Exposition therapy,Courage and when choosing Pain

    In the past I often read/hear:

    Stoicism = Stress management

    Epicureanism = Stress avoidance

    And that Suffering belongs to Life, and is needed for growing and that it is bad to shun pain.

    And that Epicurean philosophy would teach to shun pain.

    Stoics train discomfort, for they pain is instrumental to progress to Virtue.

    Stoics train Memento Malorum and Exposition to fear and pain makes them stronger and Exposition therapy is very successful.

    From Epicurus there is often his method mentioned that he counters his pain on his last day with the pleasures of his memorys about philosophy with friends and that this is the main way in Epicurean Philosophy to counter pain.

    What do you think about these statements ?

    I think they are one-sided, and a false dichotomy. Both methods can help and Stoics are not more courageous than Epicureans and the benefit of choosing kinds of pain is even in the epitome of Epicurean Ethics the letter of Menoeceus:

    „…(129)And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.

    ….“

    Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus

    Edited once, last by Matteng (January 14, 2026 at 3:46 PM).

    Yes thank you 😅
    It is from podcasts/essays.
    Today in a podcast it was about how important experience of suffering is to grow.
    I first thought this would be against Epicurean Philosophy, but then I realized: No, for greater benefit, it is recommend. For greater suffering it would be unprudent…

    This kind of idea truly annoys me for two reasons:

    First, because it assumes the ancient Epicureans were some sort of fragile cowards who could not bear any discomfort(which is not true, given that Epicureanism is capable of producing some of the most resilient and wisest people).

    Second, most modern people who talk about the value of suffering/struggle often do so because they believe they will get more pleasure in the future. For example, one trains really hard in the gym in order to get the pleasure of being admired, or of proving themselves capable, or of living healthy lives, etc. They don't do this sacrifice for some other, more abstract goal(like virtue).

    Basically, they live pursuing pleasure, while also condemning the thinker who encouraged the search for pleasure and praising the thinkers who would call these people's pursuits petty or futile.

    I am a bit out of the loop on this thread, but just some quick reactions off the top of my head, to focus on "what Epicureans would do"...

    Quote from SillyApe

    For example, one trains really hard in the gym in order to get the pleasure of being admired, or of proving themselves capable, or of living healthy lives, etc.

    "being admired" -- I don't think that Epicureans (those that truly follow the philosophy of Epicurus) spend too much time on this, because they are surrounded by good friends who value them for other reasons.

    "proving themselves capable" -- I don't think that Epicureans would spend much time on this one either...because the main focus would be for concrete benefits that result such as feelings of good health.

    "living healthy lives" -- :thumbup::thumbup:

    Quote from SillyApe

    Basically, they live pursuing pleasure, while also condemning the thinker who encouraged the search for pleasure and praising the thinkers who would call these people's pursuits petty or futile.

    I'm unclear on the paragraph, likely because it is refering to a much older post...

    "Basically, they live pursuing pleasure" :thumbup::thumbup:

    "condemning the thinker who encouraged the search for pleasure" -- I assume you are refering to the stoics here.

    Kalosyni Yes, I was thinking about the Stoics, but this also serves for any thinker who denies that pleasure is the end.

    For example, let's say someone decides they are going to "hustle" and work 80 hours a week for 5 years in order to earn a lot of money, because they believe that a lot of money will allow them to buy expensive things, attract people they are attracted to, and provide them with a lot of fancy experiences. They are aiming to get the pleasure they believe they'll get from those things.

    Then, to give credit to their actions, they come up with quotes from Marcus Aurelius or Nietzsche about resilience or strength, even if these thinkers would look at this person's aim as foolish. At the same time, the person, assuming they know Epicurus, would reject him, as the person would see Epicurus' teachings on managing desire as being against the "hustle."

    Obviously, Epicurus would advise against this endless desire, excessive work, and the belief that the maximization of pleasure requires a lot of wealth/sex/consummerism, but he, at least, is aligned with the person's idea that the goal is pleasure, while Marcus Aurelius or Nietzsche are not.