Why Epicurus Matters Today | Hacker News Reader

Why Epicurus Matters Today

mantlethought.org

42 pointsdiodorus20 comments

The way I differentiate Epicureanism from Hedonism is the difference between maximization and optimization. Hedonism seeks to achieve an absolute maximum pleasure, irrespective of the cost. Epicureanism seeks an overall optimized pleasant life. Hedonism is Max(pleasure). Epicureanism is the integral of pleasure over a lifetime.

Understanding it that way shows illustrates that a night of hedonistic heavy drinking, singing and dancing with friends, which may be a blast as it transpires, comes paired with a day of massive headache and lethargy.

Whereas a night spent watching a favorite film with a new friend, and discussing it's merits afterwards is followed the next day with reflecting on the discussions and further enjoying it. The experience may not have the intensity of the drinking, but I'm left with only positive memories, not a mix of pleasure and pain.

I admire Epicurus for his many visionary ideas in several areas, but ultimately his philosophy rings hollow. Pleasure as an end in itself seems both circular and ultimately extremely dull. It's interesting that Epicurus condemns extreme hedonism, since I think the ultimate lesson one can get from it is the ultimate pointlessness of pleasure as an end in itself. Pleasure for its own sake is boring.

Epicureanism sort of strikes me as Buddhism without enlightenment-- all the moderation and Earthly wisdom but none of the transcendence. It seems like a sure fire evolutionary dead end in every respect.

I am going to do something different from the other comments here and I'm going to agree with you. The reason why most people will disagree with you is because most people are terrified of suffering. They can't see suffering as the thing that makes life interesting, for them everything good comes from pleasure which is a mute point. They expand the definition of pleasure until the point where no argument could be had.

But indeed suffering makes life interesting. I just saw Meru, a documentary of a group of Alpinists trying to climb a very difficult mountain. Most hedonist would explain their behaviour with some bullshit like: "They do it because they feel pleasure from it" Which is total nonsense, specially when you are aware of all the pain and suffering involved in climbing a big fucking mountain.

It wouldn't be much of a challenge without suffering, there wouldn't be a grand obstacle to overcome. You can get more pleasure to stay in your couch smoking weed, but climbing Meru makes life more interesting.

This is just a question of what you take pleasure in. Boredom does not count as pleasant.

I would expect that if you take aesthetic pleasure in highly complex art or science or mysticism, that is perfectly fine with Epicurus.

It doesn't make sense to try to reduce 'pleasure' to something you consider unpleasant.

Your elaborately worded criticism lacks any substance. You fail to explain why pleasure for its own sake is circular (hint: its not.) and you use your own subjective opinion of pleasure for its own sake being boring to try to invalidate Epicurean philosophy.

To you it's hollow. To me, enlightenment is such a fluffy abstract thing. So I prefer the good things in moderation. And read the article pleasure can be obtained from worthwhile things too.

If seeking pleasure is dull and boring, then it must be a rather difficult task to sustain daily pleasure over a lifetime.

Enlightenment, in comparison, has the notion of finishing built into it, and finishing at philosophy is a rather troublesome idea too.

I personally believe that it is the practice, not the narrative, that makes a philosophy work. A very modest idea can allow a lifetime of ponderings.

Pleasure doesn't need to be sensual. To me, it inherently contradicts boredom. If it is boring, it is not pleasureful!

>evolutionary dead end

How did you reach that conclusion? And why did you pick Human evolution as your framework?

> Pleasure as an end in itself seems both circular and ultimately extremely dull.

If it's dull, it isn't pleasure.

I think the one and only thing that humans can derive pleasure from is progress. In order to progress, however, one has to continuously expand their limits and that is painful. So really (true, sustainable) pleasure and pain come hand in hand. The 'secret' to maximizing happiness is to avoid the pain that doesn't lead to progress.

"Some ask whether it is worth studying ancient philosophy at all."

I'm one of those persons who thinks it is worthwhile to do so. Frederick Copleston's[1] A History of Philosophy series[2] (the early volumes in this case) is a good resource for getting one's feet wet.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Copleston

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Philosophy_%28Cop...

In Italy there's a whole school type dedicated to it (along with other humanities-related subjects): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liceo_classico

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius definitely changed my life. I found it as relevant today as it must have been two thousand years ago when it was written.

I am a fan of the PEL series of podcasts; in the beginning, they try to have each podcast build on the prior ones to build philosophy from first principles. They no longer give all 100-so of them away, so you might have to pay for them, but I found them worthwhile.

https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com

And I'm one of those who think it is an absolute shame that nearly nobody nowadays reads the old Greeks and Romans. There is so much wisdom in their works. Read not only Epicurus I say, read them all! My personal favorite is Epictetus

Also strong recommendations: A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell (himself also more than worthwhile a read!)

From what I've read it's generally considered to be a very subjective work, and intentionally so. That said, I really liked it because of this, as it leads to a coherent, 'fluid' progression.

I vaguely recall a chapter on one pretty important philosopher where Russell concludes with something close to 'obviously this guy is full of shit'.

Only one? He dissed Hume pretty badly, something along the lines of sorry you don't think the scientific method is internally self contained, but pragmatically it works pretty well, so WRT that definition of truth, oh well. Also, he actually Godwin'd Rousseau, although that's more claiming evil than claiming BS, plus or minus a worldview that evil is just successful BS... or is it? And the Dewey chapter isn't really a Dewey chapter but mostly is a rant on the evils of intellectual arrogance although I don't remember if he specifically attacked one individual, other than happening to locate that rant in what turned out to be the Dewey chapter. He was more or less complimentary or better on average to everyone else.

The great man theory of history is highly politically incorrect at this time, or maybe highly out of fashion, style, or fad. Yet its very popular when teaching the history of philosophy. Perhaps that says more about the validity of being anti-great man vs what it says about teaching philosophy. Still it would be interesting to identify "the best" non-great man philosophy book, assuming there are any good ones.

Yeah, I think one of those philosophers who suffers from Russell's extreme bias (so to speak) was Nietzsche... Also, his discussion of pre-socratics is lacking IIRC; but on the whole the book is certainly a worthy read for sure (not that I've managed to read through all of it)..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com