An Epicurean Understanding of Valentine's Day: Love, Romance, and Free-will

    Quote from Don

    I keep coming back to Usener Fragment 67:

    "For I at least do not even know what I should conceive the good to be, if I eliminate the pleasures of taste, and eliminate the pleasures of sex, and eliminate the pleasures of listening, and eliminate the pleasant motions caused in our vision by a visible form."

    I wasn't sure which fragment you were going to cite, Don, when I started reading your post, so I was getting ready to pull the trigger on another "always be prudent about pulling quotes out of context post" ----


    But this particular fragment is so utterly and broadly and obviously consistent with the rest of the philosophy, and seems to me to be so strongly compelled by the epistemology and the ethics and the physics all at the same time, that I think it really is among those that is the most basic and unchallengable.


    Any legitimate concept of "the good" in Epicurean terms is ultimately and intimately tied to our feelings of pleasure and pain that occur when we engage in it. We don't accept good and bad by a priori formulas and logical reasoning about what "should" be the result of something, especially since there is no "fate" that predetermines outcomes in most human affairs (with the exception of such things as death). Our relations with our friends and family and opposite sex aren't pre-determined liked death, and it seems to me that each one is going to be an individual matter of "hedonic calculus" .


    But DARN I hate the words "hedonic" and "hedonic calculus." It's much more accurate to say something like "Epicurean calculus." The philosophy is EPICUREAN philosophy, not "Pleasurism" -- we frequently (and ought to always!) choose short-term pain over short-term pleasure when greater pleasure in the end is the result of the choice. Yes in the end it comes down to pleasure over pain, and pleasure is the goal and the end, but in common communication the word "Epicurean" conveys the result a lot more accurately than does "hedonic."

    From my personal perspective…and this is just me, the animal brain speaking, my entire “romance” life has been dictated by chemical impulses. When I was 23 I wasn’t thinking that any one of these “pursuits” would end up in a family, in fact I had no ambition or drive for that. Nor was there any pressure from my family etc. I was purely following instinctual urges…often without prudence, I don’t think nature cares too much about whether we are prudent, but rather holds up the carrot to get the job done. But I was a pawn in a much larger and older game than any philosophy, ideology or cultural idea of what’s normal…about a billlion year old game, that for all intents and purposes continues to play every moment of every day across the globe…from humans to single celled organisms.

    Quote from Matt

    my entire “romance” life has been dictated by chemical impulses.

    That is why I think it is a good analogy to consider what Epicurus was warning about here to be akin to "intoxication."


    If Lucretius' section on this topic is reflective of the mature Epicurean position, and I think that it very likely is, then it seems to me that Lucretius is making clear that the benefits of these topics can be achieved in a prudent way without getting burned.


    And that's very similar to the observation that the benefits of alcohol can be enjoyed by most people if we do so prudently to avoid everything from terrible hangovers to killing someone else - or ourselves - through drunk driving.


    But even there again we should shy away from "universalization" -- some people are apparently so wired biologically that they suffer far more from the intoxicating effects of alcohol than others, so each person's "constitution" has to be taken into account in deciding how much of the activity to engage in.

    Since Kalosyni was kind enough to start this thread, I wanted to directly respond to some of her posts:

    I do find it interesting that the oxygen analogy is used. I can't remember the song context (although I did remember the song!) and whether we're talking eros or philia or another flavor of "love." However, even Epicurus seems to caution a balance between intoxication (as Cassius has mentioned) and no love at all. He certainly didn't prohibit it in his students. Some of his handpicked closest students and fellow teachers in the Garden were married and had children. He expressed (friendly) affection for Themista, the wife of Leonteus. If Epicurus had a completely negative view of sex or romantic love or marriage, I find it hard to believe he'd allow a number of his students to engage in the activity. So maybe you do need just "enough."


    Quote from Kalosyni

    From a modern understanding...what kind of "harm" are we talking about now, in our times?

    Oh, all kinds of psychological harm for sure. Romantic entanglements can lead to all kinds of problems. Let's say one partner falls out of love, but the other partner doesn't accept that. If one partner cheats on the other. If one partner gets in trouble and drags the other one into a dangerous situation or legal problems. And so on and so on. I am can envision all kinds of harms, Ancient and modern.

    (Let me clearly state: I'm not talking from experience! I'm quite happy and blessed! :) )

    Yes thanks again to Kalosyni for starting the thread. This will prove to be the raw material for what will eventually be a recorded "roundtable" or similar media presentation on the subject at some point.

    Here is a beautiful Leonard Cohan song about life-long marriage, and this would illustrate "secure attachment" style.


    External Content m.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Attachment theory is interesting, in that it points to why some marriages last and go more smoothly than others. According to attachment theory, a person’s early relationships in life with mother/caregiver can affect their romantic relationships later on. The four attachment styles are: 1) secure 2) anxious-preoccupied 3) dismissive-avoidant 4) fearful-avoidant


    How Different Attachment Styles Affect Relationships
    Knowing your attachment style can help improve your romantic relationship.
    www.psychologytoday.com

    Quote from Cassius

    "Epicurean calculus"

    OMG that's the first I've heard this term. Perfect! I'm using that instead of hedonic calculus from now on! "Hedonic calculus" is sooo loaded with baggage which is not in line with what we know of Epicurean thinking! It is a term that will just continually cause misunderstanding. Thanks for that one Cassius!

    Sharing a common worldview could be an important compatibility factor in maintaining a happy romantic relationship. This might explain why some couples divorce after the children are grown and move out of the house.


    Now thinking...if one person holds an "Epicurean" worldview and the other does not, the relationship could still function but might not be as deep or connected. The drives and choices one makes come from one's worldview. Also, both short-term and long-term goals come out of one's worldview. In a long-term relationship the couple needs to jointly create either a shared or an overlapping worldview, with at least one ongoing shared activity.


    A couple could define a shared worldview (and could have more than one of the following):


    "Let's have an intellectually meaningful life" (studying; learning)


    "Let's have a spiritually centered life" (personal-growth; religion)


    "Let's have a family centered life" (time with children, families of origin, extended family)


    "Let's help the world" (volunteer work; teaching)


    "Let's change the world" (politics)


    "Let's have a beautiful life" (aesthetic enjoyment; generating and spending wealth)


    "Let's have a fun life" --- (doing activities which are enjoyable; socializing; traveling)


    ***********************************************************************************


    I would say that the Epicurean worldview is a mix of "fun and meaningful".


    Some of the above ideas in the list are from an online article...I added in quite a bit of my own ideas...and this list might still need more added).
    Source: https://www.marieclaire.com/se…lity-factor-is-worldview/


    ***********************************************************************************


    The deeper importance of all this is to consider your "worldview" compatiblity before you enter a long-term relationship.


    If you are already married, you can work toward creating an overlapping worldview with common shared goals and shared activities.


    This also means that if you are very enthusiastic about Epicureanism, how is your partner going to respond to that? How might you include your partner? How might you forgive/respect your partner if it seems that there is no way to include them in your enthusiasm for Epicureanism. (tip: make sure you have another area in your life that you are both equally enthusiastic about). This is all common sense, but presenting these ideas just in case, hope they are helpful. :)

    In light of the Epicurean goal of a pleasurable life...here are some further ideas about romantic relationships, since a well functioning intimate relationship leads to more enjoyment in life. Here is an interesting article about the importance of common interests in long-term relationships. And so putting in time toward cultivating fun shared activities would be a good investment toward the well-being of a relationship.


    Quote

    ...couples that have similar interests to a similar degree tend to have healthier relationships. These partners show interest in one another, think alike, share passion, enjoy similar adventures, and in the end, bond. These couples fight less because they generally agree on how to invest their energy and finances. Life is better in so many ways for couples who share interests.

    https://www.psychologytoday.co…nterests-in-relationships

    The Importance of Shared Interests in Relationships
    One way to get and remain close to your partner.
    www.psychologytoday.com

    Valentine's Day is coming up soon. The origin may go back as far as the Roman festival of Lupercalia, which was later replaced by the Christian day honoring the martyr Saint Valentine.


    Quote

    Although there is no evidence linking Saint Valentine’s Day to the rites of the ancient Roman or ancient Greek cults, popular modern sources claim links to the Roman Lupercalia celebration observed around February 13–15, a rite connected to fertility. Lupercalia was a festival local to the city of Rome. The more general Festival of Juno Februa, meaning Juno the purifier or the chaste Juno, was celebrated on February 13–14. Pope Gelasius I (492–496) abolished Lupercalia. Juno is the ancient Roman name for goddess Hera, the spouse of ancient Greek father of the gods Zeus. In the ancient Athenian calendar the period between mid-January and mid-February was the month of Gamelion, dedicated to the sacred marriage of the couple.


    https://greekreporter.com/2013…ces-on-st-valentines-day/

    Quote

    The Feast of Saint Valentine was established by Pope Gelasius I in AD 496 to be celebrated on February 14 in honour of Saint Valentine of Rome, who died on that date in AD 269.[9][10] The day became associated with romantic love in the 14th and 15th centuries when notions of courtly love flourished, apparently by association with the "lovebirds" of early spring. In 18th-century England, it grew into an occasion in which couples expressed their love for each other by presenting flowers, offering confectionery, and sending greeting cards (known as "valentines"). Valentine's Day symbols that are used today include the heart-shaped outline, doves, and the figure of the winged Cupid. Since the 19th century, handwritten valentines have given way to mass-produced greeting cards.[11] In Italy, Saint Valentine's Keys are given to lovers "as a romantic symbol and an invitation to unlock the giver's heart"...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine%27s_Day


    Regarding love and romantic relationships, there is not much to go on within Epicureanism.


    In De rerum Natura Lucretius (Book 4, 1030) mentions the energies which arise in the body, and then further goes on speak of the dangers of pursuing romance with the wandering Venus' -- the courtesans with whom the men of ancient Greece had relationships.

    Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, Book 4 (English Text)


    So for modern Epicureans, we must look instead to modern psychology for help with our understanding of marriage and long-term relationships. There is an understanding that relationships go through stages, and I have seen it listed as anywhere between 4 thru 12 stages. I will post more soon on this tomorrow. I may even cover one stage per day as we approach Valentine's Day.

    I am persuaded by observation that St. Paul and the Catholic Church actually make a good point when it comes to marriage and relationships.


    Quote

    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

    I do not, of course, accept his definitions of "light" and "righteousness". And not everyone will be flattered by the image of yoked oxen as a metaphor for marriage.


    But there is something to the idea that a compatible foundation of values and beliefs about 'the constitution of the world' is important to long-term happiness and cooperation.


    I do not say that it cannot work; only that it will be very difficult to make it work. And this may partly explain the reluctance of some people to pursue marriage, for who can say what changes may develop in the space of decades?

    Quote from Joshua

    The sad story of Lucy Harris in the early history of Mormonism

    Suddenly I am wondering if Lucretius was mis-translated...and my idea is likely totally unrelated to what you had intended.


    I am off now to frolick in the Oregon sunshine, a rare treat. More tomorrow on the "Stages of Romantic Love".

    Quote from Kalosyni

    So for modern Epicureans, we must look instead to modern psychology for help with our understanding of marriage and long-term relationships

    I presume that's a reference to courtesans who are not usually available to day. But as for the rest of what Lucretius is saying I think that what he is saying is foundational and takes precedence even before modern psychology, all of which has to be conformed to correct philosophy , rather than the other way around.


    That's because In my humble view modern psychology is as frequently or more a mess (with camps saying very opposite things) than modern philosophy. :)

    Quote from Cassius

    That's because In my humble view modern psychology is as frequently or more a mess (with camps saying very opposite things)

    Yes, very true, and so it comes down everyone must choose for themselves which makes the most reasonable sense. Lately there is the meme within psychology of "science-based" therapies. But we must remember that science itself never holds a final or absolute answer.


    Quote from Cassius

    a reference to courtesans

    I was referring to Lucretius Book 4, in which men are wooing courtesans (since they were not prostitutes, but were like a mistress that was supported with gifts and other economic requirements in exchange for exclusive (or mostly exclusive) sexual favors. So this description by Lucretius can appear similar to the very early stage of dating and falling in love, where a man tries to woo a woman with gifts. But Lucretius warns against having passion for the courtesan. Everything he writes is based on the context of the courtesan, and so it is absolutely not applicable to modern life.


    Quote from Joshua

    "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"


    I do not, of course, accept his definitions of "light" and "righteousness". And not everyone will be flattered by the image of yoked oxen as a metaphor for marriage.


    But there is something to the idea that a compatible foundation of values and beliefs about 'the constitution of the world' is important to long-term happiness and cooperation.


    I do not say that it cannot work; only that it will be very difficult to make it work. And this may partly explain the reluctance of some people to pursue marriage, for who can say what changes may develop in the space of decades?

    Yes, a compatible foundation of values and beliefs is completey necessary. Also, both people must have a kind, honest, and patient disposition. There are so many lists online about what makes people compatible. Some say that two people shouldn't be too much the same, while others say similarity of common interests will bring more shared activities, and shared activities are what create a lasting bond. It makes sense to me that two people should be very similar.


    As for the worldview of Epicureanism, and for myself, I think now that if I should ever remarry that the person MUST also be Epicurean, which means that I may never remarry...but on the plus side, at least I will remain free, and not become a "yoked oxen" (lol :D ).

    As an Epicurean, here is what NOT to do:


    Quote

    In a little German town called Eutin, people still fall in love the old-fashioned way, through hand-written letters and destiny. Meet the celebrity oak tree that has been bringing together dreamers from around the world long before dating apps were even conceived.


    https://theculturetrip.com/eur…-brings-singles-together/

    This may lead to marriage but may not lead to long-term compatibility...and would say that this would be very Anti-Epicurean, since it relies on "fate"...but if you don't properly do a "hedonic calculus" regarding compatibility, then it will lead to unhappiness later after the romance "wears off".


    I have read that one of the most common ways that couples meet is through friends and family, and that would also help screen out incompatible people immediately.

    Valentine's Day is all about celebrating love. Here is an excerpt on the first stage of love, and this is just one approach to the idea of stages within a relationship:


    And here is a good one on 7 stages:

    What Are The 7 Stages of Marriage and How to Survive Them — Loving at Your Best
    All relationships go through stages. Every stage teaches you about the other person, which might reveal a side of them that you didn't know about.
    www.lovingatyourbest.com

    I await with great anticipation the comments of others here and I particularly want to see comments on this:


    Quote from Kalosyni

    Everything he writes is based on the context of the courtesan, and so it is absolutely not applicable to modern life.

    Maybe I'll add a thought to this conversation- I'm far too young to be married and haven't had a romantic relationship before, so I'm having the viewpoint of an "outsider". Even so, I think that this gives me a unique opportunity to see the situation from a different viewpoint than you ;)

    At least as far as I can judge, I see the concept of marriage as... strange. I understand that there may be many advantages- I immediately think of security. But it seems to me that a romantic relationship is a big, big liability, because you aren't free. You are constantly responsible for another person, and this person is also responsible for you. There may be rare cases when there are two absolutely compatible persons, who will understand each other without words and who form a whole one- basically the concept of Plato. But, I dare to say, that this is rare, and that most marriages inevitably come into the stage when the two people married realize that they don't want to be around each other anymore. But when these people have a house? Or kids? Then they have to stay together... and thats really toxic.


    So my stance would be that romantic relationships can be really fulfilling and life-improving. But by marrying, the person essentially gives up their ataraxia for an unknown future. A bad deal, in my opinion, as long as you aren't 100% certain that the person you're marrying will stay the same kind, nice and great person for the rest of your life. And I think that its obvious that it simply can't be the case: people always change over time. So why bound yourself "until death tears us apart"? Enjoy life, build relationships, but always know that you'd be able to survive on your own. Thats what freedom is, in my opinion :)

    Those are great issues to discuss Smoothiekiwi. One of them is the question of "divorce" vs "til death to us part." I don't know if anyone here would advocate in favor of abolition of divorce, so we're probably talking in the context that "divorce" is at least a partial answer to your concerns.


    Then there are the issues of


    (1) children, which I think most people (apparently not including Plato!) would agree are best raised in a stable family.


    (2) and protection and financial stability of women, who are apt to be put in extremely poor financial positions if the commitment that is made in raising a family or being married in general is not long term.


    Quote from smoothiekiwi

    But by marrying, the person essentially gives up their ataraxia for an unknown future.

    But that last is the formulation I would most push back against. As in some other current threads where we are discussing pain and pleasure, I don't think that Epicurus was unrealistic about pain: pain is required in order to live to any degree, and more pain is often required for more pleasure. So while "Absence of disturbance" and "absence of pain" are goals in the Epicurean system, they are not in themselves the ultimate goal or the highest goal. PLEASURE trumps both of those, and we can and do accept some degree of both disturbance and pain in order to achieve the pleasures we want in life.


    Posing the question in this way really exhibits - in my view - how terrible a mistake it is to postulate ataraxia and aponia as the highest goods rather than pleasure. (And I will add that it makes it worse to leave them untranslated, because that makes it harder for newer people to understand what really is being discussed.) When you make it clear what is involved, it seems to me that it's easy to see that OF COURSE the avoidance of disturbance and the avoidance of pain do not trump all other considerations. Over and over Epicurus makes that clear, and in those situations where it can be argued that he seems to be saying something else, you override that interpretation by looking to the foundations and the full context of the philosophy, and adopt a construction that is consistent with both - not a construction that would blow the philosophy to smithereens if adopted (as some, regretfully, do).