If that were true, then we would be hedonists. But Epicurus’ hedonism was the countermovement to eudaimonic ethics in ancient Greece. Not eudaemonia, but desire would be the greatest goal of cynics.
The devil is in the details
The devil – and I mean this here even literally – is in the detail by Epicurus.
First of all, it is a mistake that a hedonist, according to Epicurus, simply does whatever he feels like doing, without considering the consequences. Such hedonists point this out again and again. And I don’t want to go into it here.
Read more: Why Epicurus’ Hedonism Fails
The difference between hedonism in Epicurus and stoicism and cynicism is rather that for the hedonist there is only pleasure and nothing else beyond that.
But if pleasure satisfaction is the ultimate goal, then any lasting unpleasure is an evil. Let’s assume that professional success is the only thing of value to you. Then your life would be worthless if you were not successful professionally, right? Just as in this case you must do everything possible to achieve professional success, the Epicurean must do everything possible to avoid being afflicted by evil and suffering. This leads to the paradox: you must be constantly on your guard, never be funny, lest you end up reaping only greater unhappiness.
Epicurus was, at least according to our understanding, an atheist. He did not believe in any meaning in life that could go beyond the fulfillment of pleasure. Devotion, for example, was strange to him. He certainly believed in the existence of gods, but why should they care about people? “Much too exhausting”. Epicurus belonged to those philosophers who ultimately find it better not to be born, who reject marriage and offspring for the wise.
And he was, of course, an etatist and moralist. It needs laws, it needs a differentiated ethics. You have to be worthy even for the fulfillment of pleasure first, as also later Kant. So he once wrote:
For it is more beautiful when the right decision does not come to the right fulfillment in action than when an unright decision comes to the right fulfillment by chance.
Epicurus, Letter to Menoikeus
So, while Epicurus is concerned with the right path, which always leads to the legal path of the state, we are looking for the beautiful strong good path, and are convinced that we will find it in ourselves, since God has equipped us accordingly.
Hedonism is the ruling religion today in the rich liberal countries
This is the atheistic way: You can do what you want, because there is no God, there is no sense, there is nothing else, except to live as pleasant a life as possible. But the cloven hoof is that this “right” belongs to everyone. Your freedom to do whatever brings you pleasure ends with the “freedom” of someone else.
If you read the Bible or the Koran carefully, it becomes clear that this is exactly Satan’s way: live like an animal, but show consideration for the other animals.
And then why don’t we cynics just follow our desire?
Again: First of all, cynics and stoics follow their inclination, their spontaneous desire, much more than hedonists can afford to do. After all, we trust in the good in our self. Nevertheless, it is not quite so simple. For the hedonists, the liberals, the existentialists, the liberals, whatever these “Satanists” call themselves, have established coercive societies. And under the rule of such coercive structures, we cannot simply trust our first impulse of desire. After all, we are all subject to the constant coercive structures. We must therefore work to find the truth of our natural divine self.
Keep reading: decoin all ruling values
I have already presented the main features of Carl Rogers‘ system, which is very helpful.
Another very unusual approach, which can be a liberating blow especially in the prevailing cancel culture, comes from Friedrich von Hardenberg, better known as Novalis. I will try to bring this way closer in the next article: The Search for Truth.
