Epicurus' Hierarchy of Needs

Quote from Rolf

What about the desires that are natural but not strictly necessary for survival and well-being?

I would now say that it is best in our modern times to not have "natural/unnecessary" as a category. And that also means discarding the labels of "luxury" and "extravagant". Our current civilization makes it easy and affordable to attain many "luxuries" and many "extravagances".

You can eat all the ice cream that you want (but just see what happens, lol...because the stomach can't take unlimited ice-cream and you'll get a tummy-ache). If you can easily find and afford to buy ice-cream and it causes you no pain, then it leads to pleasure. But if you are lactose intolerant or diabetic, then ice-cream would be "empty" of pleasure/well-being for you.

Quote from Kalosyni

Our current civilization makes it easy and affordable to attain many "luxuries" and many "extravagances".

But do not there remain very many desires that are not easy and not affordable to attain, and which we would go on pursuing forever without limit if we did not identify their nature as such?

Quote from Cassius

But do not there remain very many desires that are not easy and not affordable to attain, and which we would go on pursuing forever without limit if we did not identify their nature as such?

The things that are not easy and not affordable are also "empty", such that they come about from a desire for status or control (a futile attempt at controling circumstances to make them "perfect" in some way (perfectly beautiful, perfectly safe).

Okay, regarding my "mistaken" idea in post 22 post 16 above (of only two categories)...now revising back to three, lol:

• natural/necessary = necessary for life and for well-being
• natural/unnecessary = difficult or impossible to attain, and beyond ones means or recklessly depleting ones needed resources in order to attain
• empty = greed for status/wealth/power/control/perfection/non-stop sensory variations

Ooops, meant to type in that my "mistaken" idea of just two categories was in post 16.

Quote from Rolf

I don’t know if I agree that natural/unnecessary desires are “difficult or impossible to attain”, or that they should be viewed negatively at all. From what I understand, this category simply refers to things that are pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness.

"pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness"... maybe the word "optional"?.

And yet I see it differently, as "unnecessary for survival" - and you only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to ones resources.

Something that causes pain would go into the "empty" category (as in empty of pleasure).

Quote from Kalosyni

And yet I see it differently, as "unnecessary for survival" - and you only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to ones resources.

Because if something is necessary for survival, then you would endure pain and struggle for the sake of attaining it.

This is probably a good time for a reminder that the only authoritative explanation (so far as I recall at the moment - are there others?) of the natural/necessary classification (aside from the scholium in DL which is of uncertain source) is that of Torquatus in On Ends (Reid translation).

If this is accurate, and I believe it is, then the focus is simply that as to the "neither natural nor necessary" it is not possible to discover any boundary or limit."

So those that have no boundary or limit to them (live forever; world domination) are particularly dangerous and inadvisable.

But more generally, unless someone aspires to be world dictator, are not virtually all of the pleasures we are debating in the "natural but not necessary" category, and all of those questions are resolved by balancing the pleasure and pain that we an expect to follow from particular choices?

Quote

[45] I ask what classification is either more profitable or more suited to the life of happiness than that adopted by Epicurus? He affirmed that there is one class of passions which are both natural and needful; another class which are natural without being needful ; a third class which are neither natural nor needful; and such are the conditions of these passions that the needful class are satisfied without much trouble or expenditure ; nor is it much that the natural passions crave, since nature herself makes such wealth as will satisfy her both easy of access and moderate in amount; and it is not possible to discover any boundary or limit to false passions.

Quote from Rolf

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you Kalosyni, and please correct me if I am, but it seems that your definition leads to an ascetic view of Epicureanism in which we should only pursue what is strictly necessary.

Lol, I was thinking the other way around...lol, that you Rolf were coming from an ascetic view (due to your comment about ice-cream).

Quote from Rolf

Movies are clearly not necessary for happiness or survival - countless people have been happy and healthy without them. And yet watching movies is not an inherently harmful or empty desire. In which case, what are movies other than natural but unnecessary desires?

I think that I talked about movies in another thread (but have forgotten exactly what I said, and forgotten what thread that was in). But this is a good time to talk about it again...because I would question whether or not harm might come about to an individual if they were to watch a lot of movies about people who desire and chase after great wealth, status, power, control, perfect beauty, perfect safety, or non-stop sensory variations...but it will depend on the person and the circumstances...so no absolute rules.

I wouldn't call myself ascetic...because I hold to Principal Doctrine 8 as being very important:

PD08: "No pleasure is bad in itself; but the means of paying for some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves."

Quote from Rolf

That said, I think we can both agree that ice cream is not necessary for a pleasant life.

What!!!? Ice cream isn't necessary? (lol ) That's like saying sex isn't necessary!

For the most pleasant life I would recommend both.

But I think you could still be happy with vanilla yogurt and massages.

Quote from Cassius

This is probably a good time for a reminder that the only authoritative explanation (so far as I recall at the moment - are there others?) of the natural/necessary classification (aside from the scholium in DL which is of uncertain source) is that of Torquatus in On Ends

It is in the letter to Menoikeus.

Also, Menoikeus 130:

πολυτελεῖ διαίτῃ “expensive/extravagant/costly/luxuious way of living”

To the point of conciseness of the categorization of desires I simply use necessary, unnecessary and vain. I feel this is a nice brief way to remember: necessary desires are Natural, unnecessary desires are natural, and vain desires are just that, empty and unattainable.

Quote from Cassius

This is probably a good time for a reminder that the only authoritative explanation (so far as I recall at the moment - are there others?) of the natural/necessary classification (aside from the scholium in DL which is of uncertain source) is that of Torquatus in On Ends (Reid translation).

Cassius I'm not sure that I'm reading your post #30 correctly but, for reference, here are PDs relevant to the categories of desires:

PD26 The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject if they are hard to achieve or if they seem to produce harm.

PD21 One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pain produced by a lack of something and to make one's entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle.

PD29 Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion).

PD30 Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind.

Very good point Godfrey thank you! I was thinking of narrative explanations such as the Letters, Lucretius, Philodemus etc, but I forgot the most obvious! Definitely those need to be in the mix as well, and indeed maybe there are other references in those other sources, but if they are there they don't come immediately to mind.

Update:

I see in Diogenes of Oinoanda a fragment of 39 is probably on point but doesn't add anything. Part of Fragment 2 may also be relevant, but it's stated in a somewhat different context.