Posts by Kalosyni

I'm adding here something further with regard to the introduction of the article on the Determinents of Happiness mentioning Aristotle's definition of happiness ("Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim, and the end of human existence.”- see post 2 above). Most people haven't been educated about Epicurus' take on happiness, (and if they are, their understanding is often over-simplified). Letter to Menoeceus says: "We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it." Perhaps Epicurus had other succinct definitions (perhaps in his book "On Life Courses" which is lost to us). But we do have the Cicero's Torquatus section and the Wall of Diogenes of Oinoanda.

There are a number of threads discussing what is happiness, such as this one as well as whole sub-forums. These may all need to be sorted and refreshed, and then I'll add more links so that we can all clearly reference Epicurus' take on happiness.

More from the above article:

Quote

...the three key categories of happiness and their underlying determinants. Health: a complete state of mental, emotional, and physical well-being. Hope: the highest degree of a well-founded expectation of goal achievement, personal, and economic growth. Harmony: a state of being in alignment with aspects of social, familial, cultural, religion, and environmental.

Here is a comparison between the subcategories found in the above article, and Epicurean philosophy -- this is really a for fun and loose comparison, and brings up some interesting food-for-thought.

(Article subcategories on the left, Epicurean textual quotes on the right. Please note, that these textual quotes are not in any way part of the article).

(There may be other textual quotes that could further be added, but these are it for now. Please post any others if you wish).

Quote from DaveT

Do you mean classical skepticism? How so.

No, just loosely in that if someone observes the world and starts labeling various things as "an illusion" then it creates ideas such as: "we just can't know much about the world because it is all just an illusion".

Quote from DaveT

I intended to indicate anxiety and happiness can be described as illusions, not pain or pleasure.

I apologize that I'm a bit unclear regarding whether you were making remarks regarding the article or whether you we saying what you yourself think is true. (We're all entitled to our own opinions, but the emphasis here on the forum is "what would Epicurus say" )

As for myself, I believe that the experience of emotions and feelings such as anxiety are not an illusion. Yet for a small population of people the cognitions and beliefs that generate those emotions/feelings are. (Here is an article on phobias and disorders).

As for happiness being an illusion, I would venture that perhaps there are greater numbers of people feeling like they can't get the "goods" that lead to a happy life, and they then say "oh well, happiness is just an illusion". But this is cynicism, and the opposite of what Epicurus taught. We would of course would need to compare what exactly all the modern masses of people think that happiness actually is.

In the opening paragraph of the Letter to Menoeceus it says:

"We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it."

The article on the Determinents of Happinss mentions Aristotle's definition of happiness in the introduction:

Quote

“Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim, and the end of human existence.” The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle said these words more than 2000 years ago, and they still ring true today. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, happiness is described as the human good that we all aim for its sake alone, and Freud emphasized that happiness is something we strive towards, desire to attain, and maintain throughout our lives [1,2,3]. The 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence states that all men have a right to “the pursuit of happiness,” where the notion of happiness is equated to the attainment of a worthy life [4].

Moreover, the concept of happiness is gaining increasing popularity within and across cultures [5,6,7], so much so that in recent years, there has been a shift in measuring economic production to measuring happiness as an indicator of social development and individual welfare across nations [8].

There is a graph with text which shows the three categories of the article's focus, and sections have a (+) for positive influences and a ( - ) for negative influences.

This link goes to that page:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Integrated-Model-of-the-Determinants-of-Happiness-Note-Figure-3-depicts-the-three-key_fig3_368527437

As for comparing this to Epicureanism, we can roughly see that there are "goods" which lead toward well-being. Also, Epicurus has his own set of "goods" as compared to Aristotle's goods (though there are overlaps). Perhaps we need a table of comparision on that.

I'll be posting more on this article again.

Quote from Cassius

And I always advise caution in looking too broadly for "agreement on certain points." To use a religious analogy, the devil probably agrees that ice cream tastes good, but most religious people see clearly that it is not a good idea to look for areas in which the devil agrees with you. I don't think Epicurus was any less rigorous in seeing the folly of such an approach to philosophy specifically or life in general. When an opposing philosophy or religion happens to agree with one's interpretation of one's own philosophy that is more a warning sign to you that you may not be thinking clearly than a good thing. If I get a direct message from the Pope of Rome or the Rabbi of Jerusalem or the Ayatollah or the Dalai Lama that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow that's more of a reason to look up at the sky and make sure nothing has changed than it is to feel confident about it.

I would guess here that the issue has to do with Platonic philosophy, and most of the time religious ideas are built on ideas of striving for absolution perfection. So the word of caution is to be wary when you are agreeing with anything that holds "idols" of perfection, and especially those which have nothing to do with actual embodied life experiences.

Quote from Robert

Quote from DaveT

The stories we tell ourselves can be and probably mostly are illusions. They are subjective. They are the interpretations we make of what our senses tell us. In other words our anxieties are also illusions. I don't therefore have a problem if he wants to say happiness is an illusion. However, at the same time it is illusory it is an illusion that results from active prudent pursuit of pleasure. But in no sense is it bullshit.

Dave, my thoughts exactly. Except you've expressed them far more succinctly!

I think that what is being said here in this paragraph is swinging a bit too far into skepticism. And I have quite a bit of trouble with the word "illusion"...as anything that is labeled an illusion is assumed to actually not exist.

You still are going trust your feelings of bodily pain and pleasure, and just because pain and pleasure is subjective doesn't mean it is an illusion.

As for mental pains and pleasures, I wouldn't classify those as illusions and there is something there that needs to be acknowledged to exist. But if at the root of mental pains you are holding onto "empty desires" and those are in turn leading you toward feeling anxieties, then I would label that as "stories that are untrue"...and therefore "empty".

I just posted an article over in this other thread, which in my opinion is a more contructive take on key Epicurean questions: what is happiness, and what are the things which are needed to produce it.

Thread

A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness (Article)

I found this article (which may possibly already be on the forum in another thread) and thought it might be good to discuss. (Published February 2023)

Excerpt:

[…]

Health, Hope, and Harmony: A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness across Cultures and Countries

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9963575/

I would recommend to not let the author's word choice of "hope" be an issue, as for myself I could imagine other labels used such as "anticipations".

It is worth reading for anyone…

Kalosyni

September 9, 2026 at 8:12 AM

I found this article (which may possibly already be on the forum in another thread) and thought it might be good to discuss. (Published February 2023)

Excerpt:

Quote

The aim of this study was to review the literature on what constitutes happiness across cultures and countries to advance scholarly knowledge on the happiness construct. A systematic review was conducted to examine the determinants of happiness in samples across cultures and countries. ...

...Myriad determinants of happiness were found that were placed into three broad categories labeled Health, Hope, and Harmony. The predominant happiness determinants were mental, emotional, and physical well-being, a purposeful holistic work–life balance, nurturing social relationships, caring for self and others, and being in harmony with one’s culture, traditions, community, religion, and environment. This study engendered an “Integrated Model of the Determinants of Happiness” to provide a universally applicable conceptualization of the happiness construct. By examining studies on determinants of happiness across the globe in the past 90 years, this review uncovered that happiness constitutes multiple determinants that fall under three major categories: ‘Health’, ‘Hope’, and ‘Harmony’.

Health, Hope, and Harmony: A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness across Cultures and Countries

Health, Hope, and Harmony: A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Happiness across Cultures and Countries - PMC

I would recommend to not let the author's word choice of "hope" be an issue, as for myself I could imagine other labels used such as "anticipations".

It is worth reading for anyone interested in development of happiness, and he both provides a definition and the determinants, however there is also mixed in the scientific methodology so you'll need to read past that to get to the heart of it.

I need to see if there are further summaries or writings based on this. Will post more on this soon.

Quote from Robert

Relatedly, he seems to define happiness mainly in terms of event-specific moments of enjoyment--eating pizza, getting a promotion, driving out of the dealer lot in your new car, or achieving temporary bliss during meditation. This emphasis aligns with the "guessing-game" model he advances in his essays, and he's almost certainly right that habituation diminishes the pleasurable impact of such events. It's a rather Cyrenaic view of happiness, though, and he seems less interested in the possibility of long-term increases in our baseline sense of well-being.

Just some free-roaming thoughts:

Regarding habituation...Pizza...I don't think he (the author) is taking into consideration that eating pizza when genuinely hungry will almost always bring a certain amount of pleasure. Also, if a person enjoys driving places, then it doesn't matter what kind of car it is or if it is brand new, the experience of skillfully driving (usually faster highway driving ) can bring enjoyment. And when a person learns how to enjoy yogic breathing then it will, most often than not, bring an experience of pleasure.

As far as: "he seems less interested in the possibility of long-term increases in our baseline sense of well-being"...

....I think we need to always define what we mean when we say the word "happiness". For me it seems that the best way to think about it is whether or not I am generally feeling in "good-spirits" most of the time. There will be occassions when something is disappointing or irritating, but if I can recover from those situations fairly quickly and return to feeling in "good-spirits" then my sense of well-being is going well. (I think that a large portion of well-being is the right diet, the right level of exercise, and the right amount of sleep, and the other parts are "goods" such as friendship and a sense of security, etc.)

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

• 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.

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

Source: Reddit

Display More

*****

I found a good article on building new habits, and here is an excerpt:

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Source

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

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.

Bridging Science and Buddhism: The Dalai Lama's 100 Year Vision

Through the 100 Year Project, the Dalai Lama envisions a long-term collaboration between academic scientists and Tibetan Buddhist monastics to explore both…

www.mindandlife.org

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

How SMART Fitness Goals Keep You On Track

Setting exercise goals can set you up for success. But not all goals are created equal. Find out how to work out SMARTer.

health.clevelandclinic.org

*******

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."

Quote from Robert

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.

Quote from Cassius

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:

10 Tips for Choosing the Perfect Hobby

Ask yourself these ten questions to find the most fulfilling hobby for you.

www.psychologytoday.com

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

• Skill acquisition: Measures whether the hobby teaches you a new ability, improves your memory, or expands your knowledge base.
• Health impact: Tracks improvements in your physical fitness, coordination, or overall mental wellness.
• Tangible output: Assesses the physical items created, the practical problems solved, or the money saved through self-provision.
• Social contribution: Evaluates how the activity helps you build community ties, bond with others, or share value with friends and family.

Criteria for Evaluating Pleasure

• Flow and immersion: Measures how easily you achieve deep focus and lose track of time while doing the activity.
• Stress relief: Evaluates how effectively the activity calms your mind, lowers anxiety, and helps you unwind after a long day.
• Intrinsic joy: Assesses the pure, unfiltered happiness or excitement the activity brings you without needing an external reward.
• Sense of autonomy: Tracks the feeling of freedom and personal control you experience because you choose to do the activity purely for yourself.