Hellenistic School of Thought That Ran Away with the Mind

Which of the Hellenistic schools of thought do you find most appealing: Stoicism, Epicureanism, Cynicism, or Skepticism? Why?

“All four of these schools of thought placed the personal needs and emotions of the individual above the good of the community. They departed the search for universal truth, the Hellenic Quest.” (1)

Self centeredness was born! This self-centered attitude in favor of the well being of the individual over the well being of the community has strongly influenced the future of humanity. Today this behavior is the by-word of our world. I believe that if the Chinese and Indian values of teamwork, mutuality and community over the welfare of the individual, were taught and adopted, our world would drastically change for the better. For one to think of the self above the welfare of all is to threaten the survival of all. If we all do that, how can we find peace? We can see how this behavior has affected most people in our world, in our country and all around us. It is indeed two or even one dimensional thinking. It has no depth, either way you look at it.

Without the depth of spirit as an aspect along with the physical and the emotional self, the human being becomes incomplete. Because we are spiritual by nature, we need to include this in our personal development on all three levels. To leave out the spiritual is to make the world like a flat surface of cardboard. We live OK and me move OK but we cannot attach to the part of us we are denying. Perhaps we are just denying we are attached to spirit both in the world beyond and upon the Earth. Maybe avoiding it, not believing in it makes us less responsible and more able to justify our not so great self-centered choices and behaviors. It is certain that without that part of us functioning, we are just free floating through life with no attachments to anything, including right and wrong, until we die and return to the earth, never knowing our potential as spiritual beings. Hmmm. Fact or fiction?

Definitions from the text:

“Stoicism: believed that they could find complete peace of mind by practicing a doctrine of detachment. Taken to the extreme this idea can allow one to live in the worst conditions of circumstances. The Stoic’s goal was to bring the self into complete harmony with the will of nature, which was governed by an impersonal intelligence. The idea of universal equality was part of their beliefs.

Epicureanism: followed the Greek thinker, Epicurus (342-270 B.C.E.). He taught that happiness depended on avoiding all forms of physical access, a kind of moderation and detachment from over indulgence. They lived modestly and strove for perfect union of body and mind. Epicurus believed that the gods had no role in human life and that when you die; you go back into the Earth where your atoms were reused by nature. There was no after-life or spirit.

Cynicism: believed that spiritual satisfaction was only possible if one renounced societal values, conventions and material wealth.

Skepticism: they denied the possibility of knowing anything with certainty: they argued for the suspension of all intellectual judgment.” (1)

Each of these schools of thought has a piece that is appealing, but each lacks a comprehensive understanding of reality. It is like they went from three dimensional understanding to 2 dimensional or even 1 dimensional understanding! They have eliminated their depth. They are without balance and are stark in their limiting life-style.

The Stoic way tests patience by detachment from the positive and negative activities of life. I would call this two dimensional thinking because it has two positive elements. It is very appealing to me to bring my self into complete harmony with nature, but the will of an impersonal intelligence which governs nature does not appeal to me at all. Nature is a teacher and gives us blessings and comfort. It also can give us wisdom from its harsh realities. Equality is a good thing, but it must be in the spirit of understanding what the qualities of this equality are. What did they think it was? At least we would all be equally depressed! No depth.

The Epicureans follow a man who thinks a certain way. I believe Epicurus was a two dimensional thinker and has two positives to his idea. There is much to be said of moderation and it is a good quality to practice. Living modestly is good because it is amazing to realize how much stuff we can accumulate that we really don’t need! Simplicity is a stress reducing tool. It is curious how he could believe that the gods have no role in human affairs, but he may not have been exposed to the idea of spirit because the gods were not real to him. They are also persona that do have energy if you believe. But, because what you believe, you have the experience of it. So, if Epicurus did not believe, it makes sense that he had no experience of their influence in spiritual and magical matters. We all know that our bodies do return to the earth and our atoms are recycled. But what is the answer for where the consciousness goes? It’s like living one time and dying with no ties to any thing of the past or future. I wonder how they stayed out of depression. No depth.

The Cynic believes that you could get spiritual satisfaction only by renouncing the societal values, conventions and material wealth. This is a one dimensional form of thinking that leaves you with living in the woods or the streets. Maybe renouncing them still leaves you room to live in a nice place where you can live reasonably well. Without an understanding of what spirit is and what your personal purpose is, life is a series of pointless events that lead nowhere and then you die. In my mind I renounce civilization in favor of living closer to the Earth. But, that renouncement only goes as far as not loosing my air conditioning, my electric, my lights my stove, etc., and a place to sleep in my home. Maybe I could have renounced civilization and went to live in the wilderness somewhere when I was young, but in reality, it is difficult for me to do it now because of my age, my needs and my comfort in the present system. So, fantasy aside, this is not appealing to me. If this is all there is to life, I may have to get some Prozac! No depth.

The Skeptic denies the possibility of knowing anything for certain. This can cause a problem if you aren’t sure your food is on your plate! How far did they take it? When you suspend all judgment, as they believe you should, can you discern danger? What extreme is it taken to? In this belief system, a one dimensional mind pretzel, I cannot see how the mind can rest in anything because no peace can be found with that much analysis! This is not at all appealing to me. This kind of mind game might require lithium!

In closing, if I have only these 4 choices, and I could choose more than one, I would choose to live in the both the Stoic and the Epicurean camps. Each has equal appeal for a part of their beliefs, and each has a negative appeal for another of their beliefs. I like the idea of growing into harmony with nature. I like the idea of living simply. I like the idea of moderation and the freedom to let my remains go back to the Earth, But, I do not think I would survive well beyond that without my strong belief in and understanding of Spirit. Because neither believes that Spirit has a personal concern for all creation, believing instead that nature is an impersonal intelligence and the gods are not involved with creation, I would be left with choosing the good things and avoiding the bad things in each camp. Either way, if there is no spirit, there is no deep happiness for me.

These one or two dimensional “schools of thought” are like branches that have been cut from the tree and left to dry out. Then someone comes along and thinks they are the living tree! OK, now for the winner of the contest: I would have to choose Epicureanism because living in moderation and detachment from materialism would most likely give me the greatest possibility for a peaceful life. You have what you need but you’re not overwhelmed with excess. No one is trying to indoctrinate you in some religion and you can detach from many distractions in favor of peacefulness. Looking within to bring the body and mind into harmony is also a good thing that can lead to enlightenment because of the meditation that would be involved. It has the most hope for a spiritual awakening. Returning to the Earth seems right and normal when death comes.

Works Cited:
(1) Fiero, Gloria K. The Humanistic Tradition Book One. New York: Mc Graw Hill, 2006. (pg. 124)