Stoics and Epicureans

by Daryl Hale

Stoics and Epicureans date from the Hellenistic period, but the debate between these two modes of thought continues today. For the Stoics, the goal of human life was to align one's nature with the rational order of all things by cultivating pure reason. Through the practice of dialectic, they aimed for ethical righteousness and self-control. In sad or turbulent times, stoical endurance has appealed to many people as a way of coping.

The Epicureans also valued moderation, but they were suspicious of overly sophisticated intellectual debate, relying more on sense impressions to establish truth. Concluding that life is simple and its truths easy to perceive, they sought a life of minimum pain and maximum pleasure by rejecting external pursuits in favor of lasting inner values, like wisdom, honor, and peace of mind.

Genres: Philosophy, Audiobook, Nonfiction, History

Audio CD

First published January 1, 1995

Reviews

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

After listening to this I feel like I have a much better picture of the difference between stoics and epicureans. I find it a bit funny that before I delved deeper into stoic philosophy-- and was only given a rudimentary outline of epicureans and stoics--I assumed I was more epicurean. Ha! No. I definitely am in the stoic camp for sure.

What I find interesting as I listen to the Daily Stoic podcast by Ryan Holiday is how many of his listeners get upset when he discusses politics. Stoicism has a long history of political involvement and community service but it sounds like many of his listeners are epicureans rather than stoics, and they don't see this--despite their supposed love of stoicism. I also can't understand how someone can read about stoicism, with it's emphasis on morality and virtue, and get upset with a podcaster for pointing out current events where these themes are relevant. I suppose that's the divided political landscape of our time, but it's ironic.

I also recommend the Daily Stoic podcast and the book A Handbook for New Stoics: How to Thrive in a World Out of Your Control—52 Week-by-Week Lessons, for anyone interested in the contemporary application of stoicism.

[Tom Walsh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-done Stoicism 101.

I found this work to be an adequate introduction to the basic ideas of the Stoics and Epicureans. It identified the Major Players and their approaches and, while it didn’t really advocate for either School of Thought, it did seem to devote more ink to the Stoics.

If you’re looking for arguments to encourage your choice of the Stoic approach to Life, I think you will find this wanting. It’s not a bad Survey Course but you’ll want to find something a little more substantive.

The performance was well done and moved the book along pretty well. I would give the book Four Stars for accomplishing its ends though the bar wasn’t very high.

[مُهنا · Rating 3 out of 5]

In my opinion: Two sides of the same coin. Different engravings, but the same coin nevertheless.

[Kenneth · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty good introduction to the two different and popular approaches to philosophy in the Hellenistic period. While the Epicureans believed in the pursuit of human pleasure(more about attaining goals within the human realm and period of life than living for the divine and afterlife; not to be confused with self-indulgence) and that we are in full control of our faith, the stoics diverged from this, believing that we are part of a whole and that our life is designed such that the totally of nature’s goal is achieved. For the stoics, a big role in our life is played by something external to us and which we cannot control. This distinction makes it easier for Stoic scholars to incorporate the idea of God and religion more into their teachings compared to the Epicureans. Furthermore, abstract notions are foreign to the Epicureans who believe that the sole source of truth is perceptions, in other words, they are heavily biased towards empiricism. On the other hand, the stoics believe in more abstract definitions of a concept using formal methods of logic before being confirmed by practical observations and that there are things outside the realm of our perception which we can only theorise about. To reinforce this, they borrow heavily from the rhetorical method of the Socratic inquiry.

I think there are things to be learned from both approaches but the stoic approach seems to have gained more followers among modern thinkers.

[Richard Magahiz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to this short audiobook which covers the highlights of the two philosophies of the ancient world, with both Greek and Roman adherents to get a feeling of the differences between the two and from the more familiar Skeptic philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It was useful as a thumbnail description of the most important teachers in each and how their influences were felt. It wasn't a primer on the philosophies themselves, except for a simplified depiction of Epicureanism as prizing happiness over all other things (especially the absence of suffering), and Stoicism as emphasizing individual virtue as what one should strive to attain. It was interesting to see how they took the subjective experience of the individual in these different directions and how popular they were over hundreds of years. This balances out the coverage in the one other book I reviewed on Stoicism in a basic way. It would be good for a person who might have heard of epicureanism or stoicism in a modern context and wants to know more about whether they might be appealing philosophies to investigate. The narration and the quotes from ancient philosophers were pretty clear and appealing, though not very thorough.

[Esben · Rating 4 out of 5]

I always love to read about the ancient Greeks because it feels like an intellectual drama series. These randos didn't like these other randos ideas so they made their own but then made a cult but then actually it was more like a democratic refuge and everyone's slightly confused at the end. Anyways, this book is a very good summarization of the philosophical schisms between Epicurians and Stoics and really shows both in a great light. Modern Stoicism is of course incredibly popular but there's always something to the Epicurian way of life that is appealing and more realistic. Later Stoicism was of course significantly more practical from the Hellenistic peak but both have very interesting views on life and the sciences.

[SAMKyrie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was the only audiobook about Epicurus I could find on the Libby app. However, after getting over the cheesy German, Greek, and English voice actors used for various quotations and excerpts, I enjoyed this BBC special of a book looking into some of the Hellenistic philosophy that I was much more into back early in college.

[Terry McIntire · Rating 2 out of 5]

Enjoyed the book, but really don't understand the two philosophies more than before. My interest was because of reading the Nature of Thing about Epicurean philosophy. Might have learned more by going to Wikipedia.

[C. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Easy and quick listen. More of an introduction and might be a better experience for someone who isn't very familiar with the philosophies discussed. Personally found it too unstructured to learn anything new but always good to hear lines and wisdoms repeated as a reminder.

[Bryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fairly in-depth. For such a short book it goes into good detail describing the stoics and epicureans. How they relate back to Socrates and the differences in philosophy. It also provides some information to debunk some myths of debauchery that many thought of the epicureans.

[Christopher Hellstrom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Audio version

[Erik Madsen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Shallow, unstructured. The dramatised quotes were utterly cringeworthy, in particular the unnecessary, fake foreign accents.

[JZ · Rating 4 out of 5]

It all comes down to the same old, same old. The ones who want to hang around the shanty, mama, and the ones who want to tell them what they should do instead. It never changes.

[Nicklaus Brain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good enough introduction to essentials of both schools

[Craig Carignan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was just okay. Not really that interesting. I am a "bubblegum" stoic, so maybe it's just to much for me.

[Andrej Makovický · Rating 3 out of 5]

Book is ok, audiobook is pure ehm ehm ...

[Cheri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not incredibly engaging but still some good info.

[Annette · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice introduction, easy to understand.

[Alex Shrugged · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I will have to listen to this summary again. I followed the Epicurean logic, but the Stoic logic was a little too convoluted for me to general sense of it.

It's me. Not you. :-)

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short and decent introduction to a bit of philosophy.

[Adam Radocz · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just a short introduction of the two philosophies. Not really a comparison and not really practical.

[Dean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audiobook: Found it interesting. Especially the part about the Epicureans. Did start to lose focus while listening though as the book went on.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pleasant overview of two important and sometimes misunderstood schools of philosophy.

[عدنان العبار · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is my final read (or listen, rather) of the year 2021 -- an eventful year in the literary department. This book, as all the books in this series, recaps the philosophy presented in a brief and interesting manner. It is funny and direct and simple, yet often chooses to oversimplify the philosophies. As the title suggests, it covers Epicureanism and Stoicism. I would highly suggest listening to this title before going deeper into any of the two philosophies, especially Stoicism, since I think it is much more nuanced and interesting. But the main function of this book is to demonstrate as many other books do, that stoicism is not that philosophy or hyper-realism and reserve, but a moral philosophy dedicated to strengthening one's character and offering in its path a solid framework of viewing the world. Likewise, for epicureanism, in dissolving that faulty impression that what epicureans want is sex and drink and food and pleasure, but that their pleasure and fulfillment is a yearning deeply seated in the appreciation of the life of the mind.

[James Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a decent introduction but it looks like I'm going to have to delve into primary sources to really understand this stuff.

[Sujith · Rating 4 out of 5]

An easy intro to the two Hellenistic schools of philosophy. I think Stoicism trumps Epicureanism.