Skeptic, Stoic, Epicurean: A Comparison of Three Post-Aristotelean Philosophies

Philosophy, or the plural, philosophies, are the foundations for our culture. As a young Hellenistic philosophy student, I am determined not merely to find out what has created the ethical and "soul-searching" basis of the way we should live our lives, but to distinguish among the various forms of philosophy to judge what works best for me, and why I made that particular choice. As a student one must come somewhat naively to the subject of Greek philosophy. In a sense, I think of the study and scope of Hellenic philosophy as if I were building a car. The "great" and best known- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle- would be the body, motor, brakes and steering mechanisms. But, after them comes the branching out- as if the "standard" model now became more individualized. The car buyer now has more choices to make- but, in philosophy, instead of deciding on automatic shift, disc brakes, four-wheel drive, electronic functions, we now have the opportunity to move into areas of the Skeptic, the Epicurean and the Stoic.

To carry that car analogy one step further, it takes some delving into the choices you make in order to come up with a meaningful decision. If I were to join a particular school of Hellenic philosophy, following in the foundations laid out by Plato and Aristotle, would I select Epicureanism, Stoicism, or Skepticism. To make an informed decision, as a student, I need to understand what differentiates these schools.

Among the principles of Epicurus and his followers Lucretius writes: "Nothing can ever be created by divine power out of nothing...The second great principle is this: nature resolves everything into its component atoms and never reduces anything to nothing..." (Saunders 17).As R\Hollister (146) points out Epicurianism is one of the philosophies that are philosophies of resignation against the harshness of the world.

Given this overview, as IO start out my voyage into the adult world of the 21^st century, I am not sure I am ready to resign myself to the harshness previous generations have brought to bear. Eppicurus "taught that people should seek happiness rather than virtue" (Hollister 147). Happiness in today's world seems to emphasize material possessions and wealth. So, if to be an Epicurian means to be like Donald Trump, I reject that/

Stoicism, as defined by its founder, Zeno, stresses "the worthlessness of worldly goods and the supreme importance if individual virtue" (Hollister 146). Stoicism sharply defines philosophical doctrine "into three parts: one physical, one ethical, and the third logical" (Saunders 60). I wish I could follow the example that Saunders points out from Cicero: "The Wise Man never opines, never regrets, never is mistaken, never changes his mind" (Saunders 61). In other words, some of my peers in classes may consider some of their professors to be Stoics. However, Stoics also tend to believe that everyone has individualistic traits which are not duplicated in any other individual. Whether scientific "advances" into cloning puts a lie to this belief is something worth considering. Perhaps among the reasons I would not select Stoicism as the philosophical school I would join is their opposition to the Epicurean belief that pleasure is good. Saunders quotes Antisthenes as saying "I would rather be mad than enjoy pleasure....(because) neither is it natural nor does it possess value for life, but, like a cosmetic, has no natural existence" (Saunders 120).

That leads to the school of the Skeptics. Perhaps to most people of my generation- students of Hellenic philosophy or others, the idea of not accepting the "dogmatism" of other philosophies and not believing that anyone has found the final and unchallengeable answers to man's problems and behavior, and nature's contribution thereto, makes sense. "Skepticism is an ability, or mental attitude, which opposes appearances to judgments in any way whatever" (Saunders 153). What attracts me to Skepticism is the way some religionists have created chasms without our society. Not only the belief by some that America must be a Christian nation and that other religions are therefore inferior, but that Darwin's theory is anti-God and therefore Creationism must be taught in schools. There is too much dogma and not sufficient disbelief and the urgency to continue to search for some evidence and truths. I also see some promise in the belief of the Skeptics that men are moral gods, and gods are immortal men (Saunders (189). This can lead me to try to discover whether we are indeed fashioned in God's image, or whether the God wee invented is in our (human) image.

I also accept the anti-Creationism principle of the Skeptics that "Nature's guidance is that by which we are naturally capable of sensation and thought" (Saunders 157). It is nature, therefore, not some divine "breath of life" which differentiates each of us, gives us the power to reason and think or, even, NOT to reason or think. Perhaps more than the other two post-Aristotelian schools, Skepticism lends itself to the ability to exist as a living, thinking individual in a world all too often attempting to make us think and act alike.

I see Skepticism as the most valid of philosophies worth studying and becoming a part of in the 21^st century. If there is one thing our generation needs to separate us from the me-too Generation X that our parents and grandparents enveloped themselves around, it is to continue to search for truths that cannot be found in newscast sound bytes or the ranting of talk show hosts on the Left and Right.

If Descartes is famous for stating that "I think, therefore I am", then today's generation, at least from the Skeptic point of view, should be saying "I don't know what is truth and what is not. So I need to find out, to challenge authority if I have to, but I will not be satisfied with the smug answers from people who don't know me."

And yet, I cannot escape a Stoic principle: "its emphasis on man's essential worth...no man is a slave by nature" (Saunders 8). Unfortunately, my choice is, at best, expedient in leaning toward the Skeptics' school. Wed are, like it or not, slaves in some extent- slaves to the Bell curve, slaves to GPAs, slaves to Affirmative Action and competition in job performance and wage increases, even slaves to society's view of gender and sexual preference.

Nevertheless, in this imperfect world, I choose Skepticism which allows me to continue to search for what I can judge to be the truth. One can refer to the New Testament's quotation: "And the truth shall set you free." Skepticism will help me search for truth. Finding it is a challenge.

REFERENCES:

Hollister, C. Warren: Roots of Western Tradition- A Sort History of the Ancient World New York: McGraw Hill (1996)

Saunders, Jason L. (ed.): Greek and Roman Philosophy After Aristotle New York: The Free Press (1994)