The good Epicurean will ask himself what the source of his hatred is. What unneccesary desire is he subject to that the failure to fufill such desire leads him to such passion? And then, finding the underlying desire, if it really is unneccesary, he’ll realize that and stop desiring it. If the desire is neccesary, he’ll fufil it.
First, to answer the question you asked in your last message, I don’t think Epicureanism is like Taoism, but I don’t know enough about Taoism to be sure.
Now, how did epicure come to mean gourmet? Epicureans were hedonists, who said that the goal in life is to be happy, by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. While the Epicurean school mostly focused on intellectual pleasure, people still made the link between Epicureanism and physical pleasure, especially about food. So, there’s where that comes from.
Thanks for refreshing my memory. I would agree that the similarities are stronger between Stoicism and Buddhism - Stoic indifference is almost identical to Buddhist non-attachment. And both philosophies encouraged a more ascetic lifestyle over the aestheticism of Epicurus. (A point I half-made earlier.)
Yet while Stoicism emphasized logic and following from reason, Buddhism follows an empirical approach (with similarities here to Skepticism), and that to truly understand nature, one must transcend logic and reason, demonstrated by the meditation practices using koans to acheive samadhi.
And again, Buddhism is essentially a means for personal harmony; any social benefits are secondary. This is more true of the Theraveda schools than the Mahayana sects, but political writings by historical Buddhists are a rarity. This may have been the influence of Confucianism in China. The two philosophies are definitely compatible as noted by their centuries-old coexistence. Even in India, Buddha did not try to seek social reforms since his few complaints about the social order arose from the ignorance of the practioners, not the practices.
I do not think I had heard of Carvaka before. Going by a quick read, I would agree with that comparison also.
I stand by what I said earlier regarding Epicurean politics, but I agree that they had no taste for active politics. IMHO, a modern-day Epicurean would try to implement any reforms they felt necessary more through the private sector - non-profits, foundations, etc. I would classify them as a modernist, secular, moderate Republican. Stoics I would say are definitely closer to the Progressive movement. All good Skeptics should become journalists. Cynics make the best teachers.
I don’t know if I’d agree with all that. It’s always a temptation to take philosophies out of their time, and say “this is what they’d do today”, but really I don’t think Epicureans were anything like modern moderate Republicans, or Stoics anything like Progressives. Cynics tended to be too misanthropic to make good teachers, and Skeptics might have problems with journalism…the Skeptics tendid to dismiss as impossible the whole idea of “finding out what happened”.
You might want to look at The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis. In it he explores the idea that there are some fundamental values which have been shared across cultures over time. He calls those shared values The Tao, but he uses that as a word of convenience, the actual Tao is only one of the sources he uses from which to draw his list of shared values. It is not a book of Christian apologetics. He draws on some of the same ideas in Mere Christianity to establish the idea of natural law, but in The Abolition of Man he does not extend the discussion to advocating any specific religion.
This is what makes history and philosophy come alive though, trying to find their modern day counterparts. I have not studied Roman history in depth enough to truly make such broad statements, though that gives me a path to follow. These schools did make it the top often enough to influence some policies. Those case studies would make an excellent read. I have not heard of history along those lines - has anyone? My sentiments are based on how my perceptions of how those schools would act today, and from seeing how those that embody those traits do act today.
On a side note, misanthropy never keep someone from entering the teaching profession, though granted they definitely do not make the best teachers.
This is what makes history and philosophy come alive though, trying to find their modern day counterparts. I have not studied Roman history in depth enough to truly make such broad statements, though that gives me a path to follow. These schools did make it the top often enough to influence some policies. Those case studies would make an excellent read. I have not heard of history along those lines - has anyone? My sentiments are based on my perceptions of how those schools would act today, and from seeing how those that embody those traits do act today.
On a side note, misanthropy never keep someone from entering the teaching profession, though granted they definitely do not make the best teachers.