Differences between Epicureanism and Cyrenaicism

I forgot that I started this thread, and need to reread it. I have still been curious to understand the differences. Also, if there is something helpful within it's approach. (Pleasure in the present moment is the antidote to low-level anxiety arising out of uncertainty). Further study may lead me to an eclectic "Epicurean-Cyrenaic" understanding

Here is a website which references Cyrenaic writings:

The Cyrenaics Resource [The Lucian of Samosata Project]

Here is a blog which explores Cyrenaicism and compares it to Epicureanism, by Jordan Crago.

This also by Jordan Crago:

Quote

...Aristippus prided himself on his mastery over the pleasures he indulged, ensuring that he never made the mistake of believing a particular source of pleasure to be essential to his happiness, which allowed him to forego it if needed. For example, Aristippus said that he possessed the infamous courtesan Laïs, but that he was not possessed by her, and that “what is best is not abstaining from pleasures, but instead controlling them without being controlled.” This ability to indulge pleasure but also forego it, for example, if it will ultimately bring you greater pain in its wake, brought Aristippus a sense of freedom and self-mastery.

Like later Cyrenaics, Aristippus held that bodily pleasure was greater than mental pleasure. This seems plausible, for who would argue that the memory of fine food rivals the eating of fine food in enjoyment? Nevertheless, Aristippus put great stock by the avoidance of mental suffering. Indeed, part of Aristippus’ teaching on never becoming dependent on a particular source of pleasure, which is to say, seeing them as essential to your happiness, has to do with avoiding the distress you would feel if you lost that pleasure.

...The next Cyrenaic virtue I’ll discuss is temperance, which Aristippus defines as disdaining excess. The following letter written by Aristippus to his daughter illustrates Cyrenaic temperance. He is advising his daughter on how to react to the local government threatening to seize her properties: “I instruct you to manage this business with the rulers in such a way that my advice benefits you. That advice was not to desire what is excessive. In this way you’ll live out your life in the best fashion, if you’re disdainful of every excess. Those men will never wrong you so much that you’ll be in want, since you still have the two orchards, and they suffice even for a luxurious life. Even if only the property in Berenice were left, it wouldn’t fail to support an excellent lifestyle.”

Aristippus reminds his daughter that although she will lose some land, she will still have some left, and what remains is sufficient for a luxurious lifestyle. Now, for those of us who own no property, this anecdote isn’t enormously relatable. However, Aristippus does insist that “Those men will never wrong you so much that you’ll be in want”, which implies that even if the government seized all her properties, rather than just some, she would still have enough to be happy.

What Aristippus is implying, I think, is that although luxuries add spice to happiness, they are not ultimately essential to it. Another anecdote supports this idea: “Since you share this pleasant lifestyle with those women, let the officials in Cyrene wrong you as much as they want: they won’t wrong you with respect to your natural end”. This reminds me very much of Epicureanism, which is unsurprising since Epicurus was so influenced by the Cyrenaics.

In particular, I’m reminded of the Epicurean distinction between necessary and unnecessary desires. Some desires are necessary to the pleasant life, for example, one’s basic bio-psychological needs (food, water, shelter, friends), but others are unnecessary to the pleasant life, i.e. desires for luxuries. For Epicurus as for Aristippus, I suggest, luxuries add variety to the pleasant life, but one could still live pleasantly without them. The difference being, of course, that Epicurus taught voluntary asceticism from luxuries, whereas Aristippus taught controlled indulgence of them.

Thus, we might say that to desire excess is to desire what you cannot have. The importance of disdaining excess lay in the danger of undermining enjoyment in what you have available to you by replacing it with unhappy longing and toiling for what you don’t have, which is hedonistically irrational. Disdaining excess, then, offers an antidote to the unnecessary unhappiness of those who have everything they need to be happy — basic needs and, for most people, a ton of luxuries to boot — but who nevertheless make themselves unhappy by desiring what can’t be had.

https://jordancrago.medium.com/how-to-be-a-cyrenaic-d6b06041beb0

Display More

Just adding this in here, as it has some usefullness. And to further see how this is beneficial:

When a particular thing that we want is very difficult or impossible to get or we have lost something that we thought was very pleasurable and can no longer get it, then we may feel angry or sad (and also may begin to feel feelings of hopelessness) -- then we need to survey the situation and see some important truths about happiness -- that our own happiness doesn't depend on just one thing -- happiness comes from multiple sources. So we can then stop "knocking our head against a wall" with regard to a certain thing that we want and can't get -- and not be so uptight about it. Further down the line we may decide that it is still something to put effort into achieving, and we can go about it clear-headed. Or we may simply see that we really don't need that thing as much as we thought we did, and so creatively pursue other enjoyments in life.

I think it is important to remember that this isn't the easiest to impliment -- there may be a feeling of internal resistence (I want what I want, no matter what!). But unlike Buddhism (which appears to me to teach "letting go, doing nothing, and having no further desires") I see this as different in that we are active and seek out new pleasure and enjoyments to replace what we can't have or have lost. So the emphasis is on personal responsibility and freedom -- making choices and taking actions that lead to enjoyment and happiness.

I think I better add in here that if a person interprets the Epicurean principles to be "tranquility is the goal" (as it appears that the above blogger J. Crago does) then it will appear that there are more differences between the ethical Epicurean and Cyrenaic teachings. There are however more differences between the epistemology of each one, than the ethical. I think it would be right to say that Cyrenaic leans toward skeptical and Epicureanism is empirical.

Here on this forum we use the Epicurean principles and interpret the "why" of pleasure to lead to our goal of the fullness of pleasure. And so we wouldn't agree with some of the points that J. Crago put forth on Epicureanism.

It does seem that Cyrenaic philosophy puts more emphasis on pleasure in the present compared to Epicureanism.

Here is another good entry on Cyrenaic philosophy from online Britannica:

Quote

Cyrenaic, adherent of a Greek school of moral philosophy, active around the turn of the 3rd century bc, which held that the pleasure of the moment is the criterion of goodness and that the good life consists in rationally manipulating situations with a view to their hedonistic (or pleasure-producing) utility.

The school was called Cyrenaic because Cyrene in North Africa was the centre of its activity and the birthplace of several of its members. Although the elder Aristippus, a pupil of Socrates, was generally recognized as its founder, its flourishing occurred at a later date, probably at the end of the 4th century bc.

According to the Cyrenaics, a man knows that things external to himself exist because they have an effect upon him, but he can know nothing about their nature. All that he can perceive is the way in which he himself is affected by them; how other men are affected is unknown. The fact that two men give the same name to their experiences is no guarantee of identity. Thus, the only admissible objective of action is to ensure that one’s own affections are pleasant. The three possible conditions of the human constitution are violent change, gentle change, and stability. The first is accompanied by pain, the second by pleasure, the last by neither. Man must avoid the first and seek the second; it is a mistake to suppose that the third is pleasant or desirable. Moreover, the pleasure to be sought is that of the moment; only present experience can give present pleasure. Happiness, the sum of pleasures, is to be valued because it includes momentary pleasures, which are like in kind, their relative value depending only on their intensity. Bodily pleasures (and pains) are more intense than those of the mind. Nevertheless, the latter were recognized and even held to include some that have an altruistic aspect; e.g., joy in the prosperity of one’s country. To be stronger than pleasure is a true Socratic ideal and distinguishes the Cyrenaic from the wastrel.

Three Cyrenaics made innovations important enough to give their names to followers. Theodorus denied that pleasures and pains are good or bad. His aim was mental cheerfulness and the gift of wisdom, which he considered sufficient for happiness. Hegesias, like Theodorus, doubted the power of reason to procure pleasures and so advised avoidance of pain; much pain of mind could be avoided by regarding such things as poverty and riches, slavery and freedom, death and life as matters of indifference. Finally, Anniceris revived the original doctrines with some additions.

The ethical doctrines of the later Cyrenaics were, in due time, incorporated bodily into the teachings of Epicurus, founder of a later school of ethical philosophy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cyrenaic

Display More

With all this good material, I am thinging a table of comparisons could be created.