Is There A "Paradox of Hedonism"?

Good to have you Lamar.

Couple of points:

1 - This is why I don't care to refer to "hedonism" very often. Epicurean philosophy gets placed into that box with certain other groups, but Epicurus is far more subtle than most, and so "hedonism" gets used as a way to dismiss what Epicurus had to say.

2 - You're basically asking the "friendship" question which is discussed by Torquatus in Cicero's On Ends at the following link. I recommend you read through the full Torquatus section to get a feel for the general approach to all such ethical questions, but friendship in particular starts at 65:

EpicureanFriends Side-By-Side Torquatus

Torquatus himself doesn't take the most aggressive approach, but the most straightforward is the most logical: There is no need to cower in the face of claims that "altruism" or "putting others first" is a categorial imperative. Nature gives us only feelings of pleasure and pain. We take an interest and desire anything only because it brings us pleasure. Once we value a friend or lover highly enough, it brings us pleasure to see their interests fulfilled even if certain interests of ours suffer. And that goes so far that we will at times even die for a friend.

So i wouldn't trouble myself at ALL thinking that you need to live by "hedonism." The standard that applies here at Epicureanfriends and that Epicurus taught is not "hedonism" at all but the entire core of Epicurean philosophy. The fact that you are concerned about this shows that you haven't explored these issues enough -- which is absolutely fine.

Quote from LAMAR__44

but doing this inside of relationships seems to make them feel shallow and transactional, at least for me.

Not to psychologize in your personal situation, but most people pick up this idea from society and general culture, and that's the kind of cultural conditioning that Epicurus warns against when it doesn't make sense when compared to Nature. There is no cosmic or transcental duty of one human being to another human being - bonds of friendship and affection form naturally from community of interest, not because some ideal form exists that compels us in that direction. Examples of this is the discussion of "justice" in the last ten of the Principal Doctrines, and in the discussion of the development of civilization in Lucretius Book 5.

None of us get a deeper understanding of Epicurus without study, and the more we rely on wikipedia or superficial treatments of "hedonism" the more we have to unlearn.

And there's no more complete statement of all this in the ancient record than the full presentation by Torquatus in On Ends.

Glad to have you with us.

Just a little more on this (admittedly largely repeating what I already wrote, but for emphasis):

Quote from LAMAR__44

This isn’t me arguing against hedonism,

Consistent with what I wrote about above - there's no problem here in arguing against "hedonism." - I will help you in fact, given that I think it's a poor idea to talk about Epicurean philosophy as "hedonism" in any but very limited circumstances. Those who try to pursue or promote "hedonism" outside the framework of Epicurean philosophy -- especially the wider meaning of "pleasure" that Epicurus uses - do have the problems you are concerned about.

It would appear that somewhere you've picked up that there is in fact a "paradox of hedonism" and that's why I titled the new thread that way. No doubt you're right that a lot of people talk that way on Reddit and elsewhere, but there's no reason to accept the terminology of anti-Epicurean thought here at EpicureanFriends.com. It's no paradox - there's a straightforward way of addressing the question.

Welcome to the forum LAMAR__44 ...here are my thoughts to give some correction and guidance:

Quote from LAMAR__44

pleasure is the sole good, and pain is the sole evil, everything else that we should pursue has the characteristic of being instrumental towards pleasure, and everything we avoid has the characteristic of being instrumental towards pain. This helps significantly in judging what is worthy of pursuit and what isn’t.

I think that your wording here makes for an incorrect understanding and application -- the meaning of the word "sole" = only. This sets you up for a big problem, because sometimes we do what is needed for good health and for long-term happiness. If you think with the word "sole" the error could be that your pleasure has to be sensory oriented or somehow a big pleasure. And it is important to understand that anything that we do that doesn't contain painful sensations is also labeled "a pleasure". We also see in the letter to Menoeceus: "And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided."

Quote from LAMAR__44

it’s hard for me to think of this with relationships. I think it makes sense to evaluate before starting a friendship or romantic relationship whether there will be net pleasure or pain, but doing this inside of relationships seems to make them feel shallow and transactional, at least for me.

Your error here is in thinking too abstractly (net pleasure vs net pain). I think most people wouldn't tolerate a friend who seems to criticize all the time or who is impatient or unkind - we all know how to instinctively avoid these people. Even if the person is a family member (sibling, etc) then we make sure to keep our distance (for self-protection). So as soon as we sense that a potential friend has those characteristics, we should have no qualms in steering clear of making friends with a person like this.

Quote from LAMAR__44

I must say that there is no intrinsic value in my relationships with my loved ones, they only have value in so that they’re instrumental to my pleasure, but in doing this, I lower my experience of pleasure within these relationships. But that would result in less net pleasure then if I decided to disbelieve in hedonism, so to live according to hedonism, I need to disbelieve in hedonism.

First, regarding your cognition of "pleasure" in relationships -- if you think too abstractly then perhaps that is why you may be for some reason not feeling enjoyment. Joy is a feeling, and it has concrete and specific causes. All relationships are about about a type of "inter-dependence"...meaning that we "inter-are" and we experience things based on what all the people in the relationship do. Pleasure not only comes from what my loved ones do, but pleasure also comes when I give pleasure to my loved ones.

You don't choose your family, but you choose your friends -- so potentially your friends will be bringing more love and acceptance into your connection and interactions (for example, since in friendships there won't be any conscious or unconscious sibling rivalry that could occur in family relationships).

Regarding your idea of "no intrinsic value except through being instrumental for pleasure" -- there is an error of thinking here also -- because you are again stuck in a concept and have forgotten your heart. The sense of our heart contains the emotions and feelings together with breath of the body and the feelings of aliveness. All of this is the reason why it says in the Principal Doctrines: PD27. "Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life, far the greatest is the possession of friendship."

Quote from LAMAR__44

I think it makes sense to evaluate before starting a friendship or romantic relationship whether there will be net pleasure or pain, but doing this inside of relationships seems to make them feel shallow and transactional, at least for me.

For me, this process does not feel shallow or transactional in a negative sense. First as to the transactional, the positive view is apparent in the old saying: you have to be a friend to have a friend. Is it transactional? In my view, yes it is transactional, but so is every interaction with others.

As for shallowness: Some would call romantic relationships a subset of friendships, others--not. I find the study of Epicurus can sometimes divert the student from the realities of intimate relationships. It is not fully explored to my understanding in the writings of Epicurus and his followers. I can only speak to heterosexual romantic relationships. The two women I've lived with over a period of more than 50 years were selected by my (or vice versa! ) through complex mental and physical motivations that are basically undecipherable by me. However, the anticipation of physical and mental pleasure in every way certainly was justly involved. I find nothing wrong with it, indeed I think it is important to use the calculus of pleasure/pain.

Perhaps I've dug too deep into your question, but even for anticipating other friends, no less than long term partners, the process is a gradual one that only comes with engagement over time. Who has not tried to make a friendship and then over time moved away from it for lack of some element of sympatico, as it were? Life is trial and error, and that, I suggest is in the spirit of Epicurus.