Trying to achieve ataraxia so I’ve listed some of my life’s simple pleasures:

• finishing a good book
• completing a long laborious task
• a brisk walk with my dog
• the wind hitting my freshly shaved legs
• watching loved ones grow and mature overtime
• using all the produce some gifted me from their garden
• feeding the neighborhood crows

What are some of yours?

I like my coffee.

I like going to the spa.

I like eating meat and fish.

I like wearing nice clothes.

I like listening to music.

I like chocolate.

I like pre-made protein shakes.

Which luxuries eg unnatural needs do you allow yourself?

Epicurus seemed to promote certain activities that in the short-term might be unpleasant but in the long-term results in a greater pleasure.

One activity of this concept is working-out.

To lift weights in order to get stronger and thus making everyday tasks easier.

To walk on the treadmill in order to gain conditioning so that everyday tasks are easier and doesn’t make you out of breath.

Being in a certain body fat range eg 12-18% (for a man) which is sustainable and makes everyday tasks easier and overall health better.

Do you know of any other activities of this concept that you incorporate into your lifestyle?

How do you believe Epicurus would live had he been alive today?

Would he go clubbing with his friends?

Would he live in a shared apartment in the city but close to wild life?

Would he own a car?

What would he work with and how much?

Would he enjoy pleasures that are easier to get now than it was in his time? Such as dark chocolate, honey, coffee and music etc?

Would he procreate now that in many European countries there exists a good support system?

Most importantly how would you imagine his daily routine to look like?

I've been watching a podcast series on ancient ideas about the good life. The unit on Epicureanism just started with two videos here. Does a great job locating Epicureanism and Stoicism in Hellenistic philosophy and shows how Epicurean metaphysics were tied to their views about how to live. I didn't realize how countercultural the Epicureans were in the ancient world.

Before I stumbled upon the teachings of Epicurus as well as burned out mentally from too much stress, I was totally into the grind of hustle culture.

Why is it that a lot of people today are so into the hustle culture of achieving career success to the detriment of their enjoyment of life?

I understand that friends, a healthy body and mind, a cheerful mood, having enough and fulfilling hobbies is the way to go. But why do most people not realize this?

Hello! I am here to just wish everyone a happy Eikas and to ask if anyone has anything planned for today? I personally don't have any Epicurean friends to celebrate with and was wondering if anyone has any advice for me to make the best of Eikas?

Friendships are great, but as a person seeking friendships you might encounter people who do not share your values.

Instead of achieving friendships based on doing activities I want to advise you to do said activities by yourself.

You don’t need friends to join a book club club.

You don’t need friends to go out dancing.

You don’t need friends to show other people that you are preselected in order to gain new friendships.

Do it yourself because the person you see in the mirror is the most important relationship you will ever create.

This is a message to myself and to others who feel the need to associate with a certain crowd of people in order to do certain activities.

You can do it alone.

Hello All,

I have spent the last year or two exploring stoicism. There is a lot I really like but some things just aren't working for me. I initially wrote off Epicurus, but some youtube searching has me wondering if it isn't worth w deeper dive.

What are some suggestions for reading (books, articles, websites) or watching to get started?

Bonus points for any real life and/or fictional role models you feel embody Empicureanism.

Thanks all

How does an epicurean incorporate goals into his or hers life?

The pursuit of extraordinary monetary wealth and plentiful of luxurious materialistic goods seem to not make the cut in accordance with the hedonic calculus.

Goals should either be pleasurable to pursue or be of short-term pain for a long-term benefit that outweighs the former.

Goals I believe worthy of attaining are:

• Seeking and gaining the friendship of like-minded and positive people

• Getting fit

• Spreading positivity stemming from your own happiness gained through epicurean principles

• Seeking new experiences to avoid the hedonic treadmill

Stunned to find a rap song about Epicureanism (even more stunned it's not cringe). Seems like a quick way to introduce Epicureanism to a larger audience.

*Credits

Artist: Nathanology

Song: Be an Epicurean

I've been reading up again on Epicureanism recently as ive been struggling alot mentally. I've read about it about 10 years ago but its a bit of a problematic philosophy

From what i gleaned it could be compared to Aristotles view about Eudimonia which once again has pitfalls.

I've not managed to shake the learned knowledge and lived knowledge that life is, full of unfulfilled goals, anxiety, worry and conflict. Adding to this that sleep or the extreme (death) is free of all of those has lead to a pretty depressing outlook, on how one could even attain what Epicurus hoped his reader would probably get.

Like being fed and watered and attaining warmth and having friends are reasonably achieveable goals. But often times with the latter it seems that in the first world at least being in satisfying friendships is hard (lack of time, drifts in interest) ect ect.

But i think if you are a a serious philosopher (aware of the vast problems in the real world) or someone who has seen the issues in the world you cant help but think what are the solutions which leaves you in a dissatisfied state.

One can go through various rationalisation about how one is powerless to change it, but its like unless there is an answer there is always a burning question which keeps you from any sort of peace.

I personally dont see how life outside of childhood ignorance can be joyous, but struggle to come to the view that its best to advise people to end thier lives as there is no pain or worry or boredom in non existence.

The issue is the more you study you realise, more problems but actual solutions are ethier repugnant to the mind or just not what 'the layman' would find reasonable.

I think the Epicureans of the ancient world just didnt have the awareness of what people have today and didnt see life as a tragedy like alot of philosophers after them did.

Being in flow (psychology) is good but its not a state that we could all maintain. The hedonic treadmill is real and leaves us bored or dissatisfied.

It like he laid out a set of ethics, but what if those ethics dont really seem to answer burning questions such as 'whats the best ethics', 'how do i determine the best set of ethics'

we cannot achieve tranquility due to existensial questions or problems which didnt occour to him at the time of which he cant answer. Someone may point to Stocism, 'dont worry about what you cant control' but thats once again up for internal inquiry and angst.

Ive improved my knowledge which improve my physical needs but its lead me to thinking 'why does it matter if im in peak health when there are more important things to be solved' or 'why does it matter if i expirence a dull mostly physically comfortable life when im constatly worried or preoccupied with the other ills going on or if i just had the mental fortitude i could in theory go to sleep forever and i wouldnt have to worry. (thats how i feel personally for the most of my consious life)

I think you could veiw this as an arguement against hedonism. But more broadly if i solve one burning issue then the mind brings another one into the equation. mental tranquility seems non achievable.

I'm currently facing the death of a relative, which is making me feel undeniably bad. Like my chest is torn apart.

Epicurus teaches us that death is not to be feared, and we all agree on that one. I'm far from fearing death, for me and for my beloved ones; in the situation I am in, I almost hope for it to come sooner so that my relative will suffer less. Still, I feel sorrow. It's the most natural and human reaction, of course, and unlike stoicism, epicureanism embraces emotions and all that.

But whilst pain is not to be feared, is it to be embraced? Does the tetrapharmacus imply that since you don't need to be afraid of it, you also don't need to push it away? Do we have the need to feel it so we can metabolise is, or we should get into a mentality in which we embrace pain but we barely feel it because we are at peace with it?

At this point I'm also wondering if Epicurus liked theater and catharsis, but that's a less relevant question, in this moment.

I would also like to add the question: "do you believe in the epicurus atomic theory" and why? (The "and why" applies to both questions).

I've been encountering a recurring criticism of Epicurean philosophy: that its emphasis on pleasure and avoidance of pain inherently limits human potential. The argument goes something like this:

• Humanity's greatest achievements often come from pushing boundaries, enduring hardship, and making sacrifices. Think of scientific breakthroughs, artistic masterpieces, and social progress – all frequently born from struggle and discomfort.
• Epicureanism, with its focus on tranquility and minimizing disturbance, seems to discourage these very pursuits. It might lead individuals to prioritize comfort over innovation, leading to a stagnant and unambitious society.

How do fellow Epicureans address this criticism?

The role of virtue in Epicureanism is one I'm kind of having more difficulty with than I feel is expected. Perhaps because I have very strong opinions on the ethics of animal exploitation/liberation, on human egalitarianism, etc., while at the same time being uncomfortable with utilitarianism (although I'd probably consider myself a consequentialist nowadays, or maybe some hybrid of >1 system).

As I understand it, a very prototypical reading of Epicurean sources is that virtues are defined by their consequential hedonic results. Cool. Although I think of how that plays out when a greater hedonic value comes from unjust/irrational actions. We can think of Omelas.

But even forgoing hypotheticals, I think of a specific thing that I read about: in wherever, there was this guy who was, to be frank, ugly. Not his fault or anything. But he went to this restaurant, and so on, and the other people around him were apparently so uncomfortable that he was made to leave! And that's obviously fucked up. But if their pleasure was being hampered, and only one person suffers, wouldn't that make it "virtuous" what happened? I'm sure the answer is no. Which brings up what's probably the real question, which is, what exactly is the role of virtue vis-à-vis pleasure, particularly when some actions result in greater pleasure, yet very clearly come from ignorance/hatred/etc.?

Hello all, I’m a high school student who’s studying for a philosophy test on Epicurus ☺️ my notes on the matter are pretty lacking and I’m looking to understand what pleasure really is according to Epicurus. Is pleasure just the absence of pain, both physical and mental? Or does one have to take action as well to reach pleasure and happiness? I’ve found pretty different explanations so I’m having some doubts. For example a site says “pleasure does not consist in doing specific things, it’s a state of absence of all kinds of pain”. So once you reach ataraxia and aponia, you’re basically done according to this. But another site says it’s more than that. I thought that to finally be at peace and happy you need to appreciate the little things in life: you shouldn’t need specific things to make you happy and make you feel pleasure, but they may contribute to an extent in that moment, just not in the long run. I want to clear this up because I still need to study Stoicism and Neoplatonism and I also especially like this subject, I wouldn’t want to simply learn this stuff by heart for the test. thanks in advance!

Lately Ive been thinking if working, not necessarily in the way we do in modern times, is a necessary natural need.

For sure work is necessary as it avoids suffering of hunger and thirst, may it be office work or primordial berries gathering. My point is meant for the internal happiness of a person: -if machines worked for us, which was deemed possible, would we be happy with the extra relaxation, lack of stress... or would we be suffering, since work gives us a sense of purpose and a specific reward?

Every living being works for its own survival and ended up evolving towards it. Humans, like many, use dopamine, take big advantage from movement and even our immune system improves when we have episodes of stress. Our "work" also diversified where, like birds, we make our nests. Socially, working harder to bring more than we need helped give us something to others which would later retribute by giving us something else (gift economy is very based in our nature). So its right to assume work is a natural need, like sex or having kids, because we evolved around it.

But it rarely has been possible to evaluate if work is by itself necessary since we do jobs for the reward, either to get more and more or because we will have nothing if we dont.

But what happens in a workless society? Could we consider work as necessary since people get hobbies for the sake of the hobby itself? Do we study for the knowledge or to keep us busy? Do kids game for the scores or are scores a reflection of their effort?

I'll add as an argument for yes the feeling of boredom or even depression supposedly to bring us to do something new and interesting.

What do yall think?

With all due respect, I’ve been looking into this, pleasure is simply the absence of pain should we just all just sit on our butts all day only get up to eat drink and go to work to get money to buy food and drinks?

First of all, pardon me if I mistook Ethics and Morals but lately Ive been surprised with how flexible the Epicurean/Utilitarian morality is and how their outcomes actually matter

I work in a job in which my rights and those of my colleagues are always disrespected due to negligence and ignorance. My colleagues are tired, stressed, with a poor work-life balance and yet see their job as something they made a commitment on with the organization and must, at all costs, guarantee that that commitment isnt broken, even if the outcomes are irrelevant and even if the law allows it.

Having studied the law, I proposed my colleagues to skip work every once in a while whenever something is illegal and it's interesting how they feel stressed by doing so. Our most "ethical" worker held tough when I said she could go home earlier but suddently broke when I presented her the idea of leaving earlier to eat with family.

I dont really know what to achieve with this post but I can personally see how easy and natural is the Epicurean way of finding solutions based on happiness/suffering and how the common worker/citizen can protect themselves against oppressive hierarchies through this philosophy

Ancient Inscription Touts Benefits of Greek Philosophy of Epicureanism https://greekreporter.com/2024/11/25/ancient-inscription-greek-epicureanism/

I've had some sympathies for a couple years (though without doing anything about it) towards the ancient Chinese philosopher Mo Tzu. As I understand him, his pragmatic stances towards rituals, universal care for all people, and supposedly "proto-scientific" epistemology seem more unique and interesting to me than how I understand Confucius' philosophies. And I know that there's some overlap between Epicureanism and this other dude called Yang Zhu, but I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts for Mo Tzu and his philosophies, especially wrt Epicureanism. While Mohism seems to be less egoistic and more "ideal" than Epicureanism, especially with its call for universal love, I could foresee a potential "synthesis" between the two, however heterodox it may be, where a respect for the whole, over and against overt favoritism, can be seen as aiding in achieving eudaimonia for everyone. Or maybe I'm just being a sloppy heretic to both systems.

What do you all think?

If you've invested a lot of time preparing for something and then feel a lot of discomfort when it's time to do it, should you walk away, take the sunk costs and face the FOMO, or complete the task (thus facing the pain) with the knowledge that this will give you

1. more pain in the present and near future

2. more pleasure in the (long) future

?

----
More specifically, in my case for anyone wanting context:

I got sick at the end of my solo tour with one more concert ahead of me; a charity gig as part of a choir. My friends and family supported me in staying strong although I had a cold lurking. My grandfather was very proud of me being a part of the "Fall of the Berlin Wall" celebrations etc. One LONG day of dress rehearsals and Paracetamol and then a new call time for next (performance) day at 8 AM...

I knew I would have no voice and too much fever if I didn't get 8 hours of sleep so I decided to sleep in and show up late like a diva. That decision was correct because I didn't miss ANYTHING, but in retrospect, with infected sinuses and lunges and a baaad cough I wonder If my approach was too Stoic.

I'm also behind on work but that will balance back. Although the gig was not particularly joyful, it was magical and unique and I will go back and enjoy that (and the videos and my new friends).

Michael Jordan performed very well in his "flu game", but a friend of my Dad died after playing football with a fever...

How do you reason in general, in regards to sunk costs and FOMO? Can an Epicurean face pain for CERTAIN future pleasure?