Around 50 AD, the major philosophical schools were the following:

• Stoic: They claimed that the only true good is virtue, while everything else is indifferent. However, some things are preferable to others—for example, good health is not inherently good but is preferable to sickness.
  • Followers: Zeno, Chrysippus, Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius
• Cynic: This school can be seen as a more extreme version of Stoicism. Virtue is still considered the only good, but Cynics also reject all wealth, power, glory, and worldly possessions.
  • Followers: Diogenes
• Epicurean: They were hedonists, valuing pleasure as the highest good. However, they claimed that the highest pleasure is achieved through a simple life and abstinence.
  • Followers: Epicurus
• Peripatetic: This school can be interpreted as a weaker form of Stoicism. Virtue is still considered the highest good, but things like wealth and good health are also regarded as good.
  • Followers: Aristotle
• Academic Skepticism: They believed that knowledge of any kind is impossible—for example, we cannot be certain that external objects exist.
  • Followers: Arcesilaus, Carneades, Cicero
• Skepticism/Pyrrhonism: They rejected all dogma, claiming that we should suspend all judgment because we can never be certain of knowing anything. Importantly, they did not claim that knowledge is impossible—only that we cannot be sure.
  • Followers: Pyrrho, Aenesidemus

Do you forbid me to have a share in heaven? In other words, do you bid me live with my head bowed down? No, I am above such an existence; I was born to a greater destiny than to be a mere chattel of my body, and I regard this body as nothing but a chain which manacles my freedom. Therefore, I offer it as a sort of buffer to fortune, and shall allow no wound to penetrate through to my soul.

For my body is the only part of me which can suffer injury. In this dwelling, which is exposed to peril, my soul lives free. Never shall this flesh drive me to feel fear or to assume any pretence that is unworthy of a good man. Never shall I lie in order to honour this petty body. When it seems proper, I shall sever my connexion with it. And at present, while we are bound together, our alliance shall nevertheless not be one of equality; the soul shall bring all quarrels before its own tribunal. To despise our bodies is sure freedom

~ Seneca, On the First Cause

The monologue at the beginning is a nice narrative device that should be used more often. The movie is about two men with wildly different worldviews talking with each other for nearly two hours about their different outlooks on life. Both agree that there is a problem of meaning in the world—one is a man of faith who tries to find meaning in mystical and fantastical experiences, while the other is a man of science who seeks meaning in the little things. I really need to rewatch it after reading more about Western philosophy, particularly Heidegger and Mystics such as Meister Eckhart. 8/10.

I just don’t think I accept the idea that there should be moments in which you’re not trying to do anything. I think, uh, it’s our nature, uh, to do things, I think we should do things, I think that, uh, purposefulness is part of our ineradicable basic human structure, and…and to say that we ought to be able to live without it is like saying that, uh, a tree ought to be able to live without branches or roots, but…but actually, without branches or roots, it wouldn’t be a tree, I mean, it would just be a log.