Maslow's hierarchy of needs

There is indeed an analogy between some of the needs and the Epicurean classification of desires.

However, transcendence is not compatible with Epicurean philosophy.

Self actualization is suspicious, too, because it is usually interpreted to become what you are meant to be. However, in Epicurean philosophy, there is no instance which would establish what you are meant to be.

By the way, Maslow himself never rendered his system of needs as a pyramid. The actual importance of a particular need varies with individual circumstances. Therefore, there is no fixed hierarchy.

He added transcendence much later when he apparently got already senile. At latest with the addition of transcendence, his system of needs moved out of science into superstition.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a very seductive idea. However I've encountered more confusion than clarity when I've tried to relate it to the categories of desires and my personal conclusion is that it's not helpful to one studying Epicurus. The more that I looked into it, the more academic criticisms of it I found.... It appeared to me that it could turn into another rabbit hole that would actually take me further from understanding Epicurus. I dropped it and focused on Epicurus and feel that I've been well rewarded for my choice.

Quote from Godfrey

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a very seductive idea. However I've encountered more confusion than clarity when I've tried to relate it to the categories of desires and my personal conclusion is that it's not helpful to one studying Epicurus. The more that I looked into it, the more academic criticisms of it I found.... It appeared to me that it could turn into another rabbit hole that would actually take me further from understanding Epicurus. I dropped it and focused on Epicurus and feel that I've been well rewarded for my choice.

I think that a lot of psychological models work really well as models and that like you said, it just becomes complicated and confusing when you try to use it as some real strict and decisive rule. With Maslow and Epicurean desires both that it's worthwhile to note that there are some fundamental things that, once taken care of, make it easier to pursue the other less basic desires. But I wouldn't do a whole lot more with the hierarchy of needs than that.

The above pyramid is incorrect and has incorrect names for the levels -- there are only 5 categories -- physiological, safety, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization. So it seems there are many variations that have cropped up over time -- and also funny memes:

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23902918

(This is both a good article and an easy quick read).

I would say that if we take the five categories we can compare them to "natural goods" and also to "natural and necessary" for happiness, so I see it as compatible to Epicureanism.

For an Epicurean, self-esteem would be about self-confidence that one can make good choices in life and that one is responsible and competent in life, and also skills of understanding pain and pleasure and how to deal with them in one's own life -- so skills of one's inner life.

As for self-actualization -- this would be doing activities which lead to a feeling of living a fullfilled, enjoyable, and happy life -- so developing skills within certain activities.

Quote from Matteng

But for example for self-improvement, learning new languages could be a desire without a limit, so -> unnecessary, but natural to have such desires ?

Or is this a complete wrong take ? Because there are the virtues.

In what category is the desire to become more virtuous ?

Or do I make here a category error ? For all desire´s we need virtue. And here lurks the mistake to confuse the goal (pleasure) with the means (virtue).

Virtue is the greatest -> means <- for a happy life

Desires without limit: this is when you desire to do something not for the joy of doing it but rather to achieve an abstract ideal of approval or perfection -- these goals can't ever be reached.

Instead of seeking abstract approval we need to find true friendship, and enjoy the pleasures of friendship.

If we first understand that virtue brings with it the idea of striving for perfection, then we can set aside the idea that virtue is better than pleasure -- striving for perfection won't bring a happy life. If a person thinks they have reached perfection in a certain area, then they will next have to seek out some other area of life to strive toward perfection -- so it is a desire without limit, and brings dissatisfaction.

If instead we seek for fulfillment in natural areas of life -- belonging, friendship, and enjoyment of fullfilling activities.

If we realize that we need to do work to establish or maintain future security, we don't need virtue (harsh discipline) to spur us on -- rather we think about what will bring a good life in the future and even if there is some pain in the present we will pursue what we need to do.

As for the other meaning of the word virtue such as kindness, patience, wisdom, etc, -- we see these as necessary for good friendship or a good life -- so virtue of this kind works toward the service of pleasure.

As an aside...

The industrial designer Eva Zeisel once said something along the lines of "I don't strive for perfection, because if I attain it, what else is there to do?"

Somehow this seems relevant here. But in thinking about it it might deserve a thread of its own.