Brief introduction into Epicureanism YouTube video

It has been some time since I have wrote  about Epicureanism, I alas fell for the belief system of christanity, but that’s a blog post for another day. 

This blog is simply a read along guide to a video I created on YouTube recently. I believe it is a powerful platform to “strike a blow for Epicurus”. 

Epicureanism is still under appreciated as being a philosophy so clear, so practical and so, well, pleasent. The joy I have experienced (truly experienced not in a theoretical way) by practising this philosophy of old is beyond anything. 

The great thing about it is, this philosophy doesn’t want you:

• To provide someone in with money to listen to a talk
• To believe in supernatural beings who may or may not like you depending on there mood
• To believe in something without evidence 

Instead it does want you to: 

• Spend your money on things you enjoy
• Believe in your own faculties and what your body tells you not what a guru or priest tells you 
• Ask for evidence, use science and be skepticism (which will be eased) 

So who was Epicurus? He was a man living 5-4th century BC. Epicurus was an interesting man and many a book (albeit a lot of them seem to paint him with a bad brush, so not much has changed since 2500 years ago) has been writing on him. 

He was a materialist, he believed that everything in the universe was physical (atoms and void). 

He indeed believed in the Gods but his Gods weren’t soon transcended ethereal spirits but rather atom and void beings like us, and they did not give a single damm about us. 

Epicurus through the evidence of life ( looking at how infants reach for their mother and cry when in pain, by looking at non human animals and by his own experiences) believed that the goal of our lives was to seek pleasure and avoid pain. 

To live a good life it did not require a belief in the ideal idea of Good, Just, Love or a Table that existed in the somewhere. Rather he said the good life is pleasure and it is something that anyone can have fairly easily. By anyone he truly meant it Male, female, slave and freeman were a welcomed into his garden as true friends. 

The main two faculties we have are pleasure and pain, these faculties allow us, when used for the end of a pleasurable life, allow us to live pleasurably. 

These faculties are pre reason, in other words they simply provide us with data. We must then, according to Epicurus use our reasoning faculties to choose which actions are worth pursuing. It is impossible to live pleasurably without living wisely. 

However don’t get it mixed up, reasoning itself has absolutely no value outside of its ability to digest the data and choose the pleasurable path. In other words we use reason insofar as it allows us to live pleasurably. We do not reason outside of this. 

Everything must have the goal of pleasure in mind, kindness, justice and wisdom are all means to the end of the human life which is pleasure, they have no meaning outside of this. We do not believe in abstract ideas such as virtue for the sake of virtue, we believe in what is empirical and evidential in our lives. 

In the video I linked I mentioned utilitarianism however I shouldn’t have as I did not know of the abstractions contained within

Cassius writes 

First, Eoghan mentions "Utilitarianism" as an offspring of Epicurus' philosophy, but as that term is generally used, "Utilitarianism" is generally interpreted to replace pleasure as a feeling of the individual with the abstraction of some kind of (allegedly) "objectively" measured sum of pleasure of the many. This breaks the consistency of and is different from Epicurus' philosophy, so there is a very important distinction there to keep in mind.

In the end as Cassius points out correctly we can only know of our pleasure and not the pleasure of the many. 
The tetrapharmakos is simply this 

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

Dont fear god because he doesn’t exist only the material exists 
When you’re alive death isn’t here and when your dead you won’t experience it. 
Anyone (granted freedom from mental illness and neurotypical brains) can find pleasure easily, food, friends, exercise, pets, reading, relaxing etc... these are all pleasurable (Epicureanism is individualistic we all share some pleasures but others might find pleasure in painting where I find it dull) 
What is bad is easy to endure. This is a tough one to accept, the death of a loved one for example whom you have many fond pleasurable memories. Keep in mind although they will be missed, they are not suffering take solace in this fact. 
Thank you for reading and watching the video. 
 recommendations 
Norman deWitt “Epicurus and his life” is the best place to start outside of the primary sources. 
Join the Facebook page click here

What is pleasure?

Do this poll please! 

Please answer take 1 quick minute to do this poll. Click here

Modern meaning of pleasure

Let me tell you what pleasure was to me in my late teens/early twenties, pleasure to me was any physical sensation which I sought after but primarily sex and alcohol. Now is there anything wrong with getting pleasure from these things? Not at all it's great but to confine the true splendor of pleasure to just the physical sensations does a big disservice to what pleasure truly is.

Epicurean pleasure

Pleasure is the goal of Epicureans, we seek it and it makes us feel good it's not some intangible abstract ideal which we can never attain such as virtue or God. A big misconception people seem to have is that they look at pleasure using the modern lens meaning that the seek pleasure only in the flesh but neglect mental pleasures or rather think that pleasure is JUST physical.

The word pleasure is the most accurate word we have in the English language to describe what Epicurus meant but it is still lacking. This explanation  should help improve our understanding of what Epicurus meant

"The word ἡδονή is often translated solely as "pleasure"; however, depending on the context I also translate it as "joy", "delight", "enjoyment", or even "happiness" in the modern sense because the Greek word ἡδονή refers to any physical, emotional, or mental state that is filled with sweetness (ἡδύς), whereas the English word "pleasure" carries stronger connotations of a purely physical state (although compare phrases such as "the pleasures of philosophy"). "  - Translated by Peter Saint-Andre (2008) Source : monadnock

With the help of this translation we can clearly see what Epicurus really meant by pleasure, it encompasses all of faculties for experiencing pleasure not just the physical sensation. 

A definition of "Epicurean" pleasure

Pleasure isn't exclusive to Epicurus but for the sake of clarity I will refer to it as "Epicurean pleasure". 

I think a good definition of what Epicurean pleasure is, is the following:

 "Any mental, physical or emotional state/sensation which you prefer to experience"  - Myself, probably.

Key word here being "you", recall we do not define what can and can't give you pleasure only you have the capacity to decide that for yourself using the natural ability called the feelings.

Are mental pleasures superior the physical pleasures?

This is a hot topic of debate, physical pleasures are typically much more intense such as an orgasm but mental pleasures last longer although is that always the case? 

" Yet we maintain that this does not preclude mental pleasures and pains from being much more intense than those of the body; since the body can feel only what is present to it at the moment, whereas the mind is also cognizant of the past and of the future. For granting that pain of body is equally painful, yet our sensation of pain can be enormously increased by the belief that some evil of unlimited magnitude and duration threatens to befall us hereafter. And the same consideration may be transferred to pleasure: a pleasure is greater if not accompanied by any apprehension of evil. This therefore clearly appears, that intense mental pleasure or distress contributes more to our happiness or misery than a bodily pleasure or pain of equal duration." - From On Ends by Cicero 

I'm interested to see the result of the poll, I think most people would rather have painful limbs for a week rather than experience anxiety for a week but I could be proven wrong. 

The above quote rings true for me, growing up in a catholic country and losing my virginity at 15 I felt a lot of fear over being judged by God, which took away from the experience but even a lesser example, take for example you're out with a few work mates for a pint but as usual it turns into 5 or 6, your mind is cognizant of the future, it knows you have to get up at 7 or 8 to get to work for 9 therefore you experience anxiety and the overall pleasure of being with friends for a few drinks is diminished.

On the flip side the mind can be used to greatly enhance any pleasure. I am total agreement with the above quote, the mind is a much more powerful tool in dictating the overall pleasure in ones life. (and recall also what pleasure truly is to us) 

Reason for writing this post

I wrote this post because of Cassius Amicus, he has been so helpful in my own understanding of Epicurus and is a mentor to me in Epicurean philosophy (although he would reject this title for sure, sorry Cassius!)

Here is his thoughts on pleasure and the above quote from Cicero, which he posted himself.

Cassius Amicus -  "Aside from the terrible tendency to dismiss the physics and the canonics, which we've also been discussing lately, I think there is far too little attention given to the meaning of "pleasure." I would wager that 80% of the people even in this group, and 99% of people out of it, think of purely physical sensations when they think of pleasure.

For example, they think about such things as Lucretius' Example of lounging in the grass with friends at the side of a river. But if the record from Torquatus is correct, as I think it is, then Epicurus himself stressed mental pleasure in his own life, such as when he valued the company of his fellow school members more than the pain of his physical problems on the last day of his life. And if mental pleasures are even more varied that physical pleasures (which I also think is clear) then far from focusing on "grazing in the grass" on the side of a river, our example is more like that of Epicurus himself, in which it is least as pleasurable, if not more pleasurable, to help lead or participate in a worldwide philosophical revolution. Which is not to say that we need to do the impossible of converting everyone into being a friend, but that as Epicurus said we live the life closest to being "gods among men" when we focus our attention on those things that are eternally true, and how we fit as individuals fit into them."

Does this mean that we should just abandon physical pleasures? Hell no, physical pleasures are great, it's self evident I don't need to convince you of that. 

Epicurus and Michel De Montaigne: Friendship

Reason for this post

Epicurus is a highly influential philosopher who's impact can be felt throughout many writers works. I wanted to start a series comparing what Epicurus said to some of the later people whom he influenced, starting with Michel De Montaigne 

MDM. was not an Epicurean, he did hold many Epicurean views in his essays, especially his later ones. The topic of this blog post and those to follow is to illuminate the similarities and differences between what Epicurus said to what MDM.

This first post will be about the differences they had on friendship.

Friendship: Indivisible and immortal

"For the perfect friendship which I am talking about is indivisible: each gives themselves so entirely to his friend that he has nothing left to share with another" - Michel De Montaigne, On Friendship

 What a striking way to describe the perfect friendship, utilizing the word "indivisible" is beautiful, a true friendship can not be separated by anything, except death. (which is what this entire essay is about; the death of his best friend) 

"The noble soul is devoted most of all to wisdom and to friendship — one a mortal good, the other immortal." Vatican Sayings

What exactly does Epicurus mean by "immortal"? Ever-lasting? No, we humans are too good at dying. Is it that we live in our friends mind after we die and they ours? But even then, we die. It must then refer to a pleasure, remember that a "good" to Epicurus is something which produces pleasure. Wisdom being a mortal good, in my estimate, is something which indeed produces pleasure but not maximum pleasure, friendship on the other hand can meet the limit of our pleasure and often. 

The second part of MDM quote is curious, he means that a perfect friendship is singular, with one other person. Is this true? I am unsure, I do personally have one friend in particular whom I am closer to than anyone else but most of my other friends aren't so far behind. His idea of a "perfect" friendship could be seen as some ideal, rather than something which is grounded in reality.

Differences on friendship between the two

To Epicurus EVERY choice we make must be brought back to the goal of pleasure, we can't know whether something is valuable if we do not keep it grounded in this reality. Therefore for Epicurus friendship is the greatest tool of achieving the goal, it is immortal.

Michel De Montaigne however thinks that friendship is something which should be sought for it's own sake, that friendships of pleasure are some how lesser than the "perfect" friendship. 

"There is nothing to which nature seems so much to have inclined us,as to society; and Aristotle , says that the good legislators had more respect to friendship than to justice. Now the most supreme point of its perfection is this: for, generally, all those that pleasure, profit,public or private interest create and nourish, are so much the less beautiful and generous, and so much the less friendships, by how much they mix another cause, and design, and fruit in friendship, than itself. Neither do the four ancient kinds, natural, social, hospitable,venereal, either separately or jointly, make up a true and perfect friendship."

Denying that pleasure doesn't equate a "perfect friendship"  is just an ideal, something which is not grounded in reality and therefore not an Epicurean concept.

Epicurus was not an "atheist"

That he believed in Gods

Epicurus was born in Samos, Greece in 341 BC and he believed in the Gods. In modern times he is described as an atheist but this is simply not true and there is plenty of textual evidence to back this up such as

"First, believe that god is a blissful, immortal being, as is commonly held. Do not ascribe to god anything that is inconsistent with immortality and blissfulness; instead, believe about god everything that can support immortality and blissfulness. For gods there are: our knowledge of them is clear. Yet they are not such as most people believe; indeed most people are not even consistent in what they believe. It is not impious to deny the gods that most people believe in, but to ascribe to the gods what most people believe. The things that most people say about the gods are based on false assumptions, not a firm grasp of the facts [note], because they say that the greatest goods and the greatest harms come from the gods. For since they are at home with what is best about themselves, they accept that which is similar and consider alien that which is different."

No he was not an atheist but his views of the gods were radically different than his countrymen and indeed even modern theists.

The gods are not supernatural

For Epicurus the gods were not outside of the laws of the universe, they were made up of the same things which humans and everything else was, atoms and void. 

Why is this important?

Even though he was not an atheist, he was a naturalist meaning that only natural laws or forces operate the universe, rather than supernatural or spiritual laws or forces. 

Denying supernatural or spiritual forces or laws and accepting natural laws or forces means that if there is a God or gods, they must be able to be explained within the realm of what is natural within the universe. They do not rely on "belief" or "faith" but rather evidence.

He also thought that the gods didn't effect our lives in the slightest, they blessed beings who live in state of complete pleasure.

Justice is an agreement among people, nothing more.

Introduction

Many of you who grew up in a western country that is heavily Christian will be very familiar with the idea that Justice is an innate part of humanity, Justice is one of the characteristics of God and we are made in his image therefore we have Justice innately inside us.

The Epicurean view is that there is no divine Justice and instead it is simply a contract among one another.

I will primarily use the Principal Doctrines for now to illustrate this, when I become more versed in the Vatican Sayings and fragments, I will add more.

Quotes which support these from Epicurus

Principal Doctrines

What is natural justice

"Natural justice is a covenant for mutual benefit, to not harm one another or be harmed. " - 31

Natural Justice is a "covenant" which comes from the Greek word "σύμβολον " which can also be translated as "contract or mutual agreement". Natural Justice is simply an agreement not to do harm to another and in turn not to be harmed by another.

Does Justice actually "exist"

"Justice does not exist in itself; instead, it is always a compact to not harm one another or be harmed, which is agreed upon by those who gather together at some time and place. " - 33

"Justice does not exist in itself" What is meant by this is that Justice isn't an actual part of reality, it is an abstraction or an idea which is created for convenience, Justice does not exist outside of the minds of humanity, there is no ideal/perfect/absolute/divine justice. 

Is injustice "bad"

"Injustice is not bad in itself, but only because of the fear caused by a suspicion that you will not avoid those who are appointed to punish wrongdoing." - 34

"Injustice is not bad in itself" I imagine this is jarring to a lot of you, as it was to me but it makes sense. How can committing a crime in itself be a bad thing? Outside of divine decree (God) how  can injustice be bad other than the consequences which follow from it? If a person did not feel guilt or regret then why is it bad? If a person was never caught in doing a crime, outside of their own paranoia (if that individual person it) how is it bad? Epicurus says instead that injustice is only deemed bad because of what follows from it, nothing more.

Can you be confident in your escape from detection during a crime?

"It is impossible to be confident that you will escape detection when secretly doing something contrary to an agreement to not harm one another or be harmed, even if currently you do so countless times; for until your death you will be uncertain that you have escaped detection." -35

This goes back to the previous point about paranoia, if you were to commit a crime it is more or less impossible that you can know for certain that you will never be caught, you will always being looking over your shoulder. This in itself isn't a reason not commit a crime, many many people accept this burden for the benefits which injustice brings if they are not caught.

 That Justice is mostly the same among all humans, but the particulars are different.

"In general, justice is the same for all: what is mutually advantageous among companions. But with respect to the particulars of a place or other causes, it does not follow that the same thing is just for all." -36

In general, Justice wishes to maximize the benefits for it's citizens and minimize the pain, the particulars are very different however. The particulars can be a great many things, economic system, environment and even religious beliefs. ( if a particular place believes in such things that is)

The characteristic of Justice

"Among things that are thought to be just, that which has been witnessed to bring mutual advantage among companions has the nature of justice, whether or not it is the same for everyone. But if someone legislates something whose results are not in accord with what brings mutual advantage among companions, then it does not have the nature of justice. And if what brings advantage according to justice changes, but for some time fits our basic grasp of justice, then for that time it is just, at least to the person who is not confused by empty prattle but instead looks to the facts. " -37

Firstly, many things are thought to be just, the only thing that is truly just for us is that which brings mutual advantage among all citizens/people/members of the Garden, however an extremely important point is that Epicurus is NOT saying that there is one sole form of Justice that brings mutual benefit instead he is describing a characteristic of natural justice which is "mutual advantage among all", what is mutually advantage one group of companions may be different than another.

 Secondly, if a law is passed that goes against the characteristic of "mutual benefit" than it is not just to us.

Lastly, as long as the law brings mutual advantage to all it does not matter if the law changes. Epicurus gives wonderful advice here: which is look at the facts (consequences) not the empty prattling among philosophers and legislators.

That Justice is based on mutual benefit

"When circumstances have not changed and things that were thought to be just are shown to not be in accord with our basic grasp of justice, then those things were not just. But when circumstances do change and things that were just are no longer useful, then those things were just while they brought mutual advantage among companions sharing the same community; but when later they did not bring advantage, then they were not just." - 38

If no external circumstances have changed and the society decides to look at some laws and it shows that these laws were not in accord to the basic grasp of justice i.e. mutual benefit then it follows that these laws were never just.

Legislation which once brought mutual benefit for all but no longer do were just while they did but when they no longer brought mutual benefit they were just no longer.

Comments from peers/other Epicureans

• Hiram Crespo Founder of "Society of Epicurus" and author of "Tending the Epicurean Garden"

"one other way to say this is that justice emanates from people (is immanent), not from gods (is not transcendent). That's why it's natural, and not supernatural."  -

 A very good point and clarification, Justice comes from people and agreements among them (immanent) not gods (transcendent)

"On defining good and bad according to nature, true. Also remember that in L Herodotus, Epicurus starts by saying that words must be clearly defined and aligned with how things appear to us in nature, which denotes the importance of accordance between words and signs presented to our faculties, and in that letter he also explains that bodies have primary (inherent) and secondary (relational properties). 

Later, our third scholark polystratus makes the case that “the vile” and “the noble”, like beautiful and ugly and other good and bad categories, are relational properties in nature that sentient beings can apprehend according to their faculties so that they are experientially real and true. This is a complex subject but in the future if you want to study and deepen this, we can revisit this. The key thing to remember is that good and bad things only exist as relational, as they relate to us or someone when they encounter some other thing, experience or body in nature."

Instead of trying to explain this myself poorly, I will link to Hiram's blog in which he explains the concept coherently.  Click here for link 

• Cassius Amicus Founder of many sites including NewEpicurean and Epicurean Friends.

"Eoghan this seems to me to be a subset of the wider issue, which might be good to include, which is that "good" and "bad" have no definite meaning either, outside of a particular set of facts, and that pleasure and pain are the ultimate foundation of them. Whether it's Good and bad, or good and evil, or similar names, there is no standard of absoluteness that can be used to define what those words mean other than the pleasure and pain of the people involved."

Cassius makes an excellent point to remind us that "Good and Bad or Good and Evil" are simply names we give to things. They are founded on whether the experience is pleasurable or painful, not abstract ideas.

Conclusion

My hope is that the reader gets a basic grasp of the Epicurean idea of Justice and to realize that we do not believe in some floating or divine justice, it is simply a contract among one another and there is nothing wrong with that, the declaration of independence of the USA says similar things as Epicurus did and one of it's authors, Thomas Jefferson, was an Epicurean.

6 practical and actionable tips for being an Epicurean

1. The Hedonic Calculus

The Hedonic Calculus is a great tool for us Epicureans to employ, it allows you to measure the level of pleasure to pain you are getting out of any action. Let's say you are out with a few friends drinking and you get absolutely polluted with drink, well if you use the hedonic calculus you can realize that you should have had 6 pints rather than 10 and still have the same amount of pleasure.


Next time you go out you can reduce your alcohol intake, have just as much pleasure and avoid the vast majority of pain.


You can probably already see the versatility with this, it can be applied to any situation. It's uses aren't just short term either, if you are working out of course it's not going to feel pleasurable for the first few months, after awhile though when you see changes in your strength, lung capacity and how you look you can perform the hedonic calculus and realize that your actions are worth it.


The hedonic calculus requires one component though; experience. Sometimes you have to dive into the pool in the shallow end to realize that's a bad idea but now you know for future reference.

2. The Hedonic treadmill

The hedonic treadmill is our innate ability to adapt to any situation and return to a base level of happiness, it means we can recover from pits of despair and also return to a functional state when you get too happy.


To use the hedonic treadmill to your advantage you have to realize that humans need a varied diet of pleasures, we have all listened to a great song 10-20 times when you first hear but after awhile it doesn't give the same buzz, mix things up, try new things.


One of the great things which counter the hedonic treadmill is friendship, being around friends who allows you to experience new things together, talk about deep topics without ridicule and just have a laugh.

3. Friendships

Having true friendships, one where you can be candid and open without fear of being truly judged is a great thing. Having a friend and being a friend are a sure way to be secure in pleasure. 

Many of you reading this will undoubtedly have had friendship which are painful, make you feel bad and outright abusive. These are not true friendships, these people are leeches and should either be helped or removed from your life. Do not sacrifice your happiness for sake of emotional leech. 

Luckily I have had multiple great friendships and one from childhood which is a constant source of trust, brotherhood, love and pleasure.

4. Be happy with what you have

That job that you once hoped for, the partner that you now have or the car you drive these were all things which you desired so much once, cherish them now and don't worry about what other desires you have.

This isn't a rule to not desire more than you have, it's simply a reminder that what you have now you once desired as much as the things you lust after currently.

So seek more but also remember to find pleasure in what you have in this moment.

5. We must laugh, philosophize and go about our business

For this tip, I will let the Master of pleasure himself say it in his own words.

6. Everything is a tool for pleasure

Pleasure in the noble end goal of us Epicureans, it is the nature of humanity to seek what makes them feel happy and turn away from sadness. Instead of rewriting what I said, I will simply link a previous blog I wrote on the topic. Here you go

Should an Epicurean be a vegan? A response to Jess Whitson

Reason for writing this

Jess Whitson recently wrote a post on the Stoic perspective of veganism and the question of should Stoics be vegans, his conclusion was it depends. What does it depend on? Well Jess says:

"So should you, a Stoic, be an ethical vegetarian/vegan these days?  I guess it depends on where you think how far out Hierocles’s Concentric Circles go.  If you think they expand out to only to humanity, then the answer is no, you don’t need to be an ethical vegetarian/vegan.  If you think they do expand out to animals and the environment, then maybe you should be looking to become a vegetarian/vegan." - Link to blog

 He then asked for an Epicurean perspective, I will humbly try to give the Epicurean perspective from my understanding.

Epicurean Perspective

The Epicurean perspective isn't particular dogmatic, there is no moral obligation to be a vegan, the only "real" obligation is to pursue pleasure. 

If I am asked should an Epicurean be X, I have to ask in response "which Epicurean? In what scenario?" I can't answer for all Epicureans, despite popular belief Epicurean philosophy is extremely individualistic, the reason being is as follows; what gives me pleasure and causes me pain is going to be different than what brings you pleasure and causes you pain.

For a particular person, the thoughts of eating meat could never outweigh the guilt they feel for eating meat - they are vegan because of the mental pain it would cause them to eat meat. Another may be vegan because of the health benefits which may come with it.

For a different Epicurean they may have no problem in eating meat at all. Of course that begs that question "can a Epicurean who is vegan be friends with one who is not" and again that is a personal thing.

Conclusion

I am sorry that I can't give Jess a concrete dichotomous answer which a Stoic may like, we don't have any abstract circle such as the Stoics do, it is really a individuals decision based on the Canon, specifically the feelings, the feelings are two things: "pleasure and pain",Coined by DeWitt as Natures "Stop and Go" system. That is how an Epicurean makes a decision, asking the question "should an Epicurean be a vegan?" is pointless, an Epicurean should refer to their own natural abilities to make this decision for themselves.

Also I think the circle mentioned in Jess's post is excellent tool in procuring pleasure, I use it all the time so that I am more friendly with people but that's all it is, a tool. I don't use it for the purpose of virtue, only pleasure, in fact I only use virtue for that end as well.

 If you are interested, here is a post on the Epicurean decision making process

(just a bit of fun, you and I both know Epicureans are host to many insults from the Stoics)

For a life of pleasure, pain is sometimes chosen

Choosing a pain for a pleasure

Human life is about having pleasures and many of them, in a previous post (linked at the bottom) I spoke about how even though pleasure is the goal for an Epicurean, it is not always chosen - this post will speak about pain and why it is sometimes chosen.

Epicurean "stop and go" system

Recall that for an Epicurean, pleasure and pain as Norman De Witt puts it in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy", are natures "stop and go system". By whatever chance, nature also provided humans with the ability to think ahead, to plan what to do in the future and have a general idea of what could go wrong.

Now also recall that pleasure itself is the goal of life and everything is either a tool to either gain pleasure or avoid pain. (which is the same thing, more or less) Therefore our ability to reason and think ahead are tools to gain pleasure and it allows us to come to the realization that sometimes a pain is chosen for a greater pleasure.

Prime example of choosing a pain for a later pleasure

In the above image, I chose to put a women who is heavily pregnant. As a man, I can only use my imagination and speak to women about the pain of childbirth, they describe it as the most raw, exquisite pain imaginable but yet, many women are happy to go through it. ( I am speaking in generals here, there are of course many women who have no desire to go through it, have kids or they might even regret childbirth)

The reason for this is simple, the pleasure that a mother may feel toward her child is worth the pain of childbirth many times over. Women use their ability to reason and think ahead to decide that having a child, despite the extreme pain they have to endure, is worth it.

Thus the quote from Epicurus in the above image is apt, pain which leads to a greater pleasure in the long run is chosen. A very important point is that the pain itself - in this case child birth and pregnancy - is not "good", the pain is bad but the consequence of the pain - having the child and the feelings which comes along - are good because they are pleasurable.

Other examples

There are many other examples which one could choose from such as:

• Going on a diet
• Going to the gym
• Going to college
• Going to work
• Going to the dentist
• Going to the doctors
• Having a much needed conversation with a partner or spouse
• Giving blood (if it makes you happy to do so)

and many many more.

Conclusion

So when going about your life, use your ability to be prudent to decide which course of action will lead to the life of pleasure, in the long run. Sometimes a pleasure is avoided or a pain is chosen for the acquisition of this noble goal.

Link to blog post on avoiding a pleasure

Pleasure is the end goal, everything else is a tool.

Pleasure as an end

The goal of Epicurean philosophy is to live a life of pleasure, it gives some advice on how to do this but mostly it's about what personally produces pleasure for you. Pleasure is the only "end" in Epicurean philosophy, this means that everything else is judged by it's use in gaining that end. 

Everything else as a means to gaining pleasure

 Some of you may read this as limiting the way in which you can live your life but in reality it's the opposite, you can use any tool so long as you evaluate it on it's pleasure to pain ratio.

You practice altruism, very good but to what end? Does it make you happy to see others benefiting from your generosity?

You practice meditation, what's your goal in doing it? To gain a pleasure via the "jhanas" or for some abstract reason?

You go to the gym, does working out give you pleasure and/or the changes you and others see in your body?

Okay, okay what's your point man?

The point is, if the things you do in life are not producing the goal of human nature, (pleasure) then it's time to reevaluate them. If you are being virtuous (meaning practicing courage, prudence, self control etc...) you must know to what end and if you are an Epicurean that end is pleasure.

Conclusion

As an Epicurean you can continue to do things which bring you pleasure, you love whiskey? Keep drinking brother (but stop before the pain of the hangover makes it not worth it)

If you are in a relationship with someone for the sake of "love" but you are unhappy, stop. Put your own pleasure and happiness first, we only have one life to why choose unhappiness for some abstract reason as love?*

*It's important to note, if you are married, in jail, have kids etc... it's your own fault. Nobody forced you to do these things but don't be grim you can still live pleasurably. 

If you are in a situation where you are forced into an unhappy situation against your will, you have my condolences and I wish you the very best.

Why I got interested in Epicurean Philosophy.

Background

Like most people, I lived my first 22 or so years in a haze, I had a typical teenage breakup when I was 18 or so and then started going out, drinking very heavily.

Eventually I became withered with this lifestyle, the pleasure and excitement I once felt began to dissipate into just dissatisfaction and boredom, although I didn't know at the time there is a name for this phenomenon called the "hedonic treadmill" it is defined as:

"The observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relative stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events in their lives"

 Basically it is a bounce back mechanism in humans, when we suffer a major loss we can recover and when we gain a major happy mental state (e.g. overjoyed, ecstatic, ecstasy etc... not lower level states such as normal joy, contentment,) we can return to a functional state. 

Stoicism

I went look for answers on how to be happy. I found the book "A Guide to the Good life: Stoic Joy" by William Irvine, I instantly bought in. It had so many great ideas, "it's impossible to live in tranquility without living virtuously and vice-versa" (sound familiar?)

I wanted to find out more about this school of philosophy and I went on to  read the entire curriculum of Stoicism (Seneca, Aurelius, Epictetus and Rufus, the main primary sources of Stoicism left) and the concept of "virtue" stuck out to me, my first impression was "but how do you know a virtue is a good thing?"

Realization about virtue

I practiced Stoicism religiously and to be honest I was very happy and lived a pleasurable life but I didn't call it that at the time. Anyway I was practicing it for awhile and considering all the concepts and they all made sense, except virtue I asked myself  "Why am I being virtuously" and the answer was, despite any philosophical argument I heard, was that it made me feel good. The pleasure of being "good" was the only reason I bothered.

I realized that I liked Irvine's book so much because it was essentially about that, using Stoic techniques and virtue to feel good, (tranquility) I asked around for reasons for "virtue for it's own sake" but I got no good answers, only replies such as "because of self sufficiency, because if you believe humans are rational-social creatures you must believe in virtue".

So either the view required me to believe that self-sufficiency (which is a consequence of virtue, thinking back and therefore not "virtue for it's own sake") or believe that humans are rational-social creatures and also believe virtue is our highest state. 

Going to Epicurus

Anyway I soon found Epicurean philosophy and began reading the concepts and more importantly listening to the modern "experts" such as Cassius, Hiram, Alex etc... and thus far I am living a much more fulfilled life with pleasure as my guide and goal and everything else as a tool to pleasure.

It just made more sense, instead of virtue being an end it became a means to an end. I learned to evaluate things in my life based on the happiness they provide me. It made me realize what was really important in my life and cherish it more (specifically my friends)

Pleasure, should we always follow it?

Introduction

For us to answer this question it is important to realize just what exactly "pleasure" is, it is far more than just a feeling or a fleeting thing, no instead it should be thought of as the bread crumb nature has giving us to an overall pleasurable life. 

THE CANON OF TRUTH

To understand what pleasure truly is to an Epicurean you and I must have some understanding of the Canon. The Canon itself deserves a lot of discussion (and has been giving it here by Cassus) but for the sake of intelligibility and time I will attempt to describe it in a few words

"The Canon of Truth is the methodology which Epicureans use to determine what is true/false and what path to take in life" 

So ignore the part about true/false for now and focus on the section "what path to take", you see one of the key components of the Canon is known as "feelings" and these feelings are pleasure and pain, pleasure tells us how to pursue and pain tells us what to avoid.

Explanation

Now does this mean that you always take the pleasurable choice? No, remember our goal is to have a pleasurable life overall not just in the short term. (although short term pleasures are fine)

Now any Irish (and most European) people between the ages of 14-100 know that drinking 8 pints in one night, while fun at the time, (well, depending on your luck) by the morning after you will want to die and will swear off drink forever.

So we must use the virtue of prudence, not because this virtue is some end goal but simply because it will lead to a pleasurable life. Instead of 8 pints, drink 4 and the pleasure without the pain!

Conclusion

Pleasure is always good, the pleasure itself is NEVER bad but the consequences of the pleasure (e.g. a mega hangover) is bad so we deny the pleasure and drink less because overall it will be the more pleasurable choice.

The next post will be "Pain, should we always avoid it?"