Epicurean philosophy heavily centers on the idea of a tranquil, peaceful state of being through two phenomenons, ataraxia, or freedom of fear, and aponia, or avoidance of pain. In other words, a happy state is reached primarily through minimizing pain which consequently maximizes pleasure.
In class, the crucial question of “how do you determine what is pleasurable?” turned out to be more difficult to answer than expected. At first thought I concluded that pleasure was defined by an emotional state of complete fulfillment, only then to realize that the fulfillment itself can be as fleeting from one minute of happiness to a lifetime. This brought me to the thought that it seems we have a tendency to heavily indulge in our pleasures, good or bad, bringing out the human weakness of pursuing only those things that allow for the feeling of content tranquility. In a way, I am defining pleasure as a drug.
The danger of this philosophy, in which an avoidance of pain, aponia, is advocated, has the potential to form a perspective and practice of life that allows and even encourages individuals to bend their character in the reach for happiness. The problem being that this happiness is only a product of avoiding pain rather than from lasting happiness through overcoming challenges and facing pain. For example, in number six of Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines he states, “In order to obtain protection from other men, any means for attaining this end is natural good.” While it is clear that Epicurus displays his value for friendships and a sense of belonging with your peers, the second part of that statement can be extremely misleading. First, not only does he claim that any means may be taken to acquire these relationships, but he also goes on to say that this mean, which could be of any sort, good or bad, is by default a natural good.
Taken into the context of today’s world, this doctrine could be interpreted as condoning peer pressure and giving the notion that it is okay to do whatever necessary, even if that means be untrue to yourself, to obtain these relationships and security. While the intent of the actions might be considered a natural good, the actions themselves that are carried out also should be measured when considering good and bad. On the other hand, facing pain in order to be true to your character will most likely result in a lasting state of tranquility, because with no pain there is no pleasure. So, is a life based on the avoidance of pain really the best one to follow?
There is definitely a gap in the Principle Doctrines with regards to character, which makes it difficult to interpret where Epicurus stands on character. I do think that principle number 5 could be a good reference:
ReplyDelete5. It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly...
To me, this seems to equate, or at least hold at the same importance, virtue and pleasure. I think that we often think of pleasure as indulgence or sinful, which probably makes us more skeptical of a life led by pleasure. But when we really think about defining it, we try to put feeling good into words. And don't we feel good about ourselves when we think we've done the right thing? Perhaps with a more integrated understanding of pleasure and virtue (which I am equating with good character), we can better understand Epicurus' argument.
I'm with you on what you're saying up until the last few sentences here. While I agree that Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy that is especially prone to being misused, I feel that you go too far in some of your other claims. At one point you mention that "because with no pain there is no pleasure," but doesn't the entire philosophy you're trying to make claims about assume exactly the opposite? It's just unreasonable to pull this claim out of nowhere and make judgement based on it. If pleasure is indeed like "a drug," as you mention, then it would seem to point to something more like: "pleasure comes only without pain," when paired with Epicurean philosophy. You also take it as a given that being untrue to yourself isn't a 'natural good,' but it could just as easily be argued that if being untrue to yourself meant less pain then it would be a more 'naturally good' state just inherently?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your closing question: 'arguably so.'
Philosophy!