Yes a crucial point, I meant philia as a positive attitude in contrast to justice as avoiding negative things.
And yes, dead we avoid all pain 😅
It is more about a kind of satisfied life or agreement with one life. A life with positive value, it is like pursuing health in life instead of avoiding illness absolutely.
Ultimately they can be summed up as "do no harm" both to others and to oneself. Non-harming brings about a good life free from troubles.
What? Define the goal purely negatively? If that were the case Epicurus could have stopped at "freedom from pain" without ever referring to pleasure (?)
Good point, more positively would be to pursue philia and pleasure but also the non-harming can mean to take active actions for example to help not someone who needs help und we could easily help could be seen as harming someone. Is a „not-decision“ sometimes also a decision ?
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 want to add for limit of pain ( maybe more for slight pain or mental pain ) the hedonic tresdmill for pain, with also Epicurean advice in it :
So I think now we can consult the worst health systems in the world: Suffering ? Wait, take drugs or go dying 🙃🤣😅
DaveT On one point Epicureanism recognizes Pain as the core evil, on the other it wants to give help, ideas, techniques against it. So I can understand the irritation that than it is stated that Pain is not really a problem (maybe only meant for the Epicurean Sage or an irrational Fear of Pain ? )
What is your attitude towards pain? Or rather, what would be a healthy or resilient attitude towards pain in life?
How justified do you see the fear of pain ?
I ´ve read even an article that for natural/necessary desires it is right for an Epicurean to fear Pain for such desires. Otherwise one of the natural/necessary desires is the desire for eudaimonia/ataraxia, so to have no or very less fears.
Is the potential amount of pain in life too great ? What should we conclude then from this insight ?
What would you advice ?
My thoughts regarding Pain:
1. Difference between faculty of Pain (and Pleasure ) and Painful things/situation/ ideas.
The faculty is there to protect us, born from evolutionary self-preservation.
2. Unnecessary Pain:
Empty ideas, worry, fears of superstitius, empty cultural ideas, fear of death, fear of (eternal and unendurable )pain( one aim of the 4. tetrapharmacon I think).
=> help of Epicurean physics
3. Avoidable Pain:
Avoidance of dangers/ painful situations….
=> help of Epicurean ethics/virtue (especially prudence, justice, friendship)
4. Endurable Pain:
Non-Avoidable Pain, Painful things/action for less pain or more pleasure.
=> help of Epicurean ethics/virtue (especially courage, temperance, justice, friendship)
5. Limits of Pain:
Hedonic Adaptation for Pain, Unendurable Pain…Death is for that the end. There is no eternal hell. Considering this that there is a last way out even could encourage to take greater pain.
Yes for example Ciceros and the Stoics define the only good Virtue and bad Vice and that the good must be something that always must be chosen, the bad always avoided. And their indifferents are choiceworthy or not. Interesting that there it is complete the opposite on the first view.
On a further digging I see there is a calculation and degree between good/bad for a higher good (Pleasant life ) in Epicureanism whereby for Cicero/ Stoics good/ bad are absolutes
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 
