Perhaps this would be simpler if we would appeal to some neutral text...
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2w.htm#epiu
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/epiu.htm
I've tried searching for accessible sources both you and I may agree on. Unfortunately, some citings appear quite contradictory. One source suggests Epicurus preferred minimizing the more extinguishable desires for satiation, bringing one closer to fulfillment of those too strong to ignore. Another source suggests otherwise, that if a means for satiation is within reach, no reason exists why one should not seek to attain it.
Another discrepancy appears when one source posits an emphasis on "mental" pleasures which encompass experiences not bound merely in the present. Other sources include the physical and sensual pleasures to be indulged in the present moment. (On a side note, this is where I see some similarities to Existentialism coming through.)
Still another source suggests that pleasures are "good" in themselves, while a contrasting reference insists "the virtues for Epicurus are all purely instrumental goods--that is, they are valuable solely for the sake of the happiness that they can bring oneself, and not for their own sake."
In some accounts, Stoicism is portrayed as a school of thought diametrically opposed to Epicureanism, but I see you disagree...
Nevertheless, for the sake of our discussion, I’ll accept your definition of the term.
EPUCURIANISM
Though Epicurean thought appears to manifest itself in a variety of flavors, I see one pervading aspect of this school of thought: Contrary to your insistence, it is very much a self-centered approach to fulfillment (or “ataraxia”). One account incorporates an attempt at corporate “justice”, but only because “justice” is ultimately valued as a means toward pleasure for the self. One wonders why is it not simply said that the epicurean's inclination towards justice is piqued only when it is self-serving. At any rate, the logical outworking of an egoistic (and thus subjectivist) framework makes relativism standard fare in one’s appraisal of ethics. How then can one argue for “moderation” when it becomes purely relative? For instance, an act of behavior may bring pleasure to one, and so for that individual it is a "good" rule of conduct. But for the one who dislikes that particular behavior, it becomes a "bad" or "excessive" practice. And so there emerges an equivocation of different tastes, each claiming an "axiomatic sovereignty" normally attributed to values. But I think this is a mistake. Values take on the necessary characteristic of invariance whereas tastes are characterized as fickle at best, am I right? So we can observe how one individual can disagree with another over the fundamental "good" or "rightness" of a particular pleasure. But while we might agree that the Epicurean ethic is an attempt to arrive at what are supposed to be good or "more right" values, how does one know the values arrived at are the right ones?
Maybe we're mistakenly thinking of pleasure in "legitimate" and "illegitimate" terms. Perhaps the epicurean method is not at all meant to be deontological and law-like in its approach. "Just do whatever brings pleasure -in moderation - regardless of whatever "right" or "wrong" values others attribute to them." But what this is really saying is in order to be a consistent epicurean, "Making morally prohibitive statements are prohibited, (or that only taboos are tabooed), which seems a bit contradictory. (Perhaps this isn't what you mean, so I'll move on...)
But what happens when apparent moral obligations run contrary to what our desires dictate?
For example, lets assume the egoistic nature of the Epicurean ethic. Many acts of heroism for which great personal and physical cost took place could not be seen as worthy of honor. Many war veterans may not appreciate being told their sacrifices were in vain, for they've fallen short of pursuing the more sophisticated approach to living. (Question: Does Epicureanism imply Pacifism?)
What about political reforms? Many have lived under constant threat and some end up losing their lives. In this sense, because Martin Luther King was assassinated, would one conclude that his noble attempts for social reform were "bad"?
In short, there are many ideas that the Christian theist can readily agree on. That life is meant to be lived abundantly, and our senses are gifts with which we may experience all the legitimate pleasures this world has to offer. I presently can't think of any writer who describes this more vividly than C.S. Lewis. His words drip with the ecstasies of wonder and fulfillment found in a life lived within the parameters of the Christian faith. There is freedom in the security of knowing, for instance that your spouse will be faithful to you in marriage because there exists a higher moral standard than self-pleasure that binds him or her to commitment. In this, we find the greatest expression of romance in self-sacrifice, a term shunned by today's standards of relationships. "The Screwtape Letters" is a fictional compilation of 31 letters from a demon of hell to a subordinate imp named "wormwood". Therein he admonishes and strategizes with his subordinate on how to win a human project (the "patient") away from God (The Enemy) and onto their territory. The result is a fascinating and humorous look at the nature of pleasure in these terms:
So sir, to you I say, well done on escaping the pessimism so common in the advanced stages of Godless ideology. I'd make a further invitation to find the surest foundation for happiness in the unchanging promises of God... there's nothing like knowing the depths of Love from its Author."My Dear Wormwood...Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula! It is more certain; and it's better style. To get the man's soul and give him nothing in return--that is what really gladdens Our Father's heart."
[Added Question Below]
Corvus, I fully understand that we have a life beyond this message board, and that anyone else is welcome to offer a response as they desire. However, this writing has been outlined on the basis of our discussion hitherto. The question I want to ask then is does anyone have any disagreements on this issue they wish to bring forward?
