In a recent/ongoing re-reading of Seneca’s ‘Letters to Lucilius’ I was very struck, again, by the number of times he cited Epicurus…much more often than the Stoics.
Indeed. Though one Seneca scholar, Liz Gloin, in her The Ethics of the Family in Seneca, also notices that Epicurus is mentioned in the early letters, but then dropped. She suggested that the Letters are meant as an informal curriculum in Stoic philosophy, and that Epicurus is useful to introduce people to the notion of philosophy as a way of life, but not required when the student becomes more advanced.
Epicurus might add to the discussion, but he does not acknowledge his source, which is, of course and as usual, Plato (Politeia):
“And he, too, would control by force all his appetites for pleasure that are wasters and not winners of wealth, those which are denominated unnecessary... desires that we cannot divert or suppress may be properly called necessary, [558e] and likewise those whose satisfaction is beneficial to us, may they not? For our nature compels us to seek their satisfaction. [559a] Is not that so ?” “Most assuredly.” “Then we shall rightly use the word ‘necessary’ of them...And may we not call the one group the spendthrift (analōtikos, expensive) desires and the other the profitable (khrēmatistikos for trade and money-making) because they help production (khrēsimos useful, serviceable) “Surely.” “And we shall say the same of sexual and other appetites?” “The same.” “And were we not saying that the man whom we nicknamed the drone is the man who teems with such pleasures and appetites, and who is governed by his unnecessary desires, while the one who is ruled [559d] by his necessary appetites is the thrifty oligarchical man?” (558d-559d)
Nice! To be fair, the notion of acknowledging one's sources is a modern one. Hellenistic philosophies all influenced each other, and it's sometimes hard to figure out who came up with what.
Massimo, so this letter is mainly about the “good life,” and not about what is necessary: to food, clothing, shelter, or about “relieving” discomfort with medicine, surgery, and medical equipment? I am trying to overlay the three categories—
Category 1: natural and necessary;
Category 2: natural, but not necessary;
Category 3: unnatural and unnecessary—
with the the discomfort part. I am guessing it is more about our unnecessary desires for things that we believe will give us freedom from discomfort. 🤨
Mike, yes, Epicurus's point is that anything that is either not natural or not necessary comes with complications and worries that we can do without. Remember that for him the highest degree of happiness is lack of pain...
It seems to me that every thing in category three takes away our freedom, and leads us in to fear of loosing them, and that’s what makes them unnatural
Is it bringing to our attention to beware of getting on the “hedonic treadmill”--which, inevitably, is to our detriment, and lose our freedom of satisfying our necessary desires? In other words, we think we are (by will) taking advantage of our freedom when in fact we are lessening it? 🤔 😬
Yes, we are free to decide between available choices, including choosing things to impress people or to compensate for painful feelings from our past (i.e. growing up in poverty and now living beyond our means through credit). But we are not free from the consequences of our actions (i.e. debt). It’s the consequences of our free choices that can take our freedom away.
Nicely put, this is a good way to sort things out. I need a working automobile to commute to work; it’s nice to have a recent model that has heated seats and parking/lane change cameras because I’m 62; it’s unnecessary to buy the Ford Mustang Dark Horse Premium 5L V-8 that would impress my friends and family. So I bought a Hyundai Tucson instead. It replaced a 2001 Ford Escape and I intend to keep it just as long.
One thing that the Stoic in me notes about the unnecessary undesirables in Epictetus’s three-part system is that they are things that are not only on the hedonic treadmill of never enough, they are things that can be easily lost or diminished in value. I never want to own a car that is so expensive that I would be worried to leave it unattended in a public place. For the unnecessary undesirables attract envy and undesirable attention.
In a recent/ongoing re-reading of Seneca’s ‘Letters to Lucilius’ I was very struck, again, by the number of times he cited Epicurus…much more often than the Stoics.
Indeed. Though one Seneca scholar, Liz Gloin, in her The Ethics of the Family in Seneca, also notices that Epicurus is mentioned in the early letters, but then dropped. She suggested that the Letters are meant as an informal curriculum in Stoic philosophy, and that Epicurus is useful to introduce people to the notion of philosophy as a way of life, but not required when the student becomes more advanced.
I actually only really “liked” the first 25 or so…gets a little tedious/preachy thereafter, imo.
Ah-So perfect for me, as I’m not more advanced…
Epicurus might add to the discussion, but he does not acknowledge his source, which is, of course and as usual, Plato (Politeia):
“And he, too, would control by force all his appetites for pleasure that are wasters and not winners of wealth, those which are denominated unnecessary... desires that we cannot divert or suppress may be properly called necessary, [558e] and likewise those whose satisfaction is beneficial to us, may they not? For our nature compels us to seek their satisfaction. [559a] Is not that so ?” “Most assuredly.” “Then we shall rightly use the word ‘necessary’ of them...And may we not call the one group the spendthrift (analōtikos, expensive) desires and the other the profitable (khrēmatistikos for trade and money-making) because they help production (khrēsimos useful, serviceable) “Surely.” “And we shall say the same of sexual and other appetites?” “The same.” “And were we not saying that the man whom we nicknamed the drone is the man who teems with such pleasures and appetites, and who is governed by his unnecessary desires, while the one who is ruled [559d] by his necessary appetites is the thrifty oligarchical man?” (558d-559d)
Nice! To be fair, the notion of acknowledging one's sources is a modern one. Hellenistic philosophies all influenced each other, and it's sometimes hard to figure out who came up with what.
Massimo, so this letter is mainly about the “good life,” and not about what is necessary: to food, clothing, shelter, or about “relieving” discomfort with medicine, surgery, and medical equipment? I am trying to overlay the three categories—
Category 1: natural and necessary;
Category 2: natural, but not necessary;
Category 3: unnatural and unnecessary—
with the the discomfort part. I am guessing it is more about our unnecessary desires for things that we believe will give us freedom from discomfort. 🤨
Mike, yes, Epicurus's point is that anything that is either not natural or not necessary comes with complications and worries that we can do without. Remember that for him the highest degree of happiness is lack of pain...
😮 “The highest degree of happiness is lack of pain.” 🤔 I like Epictetus’ thinking. 😄
😆
It seems to me that every thing in category three takes away our freedom, and leads us in to fear of loosing them, and that’s what makes them unnatural
Is it bringing to our attention to beware of getting on the “hedonic treadmill”--which, inevitably, is to our detriment, and lose our freedom of satisfying our necessary desires? In other words, we think we are (by will) taking advantage of our freedom when in fact we are lessening it? 🤔 😬
Yes, we are free to decide between available choices, including choosing things to impress people or to compensate for painful feelings from our past (i.e. growing up in poverty and now living beyond our means through credit). But we are not free from the consequences of our actions (i.e. debt). It’s the consequences of our free choices that can take our freedom away.
Yes, that's a splendid way to put it!
Nicely put, this is a good way to sort things out. I need a working automobile to commute to work; it’s nice to have a recent model that has heated seats and parking/lane change cameras because I’m 62; it’s unnecessary to buy the Ford Mustang Dark Horse Premium 5L V-8 that would impress my friends and family. So I bought a Hyundai Tucson instead. It replaced a 2001 Ford Escape and I intend to keep it just as long.
One thing that the Stoic in me notes about the unnecessary undesirables in Epictetus’s three-part system is that they are things that are not only on the hedonic treadmill of never enough, they are things that can be easily lost or diminished in value. I never want to own a car that is so expensive that I would be worried to leave it unattended in a public place. For the unnecessary undesirables attract envy and undesirable attention.
Bob, precisely. And nice example of Stoic practice on your part!
The three kinds of pleasure are very obvious but one doesn’t thinks of it. Nice way to start one’s week with the wisdom shared. Thanks
Naresh, indeed, sometimes we have to remind ourselves of the obvious. We don't pay attention to it precisely because it's so obvious...