In post number 12 above Rolf you wrote something that I was unclear about what exactly you were trying to convey -- I'm not sure what "extravagant desires" has to do with this??
Ah, apologies! I was using Emily Austin’s phrasing for necessary and unnatural desires.
We can only choose for ourselves what feels like the best actions.
I agree 100%.
I have a general concern in philosophical discussion that - under the influence of Stoicism or similar views - people "accept" far too many things that could be changed with the right effort.
This is a wise and helpful perspective, thank you Cassius. It’s gotten me thinking how deeply engrained the glorification of acceptance is within myself and modern society. Even before reading up on stoicism, and after disregarding it, I’ve placed great value in so-called “radical acceptance”. Of course acceptance can be useful at times, but you’re right that we mustn’t lose site of the bigger, fundamental picture - it’s all about pleasure and pain. If I accept something that’s causing me pain, it might minimise the pain slightly, but it’s always going to be better to root out of the source of the pain entirely if possible.
That said, painful chronic conditions are something I’m still struggling to reconcile with the philosophy. I’ve heard arguments against Epicureanism that “it’s a philosophy only for healthy, happy people”. While I disagree, I’m not entirely sure how I’d respond to the criticism.
Yes, and there are certainly movies that do not use gratuitous violence or other unpleasant aspects or characters - for those like myself who tends toward "high emotional absorption" (empathy).
But that’s only your preference in extravagant desires, right? I enjoy watching movies about unpleasant characters from time to time, despite not wanting to associate with such things in reality. I can enjoy a movie about a violent mob boss or a war documentary. I don’t think it’s possible or healthy to make a blanket statement about what media an epicurean should or should not engage with (so long as it does not lead to more pain than pleasure). It reminds me of the Christians who refuse to let their kids read Harry Potter because magic is satanic.
Rolfe you have not been exposed to my deep reservations about the Tetrapharmakon, which you can read here.
Interesting, I’ll read through this. Thanks Cassius.
With that intro I'd say "enjoy what you can" seems correct to me, but "accept what you cannot" strikes me as too ambiguous -- cannot what? Cannot enjoy? Why?
Accept what you cannot enjoy, yeah.
I think I'd have to ask "why can't you enjoy it? Because it was totally beyond your power? Or because you didn't try?
This is a fascinating question, and something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: The role of reframing and other such “mental tricks” in reducing pain and increasing pleasure, even in tough situations. Do you think that most things are able to be enjoyed with the right effort? I have a few health issues that cause me fairly consistent pain, and I cannot say that I enjoy them, but I have learned and am learning to accept them and thus reduce the associated pain. Interested to hear your further thoughts on this.
Would you say that the imperative phrasing 'Enjoy what you can, accept what you cannot' accurately reflects the meaning of parts 3 and 4 of the Tetrapharmakos — that what is good is easy to obtain, and what is bad is easy to endure?"
I collaborated with The Dude to compose a "Dudeist" version of the Letter to Menoeceus: https://dudeism.com/the-dudes-letter-to-menoeceus/
Fuckin' A! 
As Epicureans, if we lived in communites with other Epicureans, then we would not have time for movies - we would be busy doing "barn-raisings" and helping each other out to be self-sufficient, and having potlucks dinners together.
Each to their own, but for me this edges a little too close to the ascetic view of Epicureanism and judging certain pleasures as wrong. As long as watching movies leads to more pleasure than pain, and for many (myself included) it does, then what's the harm? Why must an Epicurean community necessarily have no time for movies, instead "raising barns"? It seems that one could dismiss a vast number of unnecessary but enjoyable pastimes using this rationale.
I think movies are "sold" to the masses by the few who are the "movie-makers". And you really need to ask yourself: What kinds of messages are they conveying? What thoughts are they "telling" you to think? And are they ramping up your internal fears of death?
Also, most movie plots are the opposite of this:
VS72: "He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others."
Sure, not every movie is going to contain an Epicurean message, but why does that mean we should avoid them? By that logic, should we also avoid the majority of music and (non-Epicurean) literature?
I hope this doesn't come off too harsh. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your perspective on this. But if I understand correctly, then I must vehemently disagree.
Hey folks! I’m back from my trip and thought I’d jump into a fun discussion. As a big film geek, I’ve recently been reflecting on movies from an Epicurean perspective, and I wanted to share a couple of key points to kick things off:
1) While movies can be valuable tools for exploring philosophy, they are rarely a perfect depiction of Epicurean principles unless that’s the filmmaker's intention. I believe it’s crucial that we acknowledge where a movie and its characters align with the philosophy and where they diverge. Not all elements of a film will resonate with Epicurean thought.
2) At the same time, I believe that almost any movie can be analyzed through an Epicurean lens, particularly if we operate under the assumption of psychological hedonism. After all, most characters are in pursuit of pleasure and avoiding pain, though they may differ in how effectively they navigate that pursuit. Examining this aspect of characters’ motivations can provide insights into the challenges they face in seeking pleasure—whether it's through their choices, desires, or failures.
With that out of the way, let's dive in!
The Big Lebowski (SPOILERS BELOW)
The Big Lebowski centers around Jeff Lebowski, better known as the Dude. Despite being an easy-going slacker, the Dude gets wrapped up in a convoluted kidnapping plot along with his bowling buddies.
Where it aligns
Where it doesn't (or examples of what not to do)
don't think there are unnatural but necessary desires (per Epicurus' categories).
Ah sorry, I meant natural but unnecessary
I’m on holiday right now and have yet to read through the whole thread, but I’ve been thinking about this conundrum and would like to add this quick thought: The classifications are like priorities. We should probably rarely, if ever, sacrifice natural necessary desires for unnatural necessary ones, when keeping long term pleasure in mind.
Do you agree that you can pursue only necessary pleasures and reach 100% pleasure (or happiness)? If you can pursue only necessary pleasures and reach the target, why would you pursue any others than those which are easiest to obtain?
This is a good, concise way to sum up my point of confusion - thanks Cassius.
But while we are helping them see the right way to approach that question, we need to avoid stating things in a loose way that is logically confusing to those who are closely trying to follow the logical consistency of the philosophy.
I agree. I can understand the intention of the philosophy based on what I hear from you, the other fine people on this forum, and Emily Austin, among others. But I want to be able to follow the logical steps laid out by Epicurus himself, so that I may understand the philosophy more innately.
It enables us to enjoy and enrich ourselves with all that tiny little good influences around us. Good food (especially food!), a nice breeze under a blue sky, a vibrant talk with a friend while walking a thriving urban landscape or a magnificent peace of nature. There are so many good things around all the while, hence I'm not seeking for more, for the better, for the Everest. I am just satisfied and happy.
Beautifully written, Titus.
I know Cassius' is fighting the image of the minimalist frugal Epicurean who lives on bread and water but I would like to see more sensitivity as to why there is a category of"unnecessary desires" in the first place.
I agree - I could definitely benefit from deeper discussion of the necessary/unnecessary split. That said: I forget where I read this, but I’ve heard it said that necessary desires are those that cause pain when not fulfilled (eg. Hunger, tiredness), while unnecessary desires do not cause pain when not fulfilled (eg. A fancy meal). Correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Further, I agree with you that the natural and necessary analysis is not as clear in our texts as it should be, and it's not something I focus on. I think Torquatus gives a reasonable explanation as to why it exists, as a tool of analysis, but it strikes me as rather obvious and so not something I find that important. The getting to 100% and then the rest being variation is important for logical reasons, but to me this natural / necessary division is not as much philosophical as it is practical advice. It's good practical advice too - if you need need help to see that the harder pleasures to obtain come at higher cost.
Ah, that makes sense. It’s less of a hard-and-fast philosophical tenet and more of an example of how to look at things - a tool, as you say. I suppose at the end of the day Epicurean ethics comes down to using prudence to maximise the ratio of pleasure to pain, with much of the rest being tools to help one do this. Would you agree with this evaluation (oversimplified as it may be)?
I don't think you're missing something obvious however. This analysis is a prime tool used by the Stoics to argue that Epicurus was a minimalist, so it's a major thing to fight over. Yes it can be read to mean "you should be satisfied when you have just enough to keep you alive." But was it interpreted by Epicurus himself that way? No, so it's either not meant in that way, or Epicurus was a hypocrite. I don't think he was a hypocrite, so I think it was meant in the practical way of meaning "Watch out if you go for the more difficult pleasures in life, because that may cause more pain that it's worth. There's a lot of pleasure available in things that are easier to get, but jt's up to you to decide what's best for you. And he of all people - driven as he was - would have known that if you forgo something that you really want to do then that regret can be among the most painful.
That’s a good point. Knowing of these arguments against Epicureanism and the epicurean responses to them really helps me to understand the philosophy.
On that note, I’d probably say to such as a stoic that it is important to remember that boredom and regret, too, are pains. They must be factored in when deciding on which pleasures to pursue.
Thanks Cassius. Your replies are helpful but I feel we’re still not hitting the core of my misunderstanding here. Let me put it this way:
Let’s say I have adequate food, drink, shelter, and friends. I am able to consistently meet my necessary desires. But I am a person, as you described, who is not satisfied (ie. At 100% pleasure) with only these basic needs met. So I must unnecessary desires in order to hit that 100% pleasure mark: Watching a movie, going dancing, eating a donut. Does that not make these desires “necessary” in the sense that they’re necessary for my happiness (ie. 100% pleasure)?
I fear I’m getting tangled up in thought here and missing something obvious.
Thanks for the insight, Don and Cassius. A few notes…
The limit of the quantity of pixels on a given screen is x, and even a black and white film will employ every pixel - but will the quality of the experience be better in full color? I think it probably will be.
Does this not fall into the fallacy of there being a “hierarchy” of pleasures? I understood it as all pleasure being equally, well, pleasurable - no “fancy pleasures”, as Elayne put it.
I’m still a little confused. I understand that the intention is that we should simply maximise pleasure and minimise pain. However, I am struggling to follow the logical steps on this particular issue (pursuing unnecessary pleasures). Perhaps I’m getting too caught up on this classification?
When it comes to the “absence of pain” thing - I get that PD3 is a counterargument to Plato on pleasure having no limit. That’s not what I’m confused about here (though there’s another quote with a similar meaning that I still feel unsure about, but that’s a discussion for another thread).
What I’m confused about is this classification. Am I understanding correctly that the “necessary” in “necessary and natural desires” refers to being necessary for human well-being and happiness, and “unnecessary” to being unnecessary (but still pleasurable)? If that’s the case, why is it not enough for us to simply pursue and fulfil the necessary desires in order to reach this ideal (and largely hypothetical) state of 100% pleasure 0% pain? I understand in a practical sense that a minimal and ascetic life like this would be rather dull (and thus painful), but then I don’t understand the “necessary” and “unnecessary” terminology.
I hope I’m adequately explaining my confusion! Let me know if you’re unsure about what I mean.
Hey folks!
I’m getting stumped on something that previously I felt I had a firm grasp on: Why pursue (natural) unnecessary desires, if necessary desires are all that are needed for happiness? If the limit of pleasure is the absence of pain (ie. 100% pleasure 0% pain), aren’t unnecessary desires merely variation?
I recall the ‘cup’ infographic. One of the examples of a “bad” cup is one that is half full, in which only necessary desires are pursued - a cup of asceticism. I can acknowledge that I enjoy unnecessary pleasures and wish to pursue them, but logically speaking, why exactly should we not aim to fulfil only our necessary desires?
Hmm. On one hand, I suppose all of these could in fact lead to pain. Likely to, even. As Lucretius points out, these vices “tear a man in two” and “trouble his life”, and he laments about “how many disasters they deal”. To me, this points towards him illustrating how these vices lead to material pain, not any kind of abstract moral failing.
At the same time though, I see your concern Kalosyni - I agree that we ought to be careful about abstract virtues and vices detached from the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
I suppose it could simply be a matter of Lucretius being a product of his time, in the same way that Epicurus wrote from a perspective of gods existing (though not interfering of course).
It could also be Lucretius being Lucretius. From what I’ve seen, he’s rather flowery and dramatic with his language, and seems to use language in a way intended to elicit emotions, even if it takes away from precision.
I suppose, at least in my early understanding, that Epicurus indeed used the words 'pleasure' and 'pain' as conceptual markers rather than literal interpretations. His 'pleasure' seems to point more toward an inner tranquility - a state of peace rather than momentary delight. In that light, certain pains might be endured for the sake of greater inner peace, if they lead to that deep serenity. I wonder if Mildred Lisette Norman, the Peace Pilgrim, reached that state. Could she be seen as a modern figure who attained the god-like state that Epicurus spoke of?
Hey Vlas, welcome to the forum! I'm sure others will be able to explain this better, but the equating of "pleasure" with "a tranquil state" is a common pitfall in the understanding of Epicurean philosophy. When Epicurus says pleasure, he means pleasure. This includes pleasure of all kinds: The "state of peace" and the "momentary delight". The goal of Epicureanism is very much pleasure, complete pleasure, and not some kind of detached nirvana-esque state of serenity - no "god-like state", at least not in any typical understanding of the term.
This might be a good place to start!
And there's nothing "sinful" about overindulging in wine, for example. But if you're going to, you've made a choice and you'll have to deal with the consequences. No more, no less.
Well said Don, that's exactly how I see it.
