[...]
Isn't Buddhism whole idea of controlling your desire?
> Stoicism is more on the ascetic side imo. > What? Isn't stoicism for ascetic?
That would be Cynicism.
Both Seneca and Marcus Aurelius were not living an ascetic life at all. Epictetus maybe, but not by choice.
Thinking about it, Epicureanism could qualify as well for a middle ground.
Epicurean philosophy errs more hedonistic, it tends to value the pursuit of pleasure. A true middle ground philosophy would be hard to pinpoint since you would have to commit to criteria as to when you pursue either and likely have to come up with justifications for why.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Epicurean philosophy errs more hedonistic, it tends to value the pursuit of pleasure.
Yes but not in the materialistic sense. Epicurean highlighted pleasures such as (the pursuit of) knowledge and wisdom and thought very little of wordly pleasures, which were deemed lesser
8 months ago
Anonymous
Epicurus was a materialist, he generally equated good with pursuing pleasure and advocated for living in comfort, having things on the nicer side, and was frequently depicted by his critics as a hedonist. Critical reception aside he came to some of the same conclusions as the stoics did and created a better philosophy imo, he valued solitude and friendship, and in some ethical considerations you could say he was cynic/stoic if you just replace their "duty" with pursuit of pleasure. He had his own school of sorts in his garden and did pursue philosophy though.
So, no true middle way philosophy?
I am not aware of any. I suppose that is also not a statement saying there are none. If you find one post it here for curiosity.
8 months ago
Anonymous
So, no true middle way philosophy?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Read The Letters of Epicurus
Even Seneca admired Epicurus for this strong personality.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Aristotle's virtue ethics. Literally the middle path.
8 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/OIYsNrX.jpg
What philosophy that defend the middle ground between asceticism and hedonism?
Xenophon Memorabilia II.1: The Socratic middle way
8 months ago
Anonymous
>it tends to value the pursuit of pleasure.
That's not true. Epicureans were very autistic about moderation. They had many things against sex too.
[...]
Isn't Buddhism whole idea of controlling your desire?
Stoicism is the middle way in this.
Hedonist: will chase pleasure for its own sake
Ascetic: will flee pleasure
Stoic: pleasure doesn't enter in the calculation
For example:
Hedonist: will eat the most delicious food, even if unhealthy
Ascetic: will eat the most bland food, even if unhealthy
Stoic: taste doesn't matter, will eat the most nourishing and easily available food
People think Stoics are ascetic because we live in a very hedonistic culture.
Buddhism doesn’t defend a middle ground between asceticism and hedonism. It defends a middle ground between actively hurting yourself and hedonism, which is asceticism. But it calls hurting yourself asceticism instead of what asceticism is normally. Buddhism is ascetic
Buddhism is literally all about the Middle Way. The 'origin story' of the Buddha details how he left a life of hedonism and splendour to live with the ascetics in pursuit of a solution to suffering and, upon realising that this way too was unsatisfactory, left again to form his own philosophy and meditate for 49 days. Buddhism is about not being controlled by craving or aversion, 'desire' isn't quite the right term.
Buddhism doesn’t defend a middle ground between asceticism and hedonism. It defends a middle ground between actively hurting yourself and hedonism, which is asceticism. But it calls hurting yourself asceticism instead of what asceticism is normally. Buddhism is ascetic
The actual answer to OP's question is Epicureanism, which is the middle ground between asceticism and hedonism. OP didn't ask about masochism, just hedonism and asceticism. Buddhism is asceticism. It's also not Stoicism as Stoicism is neutral on the topic and is instead about achieving mental wellbeing subjected to a state of powerlessness. If you have a choice between hedonism or asceticism you are by definition not powerless. "Asceticism" is entirely apt to describe Buddhism. What the Middle Way (Buddhism) is the extreme between is hedonism and masochism, specifically between the hedonism of Kshatriya courtly life and the masochism of (proto-)Jainism. Buddhist monasticism is still about leading a secluded life of self cultivation and self discipline, which is what asceticism is.
The Epicureans wanted to maximize pleasure-pain subject to temporal discounting and a firm belief in the value of knowledge and self cultivation, which puts them between hedonism (maximizing pleasure with no concern for pain and no temporal discounting or self cultivation) and asceticism (maximizing self cultivation with no concern for pleasure).
i know, that you're into flying that weed all day sky high? but china, have strict death panalty for anything weed related and sorry it's just not going to fly.
Stoicism
Buddhism.
Stoicism is more on the ascetic side imo.
> Stoicism is more on the ascetic side imo.
> What? Isn't stoicism for ascetic?
That would be Cynicism.
Both Seneca and Marcus Aurelius were not living an ascetic life at all. Epictetus maybe, but not by choice.
Thinking about it, Epicureanism could qualify as well for a middle ground.
Epicurean philosophy errs more hedonistic, it tends to value the pursuit of pleasure. A true middle ground philosophy would be hard to pinpoint since you would have to commit to criteria as to when you pursue either and likely have to come up with justifications for why.
>Epicurean philosophy errs more hedonistic, it tends to value the pursuit of pleasure.
Yes but not in the materialistic sense. Epicurean highlighted pleasures such as (the pursuit of) knowledge and wisdom and thought very little of wordly pleasures, which were deemed lesser
Epicurus was a materialist, he generally equated good with pursuing pleasure and advocated for living in comfort, having things on the nicer side, and was frequently depicted by his critics as a hedonist. Critical reception aside he came to some of the same conclusions as the stoics did and created a better philosophy imo, he valued solitude and friendship, and in some ethical considerations you could say he was cynic/stoic if you just replace their "duty" with pursuit of pleasure. He had his own school of sorts in his garden and did pursue philosophy though.
I am not aware of any. I suppose that is also not a statement saying there are none. If you find one post it here for curiosity.
So, no true middle way philosophy?
Read The Letters of Epicurus
Even Seneca admired Epicurus for this strong personality.
Aristotle's virtue ethics. Literally the middle path.
Xenophon Memorabilia II.1: The Socratic middle way
>it tends to value the pursuit of pleasure.
That's not true. Epicureans were very autistic about moderation. They had many things against sex too.
Modern hedonism is nothing like them.
Stoicism is the middle way in this.
Hedonist: will chase pleasure for its own sake
Ascetic: will flee pleasure
Stoic: pleasure doesn't enter in the calculation
For example:
Hedonist: will eat the most delicious food, even if unhealthy
Ascetic: will eat the most bland food, even if unhealthy
Stoic: taste doesn't matter, will eat the most nourishing and easily available food
People think Stoics are ascetic because we live in a very hedonistic culture.
Buddhism doesn’t defend a middle ground between asceticism and hedonism. It defends a middle ground between actively hurting yourself and hedonism, which is asceticism. But it calls hurting yourself asceticism instead of what asceticism is normally. Buddhism is ascetic
What? Isn't stoicism for ascetic?
Isn't Buddhism whole idea of controlling your desire?
Buddhism is literally all about the Middle Way. The 'origin story' of the Buddha details how he left a life of hedonism and splendour to live with the ascetics in pursuit of a solution to suffering and, upon realising that this way too was unsatisfactory, left again to form his own philosophy and meditate for 49 days. Buddhism is about not being controlled by craving or aversion, 'desire' isn't quite the right term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Way
The actual answer to OP's question is Epicureanism, which is the middle ground between asceticism and hedonism. OP didn't ask about masochism, just hedonism and asceticism. Buddhism is asceticism. It's also not Stoicism as Stoicism is neutral on the topic and is instead about achieving mental wellbeing subjected to a state of powerlessness. If you have a choice between hedonism or asceticism you are by definition not powerless. "Asceticism" is entirely apt to describe Buddhism. What the Middle Way (Buddhism) is the extreme between is hedonism and masochism, specifically between the hedonism of Kshatriya courtly life and the masochism of (proto-)Jainism. Buddhist monasticism is still about leading a secluded life of self cultivation and self discipline, which is what asceticism is.
The Epicureans wanted to maximize pleasure-pain subject to temporal discounting and a firm belief in the value of knowledge and self cultivation, which puts them between hedonism (maximizing pleasure with no concern for pain and no temporal discounting or self cultivation) and asceticism (maximizing self cultivation with no concern for pleasure).
the middle ground between those is just being a lay or householder
you don't really need a philosophy for that
Epicrureanism.
NEET philosophy
i know, that you're into flying that weed all day sky high? but china, have strict death panalty for anything weed related and sorry it's just not going to fly.
Sneedzsche unironically
Unironically Buddhism