Epicureanism is an Ancient Greek philosophy and way of life that is past the stages of endangerment. Now it just seems to be a part every high school's history curriculum. After writing a research paper on it, learning pretty much all there is to learn, I found it pretty interesting and reluctantly found myself agreeing with everything it states. Just wanted to put this out there to get your opinions on it.

 

 

 

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippusabout whom very little is knownEpicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.

 

 

 

In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship, and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social ethics that has survived.

 

 

 

I know many of the principles of Epicureanism coincide with those of other philosophies (Buddhism, Platonism, Nihilism, etc), and unlike religion, I don't limit myself to only one.

 

 

 

One major reason I think I felt myself agreeing with it due to a recent diet restriction (no gluten, processed flour), I realized that the very small amount in which I indulged in food seemed to be lessened to nearly none at all. As Gandhi said, "Eat to live, don't live to eat". Indulgence seems to lead to neglect or shallowness in other parts of life, and I've observed it first-hand. (note-I am not fat or have any eating disorder and am rather skinny, but am trying to say that almost naturally humans have a indulgence for food.) Overall, I believe one can get much more out of life if he tries to not succumb to natural human indulgences as much as possible: getting high/drunk too often, overeating, oversexing, playing video games, etc., however impossible that may sound.

I agree with everything except the oversexing. You can never oversex.

 

 

 

But, i've been trying to better restist my indulgences as of late. Unfortunately I haven't made much progress.

I don't over eat, have sex, get high or drunk. I'm still not at total peace, so what's missing? :|

 

 

 

Still is a good concept for most to follow, though.

I'd usually describe my general everyday personality as Epicureanistic, but I do have seemingly random urges that I usually don't mind immediately indulging. In essence, spontaneity(there's a good reason I hide money from myself).

The tomorrow is never promised - the only thing you have for sure is the present. That's why I wing everything in life, but not to the point where I'll complete a self-fulfilling prophecy by killing myself by overindulging.

I agree with everything except the oversexing. You can never oversex.

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking, although i kind of understand his reason for it.

I agree with everything except the oversexing. You can never oversex.

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking, although i kind of understand his reason for it.

 

Uhhh.... Is your sig a girl or a guy? I cant tell -.-

I agree with everything except the oversexing. You can never oversex.

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking, although i kind of understand his reason for it.

 

Uhhh.... Is your sig a girl or a guy? I cant tell -.-

 

 

 

Its a guy, oli sykes.

 

He sings/ screams in bring me the horizon.

 

 

 

But what does that have to do with anything lol?

I agree with everything except the oversexing. You can never oversex.

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking, although i kind of understand his reason for it.

 

Uhhh.... Is your sig a girl or a guy? I cant tell -.-

 

 

 

Its a guy, oli sykes.

 

He sings/ screams in bring me the horizon.

 

 

 

But what does that have to do with anything lol?

 

Always wondered. Just remembered to ask.

Very interesting. I follow this lifestyle to a certain degree. I'm going to look further into it. Thanks l0rd.

I agree with everything except the oversexing. You can never oversex.

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking, although i kind of understand his reason for it.

 

Uhhh.... Is your sig a girl or a guy? I cant tell -.-

 

 

 

Its a guy, oli sykes.

 

He sings/ screams in bring me the horizon.

 

 

 

But what does that have to do with anything lol?

 

Always wondered. Just remembered to ask.

 

Same here, thanks for clearing that up. (Oli looks like that? He'd look pretty as a girl.. but not a guy D:)

 

 

 

On topic: I'm the same as kenshinjapan.

I'd usually describe my general everyday personality as Epicureanistic, but I do have seemingly random urges that I usually don't mind immediately indulging. In essence, spontaneity(there's a good reason I hide money from myself).

 

Same here. If I ever see anything I take a fancy to, I'll buy it then and there. I've even worked for three hours as a clerk in Target (apparently I wasn't supposed to) so I could buy a Millennium Falcon.

 

 

 

Thing's [bleep]ing awesome.

I don't over eat, have sex, get high or drunk. I'm still not at total peace, so what's missing? :|

 

 

 

Still is a good concept for most to follow, though.

 

 

 

I don't think it's an issue of "over" doing something, but rather an issue of priorities and desire. Almost all humans feel desire for something, and it often drives us to be productive. But when the desire is towards things that indulge such as video games, eating, yes even sex. Then I think thats where the problem is.

i do agree with the fact that you need to know your limits,and have certain boundaries you need to hold yourself to (when it comes to health,eating..and such).

 

 

 

however,i am all for indulging in whatever you wish to indulge in as long as it doesn't put yourself or others in jeopardy..if you want to have a lot of sex with the woman of your desires,have at it..if you wish to indulge in certain desires,do so..you only have one life,live it.

I agree with that philosophy, insofar as it states that the only "good" is pleasure; as an Atheist, I believe that every action made by any human, whether unknowingly or knowingly, maximises pleasure and minimizes pain to the perpatrator only.

 

 

 

What causes "Happiness" may vary depending on the person, but for the reasons already described, the majority of people are as happy as it is feasably possible for them to be. If they consciously acted on the pain/pleasure principle -- both direct and indirect; it is not hedonism -- they would, however, be theoretically significantly happier; though as the majority of people do not consciously think about most of they're actions this dose not happen; furthemore, most people, even if they did try to act on the principle I described, would interpret it litterally, be biased by religion or some other cause, or not understand it. Essentialy, people are as happy as feasably possible when they do not consciously think about the vast majority of their actions.

I agree with everything except the oversexing. You can never oversex.

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking, although i kind of understand his reason for it.

 

Uhhh.... Is your sig a girl or a guy? I cant tell -.-

 

 

 

Its a guy, oli sykes.

 

He sings/ screams in bring me the horizon.

 

 

 

But what does that have to do with anything lol?

 

 

 

I ALMOST went to see BMTH a few months back in my town :)

 

 

 

Anyway, back on topic,

 

 

 

As stated above, there is no such thing as too much sex :twisted:

 

I kinda agree with the rest, and Epicureanism, with a name like that, how can it not be good? :lol:

I agree with that philosophy, insofar as it states that the only "good" is pleasure; as an Atheist, I believe that every action made by any human, whether unknowingly or knowingly, maximises pleasure and minimizes pain to the perpatrator only.

 

 

 

What causes "Happiness" may vary depending on the person, but for the reasons already described, the majority of people are as happy as it is feasably possible for them to be. If they consciously acted on the pain/pleasure principle -- both direct and indirect; it is not hedonism -- they would, however, be theoretically significantly happier; though as the majority of people do not consciously think about most of they're actions this dose not happen; furthemore, most people, even if they did try to act on the principle I described, would interpret it litterally, be biased by religion or some other cause, or not understand it. Essentialy, people are as happy as feasably possible when they do not consciously think about the vast majority of their actions.

 

 

 

I don't believe most people live so much in the moment that they are feasibly as happy as possible, if this was so, wouldn't everyone be out of school, doing drugs 24/7, and having sex until they are dead?

postie

 

Can you change your signature to "absolute" please? Your PM is disabled and that always bugs me. :P

 

 

 

This reminds me of vows of poverty taken by many religious officials. I don't understand it, but if it makes you happy...

Hmmm...

 

Is there really any incentive not to indulge? If you've earned it, and you operate within your own debt system, then I see no reason why you shouldn't. Really, Epicureanism is far too universal; it attempts to implement a system that doesn't indulge for anybody. Sounds like Communism, to me, only less direct sharing: it really comes down to the same thing though; the preservation of resources.

 

 

 

Tragically, there aren't many high corporate bastards who have -really- earned their money, so really, whether or not you should indulge, and how much you should indulge, strictly depends.

 

 

 

Perhaps we all should not indulge; if you've ever heard the famous quote (I forgot who, and I'm too lazy to look it up,) "If I'm overindulging, that means someone, somewhere, is starving," it's pretty much that. Western civilization really indulges, even though it insists that it's not. You can only eat the bare minimum a day and still be indulging, because as long as the rest of the world is starving, you're still indulging in contrast. Therefore, Epicureanism is impossible to achieve unless everybody is at a basic societal norm, like no more world hunger. But, in our modern world, the means to accomplish that basic societal norm are unsavory to us, the West, at best. (Ha! It rhymes!)

 

 

 

Epicureanism is noble enough on paper, but, like Communism, it will hardly work if universally implemented. As a personal philosiphy, that's great. Go for it. Though it won't really be true Epicureanism unless you're sitting under a grass roof, in the mud, with an empty belly.

Perhaps we all should not indulge; if you've ever heard the famous quote (I forgot who, and I'm too lazy to look it up,) "If I'm overindulging, that means someone, somewhere, is starving," it's pretty much that. Western civilization really indulges, even though it insists that it's not. You can only eat the bare minimum a day and still be indulging, because as long as the rest of the world is starving, you're still indulging in contrast. Therefore, Epicureanism is impossible to achieve unless everybody is at a basic societal norm, like no more world hunger. But, in our modern world, the means to accomplish that basic societal norm are unsavory to us, the West, at best. (Ha! It rhymes!)

 

 

 

Surviving is indulging? By that logic, dying is the great equalizer that only truly equalizes when everyone is dead. You're thinking of Epicureanism too broadly, when it is just an individualistic philosophy.

We're studying Buddhism in history. My homework for this weekend? Follow the Eightfold Path as best as I can. Everything in moderation, hm?

[hide=Ravenguard0]

Hmmm...

 

Is there really any incentive not to indulge? If you've earned it, and you operate within your own debt system, then I see no reason why you shouldn't. Really, Epicureanism is far too universal; it attempts to implement a system that doesn't indulge for anybody. Sounds like Communism, to me, only less direct sharing: it really comes down to the same thing though; the preservation of resources.

 

 

 

Tragically, there aren't many high corporate bastards who have -really- earned their money, so really, whether or not you should indulge, and how much you should indulge, strictly depends.

 

 

 

Perhaps we all should not indulge; if you've ever heard the famous quote (I forgot who, and I'm too lazy to look it up,) "If I'm overindulging, that means someone, somewhere, is starving," it's pretty much that. Western civilization really indulges, even though it insists that it's not. You can only eat the bare minimum a day and still be indulging, because as long as the rest of the world is starving, you're still indulging in contrast. Therefore, Epicureanism is impossible to achieve unless everybody is at a basic societal norm, like no more world hunger. But, in our modern world, the means to accomplish that basic societal norm are unsavory to us, the West, at best. (Ha! It rhymes!)

 

 

 

Epicureanism is noble enough on paper, but, like Communism, it will hardly work if universally implemented. As a personal philosiphy, that's great. Go for it. Though it won't really be true Epicureanism unless you're sitting under a grass roof, in the mud, with an empty belly.

[/hide]

 

Yeah, I think your thinking that the reason to not indulge is to give more to everyone else....which is totally untrue and in some things its impossible(i.e. indulging in internet - your not taking the internet from anyone else). The reason to not indulge is simply to try to keep an equilibrium of desire and priorities in YOUR life, not to try to balance the whole community around you. Its extremely different than communism and doesn't dictate any interaction with anyone but yourself.

 

 

 

Even the word choice of "implement" strays from the very definition of philosophy, which is intended to be a individualistic search for value, and not something "implemented" by any thing or majority.

Mmmmm...maybe. I have just always thought that philosophy would be better implemented on a larger scale. Still, even on an individual basis, I think that Epicureanism can be used for a betterment of society. (I mean, if a priest gives a vow of poverty, that money is (hopefully) going to be going to somebody else who needs it, right?)

 

 

 

All in all, a fine philosophy. Over-indulgence is always bad, and that's an undisputed truth, but no indulging seems to be something that somebody would do for a purpose higher than themselves (ie, to help the poor, to their God, for their wives,) but, any way you slice it...not that bad of a philosophy.

Mmmmm...maybe. I have just always thought that philosophy would be better implemented on a larger scale. Still, even on an individual basis, I think that Epicureanism can be used for a betterment of society. (I mean, if a priest gives a vow of poverty, that money is (hopefully) going to be going to somebody else who needs it, right?)

 

 

 

All in all, a fine philosophy. Over-indulgence is always bad, and that's an undisputed truth, but no indulging seems to be something that somebody would do for a purpose higher than themselves (ie, to help the poor, to their God, for their wives,) but, any way you slice it...not that bad of a philosophy.

 

 

 

Nah, I don't think philosophy should be used by a community, even if is most commonly-shared one, that'd be like America only allowing Christianity.

 

 

 

And no, the reason I believe one shouldn't indulge is because of the reasons stated in the Wikipedia quote, and have no higher-purpose motive (am an atheist), and only doing it for the beneficial reasons that would affect my life.

Nah, I don't think philosophy should be used by a community, even if is most commonly-shared one, that'd be like America only allowing Christianity.

 

Sharing philosophy =/= sharing religion.

 

 

 

We all share incredibly basic philosophies, to some extent anyways.