Posts by Daniel188

Quote from Cassius

Right and I see that your thread title is "bad habits and urges." But it seems clear that Stoicism and other aspects of Greek thought deemed all emotion as bad, and I wanted to get that point out front in the discussion. Once it's clear that emotion itself is not a bad thing, I would think the next question would be why the emotion has arisen and whether it is justified. I think it's well documented that Epicurus held that there are times when anger are both well justified, and I don't see how you can proceed without first evaluating the facts that led to them. As for "fear" in general, there's nothing terrible in life for those who understand that there is nothing terrible in not living, but that doesn't mean that particular situations aren't going to generate natural reactions of fear that should be heeded (e.g. standing at the end of a canyon looking down).

So I'm still thinking that the first thing to do is examine whether the feeling is justified. If it is justified, the first step is to take appropriate action. If it's not justified, then there's a problem in how the person is processing reality, and often there you've got the false framework that is at the root of stoicism and much religion, that of thinking that there is some other or higher reality that is more important than this one.

Well, the title is probably inappropriate because I used the word "bad" as if such things were somehow supernaturally evil. But I was referring more to useless habits or emotions that harm a person. How can we practically get rid of them? For example, we know that reaching for unhealthy foods is harmful in the long run. How can we plan to change such habits? What are some effective strategies? That intrigued me.

As for the rest, I agree. You can't reject an emotion without considering whether it's useful or not. But I wouldn't necessarily agree that all other philosophical schools completely rejected emotions. The Stoics, for example, completely rejected anger and fear, but often used strictly technical definitions of these emotions. For example, they criticized fear, but considered caution to be eupatheiai. Therefore, emotions "in accordance with reason" were also recognized. Another example is Aristotle, who refers to the doctrine of the mean. He essentially viewed all emotions as beneficial when integrated with reason.

Quote from Cassius

My first response would be that Epicurus would never look at life from this perspective. Life is all about feeling and Diogenes Laertius says that Epicurus held that the wise man will feel his emotions more deeply than will others, and this will not be a hindrance to his wisdom.

I would start by listening to the emotions and making sure you know what they are telling you, and being glad that you have them.

I understand what you're saying, and looking at various studies on people, they show that a lack of emotion usually results in an individual being unable to make decisions. But sometimes, certain strong emotions can also be harmful.

For example, fear can lead to discouragement from engaging in a specific activity. Anger can lead to unnecessary harm and hostility.

From an Epicurean perspective, I would say that in some cases, certain emotions cause no more pleasure than pain.

Hi, I'd like to ask you about the methods the Epicureans taught for improving our habits and avoiding unnecessary emotions.

Surely, each of us is sometimes influenced by an impulse that, if acted upon, leads to bad consequences (for example, eating junk food, smoking cigarettes), or we experience emotions that cause us to do something we shouldn't.

In such cases, the Stoics recommended working on judgments because they believed that all emotions are the result of individual judgments. But what did the Epicureans think about this, and what can we think about it when we combine it with modern scientific research?

Quote from Kalosyni

Pytam tylko dla jasności... czy miałeś na myśli epikurejską fizykę naturalną czy epikurejską etykę opartą na naturze/tym, co jest naturalne?

What I mean is that Stoic physics is based on providence. Essentially, according to the Stoics, the world is harmoniously and rationally ordered. This is something intentional.

Epicureans approach physics from an atomic perspective and do not recognize providence. I think they are closer to what modern science is talking about in this regard. The Epicureans were also the first to discuss natural selection.

Regarding ethics, I have some doubts here, but I'm adopting the Epicurean perspective on this forum. I also know that the Stoic idea fundamental to Stoic ethics (oikeiôsis) is a bit of a stretch.

Hello philosophy lovers!

My name is Daniel and I'm from Poland. I became interested in philosophy a few years ago, and the first practical philosophy I learned was Stoicism. I was primarily drawn to Stoicism by reading Arrian's notes on Epictetus's lectures and academic works on the subject. I also used various exercises aimed at improving my ethical conduct, such as examinations of conscience.

As I delved deeper into Stoicism, I also began to learn more about Stoic metaphysics. At some point, I also encountered Lucretius's "De Rerum Natura." This was my first encounter with Epicurean philosophy. For a long time, however, I considered this philosophy inferior and lost interest in it.

Eventually, however, my interest returned and I began comparing Stoic and Epicurean physics, and I've come to the conclusion that Epicureanism probably better represents what nature is.

I hope to gain more knowledge through this forum.