Anti-Stoic article at PEL

  • Revealingly at Partially Examined Life what they want to argue against in the article is "free will." They could care less about the points made against Stoicism. That perspective is why "free will" is an issue for us on which we can't backtrack from Epicurus. Everyone has to judge for themselves how much time to spend in arguing against those who are so committed to the "fate" view of the universe but Kudos to Hiram for shooting back in their own forum! (And here I am talking about the PEL forum, which is so friendly to stoicism -- rather than the randian page, which at least has that issue largely correct.)

    So I guess we are placed in the league with "Tony Robbins" --- Yes HAHAHAHAHA indeed.....


  • I shared this hoping that other Epicureans would join the convo

    "Please always remember my doctrines!" - Epicurus' last words

  • I see that this discussion has turned into a full-time bashing of "free will." As Ilkka has commented, I hate being on the same page as the Randians on anything, but on "free will" that's the way it is.

    I don't judge that I have time to personally participate over at PEL, but I see a couple of comments that would be valuable to us here:

    First, I completely agree with this guy: (1) first paragraph: Objectivism is essentially a confused form of Stoicism, and (2) he confirms the crucial role of "free will" (the idea that we do have at least *some* control over our actions and lives) which is no doubt why Epicurus staked out his "free will" position.


    And this guy sees correctly (in my view) that "stoicism is defined by a rejection of pleasure or temptation in order to pursue a higher good." << This "rejection of pleasure position" is a point that a lot of people don't want to face as they try to combine Epicurus with other philosophies.