The permissive reading is the right one and the mango example cuts through the confusion cleanly. The problem was never the desire for better food or finer experiences. The problem is when groundless opinion gets its hooks into what was originally a simple natural desire and turns it into something you can't put down.
The sub-category of desires necessary for happiness is what i find most interesting here. Most treatments of this taxonomy focus on the physical necessities and then treat everything else as optional. But Epicurus placing friendship in the natural and necessary category is not a minor addition. It is the whole architecture of how he thought a good life actually works. The desire for genuine connection is not a luxury category. It is as necessary as food and shelter. That realization alone separates Epicurean hedonism from every crude version of it.
Looking forward to the romantic relationships piece next week.
Great topic, when I learned about the natural/necessary desires for me it was an eye-opener that happiness (Eudaimonia) is one of them. That includes for me all the mental pleasures like ataraxia, peace of mind and harmony with the others, philia (friendship, friendly love), being free from superstition and fears about it, clear conscience.
It is not about hiding from pain like an ascetic or always regarding health and longevity as the ultimate good. It is about living according to your Values.
How would you contrast this teaching with the Stoic teaching about Desires ? They allow Desire (orexis) only for Virtue / Eudaimonia. All other things means selecting between indifferents which have Value (Axia) that means they have impulse (horme) to them like life/health but it is expendable.
They allow Desire (orexis ) only for the highest good (Virtue for them) which means it is always desirable. They argue that happiness is then not dependable from life/health and so they are more free and have more resilience in hardships.
I agree with Hiram: the Stoic claim that only virtue matters for happiness seems pretty clearly to be empirically false. People suffering from terrible illness, in the grip of religious guilt or fear, or in dire poverty will find it extremely difficult to flourish. Declaring that happiness is independent of material circumstances does not make it true.
(One could make caveats about the role of the sage, in both Stoicism and Epicureanism. Some Stoics might concede that it is extremely difficult for most people to live happily under terrible conditions, but that the sage could, and we should try to emulate this essentially unattainable state. I don't think that focusing on the emulation of an unattainable state is a great priority for a practical way of life. Epicureans also admit that a truly wise man would be happy "even on the rack"--presumably, like Epicurus on his deathbed, the sage would be very skilled at awareness of counterbalancing pleasures and the limited duration of pain. However, for most people, Epicurus has no hesitation in recommending that you avoid torture, poverty, etc. as the more practical means of moving towards happiness.)
The point about eudaimonia being a natural and necessary desire is the one that opened it up for me too. The Stoic framework treats happiness as the output of virtue regardless of circumstances. The Epicurean framework treats certain conditions as genuinely necessary inputs for happiness. Health, security, friendship. You cannot simply will your way to flourishing if those foundations are missing.
The Stoic resilience argument has its appeal. But i agree with Jack and Hiram that declaring happiness independent of material circumstances does not make it true. Epicurus is more honest about what human beings actually are and actually need.
I disagree with the Stoics here. I do not believe that my brother was happy when he was terminally ill with cancer. Some measure of health is necessary for living correctly and pleasantly.
The permissive reading is the right one and the mango example cuts through the confusion cleanly. The problem was never the desire for better food or finer experiences. The problem is when groundless opinion gets its hooks into what was originally a simple natural desire and turns it into something you can't put down.
The sub-category of desires necessary for happiness is what i find most interesting here. Most treatments of this taxonomy focus on the physical necessities and then treat everything else as optional. But Epicurus placing friendship in the natural and necessary category is not a minor addition. It is the whole architecture of how he thought a good life actually works. The desire for genuine connection is not a luxury category. It is as necessary as food and shelter. That realization alone separates Epicurean hedonism from every crude version of it.
Looking forward to the romantic relationships piece next week.
Great topic, when I learned about the natural/necessary desires for me it was an eye-opener that happiness (Eudaimonia) is one of them. That includes for me all the mental pleasures like ataraxia, peace of mind and harmony with the others, philia (friendship, friendly love), being free from superstition and fears about it, clear conscience.
It is not about hiding from pain like an ascetic or always regarding health and longevity as the ultimate good. It is about living according to your Values.
How would you contrast this teaching with the Stoic teaching about Desires ? They allow Desire (orexis) only for Virtue / Eudaimonia. All other things means selecting between indifferents which have Value (Axia) that means they have impulse (horme) to them like life/health but it is expendable.
They allow Desire (orexis ) only for the highest good (Virtue for them) which means it is always desirable. They argue that happiness is then not dependable from life/health and so they are more free and have more resilience in hardships.
I agree with Hiram: the Stoic claim that only virtue matters for happiness seems pretty clearly to be empirically false. People suffering from terrible illness, in the grip of religious guilt or fear, or in dire poverty will find it extremely difficult to flourish. Declaring that happiness is independent of material circumstances does not make it true.
(One could make caveats about the role of the sage, in both Stoicism and Epicureanism. Some Stoics might concede that it is extremely difficult for most people to live happily under terrible conditions, but that the sage could, and we should try to emulate this essentially unattainable state. I don't think that focusing on the emulation of an unattainable state is a great priority for a practical way of life. Epicureans also admit that a truly wise man would be happy "even on the rack"--presumably, like Epicurus on his deathbed, the sage would be very skilled at awareness of counterbalancing pleasures and the limited duration of pain. However, for most people, Epicurus has no hesitation in recommending that you avoid torture, poverty, etc. as the more practical means of moving towards happiness.)
The point about eudaimonia being a natural and necessary desire is the one that opened it up for me too. The Stoic framework treats happiness as the output of virtue regardless of circumstances. The Epicurean framework treats certain conditions as genuinely necessary inputs for happiness. Health, security, friendship. You cannot simply will your way to flourishing if those foundations are missing.
The Stoic resilience argument has its appeal. But i agree with Jack and Hiram that declaring happiness independent of material circumstances does not make it true. Epicurus is more honest about what human beings actually are and actually need.
I disagree with the Stoics here. I do not believe that my brother was happy when he was terminally ill with cancer. Some measure of health is necessary for living correctly and pleasantly.