Rival Philosophies
The clash of philosophies that came from the Hellenistic period has raged on from the death of Alexander the Great and into contemporary times. As two very different, yet popular, philosophies, Stoicism and Epicureanism garner much attention from philosophers and students alike. While Epicurus’s thinking catered to the higher class of people and Zeno’s teachings were helpful in battle and turbulent times, the debate of which is the better philosophy still reigns on today. Stoicism is more feasible and acceptable because of its teachings about apatheia, its acceptability to everybody, and because it doesn’t depend on changing things.
Through Stoicism, one’s mental state of happiness can’t be influenced by pains or pleasures. Zeno taught his students that to truly be happy, one must achieve apatheia. Achieving apatheia means loosing focus on the things that can’t be controlled. Whereas an Epicurean might spend time debating on what will cause more pain or pleasure, a good Stoic will be content and happy just by focusing on the things that they have control over such as attitude, mental life, and attractions. There is no need to worry about pain, loss, disappointment, or physical things because…show more content… The main beliefs held by Stoics are better tailored to any individual—not just the high class, wealthy Greeks. Epicureans spent their time avoiding pain and pursuing a calming pleasure; this wasn’t suited for anybody. Slaves or lower class Greeks couldn’t waste their time contemplating what made them feel good. They had responsibilities to do; Stoicism helped them do their duties and remain calm through it. By detaching themselves from all worldly things, they were content with their lives and kept their emotions in check. Even in today’s society, Stoicism is feasible because of its relatability to the common man, soldier, and the