Comments on: Hedonist Philosopher Epicurus Was Right About Happiness (Mostly)

By: Epikoureios

Epikoureios — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:49:41 +0000

Tabula Rasa.
Λάθε Βιώσας.

...and one terrible morning Paul the spermologos, from the Orient, appeared in the Agora...

By: Tinternet

Tinternet — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:25:00 +0000

I feel Epicurus may have been right about marriage, that it went along with his other philosophy. That philosophy being about eating bread instead of lobster, I know it sounds strange and I don't think anyone should divorce over this. If you've found one companion and the best friend imaginable, than it is great to vow to stay with them forever, and what a great world we would live in if they did. Eating lobster for a great while, then not being able to afford it one day, could sink one into a deep depression. I think we've all been there, for the most part. In the same sense, you may find that your spouse who does not share the same epicurian values may leave you over materials. Setting you up for disaster in the first place. I am getting pretty keen to this non-marriage thing, and am making sense of this, in that my girlfriend may just be an intimate friend.

By: egypupu

egypupu — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:12:00 +0000

Jeremy, you have grasped the essence and possible significance of the sustainability of the Epicurean lifestyle. And you are right on what Epicurus got right. But you are probably wrong on what you think Epicurus got wrong, at least in two of your three points:
Modern research shows there is a correlation between higher levels of happiness and those who are more involved in civic activities in their own communities – and not society in general. Besides Bergsma there are other studies on this topic. As a very good resource on results of scientific (sociological, neuroscientific, biochemical, etc. – not only psychological) research I recommend Stefan Klein’s book: The Science of Happiness.
As for marriage the meta-studies are not unequivocal.
In point 3 scientific studies tend to support your conclusion: Pleasure is not the opposite of pain. Epicurus most probably preached the opposite for reasons of doctrinal consistence and pedagogical motivation (to set the expectations low.)
Another detail we have to get right: Epicurus classified desires and not “things” as natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary and vain or void (i.e. neither natural nor necessary), making a fine subdivision for the natural and necessary ones. His classification is based on the way desires are related to needs. and the way these need are satisfied (– an area researches by Max-Neef). You all can get more information about these Epicurean features on http://epicurus.info
cheers
stressFREEDOMguide
http://stress-FREEDOM.net

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:27:00 +0000

Author, well done. Hope for the next post.^____^

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:45:00 +0000

Pretty decent article but I think some of the facts about Epicurus were off. For instance he didn't say pain should be avoided at all cost. In fact on many occasions he said short term pain is sometimes necessary to achieve long term happiness.

A small historical tidbit of note. Thomas Jefferson, framer of the US Constitution, is quoted as saying many timesthat he viewed himself as Epicurian

"...and the pursuit of happiness"

By: Mooche

Mooche — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:28:00 +0000

Nice post, but I would say that Epicurus was an Epicurian not a Hedonist. Epicurianism was a predecessor of Hedonism. Calling Epicurus a type of Hedonist is like calling Elvis Presley a type of Grunge musician.

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:05:00 +0000

Paul, apologies, I missed your question. No promises but I'll see how long it takes me to put in those links.

Arradius - thanks!

By: Arradius

Arradius — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:50:00 +0000

Great post! I've just recently studied philosophy in the last year, and Epicurus was one of my favourites. As I was taught it, Epicurus didn't think that pleasure was the opposite of pain, only that pleasure or hedone as it was called was 'the relative absence of pain'. Fantastic that you're exposing people to philosophy! Thumbs up for the great post!

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:53:00 +0000

Thanks for your comments everyone - appreciated!

By: micheleconnolly

micheleconnolly — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:07:00 +0000

I love that Epicurus encourages the pursuit of pleasure - but a conscious, pre-meditated brand of pleasure. It's like he's saying 'Be happy, but be smart about it'.

I've found wonderful happiness insights from many philosophers, including William James, Nietzsche, Socrates, Aristotle, and Schopenhauer.

See this site.