We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Institute of Noetic Science
Perhaps I’m missing something, but this organisation seems to be the antithesis of the Epicurean worldview: belief in the supernatural. After reading up on them a little, they seem to be widely regarded as pseudoscientific. I’ll also note that despite over a century of research into things like telekinesis, not one person has been able to demonstrate such abilities under controlled, repeatable condition.
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).
Not at all! I’m the furthest thing from ascetic and I don’t believe that Epicurus was one either. Ice cream is great and can certainly make life richer and more pleasurable. That said, I think we can both agree that ice cream is not necessary for a pleasant life.
All I’m talking about here is the classification of desires as laid out. My disagreement stems from your statement that we “only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to one’s resources.” I don’t think that something being unnecessary to happiness implies that it is always difficult or reckless to attain, and I don’t think that Epicurus meant it in this way either.
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.
Haha, I was hesitant to use movies as an example but couldn’t come up with anything better in the moment - I remember that you’re not a fan. The word “movies” could be replaced here by practically any pleasure that is neither inherently harmful nor necessary for happiness.
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).
I would label something natural but unnecessary if it is a natural desire (ie. Not arising from false beliefs or fears) but not strictly necessary for my happiness.
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?
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.
Okay, regarding my "mistaken" idea in post 22 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
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.
A can of soup and some bread will fulfil my hunger, but I won’t deny myself the pleasure of a steak dinner if the opportunity arises and it doesn’t cause an excess of pain.
It is painful to not have any food at all, but I am not (or should not) be caused any pain by eating soup and bread rather than a steak dinner. The way understand it: Necessary desires cause pain in their absence, unnecessary desires do not (or should not).
Decided to look up some definitions on my beloved Wiktionary and found something interesting.
The third defintion of the word "luxury" is given as: "Something that is pleasant but not necessary in life."
This seems to fit perfectly with the Epicurean view of desires that are natural but unnecessary.
On the other hand, the defintions given for the word "extravagance" are markedly anti-Epicurean, aligning more closely with empty/corrosive desires, such as "excessive" and "prodigality".
I realise that dictionary defintions rarely represent concrete, objective meanings, but perhaps they can be useful in pointing us towards how words are most commonly used and interpreted.
Going back to the initial topic for a moment: I might add clouds in the sky above the mountain representing UU/empty/corrosive desires - no matter how much you climb, you will never reach them, and thus chasing them is imprudent.
How does the word "luxurious/luxuries" instead of "extravagant/extravagances" sound? Food is a necessary desire; ice cream is luxurious. Friendship is necessary for happiniess; romance is a luxury.
even then I doubt you can avoid explaining or giving examples
That said, I agree with this. No word or term is going to be able to fully put across the meaning that Epicurus intended by itself - but that's okay. For me, a term is more for my own use and understanding, and for reference in discussion with others who are familiar with Epicurean philosophy. For those who are not familiar, we must of course explain what we mean, just as we must often first explain what we mean by "pleasure". I'm still partial to using the NN, NU, UU abbreviations for internal discussions, simply because they're relatively neutral and clear if you know what they stand for.
I like this idea of only: "natural, necessary, and empty".
Actually it should just be:
--- natural and necessary = Is it natural? Does it come to us from nature? (We will need to be clear about what exactly are all the desires that nature gives to us). And... Do we need it to survive? Do we need it for our well-being (and to feel blessed/happy).
-vs-
--- empty = Is it actually unnecessary for both survival and well-being? Is it an opinion not from nature but generated by greed for massive riches, non-stop variations of sensation, massive power/control/status (all of which are empty opinions).
What about the desires that are natural but not strictly necessary for survival and well-being?
I can appreciate your desire for conciseness, but I'm not a fan of in-group abbreviations. I don't even like referring to Epicurean philosophy as EP.
That’s fair Don - I can see how it could be a bit exclusionary for anyone outside the loop.
The passage from Menoikeus you bring up is interesting. Would you say “natural”, “necessary”, and “empty” are suitable terms to use?
You know, this has me thinking: At least for those of us who are already familiar with the philosophy, using the abbreviations NN, NU, and UU would be a lot cleaner and clearer. 
Finally, we have the snow sprinkled atop the mountain representing the natural but unnecessary "extravagant" desires. Once we have everything below, we may take joy in these pleasures and allow them to adorn our life, without feeling like we require them.
I personally would end up choosing a word other than "extravagent" (but not sure exactly what word).
Also, I wouldn't see this as a hierarchy, but instead that they can all occur at the same time.
I use the word "extravagent" as it's the word Emily Austin uses in her book to describe natural but unnecessary desires. I agree it's not the perfect word though - if I recall correctly, Austin doesn't think it is either.
Perhaps not a hierachy in the sense of some things being better than others, but in the sense of priority. Maslow's hierarchy of needs places self-esteem above safety and security - this doesn't mean that self-esteem is more important than safety, however. And in the same way, it's obviously possible for one to have both self-esteem and safety simultaneously. It's less about a ranking, and more about ordering needs from basic to complex, and thus giving us some kind of roadmap.
That said, this is more of a visual representation than an actual theory.
Hey folks,
Woke up feeling a little under the weather today. While resting up in bed, I thought about Maslow's hierarchy of needs and how it does and does not relate to Epicurean philosophy. As a result, I decided to throw together this rough idea for an Epicurean hierarchy of needs.
Now, obviously in Epicurean philosophy there isn't so much of a "hierarchy" in the sense that all pleasure is good. With that in mind, this chart is meant for more practical usage.
From bottom to top:
1. First and foremost, we need basic necessities such as food, water, and shelter, along with confidence of consistent access to these things. Without these, we physically cannot live.
2. Next, we need friendship and a community. Humans are social animals and friendship is vital to a pleasant life.
3. Then we learn about Epicurean philosophy, such as the ethics and canonics, and the natural world, so that we may live a more pleasurable life and understand the limits of pleasure.
4. Finally, we have the snow sprinkled atop the mountain representing the natural but unnecessary "extravagant" desires. Once we have everything below, we may take joy in these pleasures and allow them to adorn our life, without feeling like we require them.
The mountain climber represents prudence - the tool we use in order to ascend the mountain.
For me, the PDs have been tricky. At the beginning they sounded rather obscure, but as I have read, paused and returned to them over various intervals they seem to be pretty straightforward, although incredibly insightful. They require time and percolation.
Thanks for your insightful reply Godfrey. I really ought to spend more time on the PDs. That said, I appreciate you explaining things in your own words - citations are great, but it's helpful to have things in explained in a different way too.
PD04 which you mentioned gives a pretty straightforward response to my concern - despite having read it before, I didn't think about it in this specific context until you brought it up. That even "chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh" is relieving to hear and a good reminder.
For me, part of the beauty of Epicurus' analysis of pleasure and pain is that it is exceptionally nuanced and provides the Epicurist so much to work with. We can offset various pains by noticing and dialing in to pleasures in other parts, and we can work at increasing these pleasures even if we can't seem to diminish the pains. We can seek pleasure strategically when we understand what, for each of us, provides the greatest payoff in terms of maximizing our pleasure and minimizing our pain. Sometimes this takes time. Lots of time. But we humans are intricate instruments, not the golems that Cicero and the Stoics imagine us to be.
We strive for pleasure and consider pain an "evil". But even as we sometimes choose a pain in the service of greater pleasure, even being more aware of our pains can provide us with guidance to greater pleasure.
For sure. When it comes to pains that are chosen to avoid greater pain or achieve greater pleasure, I completely understand. However, I am more concerned about the pains that we do not choose - the unnecessary pains that serve no purpose. How do we reconcile them under Epicureanism, particularly if they are frequent? If one is truly unable to get rid of such pains, is it best to adjust one's mindset and accept them? Does Epicurus write about this sort of thing? From what I've read so far, pain is mainly mentioned in the contexts of a) pain should be avoided and b) some pains should be chosen in the name of prudence. But what of the pains that can neither be avoided nor are chosen?
Anything can certainly be proposed and discussed. The question, to me, is "Does the idea correlate to reality or not?" Epicurus' categorization, to my current understanding, correlates to reality while Cicero, Plato, "St." Paul, etc. do not. I think some ideas in Buddhism are interesting, but overall it has too much other baggage. But that was why I considered myself a Buddhist for a number of years. It made the most sense to me and conformed to my understanding of reality at the time in contrast to all the other philosophies and religions I had studied up to that point. Then I discovered Epicurus.
100% agree. I aim to be pragmatic, and to me Epicurus' philosophy is the most pragmatic. Even from my beginner's standpoint where I don't fully grasp all the concepts yet, it requires little to no leaps in logic compared to the vast majority of other philosophies I've looked into.
Speaking of which - a vaguely related thought I want to bring up. There are times when I find myself doubting whether Epicurean philosophy can truly work for me — not because I disagree with its core ideas, but because I live with a persistent undercurrent of physical discomfort. I start to wonder if Epicureanism assumes a baseline of health that I just don’t have.
In those moments, other perspectives become tempting. The “surrender to the flow” of Taoism, or the radical acceptance of Stoicism, can seem like a way to bypass the whole problem of pain — to dissolve it in detachment. And yet, they ultimately drift from reality by denying that pleasure and pain matter.
Regardless of what I feel, it is clear as day to me that pleasure and pain do in fact matter, and that Epicurean philosophy is an accurate reflection of reality. Life is clearly about pleasure and pain at its core, without any kind of romantisation of the latter. Pursuing pleasure is always going to be the optimal "strategy", regardless of any lingering pains that may or may not be able to be stamped out. Even for somebody experiencing truly severe chronic pains, following the reality of Epicureanism is going to be far more effective than chasing mirages with Stoicism and the like.
Also Rolf, have you read the Chrisypus' hand challenge, and if so what do you make of it?
Hmm, I'm uncertain. I recall reading this before and not understanding it, and I'm not sure I grasp it now either.
apart from a joyous activity of pleasure
it is the highest pleasure, as Epicurus believes, to be in no pain
This here almost feels like an endorsement for the "ascetic absence of pain" argument. "To be in no pain" seems to be used here literally, rather than to mean "100% pleasure 0% pain". And, if I understand correctly, this state is put above "joyous activity of pleasure". How do you interpret this?
Though perhaps it's meant to be read as "since there are only two feelings, if the hand is not in pain, then it is in pleasure, and therefore feels no need for pleasure".
On another note, if I think about how my hand feels right now, I certainly feel some discomfort. I don't know if I feel a specific lack of pleasure in it though, because I can't think of anything I could do to decrease the discomfort in my hand. Thus the most prudent option seems to be to accept the minor discomfort and think about something else.
I'm also unsure about how this passage relates to the topic at hand (no pun intended), in terms of attitude and mindset. Or was it meant as a more general callback to the initial topic of the thread?
Yes I agree that that is true.
Is this something that’s discussed at all in Epicureanism? From what I’ve seen, the philosophy seems to be more focused on practical, physical choice and avoidance, rather than mindset.
It seems to me that it's implicit in virtually all of it that you have to make conscious choices to focus your mind and decide to trust the senses and use them properly.
I mean less in the context of “trusting your senses” and more in the sense of consciously shifting your mindset regarding pain.
If I’m experiencing bodily pain, for instance, it’s objectively painful. I trust my senses that I am experiencing pain. However, if I dwell on and agonise over the pain, I will experience it more strongly. On the other hand, with a more positive mindset, or a conscious effort to accept the pain as it is, perhaps its impact can be reduced.
Do you see what I mean?
This discussion makes me wonder: How important is a conscious positive mindset/attitude to Epicurean living? I haven’t seen this discussed much, beyond Epicurus’ last day when he shifted his mind to pleasant memories rather than letting himself be distraught over the physical pain. I’m reminded of a quote by Viktor Frankl:
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”
What role, if any, does this concept of a conscious mindset play in Epicurean philosophy?
Rolf I'll say publicly what I told you privately - I do not judge your questioning to be pessimistic or too persistent. You are asking excellent questions and doing us a great favor by boring in on a key issue like this. Please keep it up and feel free to expand the questioning to other topics when you are through with this one!
Much appreciated! I shall do so. 
