> Forget shallow hedonism. Follow this philosophy for wondrous, unexpected joys and resilience against inevitable misfortune
And
> Epicurus thinks that we not only need friends, but that friends contribute the most to life’s goodness. Friend groups give us confidence of support in times of material and emotional distress, and they help us learn about ourselves and the world. Sometimes only friends can effectively communicate difficult truths. For Epicurus, the crowning grace of good friends is their role in building the library of joyful memories we rely on in times of difficulty, boredom or misfortune.
We cannot heal the wasteland within while creating a wasteland without. We cannot fix the problem until we recognize the problem: industrial society and the hubris of technological progress. The more we attempt to improve on nature, the more we destroy nature and ourselves. We have alienated ourselves and our soul in the aimless pursuit of progress. We have gained little yet lost nearly everything. But why must we progress? Nature is fine as it is. We are fine as we are. Our internal and external wasteland is caused by the blind pursuit of decadent desire.
Epicurus had a garden. When was the last time you spent the day in a garden, napped under the shade of a tree, smelled the plants and the flowers, and saw the moon and the stars in all their glory?
"Nature is fine as it is. We are fine as we are." I used to feel this way sometimes, but now I see this as a facile capitulation to the complexity of life. I have a kid. 100 years ago there would be a damn good chance they wouldn't make it to adulthood and now its a virtual certainty. I'm delighted about that.
It is funny that we are all using the garden as a metaphor here. A garden isn't natural. It is a technological artifact. A subjugation of nature as surely as a parking lot (though assuredly more subtle). We have the power to act in the world. Nature has produced in us a profound power to act. We can't pretend it doesn't exist.
> I have a kid. 100 years ago there would be a damn good chance they wouldn't make it to adulthood and now its a virtual certainty. I'm delighted about that.
Unless some nihilism crazy person, full of cocain, decides that the school and the kids there are responsible for his or her problems. The self-critics exercised in the west is destroying it's civilization. Last week was in US, yesterday in Brazil. Berlin, almost every day.
The odds of this remain effectively nil. The numbers are readily available.
Cars, ODs, and suicide are much bigger concerns for those with kids. Or should be. Any one of those dwarfs the risk of death or injury in a school shooting, which is so far down the list that it's in the company of a ton of things that nobody ever gives a thought.
Separately, school shootings are a national disgrace and shouldn't happen, certainly not at anything like the rate they do, but they're not actually a risk worth worrying about on an individual level.
> Cars, ODs, and suicide are much bigger concerns for those with kids.
Well swimming pool, but thats are either accidents or personal tragedies. It always happened, it will always happens.
> Separately, school shootings are a national disgrace and shouldn't happen
school shooting or school Rampage is a world problem. Another countries with less guns, but still a world problem.
> but they're not actually a risk worth worrying about on an individual level.
Statistics are good for argumentation (50 million kids in the schools, just 2000 injured in shootings), but if you have kids in the elementary school, or school in general, you will worry on an individual level. Actually the pools supports that https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-violence-schools-parents-ch...
So your point is that... people worrying about something that's not actually a notable risk, is the problem? You responded to "at least my kids have access to modern medical care" with "but school shootings" and I pointed out that they're not actually a significant danger for kids, and you've come back with "but people are worrying regardless", so I'm rather lost.
This is kind of beside the point - like regardless of the existence of school shootings I'm happy that anti-biotics exist and I'm happy to use them to intervene in the so-called "natural order."
For me, HN is a largely-textmode garden, without whose walls are a cacophony of autoplay shorts, and within whose walls I may hope to find conversation and the ingredients for an active life of the mind.
(NB: dang serves as a bit of a fountain: hope springs eternal in his patient moderation, and we are grateful in return!)
People aren't going to like this, if most people did then the modern age wouldn't be what it is. I think it's important for people to see things from outside the bias of their current age, the "spirit of the times", before they can do anything other than perpetuate the existing modern biases and blindspots. Which isn't an easy thing to do, even if everyone learned the historical context of the world and learned about the changes in societies and personalities over time, it's very difficult not to view all that context through the filter of modern perspectives and miss the essence of it completely
Humans haven't evolved for all this tech and will keep taking it in stupid directions: (Grey dense mega-cities, junk food, junk entertainment/metaverse, sedentary isolated lifestyle, hedonism, addiction, drugs (1/4 US women on psych meds, antibiotics resistant super bugs), globalism (pandemics can spread in days to everywhere), p0rn/online dating, pollution, AI gene editing (where the AI takes over), mass techno AI surveillance state, brain chips, turning in to cyborgs, global financial crashes, etc).
Compare that to living a simple life with friends/family in a tight knit rural community.
Develop tech... but slowly.......
Do we need 7G brain-chip internet in our cyborg bodies tomorrow?
Evolutionary pressure in the form of intra-human competition. Look at CCP China vs the US. China is going to add like 80% of new coal-powered power plants. All so they can get cheap energy to get ahead of the US/West. The US has done the same thing.
Businesses are run by people who want to earn money to get ahead of others. Yeah some business are legit creating new things, but many are just making people want to buy useless widgets or waste their time on an ad pipeline platform.
The current stage of development of consciousness that the world is going through(and seemingly reaching the end of) is one of competition and individualism. There are good and bad aspects of this, as with all other stages of development, but the level selfishness that comes along with it and motivates individuals to destroy things in order to outdo each other isn't a universal thing, in the grand scheme of the development of human consciousness it's just one of many phases.
That's the main reason why I think there's no legislating or protesting our way out of the big problems(though that doesn't mean those things are useless). The way only way out is through the development and maturation of humanity. Obviously you can't force that on people though, all you can do is focus on your own self-development and give others the respect and dignity required not to impede on their own self-development, regardless of how much you may disagree or dislike them
Now there is a ground breaking tech break through every 5 minutes -- that forever changes life as we know it. What about the unintended consequences? (Planes can help move people/resources around -- also pandemics!)
> yet how many of us believe that we must first learn the art of friendship
In (some) non-anglophone countries, education includes not only learning how to do, but also learning how to get along: not only savoir-faire, but also savoir-être.
Epicurus is compelling, but I ultimately reject his philosophy in favor of Stoicism / Academic Skepticism for two reasons:
a) The Epicurean belief that emotional disturbance/perturbation is basically bad stymes emotional thriving. In a podcast with fellow Stoic Massimo Pigulicci, therapist and Stoic Scholar Donald Robertson points out that this idea is very close to the statement "anxiety is bad", a belief that correlates strongly with a host of pathological mental conditions/states.
b) The Epicurean aversion to anxiety pushes us away from political engagement and many other activities that root us in the murk of life.
That being said, there are still many profound insights to be gleaned from Epicurus' thought.
1. What is good about anxiety except of political engagement point?
2. Does a Wise Man (from a Stoicism's point of view) really must to care about politics more than just learning? From my understanding there are things that are way better than politics, for example Math. Anyway we the small men are compelled to go wherever the society goes and the more number of big brains will care about this, the less really cool things will we receive. Stupid men can not obtain mathematical knowledge for us, so maybe they are better utilized by doing politics? While wise men will do some really awesome things?
What is good about anything bad? Only what you learn from it.
Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA) is a condition where a person is incapable of feeling pain- the pain sensing nerves aren't properly wired up into the brain.
On the one hand, wonderful! You'll never have to suffer the effects of physical harm.
On the other hand, you'll never learn the motor control and dexterity needed to interact with potentially dangerous objects, and may go extended periods of time not realizing that, for example, a fractured bone has become infected.
Experiencing anxiety is a primer for the brain to cope and endure difficult situations. Without it, you are essentially setting yourself up for failure when something out of your control happens.
A very interesting question in philosophy is "Why do people like scary movies?" - being scared is uncomfortable! A related question might be "Why do people eat spicy food" - I mean, it's painful!
When you explore the answers to these questions, you may develop an appreciation for the magic of the dark, the anxious, and the frightening.
My problem with Stoicism is that it seems to offer no mechanism for correcting your thinking; it tells you to detach yourself from whether your actions have good or bad outcomes (since you can't control that) and only concern yourself with whether you have acted well, but if you're not concerned about outcomes then your reasoning about whether you have acted well becomes purely circular.
> The Epicurean belief that emotional disturbance/perturbation is basically bad stymes emotional thriving. In a podcast with fellow Stoic Massimo Pigulicci, therapist and Stoic Scholar Donald Robertson points out that this idea is very close to the statement "anxiety is bad", a belief that correlates strongly with a host of pathological mental conditions/states.
More so than Stoicism? Stoics are notorious for emotional equamnity, a lot of the philosophy is about avoiding distress when things go badly and anxiety when they may go badly. It hardly seems like a philosophy that encourages or supports anxiety.
> The Epicurean aversion to anxiety pushes us away from political engagement and many other activities that root us in the murk of life.
I don't think being "rooted in the murk of life" should be a goal in itself. As with any other kind of pain or suffering, Epicureanism would tell us that political engagement may be worth enduring if the ultimate benefits outweigh the costs. But I don't think we need to be pushed towards more political engagement than currently; quite the opposite, we need a philosophy that can tell us when it's worth stepping back.
I am sorry but I did not understand your comment. As for Stoicism, it is a very hard philosophy to live by if one is not temperamentally inclined to the "serenity to accept the things [one] cannot change, Courage to change the things [one] can, and Wisdom to know the difference".
If one is already temperamentally inclined to the "serenity to accept the things [one] cannot change, Courage to change the things [one] can, and Wisdom to know the difference", then they may not need Stoicism.
I don't know. It certainly is an interesting intellectual movement. Bertrand Russell wrote scathingly of Stoicism in his History of Western Philosophy [1], to which Massimo Pigliucci, the author cited above in the comment, responded [2]. I tend to be sympathetic to Russell's critique now, as Stoicism did not "work" for me.
> These Epicurean virtues are in short supply these days.
Philosophers also have their flaws. Hedonism as seen by Epicurus has been taken to an extreme in this modern world and likely back then too. People may live too much of a Kierkegaard “aesthetic” life rather than an “ethical” one. This of course is the main argument that they can choose either/or. We constantly hear of people refer to this pursuit of happiness or aestheticism through the hedonic treadmill that one can’t get off. Instead their happiness remains at a baseline regardless of accomplishments throughout life.
Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is not a realistic way to live. The existentialists all argue this as quoted at the beginning with perhaps a misunderstood Nietzsche idea of the last man and the “overman” who overcomes the wasteland by rejecting excess pleasure and embracing pain as a source of strength. The last man being the end of man due to complacency who only seeks pleasure.
Overall I quite enjoyed this article, it feels as if the author is trying to defend Epicurus in the sense that he is wildly misunderstood. He looks to have a book on literary gardens that looks quite interesting. Will probably pick it up.
I don't think Epicurus would recognize the hedonistic values ascribed to him today. He was not a well man for the latter part of his life, and his idea of a life without pain was one where he is content with what he has and is surrounded by friends. In his letters, this is the theme he always returns to.
In fact, of the philosophers we know from that era, Epicurus was the only one who wasn't an aristocrat. He came from a middle class background and he at his most "hedonistic" probably would have thrown a positively simple party compared to an average evening at Plato's.
"I would rather discover a new aetiology than acquire the Persian crown." - Epicurus
“In physics, where he is the most pretentious, Epicurus is a perfect stranger. Most of it belongs to Democritus; where he deviates from him, where he endeavours to improve, he spoils and worsens it.” - Cicero
“Of this great man [Democritus] we scarcely know anything but what Epicurus borrowed from him, and Epicurus was not capable of always taking the best.” - Leibniz
Epicurus' philosophy very much reminds me of Goethe's regarding perception of colors (contrasted with the objective position of Newton regarding colors). As I am aging I am becoming convinced that the experience is the meaning, and youthful insistence on "meaning of life" is precisely pre-mature. (And as a Persian, I think he also made the right call regarding the crown of Persia ..)
[The quotes are taken from Karl Marx's school thesis btw.]
Except that it's the Epicureans that got the closest to modern scientific knowledge in hindsight.
Lucretius's De Rerum Natura is the only extant work from antiquity to explicitly describe the claim that what we see around us started from senseless primordial beings that through intermediate mutants came to be what we see around us via the process of survival of the fittest in relation to reproduction.
It also claimed that trait inheritance occurred as the result of a "doubled seed" from each parent.
It theorized that quantized matter must be governed by a degree of uncertainty in outcomes for free will to exist ("the swerve").
That light was also quantized and what we see is the result of these quantized parts moving very quickly.
That thunder and lighting might occur at the same time but one moves faster to reach us.
That the entire world was the result of primordial quanta randomly interacting.
That this was not the only world like it, but was one of an uncountable number of worlds all from this random process.
So that's great that a bunch of idiots in antiquity who had no idea what was actually correct thought that Democritus was superior (who they also claimed was just ripping off Mochus of Sidon) and Epicurus the lesser. But their opinions are hardly authoritative given they would have also claimed most of the above wasn't true.
The Epicurean understanding of nature was outstanding in retrospect with the exception of his local cosmology.
But then who among Ancient Greek philosophers was good at physics? They only tried to explain, that is, tell stories about how things worked. They did not try to make predictions and verify that they matched the reality.
The comment above is using the quotes of people who didn't understand modern science ('physics' meant the study of nature) to dismiss the guy who in retrospect was the closest to modern science.
For example, Lucretius (the Epicurean poet) nailed survival of the fittest and roughly described Mendelian trait inheritance nearly two millennia before Darwin.
But I very much doubt Cicero or even Leibniz would have recognized that as a correct understanding of nature.
Even Epicurus just tried to explain according to his surviving works.
As for Lucretius preceding Darwin by 2 millennia, then consider that the idea of survival of the fittest by itself is not a scientific theory in the modern sense that makes predictions that can be verified. Basically one can explain anything with it by defining what “fittest” means post-factum. The science begins when one tries to predict with it things like speed of evolution or the existence of species not yet observed in paleontological records. There is nothing like that in Lucretius works AFAIK.
There is no physics in Liberal Arts but there were Geometry, Music, Astronomy - some parts of which are parts of what today is called Physics. All I know about pure Physics in Ancient times is Zeno's paradoxes which is how they used to analyze movement and maybe three Archimedean simple machines among the 6 classical ones which is how they applied their knowledge about movement into practice.
What was meant by Epicurus is a perfect stranger in physics? Does it mean he didn't interact with other physicists? Was physics something different 2000 years ago?
> Forget shallow hedonism. Follow this philosophy for wondrous, unexpected joys and resilience against inevitable misfortune
And
> Epicurus thinks that we not only need friends, but that friends contribute the most to life’s goodness. Friend groups give us confidence of support in times of material and emotional distress, and they help us learn about ourselves and the world. Sometimes only friends can effectively communicate difficult truths. For Epicurus, the crowning grace of good friends is their role in building the library of joyful memories we rely on in times of difficulty, boredom or misfortune.