Neo-Epicurean Life Hacks

[Mequa]

In Epicurean epistemology these three natural faculties - aesthesis, pathos, and prolepseis - all provide valid data when this data is correctly interpreted, only misinterpretations can produce error.

This statement borders on religious. If you can't cure your cancer, you weren't praying right. If you can't achieve happiness, you were "misinterpreting the data." Both ways leave intact the apparent integrity of the system of ideas, while completely disregarding the failure of the system to bring good to the person following it.

That is not quite so, as Epicurus was clear that for "achieving happiness" the analysed life is a necessary but not a sufficient condition - hedonic happiness requires the satisfaction of other needs such as companionship and freedom, which may be constrained by misfortune.

This is where a (neo-)Stoic attitude of "indifference" to outcomes outside of your control can be a useful compliment to the (neo-)Epicurean target. You can only live as skilfully as you can in attempting to aim your personal arrow at the target, so it's the skillset involved which matters. Beyond that, detach from outcomes, including how much happiness you achieve in the end provided you are doing your best.

Failure to achieve happiness also does not imply you were misinterpretating the data. It could also be a case of insufficient data on the analytical/cognitive front, in addition to meeting other conditions for happiness. Belief in false systems of morality which lead to more misery than joy in the long run can be another factor, which often lingers to childhood indoctination by parents and others.

---

As for animal desires, Epicurus attempted to demarcate which desires correspond to human needs. Said desires operate using the pleasure/pain mechanism. It is the combination of the empirical evidence, with the observations of what provides pleasure and eases pain, together with the correct use of our cognitive faculties, which determines the extent to follow which kind of desire.

Except that we have an understanding of the goal of those desires, and we can clearly see that they may not result in long-term happiness. Reproduction, for example, is a hedonic risk: death or misfortune of the child is likely to destroy a person's attempts to seek a cessation of suffering, possibly for the rest of that person's lifetime. Not mating, and not having children, can also have a negative effect on one's psychology-- loneliness, regret, boredom, etc. So how is one to escape the suffering inevitably caused by participation in our role as continuers of genetic fitness? Clearly, it is the disengagement of the self from that hedonic feedback mechanism which is required-- not any particular action aimed at "pleasing" the pleasure centers of the brain, so to speak.

Clearly, we are emotionally rewarded by acts which serve genetic fitness. But it is not so clear that in serving the "needs" of genetic fitness, we are ensuring a future of peace and happiness. Epicurus, apparently, didn't understand the principles of evolution.

The issue of love and sex was covered in depth by Lucretius, prefiguring the likes of Freud. It's clear that from an Epicurean standpoint that these desires are able to result in an excess of pain over pleasure when indulged without restraint. It is also clear that they are very difficult to remove. Epicurus himself was quite ascetic here and lived like a monk. Later Epicureans were much more indulgent.

Although Epicurus advised against rearing a family, he also supported in his will the family of some disciples, showing that not all Epicureans were against reproducing - that may have been more common on the more dedicated or monastic fringe.

There is hedonic risk either way whether a human decides either to reproduce or not to reproduce. Not following the biological imperative may lead to frustration and loss of life satisfaction as you mentioned, particularly given the difficulty in eradicating the associated desires. Satisfying the biological imperative on the other hand, particularly how this is done, may lead to an excess of misery over joy. What's the individual to do? Do his or her own hedonic calculus, way up the future gains and losses.

The relevant epistemological framework to do this has already been documented, which easily incorporates modern scientific empiricism. You can draw on personal life experience, scientific happiness research, sound argument, gut feeling and other factors when making the relevant decisions. What it ultimately comes down to though is the skilful use of your own natural faculties in the decision-making process.

"[D]isengagement of the self from that hedonic feedback mechanism" is actually what Epicurus taught through favouring "static" (katastematic) pleasures (such as meditative bliss) over "active" (kinetic) pleasures (such as steak and sex). The result is not far removed from Buddhism.