Epictetus vs. Seneca “a Comparison in the Writings of Two Stoic Philosophers.”

From the dawning of modern human thought, humans have questioned the nature of life and its passing. One of the most fundamental questions to arise from this train of thought is the ideas of fate and duty. We humans desire to know whether the path of our lives is preordained and unalterable or if it is just a series of consequences from our past actions. If we live by fate and believe our path is already set in stone, then is it our obligation to fulfill that destiny to the best of our abilities or can we resist and hope to forge our own story? It is quite obvious in the epics of both Aeneus and Odysseus that the idea of fate and duty plays a huge role. The difference we see between the two is which is more important and how each epic

Stoicism made the transition from an intriguing foreign philosophy to a popular practice because it was taken up by several high profile figures. Scipio Africanus, the original esteemed Roman Stoic died in 129 BCE, but about 40 years later a new crop of celebrated Romans took up the Stoic practice. During the fall of the Roman Republic a group of famed orators, generals, and statesmen including Marcus Junius Brutus (85-42 BCE), Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE), Pompey the Great (106-48 BCE), and Cato the Younger (95-46 BCE) all professed themselves Stoics. This group of powerful statesmen and leaders practicing Stoicism disseminated it throughout Rome. Octavian (63 BC- 14 AD) who later became Caesar Augustus had a Stoic tutor and many

He interrogates his audience continually and each subsequent confrontation cheapens the last. Epictetus proves his habit, asking, “Is that shameful to you which is not your own act, that of which you are not the cause, that which has come to you by accident, as a headache or fever? [Moreover, this fever, if one is poor, will more than likely kill the individual in this era, thus justifying the rich’s fear of poverty.] If your parents were poor, and left their property to others, and if while they live, they do not help you at all, is this shameful to you” (537)? While true, Epictetus presents a valid argument when he explains that men should not fear what they cannot control. However, fearing the surrounding conditions of what one cannot control serves as the chief stressor for the rich. No hypothetical person that Epictetus describes prefers relegation to his or her social status, and those that are at the bottom, like himself, have nothing to value. Thus, Epictetus’ stoic ideology is born. Moreover, one might argue that the scenarios described in Epictetus’ quote does not quite align with the philosopher’s thesis. Likewise, his audience must consider all aspects that might make the rich frightful of hunger, poverty, and the death to which the lifestyle will

Born of different backgrounds, upbringings, and experiences, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who outwardly appear very different. Epictetus spent most of his youth as a slave while Seneca was born into money and became a tutor of Nero. Although these two men seem to be very dissimilar, they each shared a common purpose in studying philosophy and teaching people on how to live well. Each suggested different paths for how to do so. Epictetus suggests in his book, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, that living a life in accordance with nature could be achieved by living moderately. Seneca suggests in his work, Letters from a Stoic, that a happy man is self-sufficient and realizes that happiness depends only on interior perfection. Despite the differences, both Epictetus and Seneca are considered Stoics because of their shared belief in the idea that character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness. The world outside ourselves will never give us happiness, nor will it be responsible for our unhappiness. It doesn’t matter what’s happening outside ourselves, Epictetus and Seneca claim that the only thing that matters is how we interpret those events. Further evaluating Seneca’s, Letters from a Stoic and Epictetus’s, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, we will clearly be able to differentiate the two in their ideas and opinions regarding stoicism and the keys to living a well, happy life.

As Epictetus opens his handbook with the line, “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us,” a precedent is set for the entire following of the nature in his teachings (Hackett, 5). We are not merely an individual seeking something better in life, but an individual who can control his/her own path as long as we follow the context of staying true to ourselves and not wandering outside of our own capabilities. “Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or public offices, or, that is, whatever is not our doing,” is a prime example of what we cannot control, death being one of these (Hackett, 5). Our control is limited to what we can grasp and be in power of, and whatever is out of that reach should not be looked

That is backed up by Antigone saying, "Never, I tell you, if I had been the mother of children or if my husband died, exposed and rotting—I'd never have taken this ordeal upon myself, never defied our people's will. What law, you ask, do I satisfy with what I say? A husband dead, there might have been another. A child by another too, if I had lost the first. But mother and father both lost in the halls of Death, no brother could ever spring to light again"(Fagles1471). This statement proves the real reason Antigone chose to go through with this act, and that is that she could never have another brother. This adds a more human-like quality to Antigone, who before seemed almost godly, because she was unafraid of everything. We can now sympathize more with her. Her fear of death is even more apparent when she says, "I go to them now, [her dead family] cursed, unwed, to share their home—I am a stranger! O dear brother, doomed in your marriage—your marriage murders mine, your dying drags me down to death alive!"(Fagles1469-70). We can see that she is scared, now that death is approaching her more closely, and that remark almost seems as if she is resentful that she had to carry out this duty. Earlier, when her sister Ismene, admitted to helping with the burial, Antigone became furious, saying, "Never share my dying, don't lay

In “The Handbook”, Epictetus provides a way of life a stoic should follow to be a good member of the society, which is a life detached from things one cannot change and focused instead on things that can be improved. For instance, he asked people to care none about the way others would judge them as he quoted “If anyone tells you that such a person speaks ill of you, don't make excuses about what is said of you, but answer: "He does not know my other faults, else he would not have mentioned only these."” Through this quote, Epictetus wanted all stoics to know all their faults better than anyone else can say about them. Hence, the person would not be disturbed by the way the society view him or her as well as would be able to control and fix

As people age, they begin to wonder what is the meaning of life, particularly their own life. It is a natural curiosity and has been thought about for several centuries. Philosophers claim to know, or at least be fairly aware of, what the meaning of life is. Three that come to mind are Rene Descartes, Epictetus, and Plato; these three philosophers have lived through different time periods and differ greatly in theories. Descartes had no true theory but used skepticism to establish his philosophy, Epictetus was a Stoic, and Plato was a Platonist. One, Descartes, lived questioning anything and everything to only be sure of two existences, another, Epictetus, lived perhaps too happily since he believed that everything that occurred in life was a part of God’s plan, but one lived in the middle of these two philosophers. This philosopher was Plato, he was not too skeptical of life nor was he too engulfed in “God’s plan,” instead he was rational about life and searched for the deeper meaning to his own being. For this reason, his theories are far more well thought-out and reasonable than those of Descartes and Epictetus.

A comparison of Homer’s Achilles and Virgil’s Aeneas brings up the question concerning what makes someone an epic hero. Although each poet lived in a dramatically different time period, with different literary integrity, Homer and Virgil each portray an epic hero using different development of the characters, but similar themes and influences. Achilles and Aeneas demonstrate that an epic hero will do whatever it takes to fulfill their duties while simultaneously displaying the difference between Greek and Roman Society. The question will be answered by first, analyzing the individual characteristics of Achilles, a merciless warrior, and Aeneas, a civilized leader, then

After the death of Aristotle, philosophy that targeted greater complex depths was outrun by philosophy that focused on mere everyday lives. With the rise and fall of Skepticism, Cynicism, and Epicureanism there was an influence that survived years impacting life and that was Stoicism. Zeno of Citium who believed that the world had an ultimate plan and everything--including nature, animals, and humans, were there for a reason (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014, p. 66). The reason Stoicism was easily used is because it was well-suited with the way Romans highlighted their law and order giving the extensive coverage displayed by many philosophers, including Marcus Aurelius.

Happiness is all around the world, it is a very genuine and important thing, and everyone wants to be happy. Being happy is what makes life worth living, and it makes life a lot better in every way possible. What makes people happy though? Are bodily and external goods necessary to happiness? I would say no because by which they can make you happy, they are not necessary for human happiness. It’s not what things you buy, the pain, the suffering, or enjoyment your body might get. Human happiness comes from somewhere else within the human. Comparing and contrasting Aristotle’s and the Stoics’ view of human happiness will help give a better clear and logical understanding on what really happiness is and why I believe that bodily

1. Increasing time pressures have led people to overextend themselves in certain areas of their lives, which can lead to a life imbalance and no way to achieve well-being. Aristotle believed that in order to achieve well-being, one must be able to balance and achieve virtues, pleasure, and happiness. This is known as an objective list theory. Epicurus believed that the key to achieving well-being was through pleasures. This theory is known as hedonism. Even though Aristotle and Epicurus did not agree on how to achieve well-being, their theories did offer one similarity which was balance. In order to achieve well-being, one must have a balanced life. For example, if a person were to overextend themselves at work, they would not be able to achieve certain pleasures, virtues, or happiness. Regardless of which theory one believes, a person must be able to balance their life in a way where everything is in perfect harmony. From my understanding, balance is the key to achieving well-being.

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who wrote, The Enchiridion, a manual which instructed people on how to live their life ethically and honorably on a social level. His belief was that regardless of personal conditions, people could live with pride and discipline. Epictetus tells us differentiating between what is in our own power to control and what is not is the key to a noble life (281).

My topic focuses on Rosenbaum’s defense of the epicurean view, Luper’s critique of this view and my argument on who has a stronger position in regards to the topic. I am going to do this by describing both arguments in a detailed manner. Rosenbaum defends the epicurean view while Luper argues against, both sides provide excellent arguments and my argument is that which I feel is more superior.