
Why Epicurus Matters Today - diodorus
http://www.mantlethought.org/philosophy/why-epicurus-matters-today
======
11thEarlOfMar
The way I differentiate Epicureanism from Hedonism is the difference between
maximization and optimization. Hedonism seeks to achieve an absolute maximum
pleasure, irrespective of the cost. Epicureanism seeks an overall optimized
pleasant life. Hedonism is Max(pleasure). Epicureanism is the integral of
pleasure over a lifetime.

Understanding it that way shows illustrates that a night of hedonistic heavy
drinking, singing and dancing with friends, which may be a blast as it
transpires, comes paired with a day of massive headache and lethargy.

Whereas a night spent watching a favorite film with a new friend, and
discussing it's merits afterwards is followed the next day with reflecting on
the discussions and further enjoying it. The experience may not have the
intensity of the drinking, but I'm left with only positive memories, not a mix
of pleasure and pain.

------
api
I admire Epicurus for his many visionary ideas in several areas, but
ultimately his philosophy rings hollow. Pleasure as an end in itself seems
both circular and ultimately extremely dull. It's interesting that Epicurus
condemns extreme hedonism, since I think the ultimate lesson one can get from
it is the ultimate pointlessness of pleasure as an end in itself. Pleasure for
its own sake is boring.

Epicureanism sort of strikes me as Buddhism without enlightenment-- all the
moderation and Earthly wisdom but none of the transcendence. It seems like a
sure fire evolutionary dead end in every respect.

~~~
kentrado
I am going to do something different from the other comments here and I'm
going to agree with you. The reason why most people will disagree with you is
because most people are terrified of suffering. They can't see suffering as
the thing that makes life interesting, for them everything good comes from
pleasure which is a mute point. They expand the definition of pleasure until
the point where no argument could be had.

But indeed suffering makes life interesting. I just saw Meru, a documentary of
a group of Alpinists trying to climb a very difficult mountain. Most hedonist
would explain their behaviour with some bullshit like: "They do it because
they feel pleasure from it" Which is total nonsense, specially when you are
aware of all the pain and suffering involved in climbing a big fucking
mountain.

It wouldn't be much of a challenge without suffering, there wouldn't be a
grand obstacle to overcome. You can get more pleasure to stay in your couch
smoking weed, but climbing Meru makes life more interesting.

------
tangxiathought
I think the one and only thing that humans can derive pleasure from is
progress. In order to progress, however, one has to continuously expand their
limits and that is painful. So really (true, sustainable) pleasure and pain
come hand in hand. The 'secret' to maximizing happiness is to avoid the pain
that doesn't lead to progress.

------
michaelsbradley
"Some ask whether it is worth studying ancient philosophy at all."

I'm one of those persons who thinks it is worthwhile to do so. Frederick
Copleston's[1] _A History of Philosophy_ series[2] (the early volumes in this
case) is a good resource for getting one's feet wet.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Copleston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Copleston)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Philosophy_%28Cop...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Philosophy_%28Copleston%29)

~~~
thingsgoby
Also strong recommendations: A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand
Russell (himself also more than worthwhile a read!)

~~~
mercer
From what I've read it's generally considered to be a very subjective work,
and intentionally so. That said, I really liked it _because_ of this, as it
leads to a coherent, 'fluid' progression.

I vaguely recall a chapter on one pretty important philosopher where Russell
concludes with something close to 'obviously this guy is full of shit'.

~~~
VLM
Only one? He dissed Hume pretty badly, something along the lines of sorry you
don't think the scientific method is internally self contained, but
pragmatically it works pretty well, so WRT that definition of truth, oh well.
Also, he actually Godwin'd Rousseau, although that's more claiming evil than
claiming BS, plus or minus a worldview that evil is just successful BS... or
is it? And the Dewey chapter isn't really a Dewey chapter but mostly is a rant
on the evils of intellectual arrogance although I don't remember if he
specifically attacked one individual, other than happening to locate that rant
in what turned out to be the Dewey chapter. He was more or less complimentary
or better on average to everyone else.

The great man theory of history is highly politically incorrect at this time,
or maybe highly out of fashion, style, or fad. Yet its very popular when
teaching the history of philosophy. Perhaps that says more about the validity
of being anti-great man vs what it says about teaching philosophy. Still it
would be interesting to identify "the best" non-great man philosophy book,
assuming there are any good ones.

