Hi,
I come from the stoic camp and cross over not as an scout but as an deserter
( based on a Senece quote )
I think these are the main points for the popularity:
- There is a divine rest in nature (like in the deep respect of Einstein (see Einsteins God, natural forces/laws, string theory, M theory .....)
- Success of modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
- Rationality science friendly
- Social, Connection of all humans, nature, political responsibility ....
But I think 1. all these aspects are even in Epicurean philosophy but more realistic/naturalistic/scientific.
For example
- a deep respect for nature but without divinity/God/fate/plan;
- taking reason to question thoughts/actions/judgments and using psychologic techniques when useful for pleasure etc. not everything is an opinion (like in CBT );
- Rational (+ importance of empirism/sense data) and social (friendly, justice is important, but not metaphysical, so more realistic )
And 2. It is so good that Epicurus binds pleasure and virtue together, with pleasure as the end:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example:
Say there is a competion between a Stoic and Epicurean in staying out in the cold in winter.
Why does the Stoic this ? -> For the sake of virtue ( courage, moderation)
Why does the Epicurean do this ? -> Maybe for better health, sustain pleasure and choose a little pain for it.
So let´s say after 2 hours a medical practitioner would come and says, that a longer stay would risk your health, you should stop that.
=> The Epicurean uses his prudence/wisdom to choose that it´s enough for the pleasure of health and stops it.
=> The Stoic: Health ? It´s a preferred indifferent, to train virtue like (courage/endurance/moderation ) is the highest value (Stoic wisdom). But when to stop ?
Only when virtue can´t be trained any further, maybe by fainting, loosing consciousness .... ?
Or dying because of freezing ? But ok life/death is even an indifferent...... Virtue is the highest goal.
So the Stoic would be irrational ?
Stoic: "But not so fast : Even the Epicurean has to use prudence/wisdom/virtue for his decision to stop because it is in complete control, pain / pleasure / health are not... And pain will not say you when it is enough freezing, so why concentrate on any other in life as virtue ?."
Epicurean: "Yes, but my prudence values life/pleasure/health as goods, not virtue, because virtue as an instrument has no limit to calculate on, it is never enough it is abstract. I have trained endurance, the virtues and my health, you can loose everything if you freeze to death for virtue, on pleasure/pain and related goods you can calculate your optimum and limits".
= > So to live pleasantly you need to live virtuously and vice versa.
-------------------------------------------------
What to you think ? Have I understand it right ?