Epicurean Pleasure

Moliere

Epicurus' theory of pleasure is more complicated than the usual theory of desire where one is fulfilling a lack, and any lack from basic hunger to a refined wine palette fits within the model. link

We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live. He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquillity of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a blessed life. For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living creature has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look for anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained because of the absence of pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure. Wherefore we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a blessed life. Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing. — Letter to Menoeceus

As I understand the theory there are three kinds of pleasure: natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and groundless. As examples of the kinds: thirst, sex, and immortality.

The ethical goal of Epicurean philosophy is to cure the soul of its anxieties which arise from desire, and thereby live a life of tranquility in spite of the vagaries of fortune. The groundless desires are ones that simply cannot be fulfilled, and yet people still want them -- no one wants to die, and yet everyone will die. But the worry of death is what makes life less pleasant, rather than death itself, so it's better to let go of that desire than it is to pursue it. Pursuing groundless desires is what leads to human misery.

For the natural and unnecessary desires these are fine as long as one doesn't worry about them (and note how "fine" works differently here because it's a hedonic ethic -- it's not fine to worry because the whole point of Epicurean ethics is to be tranquil and happy, not because it's a sin)

For the natural and necessary desires these are the ones a person is supposed to focus upon. They are the easy ones to satisfy or to resist -- pain and pleasure alike. To get an idea of how austere this is:

Again, we regard independence of outward things as a great good, not so as in all cases to use little, but so as to be contented with little if we have not much, being honestly persuaded that they have the sweetest enjoyment of luxury who stand least in need of it, and that whatever is natural is easily procured and only the vain and worthless hard to win. Plain fare gives as much pleasure as a costly diet, when once the pain of want has been removed, while bread and water confer the highest possible pleasure when they are brought to hungry lips. To habituate one's self, therefore, to simple and inexpensive diet supplies all that is needful for health, and enables a man to meet the necessary requirements of life without shrinking, and it places us in a better condition when we approach at intervals a costly fare and renders us fearless of fortune.

I bring this forward for ethical consideration because I think Epicurus' theory gets at what I'd term is good in life but while also acknowledging human limitations. While it doesn't sound moral to our ears to pursue pleasure as the central motive for doing good there's a certain sense in which people are kinder to others when they are happy, and crueler when they are frustrated. Further Epicurus' theory gets at something fundamental about desire -- that our desires can be the reason we are unhappy, rather than us being unhappy because we're not satisfying those desires, and so the cure of unhappiness is to remove the desire rather than pursue it. Which is a very different kind of hedonism from our usual understanding of the word since it's centered around limiting desire such that they can always be satisfied and you don't have to worry about them rather than pursuing any and all of them.

I was thinking about my own self-chosen dogma due to the dogma thread. The hook might be: "Why not hedonism?", but in this qualified sense.

Vera Mont

It's the only school of philosophy to which I ever felt attracted. Not a card-carrying member, mind you, but it sure sounds better than most of them.

180 Proof

↪Vera Mont

:up:

Tom Storm

t's the only school of philosophy to which I ever felt attracted. Not a card-carrying member, mind you, but it sure sounds better than most of them. — Vera Mont

Me too.

Further Epicurus' theory gets at something fundamental about desire -- that our desires can be the reason we are unhappy, rather than us being unhappy because we're not satisfying those desires, and so the cure of unhappiness is to remove the desire rather than pursue it. Which is a very different kind of hedonism from our usual understanding of the word since it's centered around limiting desire such that they can always be satisfied and you don't have to worry about them rather than pursuing any and all of them. — Moliere

Indeed. Philosophy educator Alain de Botton wrote I nice essay on this in his early book The Consolations of Philosophy.

This passage struck me and rings true for the wealthy, ostentatious people I've met.

The desire for riches should perhaps not always be understood as a simple hunger for a luxurious life, a more important motive might be the wish to be appreciated and treated nicely. We may seek a fortune for no greater reason than to secure the respect and attention of people who would otherwise look straight through us. Epicurus, discerning our underlying need, recognised that a handful of true friends could deliver the love and respect that even a fortune may not.

Feel pity for the guy driving the Maserati - he's just working hard to be noticed and loved. :wink:

Moliere

↪Vera Mont

I'm not sure I'm a card-carrying member -- but I really do love it as a philosophy for reflecting on life's choices. I think it has overlooked wisdom.

↪Tom Storm

Heh. This gets to the heart of where I have problems with Epicureanism as spoken of by The Master -- he recommends against politics for the same reason that it causes anxiety, which it surely does, and yet I still feel that pull.

But there's the curious case of Cassius.

Moliere

Another point on Epicurean pleasure -- I think I disagree with the rendition of Epicurean happiness being defined as freedom from pain. The four part cure states that pain is easy to endure, not that we don't feel pain, and I tend to interpret "freedom from pain" to mean no pain rather than being able to deal with pain. I need to track down the paper, because I owe a debt to them and I don't remember who it was, but I like the rendition of Epicurus as a philosopher of joy -- rather than the harsh and austere invulnerability of the Stoics, one becomes invulnerable through developing a character that can weather pain with joy.

Focusing so much on invulnerability, which was a major philosophical theme at the time so it makes sense, is also another point of departure for me. This dovetails with the above. It's not to be impervious to fortune, but to be able to feel and go with the flows of fortune with tranquility.

Tom Storm

↪Moliere

I understand. I came to many of the same positions Epicureanism seems to hold by myself, without reading the work. Apart from abusing alcohol for many years, I have never been much interested in food, money, or consumer goods. I long to live without a car. I am a half-arsed or 'soft' minimalist and came to this outlook back in 1990. I own almost no appliances and minimal furniture. I was so repelled by the 1980's, selfish, consumerist, 'greed is good' culture that I went in this direction in reaction.

Moliere

↪Tom Storm

Part of the reason Epicureanism isn't read as much is it's an interpretative nightmare due to how few sources there are. At least with Plato you have one author(EDIT: Well, there are spurious texts... it's still different? Maybe not expressing it right). With Epicurus you have quotes from other authors and later implementations of his ideas -- Cicero and Lucretius being the most cogent sources to compare the letters to (EDIT: The letters are written by Epicurus -- the primary source for the ideas, but they are just letters EDIT-EDIT: The letters are also only known because they were quoted by Diogenes in his Lives of the Philosophers. So... lots of interpretative layers).

I like the letters because that's where I began.

We're similar in spirit then. I hate cars -- nothing has caused me more anxiety in my life than all the things I have to do to do cars. But I am nowhere near as austere as The Master recommends -- if I am one then I'd say I'm a bad Epicurean :).

But I'm still Punk rock! Kind of. Not really. Sympathetic. (just to riff on 80's counter-culture)

Paine

↪Tom Storm

Alain de Botton's remark reminds me of Thorstein Veblen's theory of Conspicuous Consumption.

That is to say, in concrete terms, in any community where conspicuous consumption is an element of the scheme of life, an increase in an individual's ability to pay is likely to take the form of an expenditure for some accredited line of conspicuous consumption.

With the exception of the instinct of self-preservation, the propensity for emulation is probably the strongest and most alert and persistent of the economic motives proper. In an industrial community this propensity expresses itself in pecuniary emulation; and this, so far as regards the Western civilized communities of the present, is virtually equivalent to saying that it expresses itself in some form of conspicuous waste. — Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class

This speaks to:

Focusing so much on invulnerability, which was a major philosophical theme at the time so it makes sense, is also another point of departure for me. This dovetails with the above. It's not to be impervious to fortune, but to be able to feel and go with the flows of fortune with tranquility. — Moliere

The entanglement of the personal within 'the scheme of life' cannot be dissolved but there are degrees of freedom regarding the 'habits of emulation.' I think that Foucault's The Care of the Self is a close examination of this "Epicurean" virtue.

Tom Storm

I think that Foucault's The Care of the Self is a close examination of this "Epicurean" virtue. — Paine

Thanks. That's that's come up a bit. I need to find time to investigate it.

I am fascinated by how possessions seem to be used to construct a kind of wish fulfilment identity and manage feelings of inadequacy.

Moliere

Thoughts on the tetrapharmakos:

Don't fear god,
Don't worry about death;
What is good is easy to get,
What is terrible is easy to endure

The first and the second relate to what I mentioned in the dogma thread -- that superstition or cosmic significance ("supernatural" in that thread) are easy paths to anxiety. If you believe everything you do is judged by god in the here and now and in the afterlife (the first and the second doctrines, in my interpretation) then you will pursue groundless desires that can never be fulfilled -- the afterlife isn't the life you have to deal with, and the gods are already perfect so don't think anything about you.

I think I've explained the third doctrine in the previous posts on pleasure.

The fourth one has always been the hardest for myself, in trying out this way of thinking and living. But my second post about being "impervious" (resistant?) to pain due to having so much joy is something that's making a lot of sense to me as explanation.

Vera Mont

What if you ignored the doctrine and thought about your own version of the essence:
Avoid pain, seek rewarding work and loyal friends, live simply and stop fretting about how other people are messing up? Could some customized variation on that theme work for you?

I like sushi

↪Moliere

Desiring not to have desires is still ‘desire’.

I generally avoid/shun anyone who adheres to any ism with rigidity and persistence.

As a general rule it helps to pursue ‘pleasure’ where you do not expect to find it and measure the lasting ‘pleasure’ gained through work and commitment. Advice given though is usually due to one’s own failings in following it! :D

Moliere

Could some customized variation on that theme work for you? — Vera Mont

Heh, never. I read philosophy, which means I'm interminably unsatisfied ;). On a more personal note I think I grab-bag because I see resonances and also balances between philosophies -- so, for instance, Marxism-Anarchy holds both a resonance and also they balance one another. Something like that. Still working it out.

The doctrine shouldn't be ignored. I say "The Master", and thought I should include Epicureanism in my list of dogmas, because of Martha Nussbaum's Therapy of Desire -- whom I owe a deep debt to. The Garden, in terms of the community, was dogmatic in the same way that a hospital is dogmatic. The Doctor knows how to set a bone, and The Master knows how to cure your soul. Why would a doctor listen to the opinion of a non-practitioner? At least, this is how I've been able to make the most sense of the Epicurean philosophy so far.

Desiring not to have desires is still ‘desire’. — I like sushi

True, but it's a therapy of desire rather than the elimination of, or freedom from, desire. At least in this rendition -- obviously these are ancient texts and we can read things in various ways. And because of my general existential outlook I'd say one has to actually want ataraxia in order for the therapy to begin to work. Nietzsche is a good contrast case, here. From Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

Lo! I show you the last man.
What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is
a star? so asketh the last man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth
the last man who maketh everything small. His species is in
eradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.
We have discovered happiness; say the last men, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they
need warmth. One still loveth one s neighbour and rubbeth
against him; for one needeth warmth.

If one wants to be filled with passion and pursue great deeds, inventing new values in a continual process of puissance and overcoming then the words of Epicurus look like advice to get good sleep, rather than advice on how to be truly good.

So as with any ethic there is a normative dimension to its prescriptions, and we might choose to emphasize different norms. In a grand sense what unites both of these ethics is the focus on freedom, but their ideas of what constitutes freedom of the self differs -- one emphasizes joy and tranquility, and the other emphasizes nobility and striving (ever striving!).

Vera Mont

Doctor knows how to set a bone, and The Master knows how to cure your soul. — Moliere

I don't think so. Doctors - and yes, I do want to see that diploma from a reputable medical school on his wall, and read the patient feedback on his web listing - study all the technical details of their trade for years and then practice under close supervision for several more.
Anybody can call himself a philosopher. Especially the ones that have been dead a long time are not required to pass any rigorous testing....
.... except my own scrutiny.
(Of course, my soul isn't broken. My heart has been, but it used to heal by itself when I was younger.)

If a full regimen as prescribed by a Master works for you, that's great.

Moliere

↪Vera Mont

Oh no, it couldn't work for me. There's no master to do the teaching, after all. In terms of how Epicureanism was lived the philosophy is basically dead.

I say The Master because I think that's the appropriate way to read the texts -- Epicurus was a dogmatist in the same way that a modern doctor is a dogmatist, in that you don't allow people to opt-in to sickness. I don't say it because he is my master.

Moliere

And yet -- there's value in reading a text from the standpoint of its own truth. While he is not my master I had to think through the text to really find the parts I disagreed with. There wasn't a list ahead of time. Else that would be one boring interpretation -- comparing what I already believe to what is stated and checking off the boxes.

Maybe it's best to say that Epicurus is one of the philosophical masters that I think people should study because there's something good in there.

Vera Mont

Epicurus was a dogmatist in the same way that a modern doctor is a dogmatist, in that you don't allow people to opt-in to sickness. — Moliere

I'm not sure I understand that correctly. Okay, you don't opt in or out of sickness, but not all doctors are dogmatic in the sense of the dictionary meaning of dogma. (I do know the word is a rugby ball around here.) Some doctors adhere to a very strict treatment method, while some are more open to alternative medicine; some welcome patient input and a wide latitude in decision-making, while others are authoritarian.
And I suppose every founder of a "school" from Plato to Jung to Gropius to Escoffier has been dogmatic about their system.
But you absolutely do determine, have only your own sense to determine, the condition of your spirit. Others, including psychiatrists and gurus, may diagnose and prescribe, but only you can decide what works for you.

Moliere

↪Vera Mont

Heh, that's what's different to our ears about the Epicurean philosophy -- it's an authoritarian philosophy. It's the student who is wrong, rather than the master.

At least this is how the texts make sense to me.

And to make things even more confusing I'd point out that sometimes we don't really know what works for us, and others can tell better than we can. The only refrain here is to double-down on the value of individual freedom over other values.

But there's a hint there -- one of the goals of the Epicurean cure is autonomy. So what Epicurus aims to remove from the soul without your permission are the very things which inhibit a person from being free.

But surely there's no rule for that.

Moliere

Though students and masters aren't unusual -- where it's unusual to a modern ear is on the topic of ethics.

Vera Mont

It's the student who is wrong, rather than the master. — Moliere

Invariably. Once the student surpasses, rejects or proves the master wrong, he must go build his own school somewhere else.

wiki: The discovery of irrational numbers is said to have been shocking to the Pythagoreans, and Hippasus is supposed to have drowned at sea, apparently as a punishment from the gods for divulging this.

Of course, that's all hearsay - credited only because the dogmatism of masters is a given.

So what Epicurus aims to remove from the soul without your permission are the very things which inhibit a person from being free. — Moliere

By overruling you, or rolling over you.... not quite my definition of freedom. But that's okay: none of them would take me as an acolyte any more than I could accept them as masters.

Moliere

By overruling you, or rolling over you.... not quite my definition of freedom. — Vera Mont

Sure.

What if I'm hurting myself, though?

If goodness is living a tranquil life, and tranquility is what leads to independence, then the material conditions of freedom aren't exactly being satisfied if I'm chasing groundless desires out of anxiety.

Which goes to show different faces of freedom -- in one freedom is an individual choice and inhibiting that choice is what deprives one of freedom. In the other freedom is the ability to choose from tranquil desires rather than from groundless desires -- since the anxious desires tend to build on themselves and make one un-free.

It's the state of mind, rather than one's formal rights, which define freedom.

Moliere

Another reflection:

The main reason I like the ancients is because, through study, you can start to get a sense for how different life was back then which gives a basis for understanding how life is now.

To get an idea across I say I'm an Epicurean-ish person, but in thinking through the implications I don't think it's really possible due to the practices of Epicureans. There's a philosophy we can piece together from the quotes of others and study, and I think it's a worthy and worthwhile philosophy -- but the community is long dead. And looking at the efforts of stoics it's apparent to me that reviving ancient communities still manages to ignore the important political problems of the day.

Ethics as a personal quest rather than as a way of life.

And while you don't need Epicurus to see that difference, it is a remarkable difference to note for understanding ourselves -- then there were masters of ethics, and now:

Anybody can call himself a philosopher. — Vera Mont

Many people call themselves philosophers, and they are on offer like a buffet for each individual to pick and choose as they see fit.

Which is different from the way the Epicurean philosophy reads, and is different from the way the Epicurean philosophy was practiced.

Moliere

Epicurean philosophy and the purpose of science -- rather than truth, it, too, is reduced to its ability to reduce anxiety.

As human beings, however, we have reduced anxiety when we do not attribute cosmic significance to the world, and so the naturalization of experience -- demystification -- is appropriate not because of the power it brings over nature, but rather because of the peace of mind it brings someone to realize that the sun doesn't rise because we sacrifice goats, but due to momentum and the way of nature. The mantras you say are for you, and not for the gods or nature. You have no magic powers.

So even knowledge is put in a secondary position. In my reading Epicurus is a practioner of ethics as first philosophy.

Vera Mont

Which is different from the way the Epicurean philosophy reads, and is different from the way the Epicurean philosophy was practiced. — Moliere

That's why I put that school in with the Pythagoreans, Zen, Bauhaus and Kellogg - because they're holistic lifestyle regimes, rather than stand-alone philosophical theories. The immersion method is exactly what some people need -- but it must be one that corresponds to their actual life situation and the options available to them. Anything you can't move into for six months is just theory: interesting, often edifying, but external.

What if I'm hurting myself, though? — Moliere

What if you are? You may be a professional prizefighter, ballerina or soldier and nobody thinks it's any of their business. If you are seen to do certain kinds of self-harm, you may be deprived of your liberty by legal authority and placed in an institutions. But modern human rights codes generally allow people to overindulge in food, drink, sex, extreme bodybuilding, masochistic relationships, conspiracy theories or sleep-depriving, stressful occupations.
Either it's your life, your choice, your responsibility or it's someone else's.

Moliere

That's why I put that school in with the Pythagoreans, Zen, Bauhaus and Kellogg - because they're holistic lifestyle regimes, rather than stand-alone philosophical theories. — Vera Mont

Cool. Then I won't re-iterate the point :).

The immersion method is exactly what some people need -- but it must be one that corresponds to their actual life situation and the options available to them. Anything you can't move into for six months is just theory: interesting, often edifying, but external. — Vera Mont

Yup! So goes it with Epicureanism. The closest I could find were Buddhist study centers, but the emphasis was different enough for me -- I was looking for something more materialist than what I encountered. I did do a lot of gardening at the time, though... and still love gardening (I'd like it if I ever get access to a plot of dirt again).

I've always preferred the immersion method, though I'd call it the phenomenological method. Combining gardening, buddhism, and Epicurean philosophy with a few academic monographs I got a coherent feel for the philosophy at the way-of-life level, but then I had all the thoughts I've already expressed about the lack of a community and how it's very much a long dead way of life out of time.

Vera Mont

I've always preferred the immersion method, though I'd call it the phenomenological method. Combining gardening, buddhism, and Epicurean philosophy with a few academic monographs I got a coherent feel for the philosophy at the way-of-life level, — Moliere

That, or something like it may already exist. https://www.ic.org/directory/communes/
Or you can start one. Modern intentional communities are whatever the participants want them to be.

Moliere

What if you are? You may be a professional prizefighter, ballerina or soldier and nobody thinks it's any of their business. If you are seen to do certain kinds of self-harm, you may be deprived of your liberty by legal authority and placed in an institutions. But modern human rights codes generally allow people to overindulge in food, drink, sex, extreme bodybuilding, masochistic relationships, conspiracy theories or sleep-depriving, stressful occupations.
Either it's your life, your choice, your responsibility or it's someone else's. — Vera Mont

I'd say that our legal system is doing the work for us here -- Epicurus made a decision as to when it was time to intercede on the basis of self-harm, and we have to make that same decision collectively if we ever believe it's OK to act against someone else's will for their own good.

That, or something like it may already exist. https://www.ic.org/directory/communes/
Or you can start one. Modern intentional communities are whatever the participants want them to be. — Vera Mont

Starting one wouldn't be the same, would it? Not for the method of immersion, at least. That would be a creative move rather than listening and letting go to see where a particular way of life leads in practice.

The reason I chose Buddhist centers is Epicureanism is variously described as greek Buddhism, and there are enough resonances between the thoughts that I thought it worked as a living tradition that's close enough. (though, clearly, I eventually decided that was wrong)

Vera Mont

Starting one wouldn't be the same, would it? — Moliere

Of course not! There's a world of ranges from passive acceptance through degrees of participation to creation. They're all available options to a free human.

Moliere

For myself, at least, while I've lived in intentional community spaces I'm of the mind that they're more like personal projects and less like political projects. In one sense they are political in that you're arranging the basic economy of the home, which is where we all begin. But in the other sense you have to utilize the system of private property rights in order to establish a space for those who fit in, which is actually quite insular rather than addressing the needs of people at large. It becomes a private affair rather than a public one.

But the Epicurean wouldn't care that their life is a private affair. In fact, if we adhered to the code that would be the right thing to do.

Moliere

I'd say that this can be resolved, though it's not resolvable internally to the thoughts of Epicurus -- going back to notions of resonances and balances from before I think Epicurean dogma is a good basis for orienting oneself towards having a calmer mind, which in turn makes one more able to engage in public political life.

And, on the flip side, if one is dedicated to a political life, Epicureanism serves as a counter-balance to making that a total life philosophy -- the impulse to totalize can be tempered with an opposing philosophy.

In the end the resolution is only in how we actually act. The philosophies are for reflection on that, but regardless of the justification we're the ones who own the choices we make. So there's an existential element to my approach to ethics. In fact I don't think we can re-create that era when there were ethical masters, so in a way the existential approach is forced on us by our circumstances.

Epicurean Pleasure

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions