Hedonist VS. Epicurus

4 Pages 974 Words

Hedonist VS. Epicurus

At first glance Epicurus’ philosophical views and hedonist philosophy may appear to be one in the same. They both believe in doing what is pleasurable and don’t particularly have anything to do with behaving in a manor to make a God happy. Epicurus’ views can almost be thought of as a type of hedonism, one could even call it Epicurean hedonism. Hedonism gives pleasure a central roll, what is pleasure is right. This general belief in hedonism can leave many open possibilities. What is it causes pleasure not and pain later? What if your pleasure causes another’s pain? Epicuris did not agree with the “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die” because prudence is the key to all virtures in a happy life.

Epicurus realized that pleasures can be categorized into a few different types including vain, natural, necessary and unnecessary desires or pleasures. Not all pleasures are good, or the right thing to do. Individuals must make intelligent choices that will give them a happy life and not a pleasurable moment. Epicurus made references to physical pleasure of the stomach and that is should be determined by quality not quantity. A glutton overindulges in food, although it may taste good that moment, it will cause them pain in the future. The same basic idea applies to someone who commits a crime because it is desirable at the time, but spends the rest of his or her life in jail. Individuals must make decisions for a happy life to follow the study of Epicureanism.












Pleasure not always achieved by doing something pleasing; it can come from the “absence of pain from the body and disturbance from the soul”. An individuals past also determines pleasure. To a starving person, eating bread and butter is very pleasurable but most other people will not look at this the same way. Epicurus also believes that God(s) exist but do not concern themselves with our world. So this wou...