Well, before I can start with the arguments of Hallowell and Porter, I have to summarize the reading so that it is understood what I summarized in my mind from the reading. I remember a couple different forms of thought being presented, the first of which was Epicureanism and the other was Stoicism. These were the two forms presented in reading that we are to write about.
For all intensive purposes, to give a description of the two thoughts, Epicureanism was basically living with the absence of fear and lust, and accepting your role in life, by realizing that your life was predetermined and out of your control. The quicker a person could accept his role the happier and easier his life would be.
As for Stoicism, there were multiple forms and transformations of Stoicism that were discussed in the reading, but the most basic ideal is that man must not concern himself long life, food, wealth, and power, but with the one thing that he can control, his emotions.
Control of emotions and suppressing emotions lead to the transition from point to point more smoothly because God controls what happens in life, we control how we handle what happens emotionally.
So, now that I have given a brief description of what the chapter was basically discussing, I will now discuss the author's views and arguments. It starts off with Epicureanism which was founded by Epicurus who was born an Athenian and opened a school in Athens which was secluded so that he and his followers could live away from the turmoil of the world around them. This is where it kind of begins to sound like what we would call a cult. He became a sort of divinity, almost like a god to his followers.
Hallowell and Porter discussed...