"The Epicurean Smoker": Exploring Hedonism

(Philosocom Hedonism Directory)

(September 2023 note: I am no longer handicapped. I explained why in this article).

"The Epicurean Smoker": Exploring Hedonism

Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher who appears to be falsely identified with modern-day hedonism (a contemporary variant). Because he believed that we should all seek joy, and joy, along with serenity, seemed to him to be a top value in philosophy and life in general. However, the confusion lies when his philosophy does not see all joy as virtuous.

Eating too much, for example, while a fun activity, can be unhealthy, and thus, have no virtue in regard to being "good." Also, eating without moderation can cause complications that won't necessarily be fun (due to the fact that it's unhealthy).

"Modern-day hedonism," on the other hand, lacks this moral restraint. It seeks to have pleasure with little or no regard to the consequences that may follow. That's because to the more-contemporary hedonist, joy is worthy regardless of what its source will cause, which may be harmful.

Epicurus asserted that there's nothing inherently wrong with joy. The claim refers to the feeling itself and not to every joy. Thus, there may be no necessary desperation in Epicurean philosophy, as Epicurean philosophy combines joy with virtue, and of course, virtue also refers to ethics, since being moral is necessarily a virtue.

Thus, we can say that Epicurus strived to gain joy ethically, or in ways that would not necessarily bring harm to the joy-seeker, to others, and as a result of the pleasure gained. After all, what harm is there, in moral joy? in joy that was not only gained physically but also morally, and can bring greater benefit from that nature? It isn't morality that comes with a cost, like with a double-edged sword, but it's one that seeks overall good, including, a good feeling.

By that logic, a smoker, a gambling addict, and so on, are not Epicureans in their philosophy, even if they may claim they are. That's because of the fact that there are harmful sources of fun. What I call "modern-day hedonism", or "contemporary hedonism", is a very desperate one, because the contemporary hedonist may have little regard for the harm that he or she may cause to themselves or to the world. They would choose joy for its own sake, because of ideas such as "You only live once" and "Fun is the meaning of life".

How come? Smoking can shorten one's lifespan; a gambling addiction can ruin families; perhaps some of you can testify on the matter?

This is why there is desperation in a hedonistic pursuit that isn't necessarily Epicurean in nature: Those who smoke basically trade some of their lifespan, so they will have to enjoy a cigarette, a cigar, and so on. Wouldn't you say that such a bargain is not only deadly, but desperate? Is it worth it to potentially live less in order to enjoy more?

(I do not care that I "only live once." I have no desire to shorten my lifespan, so I avoid smoking like fire. The experience, to me, doesn't worth the sacrifice.)

Thus, an "Epicurean Smoker," for instance, would be a walking definition of an oxymoron: a term that contradicts itself, like a warm cold, or something that is bittersweet (at least in taste). A moral hedonist will not seek to cause harm, even to himself, if the harm has no benefit.

Did you see what I did just now? An Epicurean is a moral hedonist, but it's only a type of moral hedonism. Therefore, not every moral hedonism is Epicurean hedonism. That's because the Epicurean does not like any harm, and on the other hand, the premise that every harm is not beneficial is a generalization that not all will agree with.

I, for example, disagree with Epicurus. I think some harm can be beneficial if, for instance, one can learn from it. Mistakes might be harmful, correct? If we learn from them and improve as a result, why not see them as beneficial? They're far worthier than mistakes that go unlearned.

There are also other types of harm that can be good, such as harm that makes one stronger or more resilient. Exercise isn't always fun, correct? But regardless of fun, it can definitely make one stronger in the body, mind, or both.

Yes, the physical benefit is no longer there, due to the fact that I've grown far, far weaker (nowadays I use a cane), but resisting my mind's desire for pleasure seemed to have developed it into greater resilience. Hence, I disagree with hedonism and, thus, disagree with Epicurus' philosophy on the matter.

Harm... should not be completely avoided. How is one expected to read books if their desire for joy, compromises this function? Remember: Philosocom is a compromise due to the fact that books are less read than before the digital and smartphone revolutions — the "internetization of content," as I like to call it. I might never write books again.