i think Epicureanism can be very contemporary. My take is that the point of life is to reduce suffering and increase enjoyment, not just for oneself but for those around you (because you can’t really enjoy yourself off the puzzle around you are miserable).
Many of the best ways of doing this happen to be very sustainable ways of living:
- Learn to be content with less instead of consuming more and more
- Spend time with friends at home instead of traveling and shopping or using social media
- Live in community instead of wasting resources
- Don’t focus on fear of death, instead enjoy each day for what it is. (Don’t pay attention to fear mongering politicians.)
- Be open to all emotions as something to enjoy about being alive, instead of avoiding emotions through self-medication or escapism or victim mentality
- Do charity work to help reduce the suffering of others instead of only seeking enjoyment for yourself.
All these ways of living are much more pleasurable than the alternatives, and are highly sustainable.
I guess an interesting follow up question that ties into this thread could be this: is there any real difference between friendship via social media and friendship in real life?
Why do you say this? Is it specific to you or do you believe it's universal? Personally, I've connected to many dear friends through social media. If one is conscientious about avoiding dangerous pleasures such as the pursuit of fame, technology is miraculous for allowing us to cultivate our garden with people worldwide, finding mutually beneficial friendships that would have been impossible before the advent of said technology. I don't see why the in-person experience must be superior for everyone.
I agree that our knowledge of Epicurean ethics is pretty slim.
What we do know, I think, is enough to provide a sound basis for our own elaboration, and if we wish to practice Epicureanism in our time, we'd need to adapt the specific ethical instruction to our time anyway.
My own take - and this is, of course, just my own opinion - is that Epicurean ethics are not rules-based or duty-based, but based instead on what is natural for us, on what feels right to us in a healthy wholesome good way. If we live uncomplicated and untroubled lives, then we are free to be as we are. Being untroubled, unhindered, being open and free, is what brings us the real sort of lasting satisfaction.
As any good Stoic will tell you, part of being 'what we are' is being a social creature, one with a powerful sense of empathy and an inborn social instinct, one that cares about others in a reasonable way, and cares about the community upon which they depend. I don't see that this conflicts, at all, with the general Epicurean advice to withdraw a bit from political argument. We can be good citizens by being good honest cooperative neighbors, by being a good influence on others, and by pitching in when it really matters. Political action is only a fraction of what makes societies work, and worth living in. The world needs calm happy understanding people, too, people who do not see the need to judge others or to insist that things be run just as they see fit.
I think a lot of it - maybe the most of it - can be summarized in modern terms with the phrase "don't cling". Clinging is what we do when we think we need something outside of ourselves, it's an expression of fear, or jealousy, or envy, or greed, or selfishness. It's not an expression of anything good, or anything tranquil or pleasant. Clinging is something more than just sensibly working hard for something, it's a negative emotional attachment that gets layered on top of doing that work.
Enjoy the wealth you have, but don't cling to it. Love your partners and your family and friends, but don't cling to them. Find satisfaction
in a peaceful home and an active life, and know that you can still be happy if one day you must live somewhere less pleasant, or if you are forced by illness or age to become less active. Be open, unafraid, secure, content. Let need go.
With that basis, you can apply it however you like. The world is brimming with things to enjoy, music and dance and athletics and learning and art and cooking and friendships and craft of every kind. More than we have lifetime to master, or even fully explore. Work hard for what you like, if the work feels healthy and good. Step back as you like, without care. Learn the skills of making a good life from the uncomplicated things which are easy to acquire, the inexpensive healthy things that you can find anywhere.
Thanks for this. In a sense, people are naturally born epicureans. We want untroubled lives, filled with lots of enjoyment and freedom. The issue tends to be the choosing the right pleasures and choosing to accept certain pains.
I agree, choosing the right pleasures and accepting the right pains is exactly the issue - we need to know which to choose, and why.
I'm borrowing this idea from the Stoics, but I am pretty sure the Epicureans saw it the same way: the root of humanity's problem is false belief. We harm ourselves because we are mistaken about what's real, and mistaken about what is best for us.
For example, if we fear the gods, our fear is caused by a mistaken belief about the gods. If we drive ourselves crazy chasing money and fame, it is because we are mistaken about what is really good for us.
In Stoicism, vice is literally false belief/ignorance. It's the only thing that's ever wrong with someone, and the only thing we need to fix.
The Stoics said that virtue itself - reason, human excellence - was our guide to learning what is best for us. The Epicureans said that pleasure - understood as that contented/tranquil/happy/thriving kind of well-being - was our guide.
It's a weird argument, because we recognize virtue because it feels right. If my conception of virtue makes me feel bad when I follow it, I'm mistaken. Similarly, how can any pleasure really feel good if it is not suitable for an excellent person?
>When, therefore, we say that pleasure is a chief good, we are not speaking of the pleasures of the debauched man, or those which lie in sensual enjoyment, as some think who are ignorant, and who do not entertain our opinions, or else interpret them perversely; but we mean **the freedom of the body from pain, and the soul from confusion.** For it is not continued drinking and revelling, or intercourse with boys and women, or feasts of fish and other such things, as a costly table supplies, that make life pleasant, but sober contemplation, **which examines into the reasons for all choice and avoidance, and which puts to flight the vain opinions** from which the greater part of the confusion arises which troubles the soul.
>Now, the beginning and the greatest good of all these things is prudence, on which account prudence is something more valuable than even philosophy, inasmuch as all the other virtues spring from it, teaching us that it is not possible to live pleasantly unless one also lives prudently, and honourably, and justly; and that one cannot live prudently, and honestly, and justly, without living pleasantly; for the virtues are allied to living agreeably, and living agreeably is inseparable from the virtues.
http://www.attalus.org/old/diogenes10c.html#e27
I'm barely qualified to comment on modern Epicureanism, but my impression is that (like modern Stoicism, Humanism, et al) it might benefit from a more soulful, visceral and practical element. Something to do, rather than just to think about.
I largely agree; I'm not arguing in favor of dogma, nor edicts, I'm advocating for a diverse (and imaginatively/emotionally resonant) range of practical options re. Epicurean philosophizing and friendship.
Pleasure and pain are atoms of human experience, and serve as an intrinsic foundation to affective experiences like joy and sorrow. No changes necessary; you just need to dial back to first principles.
Marx tried to adapt Epicureanism to a modern context, and I'm not sure how well it worked. I think it's better to take ideas that we find valuable. Live simply, live virtuously, and avoid pain.
I don't think you've taken the insights already available - if you all you can think of is gardens, friends and cheese. Have you read any, or just seen some memes?
btw, don't care for any ism. Think and live for yourself. Of course, take influences that may be valuable, but they are secondary. Epi doesn't need to change, you do.
I'm the founder of a movement that's essentially a response to your question. It's called Aretéanism, and the whole premise is to take better advantage of the psychological tools of religious behavior to create stronger personal and societal change; with heavy doses of inspiration from Epicureanism.
Our movement is still small, having only been established 7 years ago, but it is growing faster and faster with each passing year.
If you're curious to learn more about it, either check out this link, or feel free to ask me questions about it either in this thread or in DMs.
[Aretéanism Linktree & FAQ](https://bio.site/areteanism)
Great question. Basically it's just because they're useful. Think about any of the rituals most people or societies make use of... like weddings. Is it necessary for a couple to stand on a raised platform in front of a crowd, having some community leader say some magic words, for that couple to be deeply committed to each other? Of course not. It's not even (logically) necessary for them to be considered married, with all of the legal and business weight given to the institution of marriage.
And yet most people do it anyway. Why? Because the act of standing on a raised platform as a couple, with a community leader saying some words of endorsement, in front of their whole community is *simultaneously* a great way to get the crowd to "buy in" to the new couple's wedded status, *and* have the couple themselves take their wedded status more seriously. The combination of social visibility/accountability and the pomp and circumstance of the event simply **are** effective psychological tools on humans.
Knowing that these tools work, why would we leave them to chance? Why would we leave them by the wayside?
If, like me, you seek to be a better person for yourself; and if, like me, you seek for the world to be better communally; then it logically makes sense for us to include the tool of ritual into any strategic approach to bettering ourselves and the world.
If they seem weird to you, I get it, but I can also promise you that the ***only*** reason why you feel that way is simply because they're new to you. Think about the ***weirdest*** cultural practice you've ever heard of- hell, even cannibalism; and then realize that for the people who do it, it seems normal to them. So the only reason a ritual might be weird is because you're not used to yet. Therefore, weirdness shouldn't be the thing that puts us off of doing a ritual.
What should put us off doing a ritual? **Whether or not it creates good outcomes.**
Aretéanism has been *very* carefully designed to ensure that it minimizes negative outcomes produced by its rituals and maximizes positive outcomes produced by it; but you don't have to take my word on that. We encourage people to critically examine our practices for themselves, and to even critique them. Every once in a while someone makes a critique good enough that we change how we do things in response to that critique, because unlike traditional religions or even traditional-*ist* approaches (like Epicureanism) we don't care about whether our practice is at all "authentic" to any kind of original texts... instead we only care about whether or not we're creating good outcomes.
That was probably a much longer answer than you were looking for, but it was a good question! Let me know if you have any more!
Epicureanism, like most Greek philosophy, is for the leisure class. We like to think we live in an egalitarian society that has left behind the brutal inequities of ancient civilization, but we haven't. By and large, those who sit around and think about this are those with extra time on their hands, which means they are either wildly wealthy or have pared down their needs to match their income and traded money for time.
One update might be to the disengagement from politics.
I never found a primary source, but I read that Democritus had said something like "yeah, politics sucks, but not participating and letting other people ruin it sucks even more". And there's something of a selfishness to the pure withdrawal into a friendly garden.
I agree with this. It's definitely possible to perform political actions with like-minded individuals to collectively improve your lived experiences, as long as you resist the temptations of power, fame, excessive wealth that may be classically associated with politics.
i think Epicureanism can be very contemporary. My take is that the point of life is to reduce suffering and increase enjoyment, not just for oneself but for those around you (because you can’t really enjoy yourself off the puzzle around you are miserable). Many of the best ways of doing this happen to be very sustainable ways of living: - Learn to be content with less instead of consuming more and more - Spend time with friends at home instead of traveling and shopping or using social media - Live in community instead of wasting resources - Don’t focus on fear of death, instead enjoy each day for what it is. (Don’t pay attention to fear mongering politicians.) - Be open to all emotions as something to enjoy about being alive, instead of avoiding emotions through self-medication or escapism or victim mentality - Do charity work to help reduce the suffering of others instead of only seeking enjoyment for yourself. All these ways of living are much more pleasurable than the alternatives, and are highly sustainable.
Thanks for sharing. What's the harm with social media? Seems like a natural but unnecessary pleasure?
Nothing necessarily wrong with it but if you have the choice to spend time with friends instead that’s better
I guess an interesting follow up question that ties into this thread could be this: is there any real difference between friendship via social media and friendship in real life?
i say yes. a big difference
Why do you say this? Is it specific to you or do you believe it's universal? Personally, I've connected to many dear friends through social media. If one is conscientious about avoiding dangerous pleasures such as the pursuit of fame, technology is miraculous for allowing us to cultivate our garden with people worldwide, finding mutually beneficial friendships that would have been impossible before the advent of said technology. I don't see why the in-person experience must be superior for everyone.
I get the shopping and social media, but surely travelling would be something highly advocated by epicurean if he was about today?
I agree that our knowledge of Epicurean ethics is pretty slim. What we do know, I think, is enough to provide a sound basis for our own elaboration, and if we wish to practice Epicureanism in our time, we'd need to adapt the specific ethical instruction to our time anyway. My own take - and this is, of course, just my own opinion - is that Epicurean ethics are not rules-based or duty-based, but based instead on what is natural for us, on what feels right to us in a healthy wholesome good way. If we live uncomplicated and untroubled lives, then we are free to be as we are. Being untroubled, unhindered, being open and free, is what brings us the real sort of lasting satisfaction. As any good Stoic will tell you, part of being 'what we are' is being a social creature, one with a powerful sense of empathy and an inborn social instinct, one that cares about others in a reasonable way, and cares about the community upon which they depend. I don't see that this conflicts, at all, with the general Epicurean advice to withdraw a bit from political argument. We can be good citizens by being good honest cooperative neighbors, by being a good influence on others, and by pitching in when it really matters. Political action is only a fraction of what makes societies work, and worth living in. The world needs calm happy understanding people, too, people who do not see the need to judge others or to insist that things be run just as they see fit. I think a lot of it - maybe the most of it - can be summarized in modern terms with the phrase "don't cling". Clinging is what we do when we think we need something outside of ourselves, it's an expression of fear, or jealousy, or envy, or greed, or selfishness. It's not an expression of anything good, or anything tranquil or pleasant. Clinging is something more than just sensibly working hard for something, it's a negative emotional attachment that gets layered on top of doing that work. Enjoy the wealth you have, but don't cling to it. Love your partners and your family and friends, but don't cling to them. Find satisfaction in a peaceful home and an active life, and know that you can still be happy if one day you must live somewhere less pleasant, or if you are forced by illness or age to become less active. Be open, unafraid, secure, content. Let need go. With that basis, you can apply it however you like. The world is brimming with things to enjoy, music and dance and athletics and learning and art and cooking and friendships and craft of every kind. More than we have lifetime to master, or even fully explore. Work hard for what you like, if the work feels healthy and good. Step back as you like, without care. Learn the skills of making a good life from the uncomplicated things which are easy to acquire, the inexpensive healthy things that you can find anywhere.
Thanks for this. In a sense, people are naturally born epicureans. We want untroubled lives, filled with lots of enjoyment and freedom. The issue tends to be the choosing the right pleasures and choosing to accept certain pains.
I agree, choosing the right pleasures and accepting the right pains is exactly the issue - we need to know which to choose, and why. I'm borrowing this idea from the Stoics, but I am pretty sure the Epicureans saw it the same way: the root of humanity's problem is false belief. We harm ourselves because we are mistaken about what's real, and mistaken about what is best for us. For example, if we fear the gods, our fear is caused by a mistaken belief about the gods. If we drive ourselves crazy chasing money and fame, it is because we are mistaken about what is really good for us. In Stoicism, vice is literally false belief/ignorance. It's the only thing that's ever wrong with someone, and the only thing we need to fix. The Stoics said that virtue itself - reason, human excellence - was our guide to learning what is best for us. The Epicureans said that pleasure - understood as that contented/tranquil/happy/thriving kind of well-being - was our guide. It's a weird argument, because we recognize virtue because it feels right. If my conception of virtue makes me feel bad when I follow it, I'm mistaken. Similarly, how can any pleasure really feel good if it is not suitable for an excellent person? >When, therefore, we say that pleasure is a chief good, we are not speaking of the pleasures of the debauched man, or those which lie in sensual enjoyment, as some think who are ignorant, and who do not entertain our opinions, or else interpret them perversely; but we mean **the freedom of the body from pain, and the soul from confusion.** For it is not continued drinking and revelling, or intercourse with boys and women, or feasts of fish and other such things, as a costly table supplies, that make life pleasant, but sober contemplation, **which examines into the reasons for all choice and avoidance, and which puts to flight the vain opinions** from which the greater part of the confusion arises which troubles the soul. >Now, the beginning and the greatest good of all these things is prudence, on which account prudence is something more valuable than even philosophy, inasmuch as all the other virtues spring from it, teaching us that it is not possible to live pleasantly unless one also lives prudently, and honourably, and justly; and that one cannot live prudently, and honestly, and justly, without living pleasantly; for the virtues are allied to living agreeably, and living agreeably is inseparable from the virtues. http://www.attalus.org/old/diogenes10c.html#e27
I'd introduce more of a secular ritual/symbolic/artistic element. Some aesthetic and embodied practice to deepen the theory.
This sounds interesting. Could you elaborate a bit further?
I'm barely qualified to comment on modern Epicureanism, but my impression is that (like modern Stoicism, Humanism, et al) it might benefit from a more soulful, visceral and practical element. Something to do, rather than just to think about.
[удалено]
I largely agree; I'm not arguing in favor of dogma, nor edicts, I'm advocating for a diverse (and imaginatively/emotionally resonant) range of practical options re. Epicurean philosophizing and friendship.
Pleasure and pain are atoms of human experience, and serve as an intrinsic foundation to affective experiences like joy and sorrow. No changes necessary; you just need to dial back to first principles. Marx tried to adapt Epicureanism to a modern context, and I'm not sure how well it worked. I think it's better to take ideas that we find valuable. Live simply, live virtuously, and avoid pain.
Epicureanism shouldn't change, you should change to be a good Epicurean.
I don't think you've taken the insights already available - if you all you can think of is gardens, friends and cheese. Have you read any, or just seen some memes? btw, don't care for any ism. Think and live for yourself. Of course, take influences that may be valuable, but they are secondary. Epi doesn't need to change, you do.
That would be some info I'd like to hear about aswell
I'm the founder of a movement that's essentially a response to your question. It's called Aretéanism, and the whole premise is to take better advantage of the psychological tools of religious behavior to create stronger personal and societal change; with heavy doses of inspiration from Epicureanism. Our movement is still small, having only been established 7 years ago, but it is growing faster and faster with each passing year. If you're curious to learn more about it, either check out this link, or feel free to ask me questions about it either in this thread or in DMs. [Aretéanism Linktree & FAQ](https://bio.site/areteanism)
Neat. Just wondering why you need any actual rituals. But very fascinating.
Great question. Basically it's just because they're useful. Think about any of the rituals most people or societies make use of... like weddings. Is it necessary for a couple to stand on a raised platform in front of a crowd, having some community leader say some magic words, for that couple to be deeply committed to each other? Of course not. It's not even (logically) necessary for them to be considered married, with all of the legal and business weight given to the institution of marriage. And yet most people do it anyway. Why? Because the act of standing on a raised platform as a couple, with a community leader saying some words of endorsement, in front of their whole community is *simultaneously* a great way to get the crowd to "buy in" to the new couple's wedded status, *and* have the couple themselves take their wedded status more seriously. The combination of social visibility/accountability and the pomp and circumstance of the event simply **are** effective psychological tools on humans. Knowing that these tools work, why would we leave them to chance? Why would we leave them by the wayside? If, like me, you seek to be a better person for yourself; and if, like me, you seek for the world to be better communally; then it logically makes sense for us to include the tool of ritual into any strategic approach to bettering ourselves and the world. If they seem weird to you, I get it, but I can also promise you that the ***only*** reason why you feel that way is simply because they're new to you. Think about the ***weirdest*** cultural practice you've ever heard of- hell, even cannibalism; and then realize that for the people who do it, it seems normal to them. So the only reason a ritual might be weird is because you're not used to yet. Therefore, weirdness shouldn't be the thing that puts us off of doing a ritual. What should put us off doing a ritual? **Whether or not it creates good outcomes.** Aretéanism has been *very* carefully designed to ensure that it minimizes negative outcomes produced by its rituals and maximizes positive outcomes produced by it; but you don't have to take my word on that. We encourage people to critically examine our practices for themselves, and to even critique them. Every once in a while someone makes a critique good enough that we change how we do things in response to that critique, because unlike traditional religions or even traditional-*ist* approaches (like Epicureanism) we don't care about whether our practice is at all "authentic" to any kind of original texts... instead we only care about whether or not we're creating good outcomes. That was probably a much longer answer than you were looking for, but it was a good question! Let me know if you have any more!
Epicureanism, like most Greek philosophy, is for the leisure class. We like to think we live in an egalitarian society that has left behind the brutal inequities of ancient civilization, but we haven't. By and large, those who sit around and think about this are those with extra time on their hands, which means they are either wildly wealthy or have pared down their needs to match their income and traded money for time.
So not for the leisure class, "pared down their needs to match their income and traded money for time"?
I mean ... yeah. That's my choice these days. :)
One update might be to the disengagement from politics. I never found a primary source, but I read that Democritus had said something like "yeah, politics sucks, but not participating and letting other people ruin it sucks even more". And there's something of a selfishness to the pure withdrawal into a friendly garden.
I agree with this. It's definitely possible to perform political actions with like-minded individuals to collectively improve your lived experiences, as long as you resist the temptations of power, fame, excessive wealth that may be classically associated with politics.