For those of you unfamiliar with the different views, I will now try to make a short description of each of them.
Stoics are taught to be virtuous, to avoid being misled by emotions. They value duty and honor, and withstand life’s hardships without complaining. They believe they shouldn’t waste their time wishing for something they could never get, basically a “go with the flow” attitude.
Epicurists, on the other hand, are taught to appreciate nature and are more focused in pleasure and enjoyment. Their first principle is avoiding any pleasure that may eventually cause pain.
Their initial definition of pleasure was the absence of pain, but as time went by, the original ideas were subverted and the entire view was used as an excuse for lascive activities and many excesses (look at the Roman decadence).
(Sorry if this is a bit incomplete, but I haven’t read about the subject in a while. I’ll add any missing details as soon as possible.)
I personally favor Stoics, but I believe that one should fight for what he believes in, instead of being fatalistic. However, Epicurists’ appreciation of nature should not be forgotten. My personal opinion is that one should live his life with honor and decency, but also with moderation.
Kierkgaard’s view, connecting philosophy and religion is intriguing, but ultimately it is up to the individual to choose his position towards religion.
I think it would be interesting to compare the views of all those who wish to participate in this discussion. There are many other philosopic movements, and it this would be an enriching experience.
ehem, well, by my actions, I’m more Epicurian, but neither really appeal to me. They both lack instructions on how to interact with other people. My thinking is I’ll follow my own philosophy, and if it matches up with a real one, so be it.