Ask a Stoic and an Epicurean to define the good life and you will get answers that, on first hearing, sound close enough to be interchangeable: both schools, emerging within a generation of each other in the ferment of Hellenistic Athens, identified tranquillity rather than pleasure-seeking as the mark of a life well lived. Both counselled the reduction of desire over its satisfaction, both distrusted the anxious pursuit of wealth, status and reputation, and both produced a literature of consolation aimed at steadying the mind against fortune's reversals. The resemblance, however, conceals a disagreement about the very source of tranquillity that makes the two philosophies, in practice, almost opposites.
For the Epicurean, tranquillity — ataraxia — is achieved by correctly understanding pleasure and pain and arranging one's life to minimise the latter. This sounds hedonistic, and in a loose sense it is, but Epicurus's crucial move was to distinguish transient pleasures of the body from the durable pleasure of a mind free from disturbing beliefs, chiefly the fear of death and of divine punishment. Once these fears are dissolved by correct physical understanding — that the soul, like the body, is made of atoms that disperse at death, leaving nothing to suffer — what remains is a modest, almost monastic programme: simple food, the company of friends, withdrawal from public life and its competitive anxieties. The Epicurean garden, literally a garden on the outskirts of Athens, was a retreat from the city precisely because political and commercial life were seen as reliable generators of exactly the disturbances the philosophy aimed to extinguish.
The Stoic, by contrast, locates tranquillity not in the avoidance of disturbance but in the correct exercise of judgment about what is and is not within one's control. Chrysippus and his successors held that externals — health, wealth, reputation, even one's own body — are strictly indifferent to virtue, not because they do not matter at all, but because they are not "up to us" in the decisive sense: fortune can seize them regardless of how one acts. What is up to us is entirely internal — our assent to impressions, our judgments, our will — and it is here, not in circumstance, that good and bad genuinely reside. Crucially, this view does not counsel withdrawal from the world, as the Epicurean does; a Stoic is expected to participate fully in public and civic life, discharging the roles fortune has assigned — citizen, magistrate, parent — while remaining internally unperturbed by whether those efforts succeed or fail, since success and failure are themselves externals.
This is the fork in the road that later readers have found so consequential: the Epicurean secures tranquillity by shrinking the domain of what one engages with, while the Stoic secures it by shrinking the domain of what one cares about, while engaging with everything. It is telling that Stoicism produced statesmen, generals and an emperor, while Epicureanism, whatever its private consolations, produced almost no one of comparable public consequence — not because Stoics were braver or more capable, but because only their philosophy made public engagement compatible with the tranquillity both schools equally prized.
For the Epicurean, tranquillity — ataraxia — is achieved by correctly understanding pleasure and pain and arranging one's life to minimise the latter. This sounds hedonistic, and in a loose sense it is, but Epicurus's crucial move was to distinguish transient pleasures of the body from the durable pleasure of a mind free from disturbing beliefs, chiefly the fear of death and of divine punishment. Once these fears are dissolved by correct physical understanding — that the soul, like the body, is made of atoms that disperse at death, leaving nothing to suffer — what remains is a modest, almost monastic programme: simple food, the company of friends, withdrawal from public life and its competitive anxieties. The Epicurean garden, literally a garden on the outskirts of Athens, was a retreat from the city precisely because political and commercial life were seen as reliable generators of exactly the disturbances the philosophy aimed to extinguish.
The Stoic, by contrast, locates tranquillity not in the avoidance of disturbance but in the correct exercise of judgment about what is and is not within one's control. Chrysippus and his successors held that externals — health, wealth, reputation, even one's own body — are strictly indifferent to virtue, not because they do not matter at all, but because they are not "up to us" in the decisive sense: fortune can seize them regardless of how one acts. What is up to us is entirely internal — our assent to impressions, our judgments, our will — and it is here, not in circumstance, that good and bad genuinely reside. Crucially, this view does not counsel withdrawal from the world, as the Epicurean does; a Stoic is expected to participate fully in public and civic life, discharging the roles fortune has assigned — citizen, magistrate, parent — while remaining internally unperturbed by whether those efforts succeed or fail, since success and failure are themselves externals.
This is the fork in the road that later readers have found so consequential: the Epicurean secures tranquillity by shrinking the domain of what one engages with, while the Stoic secures it by shrinking the domain of what one cares about, while engaging with everything. It is telling that Stoicism produced statesmen, generals and an emperor, while Epicureanism, whatever its private consolations, produced almost no one of comparable public consequence — not because Stoics were braver or more capable, but because only their philosophy made public engagement compatible with the tranquillity both schools equally prized.
Question 1
Single correct option
According to the passage, the key point of disagreement between Stoicism and Epicureanism concerns:
- A. Whether tranquillity is a worthwhile goal at all.
- B. The correct method for achieving the tranquillity that both schools agree is the mark of a good life.
- C. Whether pleasure is superior to pain as a guide to ethical conduct.
- D. Whether the soul survives the death of the body.
Show answer and solution
Answer: (B) The correct method for achieving the tranquillity that both schools agree is the mark of a good life.
The passage explicitly says both schools 'identified tranquillity... as the mark of a life well lived' and that the 'resemblance conceals a disagreement about the very source of tranquillity' — i.e., the method of achieving a shared goal, matching B. The soul's mortality (D) is mentioned only as an Epicurean argument, not the central point of disagreement between the two schools.
Question 2
Single correct option
The passage would most likely characterise an Epicurean's response to an invitation to run for public office as:
- A. Enthusiastic acceptance, since public duty is central to Epicurean ethics.
- B. Likely declined, since political life is seen as a source of the very anxieties the philosophy seeks to eliminate.
- C. Accepted, but only if the Epicurean is guaranteed to win the election.
- D. A matter of indifference, since Epicureans hold that externals do not matter.
Show answer and solution
Answer: (B) Likely declined, since political life is seen as a source of the very anxieties the philosophy seeks to eliminate.
The passage states the Epicurean garden was 'a retreat from the city precisely because political and commercial life were seen as reliable generators of exactly the disturbances the philosophy aimed to extinguish,' supporting B. Option D describes the Stoic view of externals, not the Epicurean position, which is a common distractor here.
Question 3
Single correct option
The final paragraph's claim that Stoicism produced more public figures than Epicureanism is offered as evidence for which point?
- A. Stoics were inherently more talented than Epicureans.
- B. Epicureanism was a philosophy that discouraged any form of consolation.
- C. Only the Stoic method of achieving tranquillity — controlling one's judgments while engaging with the world — was compatible with sustained public life.
- D. Public office in antiquity was only open to Stoics.
Show answer and solution
Answer: (C) Only the Stoic method of achieving tranquillity — controlling one's judgments while engaging with the world — was compatible with sustained public life.
The passage explicitly states this outcome was 'not because Stoics were braver or more capable, but because only their philosophy made public engagement compatible with the tranquillity both schools equally prized' — directly supporting C and ruling out A.
Question 4
Single correct option
Which of the following best describes the Stoic distinction between things that are 'up to us' and things that are not, as presented in the passage?
- A. Things 'up to us' are whatever we can physically control through effort and strategy.
- B. Things 'up to us' are strictly internal — our judgments and assent to impressions — while externals like health and reputation are not, regardless of effort.
- C. Nothing is genuinely 'up to us'; the distinction is a rhetorical device with no practical content.
- D. Things 'up to us' include our reputation, since reputation depends on our own conduct.
Show answer and solution
Answer: (B) Things 'up to us' are strictly internal — our judgments and assent to impressions — while externals like health and reputation are not, regardless of effort.
The passage states 'what is up to us is entirely internal — our assent to impressions, our judgments, our will' and that externals such as 'health, wealth, reputation' are not up to us 'because they are not "up to us" in the decisive sense: fortune can seize them regardless of how one acts,' directly supporting B and ruling out D.
Saved on this device. Sign in or create a free account to keep it on every device.