Well, my answer was pre-edit. Carry on ;-)
And the very reason for the edit.
well i consider myself sort of both, so i don't think there are any logical contradictions between being both, of course.
your run-of-the-mill existentialist knows that the material world doesn't let on to its meaning - hence the absurd. a stoic would say that this is because the material world doesn't really have much in the way of meaning - to the effect that being affected by material things/events is absurd. an existentialist, though, would say that just because the material world isn't letting anybody in on its secret, doesn't mean that there isn't one, and certainly doesn't mean that people can't find out what it is from their experiences.
and yes, i realize that i'm sort of summarizing the two belief systems' relations to eachother in a warped way based on my own beliefs, but that's what i think. i think stoicism is just one of many directions to go as an existentialist.
So I could say that the Existentialist is a little more of a materialist than the Stoic?
eistentialism is a spin on materialism..with a Nothing added...
well existentialists of course say existence precedes essence - you can either find or make the meaning of your life (what that boils down to is your experience in the world). stoics don't really espouse a meaning of life, except to say that with regards to pleasure or pain or anything inbetween, pursuit or avoidance is effectively absurd - one could say this because such pursuit/avoidance is a 'distraction' from true intellectual pursuits, as was a common thought in antiquity, or, by my own (and maybe others'? i don't know) reasoning - that such pursuit/avoidance limits your contact with reality, with your actual experience... not to mention that pleasure cannot actually be pursued (actively!), neither can pain be actively avoided.
that didn't really address your question hah.
well existentialism is materialist because of that belief that existence precedes essence. stoics don't have to be materialist or anything specific, depending on how they approach it, but historically stoics believed that what occurs to you in the material realm is inconsequential, implying dualism. but it really does depend. i'm definitely a materialist, and not a dualist. (i have to add in a lol with regards to dualism)
From what I have found Stoics feel that an excess of pleasure(and, of course, pain) keeps people from achieveing real happiness which does, at least in part, come from intelectual pursuits.
I have yet to really find out the finer aspects of Existentialism, but from what I had read they both seem to stress the importance of personal decision making and reasonable thought in a world that the individual can do little about.
finer aspects? seriously, dude, not be rude, but they are based on completely different frameworks..they shouldn't really even be compared like this.
Main Entry: ex·is·ten·tial·ism
: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad
Main Entry: sto·i·cism
1 capitalized : the philosophy of the Stoics
2 : indifference to pleasure or pain : IMPASSIVENESS
I think that is a gross oversimplification of Stoicism.
Not to be rude, but to be the definition of rude.
Existentialists put meaning and purpose into their lives.
Stoics dont care to put anything into their lives.
Id say theres a big difference there.
Not even happiness and virtue?
existentialism is marked by a sense of the absurdity of human life, not meaning and purpose--we have no meaning and purpose in existentialism, there is just nothing, in fact the philosophy is based on that assumption.
stoicism is deeply concerned with morality, morality in the face of a deterministic view of life.
if there is a point where the two are at opposites it here: existentialism has it that we are absolutely and completely free. stoicism deterministic.
From what I have read on stoicism, and it is minimal and mainly from the standpoint of Epictetus, stoics believe(d) that if something did not effect them it should not be worried about. I also thought that, very basically, existentialists feel that man is the creator of his own fate, that what occurs is from the individual as opposed to some higher being. In my over simplification here I have come to see the difference in the two philosophies as this: the stoics reacted, but did not act. the existentialists act.
ok, now tell me what an idiot I am.