Let’s dig into what we mean here, because it’s important that you not be confused on these points.

Not “avoiding pain” but “maximizing pleasure within your context”

There is a common confusion about the epicurean purpose — you will often come across scholarly commentary (or almost limitless blog posts) stating that the goal is “absence of pain” (as opposed to “maximizing pleasure”). The reasons for this are myriad, but can be smartly refuted by remembering our purpose: to maximize our pleasure within our context.

For an Epic, “removal of pain” is the correct course of action only if it maximizes their pleasure.

One can easily see how the goal “avoiding pain” can lead to negative effects, for example never facing your fears, whereas the goal of “maximizing pleasure” contains within it the idea of avoiding pain when it serves but actively pursuing pain if it will bring you greater pleasure, for example overcoming those fears and experiencing something new and delightful.

Pleasure is pleasure

By pleasure we are talking about ordinary, everyday pleasure, defined the way normal people would define it. It is not some philosophical term that means something different (no matter how many philosophers make the attempt).

This point will be assailed on all sides, but remember that your purpose is to maximize pleasure within your context. There is no “special” pleasure that you need to train for; there is no convoluted “absence of pain” that will somehow make you happy; there is no special path that you must follow; there are no better pleasures that you should wait to receive.

No! Cast all that confusion away. You must choose from your current context what will bring you the most pleasure. And that is it. There is nothing tricky about it.

There are no higher or lower pleasures; there is only pleasure. “Mental pleasures” are not more important than “physical” pleasures; “active” pleasures are not more important than “passive” pleasures. It is never “x” for the sake of “y,” it is “x” for the sake of “maximizing pleasure within my context.”

You naturally have the ability to tell good from bad for yourself. If a passive pleasure would provide you the most pleasure in a specific context, that is the correct choice; whereas in another context, or perhaps overall for your genetic makeup, an active pleasure is the correct choice. And any activity that maximizes pleasure is valuable.

If there were a division between pleasures, then someone or something generates that distinction — and this notion is often used to manipulate us. “There is a special, future kind of joy that you will get if you only pay a fee/visit this seminar/attend church and tithe/give up this right/vote against your best interests/etc.”

Epics tend to find a balance between the different types of pleasure, for example having the pleasure of thinking about a happy day with friends is only possible having spent that happy day with friends.

This cuts both ways — it reminds me of how it feels to “stand for” freedom of speech. It is easy to say — and most Americans, at least, will assert — that we “believe in free speech.”

In actuality, though many find it hard to defend someone’s right to say odious things. But if we are really thinking critically, and especially if we don’t just pretend to care about free speech but actually stand for it, we must defend the rights of others in order to defend our own.

Similarly, it is easy to say there is no one right way to live, and another to actually take in the principle and engage with the world from this position.