131. Epicurean or Hedonist - 1
I am an Epicurean, but I am not a hedonist, and I am looking for a man, who sees himself the same way.
Many people think, that both are the same. But there is a very fundamental difference.
Hedonists see the goal in life in primitive physical pleasures, eating, getting high on alcohol or other substances, partying. They are promiscuous, using another person's body, with or without consent. They are consciously wanting to be animals.
Epicureans also see the goal of life not in sacrifices or serving any purpose like particles do, but they seek predominantly the joy, bliss, fulfillment of emotional and intellectual pursuits. They are not adverse to a moderate dose of physical pleasures, but those are of secondary importance. Epicureans are hypoanimalistic.
If a hedonist even is willing to have a relationship with one woman, he chooses her for her qualities as a bedmate, the rest of her is of little importance.
An epicurean wants a mindmate, a companion, with whom there is emotional and intellectual intimacy. For sealing the bond of physical intimacy, passion is not important. They can choose each other as a self-selected arranged commitment, and it works, as long as they do not feel repulsion of each other.
Therefore for a hedonist, the qualities and requirement for a woman for a relationship and for a friend are very different. For an epicurean, the requirement for a partner and companion in a relationship and for a platonic best friend are the same.
A hedonist ends a relationship, when he considers the woman no more fit as a bedmate, and replaces her body with the body of another bedmate. That is independent of his evaluation of her qualities as a friend for him. Hedonists sometimes stay friends with their ex-partners.
For an epicurean, the only reasons for ending a relationship are defects in the personal qualities of the partner. These are automatically also qualities required in a friend, since they are the same qualities. A person either qualifies to be both, a partner and the best friend, or that person is not suitable to be neither a companion to share the life with nor be a true friend. An epicurean does therefore not stay in contact with an ex. If the contact with an ex would be as good as a real friendship, they would have never ended the relationship.
I defined hypoanimality in entry 67 as the low magnitude of several instincts. I also suspected that some attitudes and beliefs are conscious representations of the urges those instincts. The belief in an immortal soul and reincarnation could be the consequence of the urge to make the own genes immortal by procreation.
I think, that epicureanism is the mental representation of hypoanimality.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism
I am an Epicurean, but I am not a hedonist, and I am looking for a man, who sees himself the same way.
Many people think, that both are the same. But there is a very fundamental difference.
Hedonists see the goal in life in primitive physical pleasures, eating, getting high on alcohol or other substances, partying. They are promiscuous, using another person's body, with or without consent. They are consciously wanting to be animals.
Epicureans also see the goal of life not in sacrifices or serving any purpose like particles do, but they seek predominantly the joy, bliss, fulfillment of emotional and intellectual pursuits. They are not adverse to a moderate dose of physical pleasures, but those are of secondary importance. Epicureans are hypoanimalistic.
If a hedonist even is willing to have a relationship with one woman, he chooses her for her qualities as a bedmate, the rest of her is of little importance.
An epicurean wants a mindmate, a companion, with whom there is emotional and intellectual intimacy. For sealing the bond of physical intimacy, passion is not important. They can choose each other as a self-selected arranged commitment, and it works, as long as they do not feel repulsion of each other.
Therefore for a hedonist, the qualities and requirement for a woman for a relationship and for a friend are very different. For an epicurean, the requirement for a partner and companion in a relationship and for a platonic best friend are the same.
A hedonist ends a relationship, when he considers the woman no more fit as a bedmate, and replaces her body with the body of another bedmate. That is independent of his evaluation of her qualities as a friend for him. Hedonists sometimes stay friends with their ex-partners.
For an epicurean, the only reasons for ending a relationship are defects in the personal qualities of the partner. These are automatically also qualities required in a friend, since they are the same qualities. A person either qualifies to be both, a partner and the best friend, or that person is not suitable to be neither a companion to share the life with nor be a true friend. An epicurean does therefore not stay in contact with an ex. If the contact with an ex would be as good as a real friendship, they would have never ended the relationship.
I defined hypoanimality in entry 67 as the low magnitude of several instincts. I also suspected that some attitudes and beliefs are conscious representations of the urges those instincts. The belief in an immortal soul and reincarnation could be the consequence of the urge to make the own genes immortal by procreation.
I think, that epicureanism is the mental representation of hypoanimality.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism
It propounded an ethic of individual pleasure as the sole or chief good in life. Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one’s lifetime, yet doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure. The emphasis was placed on pleasures of the mind rather than on physical pleasures. Therefore, according to Epicurus, with whom a person eats is of greater importance than what is eaten.
And Epicure himself: "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed', and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life."
