I received this question from a subscriber. I will not mention his name:
What advice would Epicurus give to someone who cannot supply themselves with necessary goods? In other words, if you can’t fulfill necessary desires can you still be happy? And, if so, how?
The subscriber does not specify necessary goods, but I take this to mean food, basic clothing and a roof over one’s head.
I will try to address this interesting question in the next day or two, but can anyone help with a constructive reply?
According to the Oxford dictionary, Epicurus taught that “the highest good is personal happiness”. The Christian ethic is to be content with what you have (St. Paul) .
Does happiness equate with personal contentment? I think so. But can we be content with no roof over our heads and no food in our bellies. I dont think so. Nor should we be. Taking these necessities from others illegally does not sound to be an option from the point of view of either Epicurus or St Paul.
Chritians are told over and over again to feed the poor so eventually all would have the necessities.
So does the epicurean ethic say that personal happiness trumps making sure that other have enough?
Perhaps Epicurus would say that if you share your goods with others you get the glow of happiness???
Just a thought!
hi all,
I’ll fess up that it was me that posed the question. By way of clarification, I did mean “food, shelter, water and clothing” when I mentioned necessary goods/desires.
Essentially, I’ve been a huge fan of Epicurus since I first read about him in undergraduate philosophy class almost 15 years ago. The one thing that always stuck with me is his seeming insistence that our happiness is dependent upon externals, albeit simple and ‘easy to get’ ones.
Logically then it seems, if you can’t get those basic things (hello maslow) then you are SOL (sh*t out of luck) when it comes to happiness.
I know that that was not the intent of Epicurus’ position as I’m sure he would have made even finer distinctions about how even those without these things can be happy, but I’m not seeing it myself.
I really appreciate the opportunity to think this through together. How very Epicurean…
Brett
In the immortal words of the ‘Dude’ “That’s f**king interesting, man. That’s f**king interesting…”.
I’ve never thought of the potential social ramifications of epicurean thought. It’s similar to the ethical byproduct of his thinking: if you aren’t looking to sate your wildest desires, you most likely aren’t going to try to kill someone to do so.
In the same vein, perhaps I’m looking at it the wrong way: how do I act in such a way that those around me, like myself, have the means to meet their necessary desires. In my 37 years on this earth, I’ve had times of desperation but I’ve never had times when I couldn’t meet or have met those basic needs. Unfortunately, that’s not the case for everyone.
You’ve taken me down a path I hadn’t expected. The more I think about it the more ‘Christ-like’ is the thinking of Epicurus than even that of Jesus himself. There are no strings attached as in Christianity: you give to others for the simple fact that they don’t have, not because you want to fatten them up to deliver them to your petulant god.
Thanks,
Brett
just fyi but i didn’t mean anyone in particular in my last sentence about the petulant god.
Epicurus believed that ataraxia (peace of mind and tranquility) is important to achieve. He said that anxiety is worse than bodily pain, and that present suffering soon passes, but anxiety lasts a long time. Fear is the cause of much mental anguish and anxiety, and we should reduce it as much as possible.
This being the case, no Epicurean can stand idly by while there are poor people without food, clothing and shelter, anxious as to where they will sleep and whether they will eat. The community has a duty to look after such people. Today we pay taxes to the government to do a lot of this, although by no means all of it. An Epicurean willingly pays tax to reduce the anxiety of knowing that there are people who are suffering misfortune (there are far too many people preoccupied with attacking taxation). In this respect Epicureans are no different to caring Christians. It follows that it is totally acceptable to accept help from the state or from well-wishers.
There is, however, a snag to all this. It is only human to start to resent free-loaders who are too indolent to help themselves. So an Epicurean, fallen on hard times, must, to maintain self-respect, do his utmost to pay his way within the law and to show his fellow citizens that he is genuinely trying. Not to do so invites recrimination, destroys his self-image, prevents ataraxia and diminishes the willingness of the community to help
Your last post got me to thinking further about the whole anxiety thing. I’m wondering if the seasoned Epicurean would see those temporary times of ‘want of basic goods’ differently than someone not trained in understanding it’s principles?
In other words, I think the Epicurean would not have nearly as much anxiety even though lacking in some basic goods. She would know that it’s temporary and would have a sense of calm even in the midst of need. Furthermore, she would immediately start working toward gaining back those necessary goods knowing full well that her happiness/lack of anxiety depends in part or in whole on having them. She wouldn’t languish in self-pity but would get to work.
It reminds me of buddhism in some ways in that a by-product of the belief system is a sense of calm in the midst of distress. In like fashion, the Epicurean would not allow him/herself to succumb to distress knowing that doing so would only make her even more unhappy.
Not sure that all makes sense.
I think it makes perfect sense. However, regardless of beliefs, be aware that some people endure high levels of generalised anxiety at all times. This they are born with and often it has nothing to do with any threat or crisis – it is just there all the time and they have to live with it, because pharmaceutical drugs seldom do the trick.In fact, they should be avoided. Anxiety has the good effect that you leave little to chance and you work hard to avoid the problems occurring. On the other hand, it is not pleasant. The strong desire for peace of mind and relief from anxiety means that such people are attracted to the calm waters of Epicureanism.
See latest post on anxiety. There are two types: one is the generalised anxiety mentioned above, and the other anxiety which is “culturally” based and is not necessarily inherent.
Sorry but a techno-anxiety attacked me through a computer problem which was solved by three adults spending an hour on solutions. All that caused a delay in offering an answer to your question two days ago. For me the difficulty posed points to a weakness in Epicurean philosophy: a significant amount of the anxiety we experience is CAUSED by social and economic arrangements which play out in the one arena Epicurus counsels we avoid: politics.
“How do I get food? clothing? shelter?” Having work, a place to live, and food require the kind of social cooperation which, by definition, involves politics. This has always been true, hasn’t it?
The meaning of life, the inevitability of death, life’s reverses–people with the leisure to devote to thinking about these issues without distraction are probably already likely to have these goods.
Well, as Jane phrased it, “just a thought.”
An Epicurean should keep his desires to a minimum, but should attend to those that are necessary (food, shelter, etc.), and also among his tasks, he must develop a plan to achieve autarchy (=self-sufficiency) so he won’t be a burden on others.
But on the other hand, regarding the practicalities of this issue, I think Epicurus would have asked a person in this situation “Where are your friends?” Friends are the most important ingredient in happiness meant to help us feel safe and happy.