Both originating from Athens, Greece during the Hellenistic period and becoming largely influential to Rome, the philosophy of Epicureanism by Epicurus and the philosophy of Stoicism by Zeno of Citium are two schools of philosophy that were brought forth to the average citizen to demonstrate how one should live their lives, the ultimate goal of life and what philosophy commonly attempts to answer. While these two schools of philosophy focused on teaching people their role in life and how to explain the nature of the experiences humans perceive, they both differ in the way they believe these aspects are explained. Through my understanding of these beliefs, I find Epicureanism to be a greater way of life than Stoicism is because of its understanding that our lives are based upon pleasure, and that if there was a god they would not bother …show more content…
This is said by Seneca in his Letters to Lucilius in which he states “If you live according to nature, you will never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich” (129). While I do agree that pleasures can lead to other pleasures, I thought about psychology and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Humans have the tendency to constantly grow, and at some point they can reach self actualization, the peak of the hierarchy of needs, which could be the peak of pleasure, or a true ‘end’ to the cycle of pleasure. To further counter this argument, it is pretty obvious that a sage, or someone who has mastered either Stoicism or Epicureanism or any form of philosophy, is impossible to become. Thus the argument of not having a maximum pleasure would mean nothing because this state is impossible to become in the first place. The point of these philosophies is to come as close as one can to become a sage while still maintaining one’s human nature and being content with one’s