what will make your friends loyal to you as well. As we mentioned earlier, Seneca, in letters from a Stoic, had strong criticisms for the Epicureans, and in particular their idea of friendship, which is one based on mutual self-interest. He who regards himself only, and enters upon friendships for this reason, reckons wrongly. These are the so-called fair-weather friendships. One who is chosen for the sake of utility will

be satisfactory only so long as he is useful. He who begins to be your friend because it pays will also cease because it pays. This is in contrast with Stoic friendship, one based on having things in common and admiring each other's character. Liking someone genuinely makes one more likely to put the friend's interests above their own, one based on having things in common and admiring each other's character. Liking someone genuinely makes one more likely to put the friend's interests above their own – a vital aspect of friendship. With virtue being only a means to an end in Epicureanism, it seems that the philosophy is indeed lacking when it comes to one of its primary prescriptions for life – having

good friends. What about the hedonism and pleasure aspect, you ask? How much of hedonist were the Epicureans after all? Recall that for the Epicureans, what is considered good is pleasure. Nature has designed us in a way so that satisfying certain goals brings us happiness, and seeking this happiness is what is good and natural. However, the pleasures we seek should not be excessive, because of the pain that tends to be the flip side of profound pleasure.

As to avoid this pain, Epicurus divided pleasures into three categories. 1. Natural and necessary. 2. Natural and not necessary. And 3. Not natural and not necessary Natural and necessary pleasures are the ones we should always seek, because they are easily satisfied. Having these alone is enough for peace of mind, a highly valued good in Epicureanism. These include the necessities of life such

as eating, drinking, sleeping, shelter, social interaction, etc. Natural but unnecessary pleasures include sex, having children, or being held in high esteem by others. These aren't needed for happiness, and we should avoid pursuing these too much to avoid suffering and not overcomplicate things. And to dispel the myth of the Epicureans as self-indulgent hedonists, there are unnatural and unnecessary pleasures, which are difficult

to attain and include the usual vices of alcohol and excessive sexual pleasures. Epicureanism teaches that we should always avoid these. Epicurus warned, regarding these last two categories, he who is not satisfied with a little is satisfied with nothing. How does this contrast to Stoic philosophy? In Stoicism, virtue is the highest good and having a will that agrees with nature. It is clearly best to want to happen what will happen anyway, since it is natural that you will want to get the necessities of life, your urges should be accepted. But in Stoicism, it is equally acceptable for urges such as hunger and thirst to go

unsatisfied. If it happens to us, we should accept it. In summary, a simple heuristic to remember the difference between the Stoics and the Epicureans. The Stoics cared about virtuous behavior and living according to nature, while the Epicureans were all about avoiding pain and seeking natural and necessary pleasure. And a subtle but important lesson from this article that we have forgotten as a society is the importance of

borrowing wisdom and insight from our intellectual rivals. If it's true and useful, use it, just like Seneca and Marcus did with Epicurus's work. Thanks so much for listening. If you could rate this podcast and leave a review on iTunes, that would mean so much to us and would really help the show. We appreciate it. I'll see you next episode. If you like The Daily Stoic and thanks for listening, you can listen early and ad free

right now by joining Wondery Plus in the Wondery app or on Apple podcasts. Prime members can listen ad free on Amazon Music. And before you go, would you tell us about yourself by filling out a short survey on Wondery.com slash survey. Welcome to the Offensive Line. You guys on this podcast, we're going to make some picks, talk some s***, and hopefully make you some money in the process. I'm your host, Annie Agar.

So here's how this show's gonna work, okay? We're gonna run through the weekly slate of NFL and college football matchups, breaking them down into very serious categories like no offense. No offense, Travis Kelce, but you gotta step up your game if Pat Mahomes is saying the Chiefs need to have more fun this year.

We're also handing out a series of awards and making picks for the top storylines surrounding the world of football. Awards like the He May Have a Point Award for the wide receiver that's most justifiably bitter. Is it Brandon Iyuk, T Higgins, or Devonte Adams? Plus on Thursdays, we're doing an exclusive bonus episode on Wondery+, where I share my fantasy football picks ahead of Thursday Night Football and the weekend's matchups. Your fantasy league is as good as locked in. Follow the offensive line on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. You can access bonus episodes and listen ad-free right now by joining Wondery+.