The three-way split, necessary, extravagant, corrosive, holds up better than most classification schemes people try to force onto ancient ethics. Where I'd push is the treatment of health upkeep. It gets folded into the "natural but not necessary" bucket alongside fancy food and clothing, but that undersells it. Ataraxia isn't just a mental state you arrive at through right thinking, it depends on having a body that isn't constantly generating pain and distraction. Basic maintenance, sleep, movement, not letting things degrade until they become a crisis, seems closer to necessary than extravagant. Not talking about optimization or vanity here, just the baseline stuff that keeps want and suffering from creeping back in the door Epicurus is trying to keep shut.
The sex and relationships section runs into a similar issue. Calling it "natural but unnecessary" and warning against obsession makes sense as prudential advice, but a stable partnership seems to function a lot like health does, not urgent in the way food and water are urgent, but foundational enough that its absence eventually undermines the whole project. Metrodorus being married himself is a pretty strong hint he saw it that way too.
Curious whether the three categories were ever meant to be this rigid, or if the ancients would have been more comfortable saying some things move between them depending on the person.
I agree with all of this. I definitely consider health maintenance part of the "necessary" category. I mention this in my article on food (https://www.untroubled.blog/p/how-to-eat-like-an-epicurean), and have added a little line in part one of this essay to try to make that a little clearer. Thanks for the push to clarify that. A lot of unnecessary desires do masquerade as health-boosters, however, while the more extreme seekers after longevity often seem to be suffering from an excessive fear of death. People should be physically active, not overeat, eat real food, etc.--this is not hard to attain, reduces pain, and enables pleasure.
On the relationships front, I'm very sympathetic to the "necessary for some people" interpretation of that Metrodorus fragment, and think that's a very defensible position. I tried not to be too definitive in the essay, since our evidence is fragmentary and I couldn't rule out a slightly stricter placement in the "natural but not necessary" category: compared to food and drink, sex is definitely less necessary, in that its absence won't kill you, and I think one could make the case that surely *some* people have lived overall happy lives without it. In general, though, I think the most well-evidenced summary of Epicurean relationship advice is "pro-marriage; highly skeptical of promiscuity."
The three-way split, necessary, extravagant, corrosive, holds up better than most classification schemes people try to force onto ancient ethics. Where I'd push is the treatment of health upkeep. It gets folded into the "natural but not necessary" bucket alongside fancy food and clothing, but that undersells it. Ataraxia isn't just a mental state you arrive at through right thinking, it depends on having a body that isn't constantly generating pain and distraction. Basic maintenance, sleep, movement, not letting things degrade until they become a crisis, seems closer to necessary than extravagant. Not talking about optimization or vanity here, just the baseline stuff that keeps want and suffering from creeping back in the door Epicurus is trying to keep shut.
The sex and relationships section runs into a similar issue. Calling it "natural but unnecessary" and warning against obsession makes sense as prudential advice, but a stable partnership seems to function a lot like health does, not urgent in the way food and water are urgent, but foundational enough that its absence eventually undermines the whole project. Metrodorus being married himself is a pretty strong hint he saw it that way too.
Curious whether the three categories were ever meant to be this rigid, or if the ancients would have been more comfortable saying some things move between them depending on the person.
I agree with all of this. I definitely consider health maintenance part of the "necessary" category. I mention this in my article on food (https://www.untroubled.blog/p/how-to-eat-like-an-epicurean), and have added a little line in part one of this essay to try to make that a little clearer. Thanks for the push to clarify that. A lot of unnecessary desires do masquerade as health-boosters, however, while the more extreme seekers after longevity often seem to be suffering from an excessive fear of death. People should be physically active, not overeat, eat real food, etc.--this is not hard to attain, reduces pain, and enables pleasure.
On the relationships front, I'm very sympathetic to the "necessary for some people" interpretation of that Metrodorus fragment, and think that's a very defensible position. I tried not to be too definitive in the essay, since our evidence is fragmentary and I couldn't rule out a slightly stricter placement in the "natural but not necessary" category: compared to food and drink, sex is definitely less necessary, in that its absence won't kill you, and I think one could make the case that surely *some* people have lived overall happy lives without it. In general, though, I think the most well-evidenced summary of Epicurean relationship advice is "pro-marriage; highly skeptical of promiscuity."