Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks

[bennyboy]

To ask whether Machiavelli was Epicurean, in this case the Machiavellian concept of "virtu" corresponds closely here to the definition of "right" I gave above. But Machiavelli was far more concerned with political power over others than Epicurus would consider healthy. To the Epicurean, this kind of power is only of value in terms of its utility towards personal security, it is not to be pursued for its own sake which is considered rather neurotic, and from an Epicurean perspective behaving too "Machiavellian" can lead to a lot of political power over others, but few friends and many enemies. Not the ideal in terms of personal happiness given the importance of friendship towards that end.

What if you were a king, or nobility, and surrounded by the dangers this involved in Machiavelli's time? Would guiltlessly following evil means to secure your own security and power really be neurotic? Or would it be the most sensible way to arrive at a chance for a positive hedonic state (i.e. once all your enemies were removed and you had established an iron grip on your territory)?

Anton LaVey was an egoistic hedonist (and quasi-occultist), he didn't really promote the kind of self-discipline Epicurus had in mind though, and LaVeyan philosophy is perhaps more crassly selfish as well as Machiavellian (see above) than an Epicurean would consider healthy.

Have you read the Satanic Bible? I'm not so sure his crass selfishness is so overriding as you think.

Ayn Rand's ethics combined Epicurean with Aristotelian and Nietzschean influences in addition to classical liberalism. It differs in practice from Epicureanism, I'm not sure the life of a billionaire entrepreneur is what Epicurus would have had in mind. LaVey (above) was strongly influenced by Ayn Rand but also more Machiavellian (considerably less committed to the non-aggression principle in terms of both force and fraud).

Isn't wealth one of the surest ways to remove impediments to happiness (so long as one is not in turn enslaved BY the wealth)?

Following my Christian background I find this kind of concept quite an empowering counterweight to both the crushing burden of Christian morality, and the despair of existential and moral nihilism. Others might not need anything like it.

Okay. And I think this could be taken as an answer to my question: Christians should examine the actual benefits to them of the religion, and make a newly informed calculus of their world view.

[Mequa]

To ask whether Machiavelli was Epicurean, in this case the Machiavellian concept of "virtu" corresponds closely here to the definition of "right" I gave above. But Machiavelli was far more concerned with political power over others than Epicurus would consider healthy. To the Epicurean, this kind of power is only of value in terms of its utility towards personal security, it is not to be pursued for its own sake which is considered rather neurotic, and from an Epicurean perspective behaving too "Machiavellian" can lead to a lot of political power over others, but few friends and many enemies. Not the ideal in terms of personal happiness given the importance of friendship towards that end.

What if you were a king, or nobility, and surrounded by the dangers this involved in Machiavelli's time? Would guiltlessly following evil means to secure your own security and power really be neurotic? Or would it be the most sensible way to arrive at a chance for a positive hedonic state (i.e. once all your enemies were removed and you had established an iron grip on your territory)?

In such a violent era, Epicurus would most likely answer "depends", since in Principle Doctrine 7 he said:
"Some men want fame and status, thinking that they would thus make themselves secure against other men. If the life of such men really were secure, they have attained a natural good; if, however, it is insecure, they have not attained the end which by nature's own prompting they originally sought."
Power comes with other stressors, however. Just look how quickly today's presidents and prime ministers age. It might be a life of a peasant is superior than that of a prince in terms of hedonic yield. This really depends on the extent to which security is reached. But here the only purpose to seek power is for pragmatic utility towards security - not seeking power out of megalomania.

Anton LaVey was an egoistic hedonist (and quasi-occultist), he didn't really promote the kind of self-discipline Epicurus had in mind though, and LaVeyan philosophy is perhaps more crassly selfish as well as Machiavellian (see above) than an Epicurean would consider healthy.

Have you read the Satanic Bible? I'm not so sure his crass selfishness is so overriding as you think.

I did moderate and run forums in the past dedicated to LaVeyan Satanism, so I know my way around LaVey. One problem with this kind of ideology (including its more unsavoury aspects such as Social Darwinism) is that people often use it as an excuse to be an asshole and proud of it, playing up the crass selfishness and crass hedonism and ignoring the nuances. (The same problem occurs with Ayn Rand's Objectivism.)

In my correspondence with Michael A. Aquino he confirmed that the original priesthood of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan had a more restrained behavioural philosophy close to Epicureanism (Aquino's own ethic is more Stoic), and current Church of Satan leader Peter H. Gilmore has described his ethics as Epicurean.

Ayn Rand's ethics combined Epicurean with Aristotelian and Nietzschean influences in addition to classical liberalism. It differs in practice from Epicureanism, I'm not sure the life of a billionaire entrepreneur is what Epicurus would have had in mind. LaVey (above) was strongly influenced by Ayn Rand but also more Machiavellian (considerably less committed to the non-aggression principle in terms of both force and fraud).

Isn't wealth one of the surest ways to remove impediments to happiness (so long as one is not in turn enslaved BY the wealth)?

Epicurus would have agreed with modern happiness research that, once a certain threshold of income is reached and a person is out of absolute poverty, social ties matter more than wealth in terms of securing happiness. Financial security is of course still highly important, but there are also other factors to consider.

Another issue here is how the wealth would be obtained, which has to be factored into the equation in terms of the hedonic calculus; for instance, the busy life of a high-powered entrepreneur might be less conducive to inner peace than that of a Buddhist monastic. Depending on individual disposition and other factors too, this may outweigh the hedonic advantages gained by the additional wealth in the more entrepreneurial lifestyle here.

For myself, I'm certainly not a strict Epicurean and differ on several points with Epicurus (and some dogmatic followers of him I have run into online). I find the highly pragmatic nature of (neo-)Epicurean philosophy quite refreshing though (combined with parts of Stoicism, which I will get into at a later date), and wish to develop it in a less dogmatic and more modern way.

[bennyboy]

Power comes with other stressors, however. Just look how quickly today's presidents and prime ministers age. It might be a life of a peasant is superior than that of a prince in terms of hedonic yield.

I'd argue that almost any peace-bringing arrangement that depends on external circumstances fits the same bill: to accept one's own fate, including the "suffering" that comes with it is better than to act in a way that one expects will bring happiness.

In my correspondence with Michael A. Aquino he confirmed that the original priesthood of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan had a more restrained behavioural philosophy close to Epicureanism (Aquino's own ethic is more Stoic), and current Church of Satan leader Peter H. Gilmore has described his ethics as Epicurean.

I don't know them personally, but I know that LaVey himself and some of his followers gave interviews which showed perhaps not humility, but definitely a no-nonsense simplicity in their answers. I like Marilyn Manson as a spokesperson for that brand of Satanism, as well.

Epicurus would have agreed with modern happiness research that, once a certain threshold of income is reached and a person is out of absolute poverty, social ties matter more than wealth in terms of securing happiness. Financial security is of course still highly important, but there are also other factors to consider.

That doesn't really seem like a philosophical position. I think 90% of people would tell you that they feel a little more money would free them, but a lot more would weigh too heavily on them.

For myself, I'm certainly not a strict Epicurean and differ on several points with Epicurus (and some dogmatic followers of him I have run into online). I find the highly pragmatic nature of (neo-)Epicurean philosophy quite refreshing though (combined with parts of Stoicism, which I will get into at a later date), and wish to develop it in a less dogmatic and more modern way.

In the end, my real issue with you right now is that I don't know what is different about (neo-)Epicureanism than what I already do, or than the majority of people I already know already do. You've described the use of wisdom to analyse various forms of information, with decisions based on what will benefit the self. Sounds like almost everyone I know, though different people succeed with this approach in varying degrees.

What piece am I missing that makes Epicureanism unique or rare enough to merit the term "life hack" ?

[Mequa]

I'd argue that almost any peace-bringing arrangement that depends on external circumstances fits the same bill: to accept one's own fate, including the "suffering" that comes with it is better than to act in a way that one expects will bring happiness.

This was part of Epicurus' Tetrapharmakon or Four-Fold Remedy: "What is terrible is easy to endure." Enduring unavoidable suffering was also an approach shared with the Stoics. In terms of Epicurean goals the type of happiness most prized was (imperturbable) inner peace, ataraxia.

I don't know them personally, but I know that LaVey himself and some of his followers gave interviews which showed perhaps not humility, but definitely a no-nonsense simplicity in their answers. I like Marilyn Manson as a spokesperson for that brand of Satanism, as well.

LaVey had some good ideas (individualism, restrained hedonism, skepticism) mixed with some not so good ones (elitism, social Darwinism, eugenics...)

I think 90% of people would tell you that they feel a little more money would free them, but a lot more would weigh too heavily on them.

Some positive psychologists have noted that many people tend to vastly overestimate the role wealth plays in happiness, once enough financial security to cover essential needs is met. Perhaps consumerist culture is partly to blame for such distorted beliefs.

In the end, my real issue with you right now is that I don't know what is different about (neo-)Epicureanism than what I already do, or than the majority of people I already know already do. You've described the use of wisdom to analyse various forms of information, with decisions based on what will benefit the self. Sounds like almost everyone I know, though different people succeed with this approach in varying degrees.

What this approach suggests is that one possible secular answer to traditional philosophical questions about the "meaning of life", once traditional religious, moral and political options seem inadequate, is to turn to evidence-based science of happiness, and use this to forge a lifestyle with more joy and peace (for self and others, principally focused on self).

This isn't about mere scientific research however, but practical application of an applied empiricism (integrated with gut-level and emotional input data) in one's everyday life, towards such goals, as an antidote to nihilistic despair following the decline of religious faith. In short, a rational and practical behavioural philosophy.

What piece am I missing that makes Epicureanism unique or rare enough to merit the term "life hack" ?

Epicureanism is a whole toolbox of philosophical life hacks. So is much of Stoicism. Both philosophies today have dogmatic followers, however I think this is not the best application of either today. A toolbox metaphor might make more sense.

For specific applications however, that will have to wait for another time.

[bennyboy]

I have to confess I don't entirely understand the OP title or the point of this thread. Are you just introducing the idea of epicureanism in general? Unless you can provide some examples of what this philosophical toolbox is like for you, or specifics about how they can be applied with benefit to people's lives, I'll have to bow out of this thread with thanks for the introduction.