Carrie Pennington
PHIL-1000-014
Due: 10/20/2011
Hedonism, Cynicism and Stoicism: The Ethics of Happiness
In terms of pleasure, what matters more, quality or quantity? Why should people blindly follow social norms? What happens when one accepts that control over anything but attitude is an illusion? What is true happiness and how does one achieve it? These are a few of the questions niggling at the minds of Hedonistic, Cynic and Stoic philosophers. The purpose of this paper is to explore the idea of happiness in terms of three competing philosophic theories. I will use examples from each philosopher’s background and experiences to explain each theory in detail. Finally, I will show how these competing theories of happiness correlate to one another.
The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the essence of hedonism. Hedonists sought out pleasure as a hungry puppy at a barbeque seeks a fallen chunk of meat to snap it up and revel in the physical pleasure of satisfying his hunger. Pleasure is the equivalent of all that is good. Pleasure ends in happiness where as pain leads to unhappiness so it must be evil. Hedonism has branched out into many schools of thought as to the means of deriving and defining pleasure. Our textbook focused on two primary schools of hedonism: Cyrenaic hedonism founded by Aristippus and Epicureanism founded by Epicurus.
Aristippus (c. 430 – 350 B.C.E.) was raised in Cyrene, a wealthy costal port in northern Africa. After discovering the notoriety and wisdom of Socrates, Aristippus became so enamored he packed up and left to become an intellectual groupie. Aristippus soon joined Socrates and the young men as they traveled around Greece, opening the minds of Hellenic crowds through dialectics; question and answer sessions meant to draw out truth. Although he travelled with the group and participated in the discussions, Aristippus was written off as a Sophist, a highbrow, travelling teacher, who valued wealth and status over truth. Socrates loathed the Sophists and actively pointed out their hypocrisy. Like a hippie in a conservative think tank, Aristippus’ penchant for pursuing pleasure and willingness to accept money for sharing his wisdom caused a bit of a scandal. Rather than stay where he was looked down on for pursuing what he considered good, Aristippus moved back to northern Africa and started his own school dedicated to the ethical pursuit of pleasure, Cyrenaic hedonism. (Soccio, pages 198 -199)
The main principle in Cyrenaic hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the ultimate reason for living. The source or quality of the pleasure is irrelevant because pleasure in and of itself is good. Aristippus taught what he learned through observation: First, humans instinctively seek pleasure. From the moment of birth, a baby cries violently until it is soothed. Second, the most intense pleasure is sensory and by extension, physical pleasure is the best pleasure.
Since sensory pleasure is immediate and fleeting, it is all the more intense for the brevity. To hold off on achieving instant gratification for a future pay-off, which may or may not even happen is a waste of time. It is better spend such time in achieving pleasure now. A modern example to best illustrates this concept: Why wait until tomorrow to have a Bavarian cream donut. I could die today and sacrifice experiencing that deliciously sweet, creamy goodness. Cyrenaic hedonism argues that, pleasure is ‘good’ and an ethical person will actively choose to do ‘good’. Therefore, actively seeking an intense and immediate, sensory pleasure in as great a quantity as physical limits allow is the most ethical choice one can make.
Like Aristippus, Epicurus (c. 341 – 270 B.C.E.) also travelled to Athens. However, Epicurus first satisfied the obligatory two years of service in the Athenian Army. When Alexander the Great died and a revolt, spurred on by those who resented the previous rule and the newly appointed leader. The revolt was quashed in short order and the observations of Aristippus regarding the whole affair are the served as the foundation on which his school of thought resides. For a time, he studied with the followers of Plato and Aristotle but soon came to the see the flaws in their philosophies. The end goal of a Platonic or Aristotelian school was to produce a philosopher king to rule over the uneducated masses. (Soccio, pages 199 – 202)
Epicurus started a revolutionary school called the Garden. His school rejected the elitism of Plato and Aristotle in that everyone was welcome. A desire to learn was the only requirement for entering the Gardens. No distinction was made based on social status or race, women, non-citizens, slaves even prostitutes were treated as equals. The focus of the Garden was on the quality of pleasurable pursuits being the measure of the greatest good, rather than the quantity espoused by Cyrenaic hedonism. Living simply is a means to avoid pain. Epicurean pleasure comes in the form of peace of mind. They selectively choose simplicity in physical pleasure like food and sex, and seek complexity in intellectual pursuits or higher learning.
Epicurus taught that a philosophy of pleasure was meaningless if it failed to relieve mental pain. He argued that there was no need to fear death, that in focusing on the impending end, one fails to enjoy the life their living. He believed the pursuit of pleasure should be based on the value of the selected desire. “The pleasant life is not the product of, (excess physical pleasure)…On the contrary, it is the result of sober thinking.” (Soccio, Page 202) Just because that Bavarian cream donut is full of deliciousness, it doesn’t mean I absolutely must have it now. If I forgo the pleasure of eating the donut today and choose to exercise instead, I will experience a brief period of pain only to gain a greater pleasure. In refusing to indulge in my immediate desire, I choose the greater good. I lose weight, increases my agility and improve the quality of my life. The Epicurean discerns the greatest value between two pleasures and selects the longer lasting pleasure because it is the most ethical choice.
When contrasted with Cyrenaic hedonism, Epicureanism is considered meticulous and discriminating, perhaps even frugal in terms of actively pursuing pleasure. However, viewed through a Cynical lens, Epicureans were considered little more than overindulgent lemmings. This is because cynics reject social norms and the belief that possessions increase happiness. Today cynic is a term used to describe someone who is scornful, pessimistic, sarcastic and distrustful, an agitator if you will. In Greek, Cynic translates to ‘dog’. During the life of the founder of Cynicism, dog is the moniker which, he and other cynics took on with pride. In a chat between Alexander the Great and Diogenes, a Cynic: “I am Diogenes the dog” “The dog?” “I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite the louts.” (A Socrates Gone Mad: Soccio, Page 203)
Cynicism is a school of philosophy based on the belief systems of Antisthenes (c. 455 – 360 B.C.E.). It was championed ardently by his follower, Diogenes. The orderly packaged philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were stifling to Antisthenes. Just like the hippies in the 1960, rebelling against the “man”. Antisthenes rejected the rules of society and in his own way, raged against the machine. He did admire Socrates, often walking more than five miles a day just to listen to the great orator. However, it appears that he had an even higher esteem for Socrates fashion sense and lifestyle. Socrates forwent the social mores of grooming, dismissed fashionable clothes and lived a rough existence with few luxuries. Socrates was irony in action, a walking billboard equating Sophistry to an artfully wrapped gift filled with hypocrisy.
Antisthenes took Socrates’ lifestyle one-step farther and forwent all social mores to not only to bring attention to the hypocrisy of all of society but also to be a living embodiment of his conviction. Antisthenes believed that civilization corrupted people. He argued that manners are pretense, merely the means to fulfill a desire for power or status. Craving power and status creates pressure, which in turn compels civilized people to flatter or deceive in an attempt to manipulate or control one another. To Antisthenes, the machination of civilization solely to achieve material wealth and status is the source not the symptom of discontent.
Cynicism provided the solution to civilized discontent: Reject social norms, abandon all unnecessary material possessions, embrace absolute self-discipline and rejoice in the liberty from dependence on people and things. Antisthenes and his disciple Diogenes led the Cynic movement by living a fully realized Cynic life. The less I need, the happier I am, became the motto for Cynicism. Diogenes for example, lived in a wine barrel on the beach. He owned nothing but the clothes on his body and more importantly his actions. He walked around in the middle of the day with a lit lantern to point out how people are reliant on possessions. He would even masturbate in public to show how reliance on other people kept them weak.
Unfortunately, the moral and intellectual antics of Antisthenes and Diogenes represent the highest merits of the Cynic philosophy. Among the cynics who came after, few could live up to the standards set by their predecessors. By the first century, Cynicism lost its appeal and it became associated with the modern idea of a Cynicism. Cynics were perceived as malcontented misanthropists, acting only to disrupt functioning society for the sheer joy of frustrating honest, hard working citizens. Diogenes’ atypical actions at first glance, appear to be self-defeating. Getting people to listen to the logic behind the philosophy with such an abrasive approach should have steered people away. However, Diogenes was well educated and after shocking the masses, he would impart a gem of wisdom to those willing to listen. A few people listened and understood the message. The famous former slave Epictetus adopted parts of the message into his philosophical version of Stoicism.
Stoicism has roots in ancient Greece when Zeno (c. 334 – 262 B.C.E.) founded the philosophical school. However, it was in Rome where Stoicism truly thrived. In this atmosphere of strict social order, a philosophical school of thought that prized self-control and happiness measured on ability to accept what you cannot control is a joyous relief indeed. Stoics believe in fate, that everything in life is predetermined and that nothing less than total self-control, leads to avoidable unhappiness.
Epictetus (c. 50 – 130 C.E.) was actually the slave of a former slave. His had no influence or control over the physical direction of his life or the physiological reactions of his body. In his youth, Epictetus was sent to study under the most distinguished Stoic philosopher of his era. In later years, his master punished him for a mistake made by another slave. The punishment he endured was so brutal; he was left with a pronounced limp. Epictetus neither called his master on the judgment error, nor attempted to get out of the unjust punishment. What he learned from his experiences is to accept what he could not control and focus on the one thing he could control, his attitude. His motto was, Bear and forbear: “I was never so free than when I was on the rack” –Epictetus. (Soccio, Page 206)
The Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius (c. 121 – 180 C.E.) is another example one who found freedom and relief in letting go of what cannot be controlled. Like Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius recognized that he did not own his life. He was a bit of a hermit by nature but he loved his people and believed his duty to protect them as his fate. His was a life filled with one personal tragedy and trial after another, from the deaths of his sons to every day dealing with sycophantic leeches of the court. In spite of all he endured, Marcus Aurelius never became a bitter grouch. “Only attend to thyself…resolve to be a good man in every act thou doest; and remember… Within is the fountain of good and it will ever bubble up if thou wilt ever dig” - Marcus Aurelius (Soccio, Page 208)
In Stoicism, fate refers to Logos, the god who controls the universe and all who reside within it. A true Stoic accepts that his life is not his own control but this brings freedom to experience happiness rather than becoming mired in desolation. The difference between control and influence is acceptance of reality and control over attitude. The best example of stoicism leading to a healthier, happy life can be found in a simple prayer. This simple yet powerful prayer is spoken aloud at every Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) meeting. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. The foundation of A.A. is a focus on attitude and letting go of trying to control fate. Once you accept that you have control, you become open to the possibility of a sober life. This program did what no other before it did and the members achieved sobriety.
Each school of thought has merit in that they all result in the goal of happiness. Each one seems to build from the previous. The Epicureans refined the parameters used to measure the quality of pleasure and accepted the reality that pain cannot be avoided. They found utility and meaning from pain or absence of pleasure, which serve to strengthen the quality of their happiness. The cynics took the absence of socially accepted pleasure to the extreme and found relief from the pressure to conform to other people’s expectations. The constant rejection of social norms led to a deeper understanding of need verse want and undeniable autonomy. The Stoics dialed back the extreme austerity of the Cynics to a level where average people could participate. They turned the need verses want into a belief system which provided necessary tools to deal with the horrors and wonders of life while remaining happy regardless of circumstance.
In terms of pleasure, I believe it is the quality of quantity achieved which bears maximum value. Social norms keep society cohesive and functioning. Blindly following social norms without understanding the validity, cause and consequences, can lead to avoidable unhappiness. When I accept I cannot control everything, I gain freedom to learn how to control my attitude. As for the meaning of true happiness, I believe it is relative to the values of person describing it.
Works Cited
Douglas J. Soccio.
Archetypes of Wisdom. Holly J. Allen, 2007
Shannon Atkinson.
Lecture Notes. Introduction to Philosophy 1000 section 014: (2011)
Tim O’Keefe. “Aristippus.”
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Version (2005): Date Accessed 10/13/2011 < http://www.iep.utm.edu/aristip/>.
Tim O’Keefe. “Epicurus.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Version (2005): Date Accessed 10/13/2011 < http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/>.
Julie Piering. “Cynics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Version (2006): Date Accessed 10/13/2011 < http://www.iep.utm.edu/cynics/>.
Anon. “Stoicism.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Version (2008): Date Accessed 10/13/2011 < http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/>.
