Many of life’s difficulties are contained in the seeming contradictory nature of things. To truly enjoy something, you need to “buy-in” and immerse yourself in the experience. But this can be dangerous – too much attachment to something with too little perspective can lead to confusion and angst. Same with relationships. For human relationships to be worthwhile, you need to genuinely care and be committed to the relationship. But this can lead to neediness and desperation that will ultimately ruin a relationship and not make it worthwhile. Same with jobs. You need to love and care about what you do while simultaneously knowing you will be “fine” if you were to be fired.
A sort of one foot in-the-door/one-foot-out dynamic is often criticized, but it certainly has its advantages. The Epicurean view, contrary to modern linguistic usage, was not one of pure hedonism. Whereas many of the Stoics rejected attending the great pleasures of a “feast,” the Epicurean view was that it is fine to attend and enjoy the feast, just don’t need the feast. Or, more specifically, don’t let your internal happiness be determined by whether you attend the feast or not, but, simultaneously, be willing to enjoy the sensory pleasures of the feast.
How much can a person really enjoy something without feeling that they need it? Or, in other words, can you truly experience great pleasure and feelings if you’re not all-in (where the thought of losing object x, job x, person x is unimaginable)? Does the sort of moderation required to not need things result in a life not worth living (a life without enough passion, pain, and triumph)?
In Epicurean philosophy need has a special meaning. It refers to those things that you absolutely must have to exist as a living being (i.e. food, drink, shelter). Things like jobs, feasts, objects, persons, are referred to as desires, some of which are good and natural, while others are false, excessive, or lead to suffering.
ReplyDeleteWhat Epicurus recognized was that most desires are not needs, even though they are beneficial to happiness (which is the purpose of life). He also recognized that wise moderation in desires is the path to long-term happiness. So your happiness mustn't be totally dependent on any one desire.
The pleasure we gain from desires isn't diminished by understanding what desires are good, and when a desire is excessive (and will always lead to pain/unhappiness).
So yes, moderation in desires will lead to true pleasures and a life that is immensely worth living.
Hi Ilkka. I was using "need" and "desire" in a casual way -- thanks for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteMiddle way, point of diminishing returns.
ReplyDelete