Hi,
How do you see the Stoic theory/ view of the passions/ pathei/apatheia/ eupathei and hoe differ it in the Epicurean view ? I know Philodemus did there much.
We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Hi,
How do you see the Stoic theory/ view of the passions/ pathei/apatheia/ eupathei and hoe differ it in the Epicurean view ? I know Philodemus did there much.
That is an excellent question Matt and I like that you posted the link that Joshua mentioned in the podcast.
It's a deep subject that I suspect others are better equipped than me to deep dive on, but in the last analysis it seems to me that the Stoics have decided that "reason" and "logic" are the hill that they are going to die on, and just as with Mr. Spock no emotion of any kind is going to be approved of as all emotion is illogical if logic itself is the highest good.
They can dance all they like around phrasing that arguably indicates that they are ok with some types of emotions, but for someone who thinks that the summit of virtue is the only part that counts, and focused on how you can down even just below the surface of the water, the implications of the bottom line are clear - there is no kind of pleasure that that are going to consider as good, and no kinds of pain that they are going to consider go be evil.
First I see is that it is all about mental (self caused ) Emotions, bodily pain/ pleasure is out. In Stoicism this are indifferents and in control of fate/nature/logos.
When I understood Philodemus right, I think the Epicurean view would only match with the Stoic view when the Emotion
1) has harmful consequences ( pleasure then is not choiceworthy for example )
2) is irrational, based on empty believe
3) is based on unnecessary desire
In short when the Emotions lead to more pain than pleasure.
From wikipedia:
Distress (lupē)
Distress is an irrational contraction, or a fresh opinion that something bad is present, at which people think it right to be depressed.
Fear (phobos)
Fear is an irrational aversion, or avoidance of an expected danger.
Lust (epithumia)
Lust is an irrational desire, or pursuit of an expected good but in reality bad.
Delight (hēdonē)
Delight is an irrational swelling, or a fresh opinion that something good is present, at which people think it right to be elated.
Two of these passions (distress and delight) refer to emotions currently present, and two of these (fear and lust) refer to emotions directed at the future.[9] Thus there are just two states directed at the prospect of good and evil, but subdivided as to whether they are present or future:[10]
| Present | Future | |
|---|---|---|
| Good | Delight | Lust |
| Evil | Distress | Fear |
When I understood Philodemus right, I think the Epicurean view would only match with the Stoic view when the Emotion
1) has harmful consequences ( pleasure then is not choiceworthy for example )
2) is irrational, based on empty believe
3) is based on unnecessary desireIn short when the Emotions lead to more pain than pleasure.
Thank you Matteng for pointing this out.
Perhaps there is a way to fine-tune the differences, however, and especially because both feelings and emotions are important for making sense of the world, and so we need them as valid input for making good choices. Feelings and emotions have important input and shouldn't just be brushed aside in a "stoic" fashion. If something is actually "irrational" you would want to take the time to fully understand why, and that means you need to be able to tolerate the discomfort of seeing and understanding the big picture.
Here is a modern psychology article that is a must-read for anyone interested in the role of feelings and emotions in well-being: