Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:32 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
#1
Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
According to Wikipedia.org,

"Life hacking refers to any trick, shortcut, skill, or novelty method that increases productivity and efficiency, in all walks of life. It is arguably a modern appropriation of a gordian knot - in other words, anything that solves an everyday problem in an inspired, ingenious manner."

The same concept has ancient roots, however. Ancient practical philosophers developed techniques to be able to live more wisely. The two most practical schools coming out of ancient Greece were Stoicism and Epicureanism. These were taken on by the more pragmatic Romans - emperor Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and wrote his "Meditations" on Stoic philosophy. Both of these philosophies are mentioned in the Christian New Testament during Paul's visit to Athens in the book of Acts. Ironically, it was the Christians who killed off these ancient schools in an act of tyranny, which may otherwise have remained open to this day.

Extracting modernised "life hacks" from both these ancient schools, updated in light of 21st century technology, science and culture, is a field one could write many lengthy books on.

I'd like to touch on some in particular here from Epicureanism, which cut many gordian knots in terms of wisdom, happiness, what it means to live well, and the relationship between individual self-interest and concern for others.

Instrumental alignment

Quite simply, in the Epicurean form of individualism the highest value in life is your own purely selfish happiness (hedone/eudaimonia) and peace of mind (ataraxia), rooted in your own survival and health (of both body and mind). All other values are secondary and subservient to this one.

This is often wrongly understood as an overly selfish philosophy, but this is a misreading. Achieving individual happiness requires satisfying basic human needs, including the need for friendship and community, which gives rise to reciprocal altruism out of enlightened self-interest.

Standards of justice and friendship are established pragmatically, as a social contract (Epicurus was one of the first contractarians), and following them (to some degree of closeness) is an instrument to your own happiness, when it instrumentally aligns with it and this is determined via the available empirical evidence. This again follows this principle of even determining how far one should adhere to social norms such as justice and friendship, should be made subservient to the ends of individual happiness - and verified empirically.

By the same standards, wisdom is defined primarily as practical skill with utility or expediency towards your own lifelong personal happiness. Wisdom only has value to you in so far as it makes you happy in the long run.

Those traits which are considered social virtues, such as being a good friend, compassionate, just, and fulfilling obligations, are rejected as good in themselves (or "intrinsically" good"), and instead judged instrumentally as a means to the end of your own personal happiness. This is known as "hedonistic virtue ethics", where you empirically and pragmatically decide where to act "good" where it can personally make you happy.

For example, if you desire friends, developing the virtues of a good friend can help you to obtain good friends and thus satisfy your basic human needs more efficiently.

Thus the value of social virtue is judged purely instrumentally, towards your own individual ends, based on utility and empiricism. At the same time you will be following your own nature - both human nature in general and your own individual nature or disposition. So your results will vary considerably (in terms of conventional morality) depending on whether or not you are a psychopath, for instance.

Most humans are highly social creatures and desire companionship, so being smart means learning to get along and seeking like-minded individuals. Being too much of an asshole is usually self-destructive, detrimental to the end of your own individual happiness. Civil interaction establishes other persons have boundaries and rights, and failure to respect these usually carries negative penalties for yourself - social animals like humans are biologically programmed to strive for social order.

To myself, this neo-Epicurean form of individualism is a way out of existential and moral nihilism, which adds respect for one's own dignity and right to live as your own end as an individual, not compromising on self-interest but with a large incorporation on concern for others as instrumentally aligned towards this end. Although some may consider such a form of individualism as rather amoral, basing and rooting it in self-respect rather allows healthy (as opposed to self-destructive) respect for others, as well as genuine friendship and community, and avoids a more crippling, guilt-ridden and shame-ridden form of morality which poisons the spirit. You can strive for a win-win arrangement instead of opting for martyrdom and being the "lose" part of a win-lose. This validates your own dignity and moral worth as an individual and human being. This provides a basis for asserting yourself (without trampling on others).

What you have here is essentially the kernel of an epic life hack. The fundamental principle is that of hedonic calculus - maximising your own personal pleasure, happiness and peace of mind planned over the course of your life - and minimising your own pain, suffering and misery. In today's world this may involve researching the latest evidence-based psychotherapies and applied happiness research in fields such as Positive Psychology. But above all it means thinking for yourself using all your own natural faculties, going by the empirical evidence while also being able to use gut feeling and intuition as appropriate. This is how you determine what is best for you.

Of course, this is just an option. I am not holding this "end" of life out as the Way, the Truth and the Life. But loving yourself and respecting your own dignity is a viable path and antidote to existential nihilism, particularly given the void left by the absence of religion (as was touched on by Nietzsche).

I will likely be returning to this topic at a later date, and possibly discussing some specific applications of these ideas.

Mequa
Reply
#2
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
Posted this on TTA, but I'll post it here too. Big Grin

Hai Mequa! Nice thread ...not until meeting you online, did I really dive too deeply into Epicurean philosophy ...and it's pretty fascinating, I have to say. I think why some find the ideas of 'maximizing' our pleasure and happiness, and trying to minimize suffering as immoral, is because we live in largely a Christian society, or at the very least a religious one. So, the idea of maximizing our pleasure or satisfying our desires -- can be seen as self centered, or egotistical. But, I see it as necessary to being instrumental in helping others. Only when we are at our personal bests, however that plays out for an individual...can we help another to be at their best.

But, I also believe that suffering has redemptive qualities...and yes, that concept comes from my Christian upbringing. The idea that clinging to suffering is somehow glorifying Jesus in his suffering, was something I used to strive for, as a Christian. So, the notion to put myself say above others in seeking happiness, would have been a foreign idea back then.

Thanks for posting this, it's definitely an intriguing topic. Smile
Reply
#3
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
" Whether it be hedonism, pessimism, utilitarianism, or eudaemonism, all those modes of thinking which measure the worth of things according to PLEASURE and PAIN, that is, according to accompanying circumstances and secondary considerations, are plausible modes of thought and naivetes, which every one conscious of CREATIVE powers and an artist's conscience will look down upon with scorn, though not without sympathy. Sympathy for you! - to be sure, that is not sympathy as you understand it: it is not sympathy for social "distress," for "society" with its sick and misfortuned, for the hereditarily vicious and defective who lie on the ground around us; still less is it sympathy for the grumbling, vexed, revolutionary slave-classes who strive after power - they call it "freedom." OUR sympathy is a loftier and further-sighted sympathy: - we see how MAN dwarfs himself, how YOU dwarf him! and there are moments when we view YOUR sympathy with an indescribable anguish, when we resist it, - when we regard your seriousness as more dangerous than any kind of levity. You want, if possible - and there is not a more foolish "if possible" - TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; and we? - it really seems that WE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been! Well-being, as you understand it - is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible - and makes his destruction DESIRABLE! The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that it is this discipline alone that has produced all the elevations of humanity so far? The tension of soul in misfortune which communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and ruin, its inventiveness and bravery in undergoing, enduring, interpreting, and exploiting misfortune, and whatever depth, mystery, disguise, spirit, artifice, or greatness has been bestowed upon the soul - has it not been bestowed through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering?"

Frederich Nietzsche
Beyond Good and Evil
Chapter 7
Reply
#4
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
"You want, if possible - and there is not a more foolish "if possible" - TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; and we? - it really seems that WE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been!"

Yay, more suffering, sounds awesome. Mad Freddy was mad. His rants on this topic are barely coherent.

"Greatness" at the expense of more personal suffering, no thanks. I don't have the requisite level of self-hatred. That is ironically closer to a form of Stoicism which originally exalted "virtue" - to Nietzsche, more like power and greatness. Not as means to the end of personal happiness which I would go with, but as something to sacrifice personal happiness to. Which is where I would part ways with Nietzsche.

Excellence in so far as it instrumentally aligns with personal happiness though, sure. Smile
Reply
#5
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
He wrote "Beyond Good and Evil" in 1886. It was his second published work, and long before any symptoms of mental illness. To me, a wish to " be happy" smacks of immaturity. Wisdom does not bring happiness. It may bring acceptance, and peace of mind, but happiness is for the foolish, and for children.

“He who has learned the limits of life knows that it is easy to provide that which removes the feeling of pain owing to want and make one’s whole life perfect. So there is no need for things which involve struggle” – Epicurus

Kind of the anti-Nietzsche. Sounds like a hippie Wink
Reply
#6
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
(November 8, 2014 at 6:15 pm)Lao Shizi Wrote: To me, a wish to " be happy" smacks of immaturity. Wisdom does not bring happiness. It may bring acceptance, and peace of mind, but happiness is for the foolish, and for children.
Quite a bald assertion.

The Greek term hedone (the root of "hedonism") can translate as either pleasure or happiness. Epicurus would have agreed with your assertion that hedone translates to ataraxia (acceptance and peace of mind), here based on sustainable long-term happiness which to Epicurus is closely tied to the removal of primarily mental suffering. This is a more robust philosophical form of "hedonism" than your idea of "being happy" (happy-go-lucky?) or the other unphilosophical form, physical pleasure seeking. It's actually much like Buddhism in some ways, including with your quote below:

(November 8, 2014 at 6:15 pm)Lao Shizi Wrote:
“He who has learned the limits of life knows that it is easy to provide that which removes the feeling of pain owing to want and make one’s whole life perfect. So there is no need for things which involve struggle” – Epicurus

Kind of the anti-Nietzsche. Sounds like a hippie Wink
To "remove the feeling of pain owing to want" is a variation of the Buddhist idea of Nirvana, where one is liberated from the pain of desire. (Epicurus still thought some desires natural and necessary.) Nietzsche did also seem to invert Buddhism on this point in his philosophy, arguing against reduction of desire.

As for Epicureanism being a hippie, lazy slacker's philosophy, this view was argued against by Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to William Short:

Quote:I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that "that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided." Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road.

Jefferson's reading of Epicurus notes, as recorded in Cicero's De Finibus, that fortitude is considered a cardinal virtue in Epicureanism, and as with all virtues developed out of prudence, praised purely for its utility as a means to the end of personal happiness. Jefferson argues that this is not compatible with laziness nor cowardice - that is, the latter are seen as imprudent and thus foolish - on the Epicurean theory of wisdom, which aims for long-term personal well-being.
Reply
#7
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
"Quite a bald assertion." No need to bring my hairstyle in to the discussion.

You may enjoy this article. It's called "The Hobo Test" There's a great article on Nietzsche and love as well. It's a good magazine, if you like philosophy.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/98/Epic..._Hobo_Test
Reply
#8
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
(November 8, 2014 at 10:25 pm)Lao Shizi Wrote: You may enjoy this article. It's called "The Hobo Test" There's a great article on Nietzsche and love as well. It's a good magazine, if you like philosophy.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/98/Epic..._Hobo_Test
That link doesn't work directly for me (it gives the error "This article is available to subscribers only"), however I noticed if I copy and paste the URL into Google and visit the first search result, the full article will display, which I have read.

I think the author fundamentally misunderstands Epicureanism in terms of the Epicurean hedonic calculus, the prime importance of prudence and self-sufficiency, and the rooting of hedone in terms of both survival and health. The "hobo" example he gives does not illustrate Epicurus' ideal of prudence, nor does he find peace and safety, nor further his long-term personal survival, health, and happiness.

The hobo hasn't implemented a pleasure-pain accounting methodology and hedonistic virtue ethic with cost-benefit analysis rooted in empiricism and naturalism (also integrating emotion and intuition) which would have been a genuinely Epicurean approach. Otherwise in this case he would have avoided finding himself in harm's way.
Reply
#9
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
Your definition sounds more like Jeremy Bentham than Epicurus. I guess that's where the "Neo" comes from. It was a pretty tongue in cheek article anyway.
Reply
#10
RE: Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks
Your description of Epicurean hedonism causes me suffering. What should I do? Tongue

-How does one determine what behavior, right now, is most likely to achieve a positive hedonic state in the future? By following animal desires? If not, then what?
-What about the greater good? If I can spend my life building schools in Africa, doing fundraising work, and saving the lives of perhaps hundreds by distributing mosquito nets, but DO NOT GET PLEASURE from doing so, should I do it? Or should I say, "Fuck those little African kids. Starbucks is waiting for me."
-What about morality? If I can maintain positive social relationships while secretly back-stabbing all those around me, why shouldn't I?
-Isn't the complete obliteration and subjugation of our animal desires the most sure way to eliminate suffering? Should I not therefore consider all the suffering required to achieve such a goal an investment in the only long-lasting secessation of suffering and subsequent positive hedonic state?
-What about drugs?
-What if I'm a sociopath? Should I act in a way that will maximize my chances to rape, kill and mutilate young women?


It seems to me you are going to have to make a lot of bald assertions about what is good, what constitutes pleasure, and about how these relate to change over time, in order to make any kind of a useful lifestyle out of this philosophy.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How do you deal with life now that you are an atheist? (With a little of my life) Macoleco 135 14809 September 1, 2016 at 5:30 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life - lop0 11 4053 January 26, 2014 at 9:05 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)