Zeno Of Citium & Epicurus
Meet the Founder of Stoicism-ZENO OF CITIUM
We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen more than we say. Zeno of Citium Around 300 BC, Zeno of Citium founded the Stoic school of philosophy. He published a list of works on ethics, physics, logic, and other subjects, including his most famous work: Zeno’s Republic, which does sound quite similar to a dialogue authored by a philosopher named Plato.
Despite Zeno being the founder of Stoicism and having written extensively, he is hardly cited in modern Stoic literature. The reason for this is simple: none of his works have survived. The good news is that other authors wrote about him. Biographer Diogenes Laërtius preserved most details about his life, including a series of fragments that give us an insight into what he taught.
This is a short essay about Zeno’s life and philosophy. There is no certainty about Zeno’s ethnic and cultural background, except that his nickname was the ’Phoenician’ and that Diogenes described him as a haggard, dark-skinned man. His father gave him books about Socrates that he brought back from his travels as a merchant.
And, thus, Zeno became obsessed with philosophy. He became a pupil of the famous cynic Crates of Thebes, and among his other teachers were Polemo and Stilpo. Later in life, Zeno started teaching himself in the Stoa Poikile. His pupils were called Zenonians first, but later became known as the Stoics. Zeno was concerned with the whole spectrum of Stoic philosophy, like logic, epistemology, and the nature of the universe which, according to his view, primarily consists of matter and is governed by a divine principle.
God, therefore, isn’t apart from the universe; it is the universe. This is a quote by Zeno, that Roman philosopher Cicero preserved: That which exercises reason is more excellent than that which does not exercise reason; there is nothing more excellent than the universe, therefore the universe exercises reason.End quote.
Well, that’s a hell of a statement to ponder over. It definitely lies at the basis of the Stoic belief, that the universe is governed by an intelligent and primordial matter called Logos, which can also be called Universal Reason or Fate. Living a life according to reason, therefore, is living a life in accordance with nature.
This is the underlying idea of ‘amor fati’, which means ‘the love of fate’. In regards to ethics, Zeno’s view seems compatible with the later Stoic definitions of them. Simply put: virtue is the only good, and as opposed to virtue there is vice. The end goal is reaching a state of Eudaimonia, which is human flourishing.
And this can be achieved by the pursuit of virtue. Or as Zeno stated: “Happiness is a good flow of life.” A bit more detailed description of Eudaimonia we can find in the works of Diogenes, who quotes Zeno as follows: The end may be defined as life in accordance with nature or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe.End quote.
Zeno also laid the foundation for the system of indifferents; things that aren’t necessarily good or bad but can nevertheless contribute to self-preservation or destruction. He saw the human tendency for self-preservation as a part of human nature, which isn’t virtuous on its own but could contribute towards one’s efforts towards it.
This set the Stoics apart from the Cynics, who rejected possessions and everything that befalls the body. According to Stoicism, indifferents do have value, and we should pursue them, but not cling to them as possessions that will make our life better, but as a catalyst for living in agreement with nature.
For example, wealth itself doesn’t lead to virtue, but it does lead to self-preservation which can assist in the pursuit of virtue. Another example: sickness doesn’t lead to vice, but it is not a preferable thing because its destructive nature goes against self-preservation. Zeno also stated that ’bad feelings’ are commotions of the mind, repugnant to reason, and against nature.
So, even though emotions are human, they are a sign of (simply put) bad reasoning and could be overcome by getting a clear understanding of how life works. Grievance because of death could be overcome by accepting that death is a natural and inherent part of life. And our frustrations with ’bad parents’ could be overcome by the knowledge that, at the end of the day, no one is entitled to good parents.
We see that all these misfortunes happen according to natural laws, which are, fundamentally, reasonable. About Zeno’s death, there’s no consensus, as different sources tell different things. Also, it is impossible to know what Zeno really thought, because none of his works survived. Some say that his contributions to Stoic philosophy, as we know it, were of high significance, while others believe that other philosophers like Cleanthes and Chrysippus were responsible for the actual development of Stoicism, and Zeno’s role as ´founder´ is more of a symbolic one. Nonetheless, he remains a key figure in the history of Stoicism.
Epicurus
Pleasure is the first good. It is the beginning of every choice and every aversion. It is the absence of pain in the body and of troubles in the soul. Epicurus In the third century BC on the Greek island of Samos, a man was born that would become the founder of one of the four main philosophical schools of late antiquity.
His name was Epicurus and he spent his life studying what makes people happy and how to attain this. According to Epicurus, happiness is the main goal in life. We can achieve this by pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, but also by taming our desires and enjoying the small things. Aside from a collection of fragments, the majority of Epicurus’ works are lost.
Fortunately, we can find many of his quotes and ideas in the works of other authors, like Stobaeus, Philodemus, and Cicero. The reason why Epicurus focused on happiness rather than virtue, is because he observed that humans are pleasure-seeking beings by nature. Looking at small children we can see that they’re always aimed at seeking pleasure for themselves.
When they grow up, this pleasure-seeking often becomes a bit more refined. We learn, for example, that it’s sometimes necessary to undergo pain in order to gain pleasure. And even engaging in activities that may seem altruistic is, ultimately, a way to gain pleasure; be it in the form of status, acceptance or creating a better community from which we all benefit.
The pursuit of pleasure in the Epicurean sense is often misunderstood. While some people think that Epicurus was pointing to indulging the senses like eating luxurious foods, participating in orgies and being drunk and high all day, this is not what he meant. He recognized that overindulgence may be pleasurable for a short time, but in the long run, it only causes pain; in such amounts that it overshadows the pleasure derived from the activity in the first place.
this experience makes people vow to never drink again. So, this form of overindulgence completely misses the mark and wouldn’t have been recommended by Epicurus. So, what did he recommend? Epicurus distinguished different kinds of pleasures and desires. Therefore, he created a system that tells us what pleasures we should and shouldn’t pursue.
An essential part of this system is a hierarchy of desires. These are natural and necessary desires, natural and non-necessary desires and vain desires. Living in agreement with nature is the starting point when it comes to attaining happiness, pointing to our own human nature as well as the nature around us.
Therefore, Epicurus discouraged the pursuit of unnatural pleasures, while going for natural pleasures instead. When we look closer at these distinctions we’ll find out that natural and necessary desires are easy to satisfy, thus, finding happiness in life is actually pretty easy. Such desires are things like food and shelter.
Generally, humans have easy access to these things as they are basic needs. Another characteristic of these desires is that they have a natural limit. For example: after eating a certain amount of food we’re satisfied. From this mechanism, Epicurus distinguished two types of pleasure: ‘moving pleasure’ and ‘static pleasure’.
Moving pleasure is the actual act of eating, for example, and static pleasure is the contentment we feel when we’re satisfied. Eating a nice meal can be immensely pleasurable, but according to Epicurus, the absence of ‘needs’ or ‘wants’ after one’s desires have been satisfied is even better. That’s why he saw static pleasures as the best pleasures.
Epicurus also emphasized the importance of socializing, believing that friendship is one of the main ingredients for happiness, as opposed to romantic and sexual relationships that often go hand in hand with unhappiness, looking at the jealousy, possessiveness, and boredom that many couples experience. He practiced what he preached: he was celibate and lived, together with his followers, in a place called the Garden of Epicurus, enjoying the simplicity of bread, weak wine and an occasional pot of cheese.
I should add, however, that in the current individualistic societies, friendship seems to be a lot harder to find. Natural and non-necessary desires are a bit harder to satisfy. Examples of this are luxurious food, an expensive car, and recreational travel. Even though we need food; we don’t need luxurious food.
Generally, a Ferrari isn’t necessary to go from point A to point B, and we don’t need to travel abroad to enjoy ourselves or find relaxation. Also, if we crave for luxurious foods but satisfy our hunger with a simple meal of water and bread, is there any difference afterward when our cravings are gone? Most likely, the contentment we feel, that comes from the eradication of desire, is the same.
Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote several passages on Epicurus, often quoting him to support his own pleas. Epicurus recognized that our sense of poverty and wealth depends on how we define it, as told by Seneca and I quote: “There is also this saying of Epicurus: “If you shape your life according to nature, you will never be poor; if you do so according to opinion, you will never be rich.”
For nature’s wants are small; the demands of opinion are boundless.” End quote. This brings us to the last type of desires: the vain desires. Power, fame and extreme material and financial wealth are difficult to obtain and also impossible to fully satisfy. As opposed to natural desires, vain desires don’t have a natural limit.
This means that even though we may have an extraordinary amount of power; it will never be enough, we always want more and we make huge sacrifices (including the murdering of fellow humans) to attain it. Epicurus saw these desires as unnatural and, thus, based on opinion. In other words: they are what society makes us think that we need.
Especially in today’s society, we’re told that we’re losers when we don’t make a certain amount of money, and the younger generations grow up with the idea that pursuing status, fame, and riches is what life’s all about. This means that we’re conditioned to spend our time and energy chasing something that’s not only unnatural but also doesn’t fulfill us.
I quote: “We call ‘vain pursuits’ the types of life that do not tend towards happiness.” End quote. Furthermore, by slaving away on the plantation of societal expectations, chasing what never satisfies, we close ourselves off from all the enjoyment that is within our reach. Epicurus probably wouldn’t have been surprised why the sales of antidepressants are skyrocketing these days: we simply don’t allow ourselves to be happy.
Epicurus believed that the happy life equals an absence of anxiety and suffering. This isn’t just the pain that comes with the constant wanting and craving for more, but also by the fear of death and God. Epicurus viewed these fears as irrational and delivered rational explanations to explain his point.
Firstly, the fear of God, which he explains by proposing a thesis that stands strong among atheists to this day. I quote: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” End quote.
Epicurus believed that there’s no afterlife, no heaven or hell and that our universe consists of atoms and void. Because there’s is no punishment or reward after we die, it’s kind of pointless to live well in this life, for the sole purpose of enjoying the next. Secondly, there’s the fear of death. According to Epicurus, death means annihilation.
It does not affect the living, otherwise, they wouldn’t be alive. And when someone is dead; how can death affect this person? When the body and the consciousness are gone; how is it possible to be harmed? Or, from the standpoint of heaven and hell: how is it possible to punish what isn’t there? Therefore, Epicurus argued that death isn’t bad for neither the living nor the dead.
So, we shouldn’t let the fear of death spoil the possibility to be happy. It’s this life, today, that counts. Moreover, it’s important to remind ourselves of the shortness of life and to realize that we might be missing out on pleasure. I quote: “We are born once and there can be no second birth. For all eternity we shall no longer be.
But you, although you are not master of tomorrow, are postponing your happiness. We waste away our lives in delaying, and each of us dies without having enjoyed leisure.” End quote. To wrap it up: Epicurus created a rational philosophy of pleasure, that is strikingly ascetic, opposing to popular belief. Instead of the blatant consumerism of today, he encourages us to be happy with little.
This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t enjoy unnecessary pleasures from time to time. Even though Epicurus lived on water, bread, and olives most of the time; occasionally he deeply enjoyed a slice of cheese. Of course, we all know that the more simple we live, the more we enjoy luxury when we encounter it.
The philosophy of Epicurus is quite compatible with atheism, stating that the fear of God is pointless and that we shouldn’t worry about death either. A Stoic would say that we must remember death because the time to live virtuously is limited but an Epicurean would say that we shouldn’t waste time and opportunities on vain pleasures and irrational fears so we can be happy.
Living in current consumerist societies, we might want to ask ourselves the following question: why suffer by the constant chase of money, fame, and power, when living happily and content is so easily accessible?