Posts by SillyApe

Quote from Cassius

What is it that makes a thing "work" rather than "leisure?" Soley that I find it pleasurable or not? I don't think that's intended to be a one to one correspondence so it would help a lot to be more clear about what we are talking about.

The way I see it, work is that which we do mostly to obtain the means for our survival(and for the acquisition of other, more extravagant things). For example, one may work as a programmer. Even if they find pleasure in coding, if they won the lottery, it is unlikely they would keep enduring a 9-5 schedule, demands from their boss, meetings, etc. They do these things because they either need it for their survival, or, at the very least, they do this "sacrifice" in order to be able to buy better stuff.

On the other hand, leisure is what we do solely for the pleasure of doing it, not because we receive something material from it.

Thanks for the recommendation. This is a subject that interests me a lot. I first came across this idea when studying Nietzsche and it has stayed with me since then.

I think this fits well with the Epicurean ideas about desire and its categories. Since the rise of protestantism and the industrial revolution, work has rised to become a form of moral duty in the minds of many people.

I understand that there are times and circumstances in which one might need to work hard to secure their necessary desires, but I believe that, except for very few people, a life with work as its center is unlikely to produce much pleasure.

As some people say, no one wishes they had spent more time in the office when they are on their deathbed.

I am 23, so I am not far from 21, but this doesn't mean that there is nothing I know now that my younger self would have profitted from knowing.

I think two of the most valuable things Epicureanism provided me were the value of gratitude and a strong framework to base my general beliefs.

The gratitude one is pretty obvious. Once upon a time, I was obsessed with all the things that I "needed" in order to be happy. I "needed" lots of money, status, multiple romantic partners, travel the world, seek fancy experiences, etc. I could never enjoy what I had until I got everything that I "needed."

Now, I have a good, calm job, good(and simple) food, leisure time, and no worries. Not that there is anything wrong with fancy things once in a while, but I hadn't realized that all the pleasure that I needed was already available to me. Now, no matter the meal, I feast like the gods, not because I have infinite means, but because the means I have are more than enough.

Now, the strong framework for deciding our beliefs is especially important in our modern day. There are endless narratives and rules that are preached out there. Everyone has an opinion on how others should live and the decisions they should take. If you don't have a North to follow, you may end up being carried away by any narrative that sounds reasonable.

Epicureanism provided me with a series of ideas that serve as my North, which helps me keep my head above all the confusion.

Kalosyni Yes, I was thinking about the Stoics, but this also serves for any thinker who denies that pleasure is the end.

For example, let's say someone decides they are going to "hustle" and work 80 hours a week for 5 years in order to earn a lot of money, because they believe that a lot of money will allow them to buy expensive things, attract people they are attracted to, and provide them with a lot of fancy experiences. They are aiming to get the pleasure they believe they'll get from those things.

Then, to give credit to their actions, they come up with quotes from Marcus Aurelius or Nietzsche about resilience or strength, even if these thinkers would look at this person's aim as foolish. At the same time, the person, assuming they know Epicurus, would reject him, as the person would see Epicurus' teachings on managing desire as being against the "hustle."

Obviously, Epicurus would advise against this endless desire, excessive work, and the belief that the maximization of pleasure requires a lot of wealth/sex/consummerism, but he, at least, is aligned with the person's idea that the goal is pleasure, while Marcus Aurelius or Nietzsche are not.

This kind of idea truly annoys me for two reasons:

First, because it assumes the ancient Epicureans were some sort of fragile cowards who could not bear any discomfort(which is not true, given that Epicureanism is capable of producing some of the most resilient and wisest people).

Second, most modern people who talk about the value of suffering/struggle often do so because they believe they will get more pleasure in the future. For example, one trains really hard in the gym in order to get the pleasure of being admired, or of proving themselves capable, or of living healthy lives, etc. They don't do this sacrifice for some other, more abstract goal(like virtue).

Basically, they live pursuing pleasure, while also condemning the thinker who encouraged the search for pleasure and praising the thinkers who would call these people's pursuits petty or futile.

Quote from Robert

I don't know how this contradiction can be resolved

This is a major problem with religious beliefs in general: They start from abstract assumptions first, so you can fit anything into them, even if it sounds contradictory.

For example, I live in a highly religious country. When something bad happens, like someone getting sick, people flock to god, because "god is good." If the person gets cured from the disease, people will say that god is good because of that. If the person dies, people will say that god is good because the person was allowed to rest. If the person survives, but ends up crippled in some way, people will say that god is good because the person survived and because he'll reward those who suffer. And, obviously, if you raise an objection, people will say that "god operates in mysterious ways."

The problem is that people assume that god exists in the first place, that he acts in the world, and that he is "good." Since this assumption comes first, even with no solid base to back it up, everything else can be made to fit it, even if doing so requires a lot of mental gymnastics.

Thanks, everyone, for the help. I am feeling much better now. Life can be tough sometimes, so I am glad we at least have Philosophy by our side to help us.

I don't know about this. In my country, we don't have Halloween, but I truly wish we did. I like the aesthetics of it, with the Celtic-Pagan vibes being way more interesting than the old, boring Catholic holidays that are common where I live.

I think people are just having fun, and I am glad for it. I don't see it as promoting supernatural beliefs. I doubt anyone would be more inclined to believe in demons and ghosts just because people cut pumpkins and party dressed as monsters every October. Actually, I am happy whenever we have an ancient tradition that has not been fully replaced by Christian mythology.

When it comes to mocking death, I don't see it as harmful. When you mock death, it doesn't mean you don't take it seriously. On the contrary, if you didn't take it seriously, you would not mock it at all, but only be indifferent to it. Everyone knows they will die, so it is good to have a relief once in a while. Ideas on how to deal with death have existed since humans started realizing they would die. The oldest story known, The Epic of Gilgamesh, is about this very subject. Epicureanism has presented its ideas on the subject, and even though they may be effective, they are not the only good ones.

So, responding to the (edited)title of your post, I'd say "nah". Halloween seems fun. Here in my region, especially in rural areas, there are a lot of small church parties that happen. As Catholicism has an almost endless supply of saints, we have festivities honoring them every other weekend. I like to go there sometimes. Do I believe in any of that stuff? No. Do I attend mass? No. But the food is good, the music is nice, there's a lot of dancing, and good company to enjoy.

As far as I am concerned, ancient Epicureans still participated in civic religion, even though they believed the gods didn't care about such matters, so I don't think Halloween would be harmful to any Epicurean.

Hello everyone.

Recently, I've come across some terrible news from my region. I'll spare you all of the details, but it consisted of some truly vile crimes committed by a group of thugs. When I read this, my blood began to boil as never before. I started shaking with anger. Obviously, due to the naturally anxious nature of our species, I already started anticipating scenarios in which I or people close to me would be victims of similar crimes.

The thugs had already been arrested for similar crimes in the past, but got out early due to the failing criminal system in my country. As such, trust in the law for protection is not an effective option. I understand that building a strong community can be helpful(as I believe this is one of the many forms of security that can be increased with the help of friendship), but what else can I and other people do to deal with anger, resentment, and especially anxiety in scenarios like this? What would Epicurus and his followers advise?

I am a bit late for this, but here it comes anyway: "Behold the human, a wonder of nature; an ape with delusions of grandeur!"

I tend to overthink stuff due to my OCD, so it's always good to remember the silliness of it all... I bet some "professional" Philosophers(the kind that spend endless hours arguing over abstract metaphysics) would profit from keeping this in mind too.

I love these, especially the one about all the absurdities that the "professional Philosopher" creates in his head. For a time, these abstractions scared me away from Philosophy. Had I not found Epicurus, I'd still detest it.

I think Goethe once criticized Hegel over this same subject. He said that while the British were taking over the World through their study of nature and Science, the Germans were stuck in endless metaphysical arguments.

First of all, to hell with Plutarch. Second of all, I don't know if I feel happy that technology is evolving in a way that can help us study true Philosophy or if I feel scared for how AI has advanced. Imagine how many scams these AI voices can create!

So, what do we have here? An author talking about metaphysical speculations, Christian beliefs, and the so desired(and abstract) "meaning".

"Meaning" is a funny thing. As the author says, we should pursuit it instead of "happiness". The question is: why do humans chase meaning? In my view, it is because it helps us endure the pains of life. If we go through a terrible situation for no reason at all, it feels way worse than if there was a "meaning" behind it all. That means that "meaning" is just a tool for the increase of our pleasure and the decrease of our pain.

Another factor that contributes to the human desire for "meaning" is our difficulty in accepting our own insignificance. It has always been hard for us to understand that we're just some random creatures walking on this planet, born not for a reason, but only by chance. In a desperate attempt to change that, we try to give "meaning" to ourselves, which would be fulfilled either in this World or in a theoretical "Next World".

Though I understand where it comes from, I still think this is not a helpful tool. Just like any other supernatural or abstract concept, it can quickly degenerate into senseless goals built upon absolutely nothing. Pure rationalizations of the human mind. That's why I like the teachings of Epicureanism on how to cultivate a good life: they are tangible and "real", not based on some abstraction or transcendence. Sensations are here and now, being way more reliable than abstract concepts.

Happy 20th everyone! May this day(and all others) be filled with pleasures for us all!

This is the kind of thinking that first made me love Epicurean Philosophy. In the past, I was full of these vain desires and expectations, which brought me so much pain. One day, I read about Epicurus encouraging his followers to analyze their desires and do the calculation to see if they are worth it or not. Once I realized the futility of my pursuits and let these desires and expectations go, I felt so much light, as if I were a locked bird, now free to fly to the skies. Later on, I discovered the concept of "cognitive load", which explained through Psychiatry what Epicurus taught many centuries ago through Philosophy.

Cassius, I agree that we need to make clear that the Epicurean goal is pleasure, not some vague concept of tranquility/enlightenment. Every time someone searches for Epicureanism on the internet, they always end up being bombarded by someone telling them what Epicurus meant by "pleasure" was only "tranquility", which, for us who have gone a bit deeper into Epicurean studies, is clearly false(if it were true, Epicurus would have said that good and bad were decided by how much tranquility they bring and not by the sensory experience of pleasure/pain).

The big hurdle here is that, in a sense, Epicureanism "lost" a battle long ago. Christianity ruled the West for far too long. The way people see things is still inherently Christian, even if the religion itself is fading. Pleasure is still seen with a certain distrust. Even for those who don't necessarily hate pleasure, there's still the idea that you must balance pleasure with virtue as if they were opposites(while Epicurus made it clear that the virtues were a way to obtain pleasure). Perhaps that's why marketers were so successful in promoting Stoicism and Buddhism. In addition to their glamorization and foreignness which I mentioned earlier, these are still traditions that have a lot of alignment with Christian values. Stoics believed in an intelligence ruling the World(even if many "modern Stoics" don't like to think about it) and that the virtues were the end in themselves(going back to the Christian need of self-sacrifice and the need to improve oneself in order to resist temptation), while Buddhists preach about love, universal brotherhood, and offer the appeal of supernatural/transcendent forces(which many reject intellectually, but crave internally), all similar to Christian ideals.

I myself rejected Epicureanism the first time I discovered it. After leaving Christianity and studying everything from Stoicism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, finding a school of Philosophy that was materialist and hedonistic at its core, free from all superstition, felt almost wrong, even if deep down, the Epicurean claims made more sense to me than all the other philosophies and traditions I mentioned combined. I guess that, after centuries of being told that we matter to a higher power(or that there's something greater beyond what we can see), it is hard for someone to accept that they are just silly apes, roaming a World that does not care about them, with no intrinsic purpose and with nothing existing after death.

In the end, though, I am glad I left the supposed empty tomb and went in the direction of the Garden.

We can spread Epicurean ideas through many methods: content creation, talking about it to our friends, teaching our children, etc.

On another note, sadly, I don't think Epicureanism is going to be as popular as Stoicism or Buddhism are nowadays, for the simple reason there's not much commercial appeal to it. Love it or hate it, Stoicism and Buddhism have only spread as much as they have because it's easy to glamorize them and to turn them into tools one can use to "succeed" in life(stuff like "use these Stoic lessons to get women to fall for you" or "mindfulness techniques to be more productive at work"). Epicureanism, on the other hand, in my opinion, is too "sane" to be glamorized into these kinds of products(which I hope to be the case, as I don't want Epicureanism to be disturbed and productized like the other traditions I mentioned were).

I agree. I don't think society is being rebuilt upon Epicurean pillars nor do I think that the influence of Christian thought will fade into obscurity(even if the supernatural beliefs become weaker). I think, however, that the framework through which people make decisions nowadays is becoming more hedonistic and less idealistic, which may facilitate the spread of Epicureanism(not that I think Epicureanism works for everyone. It works for me, but other people can find their own paths).

I think our society is slowly becoming more aligned with Epicureanism, even if most people have never heard about Epicurus. After centuries of religious domination over our culture, when most people were taught to pursue ideals of "purity" and "piety" and to focus on the afterlife, now more and more people have become materialists(in the physics sense) and have set themselves to pursue pleasure, as built in their nature.

Obviously, many people will struggle in their journeys, especially because many have been misguided by promises that pleasure can only be found in extreme consumerism or because they haven't been exposed to the wisdom of how to deal with life in a way that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain.

Oh yeah, I had read this passage before on a Reddit post and I loved it. Epicureanism does have a tremendous power to help us free our life from unnecessary trouble.