A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE TO HEDONISM


THE PURSUIT OF PLEASURE IS A COMPLICATED BUSINESS

The Greek philosopher Epicurus has been a victim of muck-raking and slander for more than two thousand years. Anthony Gottlieb sets the record straight, and resurrects some ancient advice on the good life ...

From INTELLIGENT LIFE magazine, September 2007

WHERE IS is a hedonist to look for his heroes? Not to the religious traditions of the East, to be sure: they lack enthusiasm for the illusory pleasures of this world. The Buddha may have rejected the stony path of asceticism, but he was keener on eliminating desires than on satisfying them. Islam and Christianity are not much help either. They are more interested in pleasing God than in pleasing man. Judaism has managed a happier compromise with the ways of the world. Yet it too, like the other monotheisms, keeps a wary eye open for recriminations from above.

None of the greatest Western philosophers has produced a paean to pleasure that can serve as much of a guide for today’s enlightened hedonist. Philosophers tend to be ruminative, cerebral and cautious. To expect to find a hedonist at work in the groves of academe is rather like expecting to find a vegetarian at work in a slaughter-house.

Thus Kant preached a stern gospel of dutifulness, and Plato’s pleasures were unstintingly abstract and intellectual. A good Platonist would rather contemplate the perfect meal than eat it.

But there is one Greek philosopher whose name has become synonymous with the life of pleasure--especially sensual pleasures, and above all those of a gourmet. Epicurus, who led a commune of followers in an Athenian garden in the early third-century BC, is not usually reckoned in the first rank of philosophers. Indeed, for much of the Christian era, he was condemned as a pig and a sex-maniac. A 12th-century bishop wrote that “the world is filled with Epicureans for the simple reason that in its great multitude of men there are few who are not slaves to lust.” Attacks on Epicurus were common in his own time, too. One disgruntled ex-follower said that Epicurus vomited twice a day from over-eating, and engaged in “notorious midnight philosophisings” in his garden with four women called Hedeia (“Sweety-Pie”), Erotion (“Lovie”), Nikidion (“Little Victory”) and Mammarion (“Big Tits”).

Exactly what Epicurus got up to in the undergrowth will never be known. Yet there is every reason to disbelieve his bad press. He espoused a revolutionary and irreligious theory of the universe that would have ensured his notoriety even if he had been a sober eunuch on a diet. The world consists, according to Epicurus, of tiny material atoms careering around in space until they randomly collide and form the things and creatures we see. When our atoms disperse and we die, that is the end of us. Even the gods are just collections of atoms. They seem to have no serious tasks to perform in the universe, and could not care less what people do with themselves or to each other. The aim of philosophy, Epicurus maintained, is to make people happy, and one of its biggest tasks is to quieten the unnecessary terrors caused by religion.

In particular, it was crucial to overcome the fear of death and of an unpleasant afterlife. “All good and evil lie in sensation, whereas death is the absence of sensation,” wrote Epicurus in a letter. “Hence a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding infinite time, but by ridding us of the desire for immortality.” The anti-religious tone of Epicurus’s thinking was played up by his devoted admirer, the Roman poet Lucretius, whose poem “On The Nature Of Things” is the longest and most influential surviving account of Epicureanism. The disapproving St Jerome dismissed Lucretius, saying he had been driven insane by a massive overdose of the Roman equivalent of Viagra.

Epicurus did once say that in order to lead a happy life, one needs first of all to be fed. This was easy to quote out of context, and his reputation as a glutton is probably based on little more than that. In fact, Epicurus condemned all forms of over-indulgence, and recommended a simple diet. His famous garden (which the naturalist Pliny the Elder says was the first rustic garden to be made within city walls) was probably no luscious bower, but rather the source of fruits and vegetables for his simple life. It would also have provided a calm respite from the bustle of the city: for Epicurus, tranquillity was the ultimate delight.

That is why the real Epicurus--in contrast to the crude sybarite invented by his detractors--denounced the rapidly rotting fruits of dissipation and excess. The constant pursuit of intense pleasures will in fact backfire, according to Epicurus, because it leads to the psychological hell of enslavement to unsatisfiable appetites. The would-be hedonist must take care to ensure that the pain of overreaching desire does not ruin his peace of mind and thereby defeat his original aim of securing a balance of pleasure over pain.

The best sort of life, says Epicurus, is one that is free from pain in the body and from disturbance in the mind. That sounds a rather negative credo for a 21st-century devotee of the good life. Were he writing self-help books today, Epicurus would probably acknowledge that you can aim a little higher than that. He might point out in his own defence that health and peace are essential preconditions of happiness, and are easy to belittle if you are lucky enough to have them. But perhaps his most useful observation for the discerning hedonists of today, when such an intoxicating variety of gratifications are dangled before them, is a reminder of caveat emptor: “No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.”

Arts  culture  hedonism  society  

Comments

Religious attitudes towards pleasure


In fact the Eastern philosophies are more well-disposed towards pleasure than this article allows for. One immediately thinks of course of the (now corrupted and maligned) ideas of Tantric sex as a religious experience. Hindu philosophy especially is known for endorsing worldly pleasure (the "path of desire") as valid and essentially positive, despite its assertion that eventually one will choose the "path of renunciation" and give it up. Among Tibetan Buddhist monks there are both the celibate and the married. Even in Christianity there are traditions that believe in pleasure as a sort of good; consider the Mormon scriptural assertion that "men are that they might have joy".
On the other side of things, the statement that "Judaism has managed a happier compromise with the ways of the world" is really quite bizarre. They have always considered themselves a "chosen people," radicals despised of all nations and acquainted with grief - very much apart from the "ways of the world". Judaism does not traditionally teach asceticism, however worldly pleasures are to be consumed only in moderation and strictly for their spiritual benefits. Consider the story of the Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who despite living in ridiculous extravagance his whole life, was able to swear on his deathbed that "I didn't enjoy [anything] even with my little finger," as his lifestyle was, at least theoretically, for the glory of his people and his God. Despite these couple of mistakes, I find the article mostly valid and an enjoyable read.

huh?


how has judaism enjoyed a happier compromise? Have you ever read Leviticus?

on the judaism question


The author could be remarking on the lack of an afterlife containing a heaven or hell in judaism, in contrast with christianity and islam. In judaism, a life well-lived (according to God's commandments) on earth is esssentially its own reward.

Discount rate


We trade present happiness (pleasure, wealth, health) for future happiness, every day. Each one of us has a different discount rate: the ratio at which you are ready to sacrifice today's well-being in the hope of a greater hapinness tomorrow. Saving is the simplest example of this: I don't spend 100 today so that I can spend 500 ten years form now.

That's what Epicuro has always been about: find your own rate of discount, and stick to it.

The poor readings of Epicuro asume that he proposed 0 as that rate, i.e., enjoy today as much as you can, ignore tomorrow. That was not the case. He argued for a maximum total amount of happiness, taking a complete human being's life as the measure for it.

I can't agree more.

Eudaimonism


In fact, all ancient philosophers shared a common belief that happiness is the proper goal of life - they just differed in how to get there. This is called "eudaimonism" - which is Greek for "happiness-ism". Rather than setting the record straight this article merely perpetuates more stereotypes and half-truths about Greek philosophy.

Epicurus believed in the Gods - in fact he asserted that the existence of the Gods is self-evident. And Lucretius began his famous philosophical poem with an extended prayer to the Goddess Venus - whom he praises as a Goddess of life, love, nature - and most especially as a Goddess of Peace.

Epicureans also believed that the Gods had a most important task to perform. The Gods are our teachers and exemplars. If a person is able to attain a state of equanimity and calm - only then can the Gods send "images" into our minds - and these images further help us to become more like Them.

About Buddhism...


Yes...yes. I agree the pleasures of life are bountiful and a plenty. If I had a thousand more life times I still would most likely fall well short of experiencing them all. Let alone mastering them! Being a Taoist myself and I think if you do a bit more research. You will discover that there are many many aspects to Buddha knowledge. It is often misunderstood that to completely embrace Buddhism that the ascetic path and renunciation of pleasure are essential in doing so. This is non-sense. The aim of Buddhism is for individuals to find harmony and balance in their lives and if that path includes hedonism...So be it! This is known as Dharma. Thank You for a great article.

Squidoo tips....a Pirate's perspective...

Is it not a human handicap


Is it not a human handicap to try to force-fit a relation between the new or non-conventional and the known, or remotely similar, from our past?

Hedonism, on a scale that is possible today, is truly a new phenomenon in the history of humankind. The capitalist economy, driven by conspicuous consumption makes the greek Epicure look like a miser in comparison. So pray, why do we still try hard to make a comparison with characters from history or mythology? Yes, there are similarities - but the difference of magnitude dwarfs the similarities.

Hedonism in our age, needs new icons. And there is no dearth of icons to choose from. Popular culture worships several of them - from Hugh Hefner to Richard Branson, from Kennedy and Clinton to Paris Hilton, the list goes on and on...Yes, one probably needs to be a bit discrete, if not discerning in according the status of "hedonist" to every media-boosted celebrity. But surely that will also not dent the number of icons to an extent that we would need to look at dusty books of history.

More importantly, the hedonist icons that we choose today, will, like most other things of our times, come with limited shelf lives. That is so because we have created a machine that manufactures hedonism. And the machine is in control. In fact, economists agree that hedonism takes on existential dimensions. The new global economy can only survive if the breed of hedonists grows. And as this breed grows, the economy follows, the machine turns, and there is even more hedonism. The perpetual motion machine has finally arrived!

...Apikorsim


Oy, goyishe kopf!