Eikadistes
Great work, especially how you turn topics for which Epicureans are often criticized and are seen as weaknesses in strengths:
-the arts against what really matters
- political engagement vs civic engagement and against manipulation
You go very deep, I also like Philodemus he is for me what for the Stoics is Seneca
Have you ever written an essay on Stoicism vs. Epicurean Philosophy?
I whish I could find such an essay from someone like you with your knowledge and depth 🤗
Wow I have read almost the same books the last years 🤗
And had similiar experiences.
Th Campridge Companion so good but yes some hard to read chapters which are lesser interesting for me.
„The Swerve“ I haven‘t read yet. It is a little bit older or ? Is its content still intetresting and has valid ideas/ views about Epicurean Philosophy ? Would you recommend it ? Maybe I would read it next.
Yes thank you 😅
It is from podcasts/essays.
Today in a podcast it was about how important experience of suffering is to grow.
I first thought this would be against Epicurean Philosophy, but then I realized: No, for greater benefit, it is recommend. For greater suffering it would be unprudent…
In the past I often read/hear:
Stoicism = Stress management
Epicureanism = Stress avoidance
And that Suffering belongs to Life, and is needed for growing and that it is bad to shun pain.
And that Epicurean philosophy would teach to shun pain.
Stoics train discomfort, for they pain is instrumental to progress to Virtue.
Stoics train Memento Malorum and Exposition to fear and pain makes them stronger and Exposition therapy is very successful.
From Epicurus there is often his method mentioned that he counters his pain on his last day with the pleasures of his memorys about philosophy with friends and that this is the main way in Epicurean Philosophy to counter pain.
What do you think about these statements ?
I think they are one-sided, and a false dichotomy. Both methods can help and Stoics are not more courageous than Epicureans and the benefit of choosing kinds of pain is even in the epitome of Epicurean Ethics the letter of Menoeceus:
„…(129)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.
….“
Yes, the only good thing in the control dichotomy in my view is to don’t worry about unchangeable things and to focus on what you can do.
This is often seen as one of the greatest benefit of Stoicism but it was first in Epicurus Philosophy but without providental goodness for necessity.
Also there is the own agency stated as a source of causal power besides chance and necessity:
Letter to Menoeceus
„[133] Who, then, is superior in thy judgement to such a man? He holds a holy belief concerning the gods, and is altogether free from the fear of death. He has diligently considered the end fixed by nature, and understands how easily the limit of good things can be reached and attained, and how either the duration or the intensity of evils is but slight. Destiny, which some introduce as sovereign over all things, he laughs to scorn, affirming rather that some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency. For he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance or fortune is inconstant; whereas our own actions are free, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach“
Hi,
I have found a video about Alex O´Conners ethical view he calls "Emotivism". In my view his attitude is half Epicurean.
I think it is the same or similiar view like Epicurus in stating that moral value like good/ bad is in the feelings (Canon pleasure/pain). He makes some good points for it
At approximately minute 14 - 16 I think he talks about a different view which I identify with the Stoic vs. Epicurean view of Judgment / Emotion:
The Stoic View: a) There is an objective moral judgment (good/bad) and then b) there comes the Emotion
Vs: (I think more Epicurean and Emotivism view a) = b) The moral judgment (good/bad) is the Emotion.
This reminds me of this in the letter to Menoeceus:
[129] And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good."
What are your thoughts ?
A strict rule based decision making I find difficult, we need always sober reasoning/prudence to judge/feel the consequences and the context to make good choices/avoidances.
But for orientation I see it currently like this table:
Epicurean Necessary Desires — with Urgency Level
Level | Greek term | Transliteration | Meaning | Urgency |
| 1 | πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν | pros auto to zēn | necessary to live at all (food, water, shelter, sleep) | Highest urgency — must be secured first |
| 2 | πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν | pros tēn tou sōmatos aochlēsian | necessary for bodily untroubledness (calm body, no disturbing pains) | Medium urgency — needed for stability and tranquility |
| 3 | πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν | pros eudaimonian | necessary for happiness / flourishing (friendship, ataraxia, knowledge) | Low urgency but highest value |
→ Epicureans may sacrifice survival (Level 1) to protect Level 3 (friendship, integrity), because Level 3 has the highest value, even if it is least urgent.
I also have read it the 2. time some months ago. I can recommend it when interested in a more academic approach and not all chapters were interesting for me but 80% were.
But some chapters contain more wisdom then I thought on the first look. For example the chapter of poets( infos about Lucretius and Philodemus ) or about language which I thought first would be boring but then show crucial differences for example between Platon and Epicurus ( how words natural evolved by using simuliar sounds in groups vs they come from perfect forms in another world or are top down defined and used )
Yes they want get rid of bad emotions. The good emotions relate ( depends on sources ) only about Virtue or what partakes in Virtue.
In a strict sense only the Stoic Sage has good Emotions, all others only propatheia( bodily unconscious Pre-Emotions) , and bad Emotions. Whereby there are text quotes from Epictetus and Seneca that progress to Virtue means also progress to good Emotions ( Eupatheia ) but don’t know what that exactly means.
Martin , yes in core the hedonic calculus, an yes maybe a better word for the difference would be arational ( I have never read it ) for unconscious or without needed reason and irrational (often negative seen ).
Eikadistes , yes the difference between the Faculty of pleasure/pain and Pleasant/Painful Things/situations is crucial, that will play a role below in my post you will see.
Kalosyni , thank you, now it would be interesting to go deeper in this subject of Feeling/Emotion in regard how to value them and what exactly is to avoid or pursue (Feeling, things, situations)
In discussion with Stoics I notice that they would agree with the article and would say that the Epicureans are the one who doesn´t accept Pain and try to avoid it.
Epicureans say Stoics doesn´t accept or want avoid (Painful/harmful) Emotions.
How can we get there more clear ?
I could imagine this would be a response of each school:
- Start of fictional discussion between the schools -
Epicureans: We want not fight the Feelings like Pain, but the circumstances/causes. We want to change the situation, things, relationships, ideas/views, the faculty of pain/pleasure and the prudent reflection of them and judgment with our feelings is our main way of life.
-> Stoic objection: one cause for Feeling pain is your Faculty of Pain, wouldn´t you take Tranquilizers for getting rid of pain your greatest evil ? Or when you want (have a desire/wish for) that a friend is getting well, do you want it for the pleasure (desire satisfaction/whish fulfilling) than a pill who let forget you your friend or his illness could do the same ? Or do you want it indepentend of the consequence feelings ?
Stoics: We only want to root out passions / harmful Emotions not for the Painful Feeling (that is an indifferent for us ) but because it dims our rationality/sociality so our human nature and our Character, our only good (Virtue or Progress to Virtue) and we do more harmful Things to us and others.
-> Epicurean objection: So you value your human Nature/Character/Virtue yourself, others and Passions/harmful Emotions damages these ? The idea of this damage is "mental pain" that lies on the core of your judgement. You "want/like" to live in Agreement with Nature/Logos/Virtue/Human Nature, that is an affection, that is in core in the end a Feeling of Pleasure/Pain.
- End of fictional discussion between the schools -
So that are my currently not finished and Maybe confused ideas about that, what to do with that 
?
First I see is that it is all about mental (self caused ) Emotions, bodily pain/ pleasure is out. In Stoicism this are indifferents and in control of fate/nature/logos.
When I understood Philodemus right, I think the Epicurean view would only match with the Stoic view when the Emotion
1) has harmful consequences ( pleasure then is not choiceworthy for example )
2) is irrational, based on empty believe
3) is based on unnecessary desire
In short when the Emotions lead to more pain than pleasure.
From wikipedia:
Distress (lupē)
Distress is an irrational contraction, or a fresh opinion that something bad is present, at which people think it right to be depressed.
Fear (phobos)
Fear is an irrational aversion, or avoidance of an expected danger.
Lust (epithumia)
Lust is an irrational desire, or pursuit of an expected good but in reality bad.
Delight (hēdonē)
Delight is an irrational swelling, or a fresh opinion that something good is present, at which people think it right to be elated.
Two of these passions (distress and delight) refer to emotions currently present, and two of these (fear and lust) refer to emotions directed at the future.[9] Thus there are just two states directed at the prospect of good and evil, but subdivided as to whether they are present or future:[10]
| Present | Future | |
|---|---|---|
| Good | Delight | Lust |
| Evil | Distress | Fear |
Hi,
How do you see the Stoic theory/ view of the passions/ pathei/apatheia/ eupathei and hoe differ it in the Epicurean view ? I know Philodemus did there much.
When examples are stated that hedonism leads to „bad“ outcomes, this „bad“ is instead the proof for hedonism. Because all value judgements are based on feelings. And prudent hedonists choose more good than bad outcomes / consequences.
Examples for hedonist defenders:
And sometimes I think there are often false dichotomies or strawmens accussed against hedonism or Epicureanism like Virtue vs Pleasure.
For this subject for example it is not only means vs Ends but we can judge/value (with our feelings) the means and the ends.
For example the horrific idea of murdering 1 healthy person and spending his/her organs to save the lifes of 5 other persons.
To allow this we would loose security and the right for life (which is a social institution based on social contract) and no one would want to be the spender.
Or another example is when Kant was asked if to lie could be ok when saving lifes. He denied it and gave (ironically ) the reason that would lead society in confusion and destroy trust between people. What he not recognized is that his reasoning is based on the utility ( trust, no confusing).
You have only to ask many times "Why" an Deontologists/Kantian and you get to their core reasonings which they have to admit => you value everything with Pleasure/Pain/Feeling/Utility 
Very important subject for me, but have no final conclusions on it. Interesting for me is also the difference between the Stoic and Epicurean view.
Seems that Epicureans focus more on pleasure/pain and the Stoics more on negative Emotions.
Epicureans: Reduce Pain
Stoics: Reduce Pathe negative Emotions/Passion based on judgment
Especially mental Pleasure/Pain is interesting when the Emotions depend on our judgments.
The Stoics are very successful in CBT but I think the Epicurean could that too with the contribution of Philodemus who did much in the field of therapy.
Is pleasure/pain the core of our values ? And what does it mean when someone values Pain like Ice bathing or to challenge onself ?
Maybe more levels of Pain/Pleasure ? Can we change Pleasure/Pain with reason ? Judgment ? In some cases Epicurus would agree and has CBT insights like the fear of death, fear of superstition, fear of pain, harmful desire…
Hirams Essays on Epicurean Virtue are so good, I come many time back to him when this subject confuses me or Stoics try to convinced about their view:
On Epicurean Virtue | Society of Friends of Epicurus
Dialogue On Virtue | Society of Friends of Epicurus
Philodemus’ Method of Studying and Cultivating the Virtues | Society of Friends of Epicurus
But how to grow Virtue and the Pleasant Life in a good way ?
What I read from the Epicurean texts:
-> Improve Prudence:
- Sober Reasoning
- Hedonic Calculus
- Reflection of Desires / Values
- Eleminating unnecessary fears/ pain ( with a realistic world view )
- Train to Endure Pains/ Fears for greater Pleasure / reducing greater Pain/Fears
- Try active to be more other regarding / altruistic ( philia/friendship ) but in a prudent way.
- In best case everyone is your friend but that is not possible in this world, here live psychopaths and humans with harmful dispositions, there is no natural law, cosmopolitism or human rights who protect you. So justice is prudent and sometimes to avoid people or protect from them:
Reminds me on the Epictetus quote for Epicurus: "Be not deceived; be not seduced and mistaken. There is no natural tie between reasonable beings. Believe me. Those who say otherwise mislead and impose upon you“
The Stoics would see Virtue as internal and Pleasure mostly as external when it is caused from objects. But how Virtue is seen by others reminds me in Cicero wurh his „ heros of the past“ who define Virtue.
Yes I see both, pleasure in the Virtuous disposition ( like gratefulness or feeling philia/friendship, or love instead of hate, envy … ) and in getting things desires better.
To get a better understanding of Virtues it could help to have a look at the "sub-virtues" to see more aspects of them. In my opinion the core of them all is prudence (phronesis ) and friendship (philia ) so the rational and social aspect for a good or better life which sometimes makes it necessary to endure pain for greater pleasure (hedonic calculus for example, enduring pain for others... ).
I would also like to point out that the following overview is a purely human classification and is not set in stone; there are/were other classifications/aspects in antiquity. Another caveat is that these classifications were often made by philosophers for whom virtue represented the highest good (so be careful when it is about Pleasure or Piety for Gods) .
Wisdom – Φρόνησις (Phronēsis)
Good sense – εὐβουλία (euboulia)
Good calculation – εὐλογιστία (eulogistia)
Quick-wittedness – ἀγχίνοια (anchinoia)
Discretion – σύνεσις (synesis)
Resourcefulness – εὐμηχανία (eumēchania)
Justice – Δικαιοσύνη (Dikaiosynē)
Piety – ὁσιότης (hosiotēs)
Honesty / Truthfulness – ἀλήθεια (alētheia)
Equity / Fairness – ἰσότης (isotēs)
Fair dealing / Non-greed – ἀνεξικακία (anexikakia, sometimes glossed as forbearance)
Courage – Ἀνδρεία (Andreia)
Endurance – καρτερία (karteria)
Confidence – θαρραλεότης (tharraleotēs)
High-mindedness / Magnanimity – μεγαλοψυχία (megalopsychia)
Cheerfulness – εὐθυμία (euthymia)
Industriousness / Hard work – φιλοπονία (philoponia)
Temperance – Σωφροσύνη (Sōphrosynē)
Good discipline – εὐταξία (eutaxia)
Seemliness / Decorum – κόσμιος (kosmios)
Modesty – αἰδώς (aidōs)
Self-control – ἐγκράτεια (enkrateia)
---
Here is a similiar classification/explanation:
The Epicurean way of life is the way of Virtue and Pleasure.
Here is an quote from Philodemus which extends the one from PD and letter from Menoeceus:
„It is impossible for one to live pleasurably without living prudently and honourably and justly, and also without living courageously and temperately and magnanimously, and without making friends and without being philanthropic, and in general without having all the other virtues. For the greatest errors in things we choose or avoid occur when some people accomplish individual actions while they hold the opposite view and, because of that, are in the grip of vices. (De elect. XIV. 1–14)“
Book: The Ethics of Philodemus, from Voula Tsouna
Thanks, I often worry
that the topic sometimes fades into the background because rivals to Epicurean philosophy often define virtue as the highest good instead of Pleasure.
One must be careful not to create a false dichotomy like virtue vs. pleasure. In Epicureanism, virtue and pleasure grow together, but virtue gets its value from pleasure, not the other way around. Virtue is the greatest but instrumental good. Therefore, many people (as I used to) unconsciously believe that Stoics, for example, are generally more virtuous than Epicureans, which is nonsense. The path to pleasure/eudaimonia always leads via virtue. I see the biggest difference (virtue or pleasure as the core of eudaimonia/life goal) in that eudaimonia, the good self or inner spirit, is defined by the Stoics as "doing good" while Epicureans define it as "experiencing good."
