I recommend this book, for anyone interested in increasing their optimism and positivity:
First off, I think that this blogger has a hidden agenda, when he uses the word "bullsh*t". And his choice of words hints that he is basically an unhappy person looking for why he isn't feeling happy in life. It makes it hard for me to want to even spend any time analyzing what he actually wrote.
I started with the second article, and from an Epicurean standpoint I think he is unknowingly focusing on the "natural but unnecessary" things in life:
The goal of Happiness Is Bullshit was not merely to show that happiness is bullshit (in the sense of being unattainable), but to give a plausible theory for what happiness is—how it evolved, how it works, what function it serves. I tried to convey the gist of the theory with an analogy: the “getting warmer” signal in a guessing game. The function of happiness is to improve our predictions about how good things are going to be. I described the theory in technical language in a footnote. At last, I can unbury the footnote and put it right here:
The brain computes, using evolved and learned priors, which of various outcomes have the highest expected value (in terms of fitness proxies). The higher the expected value of an outcome, the greater the motivation—i.e. the amount of attention and energy mobilized—to pursue it. “Happiness” is triggered by a positive prediction error. We feel happy when the actual value of an outcome turns out to be greater than its expected value. This error causes us to rapidly mobilize energy (if more energy is needed), rapidly relax (if energy is no longer needed), attend to (i.e., “savor”) the outcome, simulate it in working memory, determine which features were counterfactually unique to it, upweight those features’ expected value, and encode them in long-term memory. As a result, those unique features will appear more valuable to us (i.e. more energizing, more attention-grabbing) the next time we encounter them. This is just another way of saying that we are “positively reinforced”—i.e., the features that were counterfactually unique to the outcome now have a higher expected value than they did before. The more frequently we experience the outcome, the better we get at predicting its value (i.e. the prediction error decreases), and the less “happy” we feel when we experience it (i.e., the less attention and reinforcement is needed). Eventually, after many repetitions of this process, we stop “liking” the outcome while still continuing to “want” it: that is, we continue to value and pursue it but are no longer surprised by it, attentive to it, or further reinforced by it. This model is an amalgam of the prediction error theory of dopamine and the internal regulatory variable theory of motivation.
I think he is describing the experience of novelty and surprise, but we don't always need those to feel happy.
Also, one's attitude in life (whether one is optimistic) greatly affects happiness levels, and the feelings.
When one satisfactorily achieves the "goods" in life (friendship, wisdom, etc.) they will continue to bring a pleasant and happy feeling, and for the wise a sense of gratitude.
And from an Epicurean standpoint, happiness equals a life filled with more pleasures than pains. It takes both wisdom and effort to learn how and to cultivate a full Epicurean life.
From the article in post 14:
flipping the usual Buddhist diagnosis of the human condition: basically, we’re attached to pain, not pleasure, and are much better at suffering than at having a nice time, so what we need to learn is wellbeing and enjoyment.
Buddhism says life is suffering, but here the author of the article is saying something that really prompts me to contemplate more: the idea that humans are hooked on obsession over suffering. And related to that then would be mental suffering: fears and anxieties. Which then in comparison, brings up the Epicurean removal of fears and anxieties, and that the removal is so that people can better enjoy life. So then the Epicurean purpose is for a pleasant and pleasurable life.
Thank you, Matteng ...he mentions Epicurus!
Here are some quotes from the article:
- The Buddha of the early texts was a refined hedonist who, like Epicurus, valued pleasure (sukha) as the highest good, inseparable from notions of wisdom and liberation.
- His critique of sensory pleasures is precisely that they don’t provide enough good feelings, in the same way that a barista repudiates bad coffee—not because she doesn’t like coffee, but because she does.
- While the go-to downside of pleasant feelings you’ll hear about in dharma talks is impermanence—that they don’t last and therefore disappoint us—the early texts highlight instead how their pursuit leads to harmful behaviour, for oneself and for society.
For the third bullet-point I would bring up a comparison to the the Letter of Menoeceus about "not the pleasures of the profligate"...and more pains than pleasures.
In my own practice and dharma teaching, I call the approach that emerged from all this ‘The Dharma of Pleasure’, which is about flipping the usual Buddhist diagnosis of the human condition: basically, we’re attached to pain, not pleasure, and are much better at suffering than at having a nice time, so what we need to learn is wellbeing and enjoyment.
Although, this article will make more sense to those who have studied Buddhism.
Matteng My hunch is that for an Epicurean the "pain" isn't quite as painful compared to the Stoic, since there is an anticipation on the future well-being and pleasure that will result. The Epicurean is sensitive to the body and isn't in competition with anyone else, so maybe takes a little longer to achieve goals, yet does so without causing injury.
Godfrey How is your exercise regime coming along? The above article in post 1 mentions finding other people to help with staying on track (so that is why I am asking, but no need to reply at all if you don't want to). My own regime started well, but then because I haven't built the habit yet, I lost some of my momentum (I'm posting an article on that at the very end of this post)...so I need to set up "habit stacking).
But first here is something with regard to attention, focus, and concentration:
Focus, attention, and concentration are often used interchangeably but there are differences that help to be aware of if you're looking to improve in any of these areas.
Here’s an example: You've decided to improve your health by going to the gym. That is, you've chosen to focus on your health. Focus is about intention. It's what you're choosing to attend to. It's where decisions are made. You choose something (or some things) to focus on, and exclude others.
Focus can be very high level, like deciding to prioritize your health, but it can also be choosing which body part to focus on on a particular day at the gym.
So this is focus: choosing where to put your attention.
When you get to the gym for the first time, you notice a LOT going on. There's music playing, people everywhere doing all sorts of exercises you've never seen before, and everyone's really fit and attractive. In other words, there's a lot for the senses to take in and it feels overwhelming.
This is where attention comes into play. Attention is the spotlight of the mind. It's what enables your brain to hone in on some stimuli while excluding others. Without attention, we'd be paralyzed due to overstimulation.
So attention is more about the general capability to focus on something. It can be short-term, like watching someone do a specific exercise for a few seconds so you can try it yourself later, or it can be more sustained like when you paid attention to the person giving you the tour of the gym when you arrived.
In truth, you're always paying attention to something at any given moment. Sometimes it's for a second, other times it's for a lot longer. But attention is something we all naturally have.
Attention can be divided into several types, including sustained attention, selective attention, and divided attention. These types reflect how we focus on continuous activities, pick out specific details in a complex environment, or manage multiple tasks simultaneously.
Now you're finally getting set up at the squat rack. You've loaded weights onto the bar and you're about to start your first set. But as you begin the movement, your mind wanders to all the errands you have to do after the gym. In this moment, you've got focus, and you even have attention. But you're lacking something else: concentration.
Concentration is a subset of attention. It refers specifically to the ability to maintain focused attention on a task or activity over a period of time, resisting distractions and maintaining mental effort.
Fortunately, you notice your mind wandering and you're able to pull it back to the task at hand, only to find yourself at the bottom of a squat, unsure what rep you're on. Your attention was divided, not concentrated.
So you bring your attention back to the exercise, now giving it your full concentration. You are now completely present. Your mind isn't thinking about anything else other than what you're doing right now. You no longer hear the music in the background or see people walking around. There's zero distraction. Instead, you feel into your legs shaking and your heart pumping. You sense your facial muscles straining and can hear the grunting sound as you push through your final rep.
If you think back to the different types of attention, concentration falls under the sustained attention type. Concentration is the most concentrated form of attention. It is the foundational skill to learning, to creativity, to communication.
Sure, you can exercise without concentrating, but to get the most value from your time spent doing so, concentration is critical. It means being fully present and fully engaged in where you are and what you've chosen to focus on. And if you've chosen to be there, you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not giving it your full, undivided attention.
*****
I found a good article on building new habits, and here is an excerpt:
Why Habit Stacking Works Better Than Motivation
Most people try to build new habits through motivation alone — and most people fail. Research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology found that it takes an average of 66 days for a new behavior to become automatic, with some habits taking over 250 days.
Habit stacking works because it solves the three biggest reasons new habits fail:
- The cue problem. Without a clear trigger, you forget to do the new behavior. Habit stacking provides a built-in cue — the habit you already do.
- The decision problem. Every time you have to decide when and where to do something, you create friction. Habit stacking eliminates the decision by embedding timing and location into the formula.
- The willpower problem. Willpower is a limited resource. By linking a new behavior to an automatic one, you reduce the cognitive load required to perform it.
A study in the British Journal of Health Psychology found that people who used implementation intentions (the formal term for "if-then" planning, which includes habit stacking) were 2-3x more likely to follow through on exercise goals compared to those who relied on motivation alone.
Habit Stacking: How to Build New Habits Using Ones You Already Have | Good Life Goals
What would Epicurus think about how "confirmation bias" describes our underlying tendency to notice, focus on, and give greater credence to evidence that aligns with our existing beliefs.
When forming judgments, confirmation bias causes us to selectively gather information based on what we already believe. Because this often occurs unconsciously, it can shape how we see the world completely outside our awareness. Even when we encounter evidence that might contradict our beliefs, we tend to interpret this new information in a way that still supports what we think. This can lead to some significant flaws and inconsistencies in our beliefs.
Early schools of Buddhism would have been in agreement with Epicurean atomism.
Here is an overview, with regard to the material existence of things:
In Buddhist philosophy, the question of whether matter exists is traditionally broken down using four main philosophical schools that developed in classical India. These schools range from robust realism to radical idealism.
The Realist Schools (matter exists externally and objectively):
1. The Vaibhāṣika School (Direct Realism) - the physical world is objectively real and exists independently of the mind. They argue that matter (rūpa) is composed of indivisible, tiny particles akin to atoms. “the Vaibhasika maintains direct perception of the external objects...” This means when you look at a tree, your eyes are making direct contact with the actual, physically existing matter of that tree. (This school of Buddhism is an ancient historical tradition that no longer exists as an independent, practicing religious sect in any modern country, though its philosophical tenets are still studied today, primarily in Tibetan Buddhism) read about its history here.
2. The Sautrāntika School (Indirect Realism) - also affirms that the physical world exists, but they disagree on how we experience it. Rather than perceiving matter directly, they argue for a representative theory of perception. “One first becomes aware of a mental image, caused by contact between a sense faculty and an external object and resembling it, and from this awareness infers the existence of an external object.” Essentially, matter exists, but the mind only interacts with a "mental photograph" generated by that matter. (This school is no longer in existence, read about its history here).
3. The Theravāda School (Modern Orthodox Realism) - believe the material world is real but strictly bound by the laws of cause and effect (Pratītyasamutpāda). Matter is categorized into physical phenomena (rūpa) that possess specific, changing qualities like solidity, cohesion, heat, and motion.
*****
The schools that reject the existence of independent matter:
1. Yogācāra (Mind-Only) - Idealism: The external material world is an illusion; only consciousness is real.
2. Madhyamaka (Middle Way) - Emptiness: Matter exists conventionally as an illusion, but lacks any independent, permanent essence.
*****
The Dalai Lama suggests that both science and Buddhism can inform each other. While science seeks to understand the external world, Buddhism provides insights into the internal experiences of consciousness. This complementary relationship allows for a more holistic understanding of existence.
Both science and Buddhism share an inquiry mindset marked by a deep curiosity and commitment to investigate the fabric of reality as it is, rather than what we hope it might be.2 Indeed, His Holiness has referred to the Buddha as an “ancient Indian scientist.” Science and Buddhism also share a willingness to let go of long-held beliefs when new evidence diverges from existing models or theories.3 For example, while Buddhism values scripture and ritual, the Dalai Lama asserts4 that scriptural authority should not outweigh knowledge gained through experience and reason.
Exercise increases and maintains health and well-being, but we need to have goals and take action:
Here is an article excerpt:
SMART = Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound...
SMART goals are different for everyone. They’re based on personal fitness levels and your own desired outcomes. Often, it helps to look at goals in the short and long term.
“In general, short-term fitness goals should be things you plan to achieve in the next six months or less,” advises Travers. “Anything longer than that is considered a more long-term goal.”
Changing your habits can sometimes be uncomfortable, but it’s worth it in the long run. Having a plan can help get you where you want to be and ease some of that discomfort. Here’s what Travers recommends when it comes to creating them.
Read the full article:
*******
Letter to Menoeceus says: "And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good. And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided."
And I'm also interested in how Christianity may or may not have appropriated aspects of Epicureanism--this is something I recall DeWitt writing about in the later chapters of his book. My sense is that the Christians might have borrowed the Epicurean view of pleasure and grafted onto it the notion that you can join a blessed and incorruptible God through the intercession of Jesus. Which would certainly strike many as an appealing idea.
Regarding DeWitt's ideas, this may just be a "coincidence" of ideas, and not an actuality of there being a particular source. The only "blessed and incorruptible God" within Christianity would be in the Unitarian Universalist movement. Pretty sure that all others believe that God judges, punishes, and supernaturally heals and intervenes.
But if we are allegedly devoted to reason as the best path to pleasure/happiness rather than pure luck (as again Epicurus says to Menoeceus) then we don't put our eggs in a basket we should know to be faulty and unlikely to get us to where we want to be. Thereefore for most people in most instances, we ditch the idea of getting to pleasure/happiness through religion like we ditch the idea of jumping off of cliffs thinking that we might fly.
Religion most often leans upon "reliance on God", "submission to God", "surrendering to God" -- all of which require a suspension of reason. And this leans toward a type of "skeptic" philosophy of life...after-all "God works in mysterious ways".
But for Epicurean philosophy we see that Vatican Saying 65 says: "It is foolish to ask of the gods that which we can supply for ourselves."
The differences are explained by Diogenes the Oinoandian on his wall inscription, (fragment 32)
"If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end."
*****
For Epicureans, pleasure is both the beginning (the guide together through prudent reasoning as to why not every pleasure is chosen and not every pain is avoided) ...and the telos.
Here are some articles about pleasure and well-being when engaing in hobbies:
And here is a list for evaluating usefulness and pleasure:
Evaluating a hobby involves assessing both its functional benefits (usefulness) and its emotional rewards (pleasure) through distinct practical and psychological standards.
Criteria for Evaluating Usefulness
Criteria for Evaluating Pleasure
when we evaluate whether to take an action, we often make unstated presumptions about the likelihood of obtaining the result. One person may think that a choice to pursue a particular pleasure is absurd because it is very difficult or impossible or highly risky for them.
The accessment of the likelihood of obtaining a specific good result is different than the likelihood of an accessment of something really bad resulting as a consequence.
There are certain activities that have a higher likelihood of resulting in bad consequences. If you choose a career as a police officer or firefighter, those have a higher risk probability than becoming an office manager.
Other activities to assess: ---> whether or not to get married----->if one or both people have a "high neuroticism" personality trait, then there will be a high probability for unhappiness or divorce.
Patrikios that particular article seems to be saying that some people have a hard time finishing projects because they "lose interest" but actually they are experiencing a diminished sense of novelty. And the solution to this problem is to re-direct the novelty seeking back into the sustained work by looking for the uncertainty/unpredictability aspects or bringing in other people to help work on the project.
It looks like there is some overlap between Epicurus and Aristotle. As far as the third category (of Aristotle), that is addressed by Epicurus in Letter to Menoeceus which recommends to practice together with others.
The following article covers Aristotle's take:
Here is a link to John Dryden's translation, though it only has a few sections. (He may not have translated the entire Lucretius text, or perhaps there isn't a full translation online).
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Works of John Dryden vol 12, by Walter Scott,.
Wikipedia entry about John Dryden.
Lately I've been thinking about how modern life ramps ups the novelty seeking drive. From a young age, our brains have been wired by complexities just like rats in cage with lots of toys and tunnels to run through. On one end of the spectrum boredom (and other associated feelings) can come up when life is lacking in novelty, but on the other end of the spectrum too much novelty seeking can create unpleasant consequences. And each person needs to find the level that feels good and works for them.
Here are some good articles on the subject (a brief excerpt follow each article link):
- Having novelty in your life can boost your memory and creativity.
- Novelty can increase your sense of happiness.
- Small, intentional changes can make a difference.
Have you ever found yourself stuck in a rut, going through the motions of the same daily routine? Maybe it's the way you've set up your life. It’s comforting, in a way—you know what to expect, and the familiarity can be soothing. Unpredictability can be uncomfortable, and even create some or a lot of anxiety. The same ole, same ole feels a lot safer. But too much predictability can leave us feeling uninspired, restless, or even stuck. Enter novelty: the secret sauce to keeping life vibrant and meaningful. Hang on—before you dismiss this idea, there are benefits to novelty that you may not have thought about. Keep an open mind.
Novelty triggers dopamine release from the ventral tegmental area before any reward is delivered. The brain is not responding to what happened: it is responding to what might happen. Wolfram Schultz’s landmark research at the University of Fribourg established that dopamine neurons fire at the moment of surprise, not the moment of gratification, with peak signaling occurring when prediction error, the gap between what was expected and what arrived, is largest. That anticipatory signal is powerful, indiscriminate, and the biological basis of both creative innovation and compulsive restlessness. In my practice, I consistently observe a paradox: the same dopamine-driven circuit that makes someone an exceptional innovator also makes sustained commitment feel neurologically aversive. The brain that chases novelty is not broken. The question is whether you are directing the circuit or it is directing you.
The following is somewhat related (but a word of caution...as it is about lab rats).
While we can't directly ask rats whether they like to drive, we devised a behavioural test to assess their motivation to drive. This time, instead of only giving rats the option of driving to the Froot Loop tree, they could also make a shorter journey on foot – or paw, in this case.
Surprisingly, two of the three rats chose to take the less efficient path of turning away from the reward and running to the car to drive to their Froot Loop destination. This response suggests that the rats enjoy both the journey and the rewarding destination.
Happy Twentieth Everyone! 
to see how Epicurean principles as ‘medicine for the mind’
Patrikios Within Epicurean philosophy there is the removal of fears of gods and death, and removing anxiety regarding what to choose and what to avoid which is steering toward choosing for desired results, ...etc. ---> From Epicurus' PD's, VS's, and and letters Epicurus wrote ---> and presented as rough guidelines without detailed explanation of specific practices.
Another thing to consider is each person's experiences, circumstances, and disposition is unique, and so there isn't a one-size-fits-all.
Also modern life is different from ancient Greece, and has a high level of mental and sensory stimulation, and also novelty, built into it. A person will be needing the "correct" level of stimulation and novelty, based on their own unique needs.
As I see it, in addition to the worldview philosophy of Epicurus (and because of our modern experience of the world), we need to add in modern psychology based on scientific research, into our "medicine for the mind".
Just in case you were wondering if there has been an increase in earthquakes lately, this has very good explanations, from a modern understanding of earthquakes.
(The Letter to Pythocles, section 105 has Epicurus' hypotheses about earthquakes -- we have much more knowledge now, but unfortunately are still unable to predict when an earthquake will occur).
We had a very good discussion in last night's Zoom on this topic - "completeness of pleasure". It would be great if Bryan Martin Godfrey kochiekoch Cassius could add important comments that were said during last night, to this thread. After hearing Bryan says something, I brought up Maslow's heirarchy of needs which then led to my commenting that perhaps Epicurus had reached a sense of fulfilling his "self-actualization" through his study of physics. And this highlights the importance of mental pleasures.
