The Shadow's blog

The Epicurean concept of ataraxia means freedom from mental disturbances. Epicurus taught that such freedom is a necessary component in the lifetime pursuit of rational pleasure which leads ultimately to eudaimonia (the flourishing of one's life).

Epicurus is truly the philosopher of freedom--of the sort that most of us modern lovers of liberty seek--and the fact that he accurately laid out all of the essentials millennia ago is truly remarkable. And what are these essentials?

Joe Zawinul changed my life.

I was fourteen years old when I first found out about Weather Report, from a copy of Down Beat in the high school library. Based on what was written about Zawinul and the group in that magazine, I knew I had to get my hands on an album somewhere.

As luck would have it, I found one in the cassette rack at Walgreen's a few weeks later, and I begged my mom to get it for me. She did.

Turns out, it wasn't even an actual Weather Report album; just a cheaply put-together bootleg compilation of tracks with Zawinul's picture on the cover.

I recently found a nicely-bound collection of Cassel's Family Magazine in an old cabinet that is undergoing restoration, and have since spent many a pleasant hour perusing it and getting some idea of what it must have been like to live in Victorian England. And in reading through it, I've also been able to get a glimpse as to just how much of that culture simply vanished almost overnight in the onrushing sea-change of the twentieth century.

The idea of freedom presented in the film 300 ( which is based on Frank Miller's excellent graphic novel of the same name) is a modern concept that had no real basis in the ancient world. Sparta was a police state that was kept strong through the practice of eugenics and the complete suppression of the individual in the service of the state.

Still, the movie as such is inspiring, especially to men, as it presents a powerful picture of what true masculinity can and should be: men who are not afraid to be masculine,in the service of freedom.

...... are the three things (along with modest food, clothing and shelter) that Epicurus told us we need in order to be truly happy in life. Concerning freedom, he wrote that "We must free ourselves from the prison of everyday affairs and politics." Personally, I have in fact been much happier since embracing anarchism and thus freeing myself from futile concern with the political minutiae spewed out of Washington and discussed on the Web on a daily basis. I shudder to the think of the opportunities I've missed and of people who didn't get the fullness of the attention they deserved from me, due to the focus I wasted on events I had no power to influence.

In his fine book The Consolations of Philosophy, Alain de Botton offers Epicurus' teaching on friends, freedom and thought as a consolation to those who do not have enough money. True enough, but I think that the greater benefit may be to folks such as myself who can afford most of our desired luxuries but are apt to lose focus due to the distractions they can provide.

Epicurus is perhaps the philsopher who has the most to say to us modern-day, freedom-seeking individualists. There is much to write about on this topic, and I plan to do much more of it on this wonderful blog, where freedom, friendship and thought can be expressed in abundance.

One of my New Year's resolutions this year was to take my exercise and workouts to the next level; for inspiration in meeting the challenge, I found myself watching Rocky a few times this weekend, and also found myself comparing and contrasting Rocky to Howard Roark, the main character in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.

In the novel, though we meet Roark at a young age, he is already fully-formed (philosophically speaking), and implicitly guiding his life according to premises forming the foundation of Rand's philosophy, and which are consistent with the basic principles held by most of us who are trying to live lives characterized by liberty and individualism.

In contrast, Rocky is in his thirties when the story opens, and has spent his life working hard, but in a misguided fashion. His trainer Mickey tells him that he could have been a champion if only he'd had sharper focus and dedication to his goal. Instead, Rocky had worked part-time as a leg-breaker for a loan-shark. "It's a living", says Rocky. "It's a waste of life", replies Mickey.

Nathaniel Branden once noted that many Objectivists who come to him seeking counseling or therapy feel guilty that they don't have it together like Howard Roark did. Many of them are in their thirties or older, and still have no idea as to what they want to do with their lives. Branden correctly tells them that there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I know a few people who fit (as far as I can tell) the model of Roark; they knew exactly what they wanted from an early age and focused every step of their developmental years on getting closer to that goal; most of them had extremely supportive families to assist them, but the goal itself burned so brightly as to guide even those who did not.

My own life--along with those of most people I've known-- has never fit this model. Our lives have often been filled with false starts, misguided experiments, dashed hopes, lack of focus, broken families and short-lived relationships. But learning from these things can enable us to flourish, and can be a crucial aspect in the process of finding one's true goals.

To the degree that it's proper to have one's life influenced by a work of fiction, I much prefer Rocky to The Fountainhead, but plan on keeping the lessons of both firmly in mind as this year unfolds.

Now, off to the gym...

Since being invited by Sunni to post in this wonderful blog, it's been my plan to explore the importance of eudaimonia (an Aristotelian concept, best defined as human flourishing, or happiness) in the life of liberty. I was therefore quite surprised to read a contrarian and shockingly boorish response (entitled A Few Thoughts on Happiness) to one of Sunni's recent blog entries...


The person who wrote the piece (someone known as "kd") opens by stating that "As a known and avowed pessimist you should question my credentials, knowledge, and objectivity in discussing happiness." This person then proceeds to callously speculate as to whether or not Sunni's present romantic relationship is doomed to failure and concludes (based on Sunni's statements concerning her happiness in past relationships, and kd's own inane and irrelevant speculations concerning how Sunni's former significant others might have felt in those relationships) that it is. Reading this dreck, I couldn't help being reminded of the scene in Swift's novel where Gulliver extinguishes a fire that has broken out in the bedchamber of the Lilliputian Empress by pissing on it. Given the zeal with which he rushes to piss on personal statements written to express the joy and gratitude found in the fire of a newly-realized romantic relationship, we can certainly question kd's motives, if nothing else.

While the Kallikaks will unfortunately be always among us, kd's rant and beliefs concerning happiness do provide a useful basis upon which to compare and contrast the Aristotelian conception of happiness, or eudaimonia (which is essentially my reason for writing this; Sunni certainly doesn't need me to defend her personal life).

Kd's statement that Sunni's happiness will probably be fleeting (and contingent upon the length and success of her new relationship) is at odds with Aristotle's conception of happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness is something that can only be truly measured at the end of one's life, based upon the degree that one has succeeded in realizing one's full potential. In Book 1, Chapter 7 of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle in his attempt to define happiness tells us:

"But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy."

Happiness viewed in this fashion lifts us above our everyday ups and downs and gives us a much broader perspective than that which is presented in kd's essay. Some of the greatest minds in history have written extensively upon the subject of happiness and most of it is available for free online; it is certainly a better use of one's time (and certainly more virtuous) to study the subject along these lines than to engage in fruitless, inane and uncouth speculation over the personal lives of others. Aristotle thoroughly covers what he believes to be a complete definition of happiness (in much greater detail than I can or am inclined to present here) in chapters 7 through 11 of the Nicomachean Ethics, and I'd certainly recommend it to anyone interested.

Kd then goes on to critque a comment on Sunni's blog entry made by Michael Jarrell, stating:

"What is happiness? Isn't happiness a contrast and absence of something that isn't pleasant?

If you are losing your freedoms and liberties is this happiness or is this a contrast - something that isn't pleasant?

Happiness has value, but doesn't anger also have value? Doesn't life have ups and downs, or should we expect all ups? What would that do to the value of happiness?

If happiness is the contrast and absence of something that isn't pleasant wouldn't anger be the opposite, a contrast and absence of something that is pleasant? Don't both have value? Can't anger be part of the journey to happiness? Has anger never brought happiness?"

In response, I of course return to the Nicomachean Ethics, which considers happiness to be the ultimate virtue, an end in itself, and also the end of every other value. Kd is correct in stating that anger is a value and that anger can be part of the journey to happiness. In fact, the ultimate end of anger (as well as every other value) is necessarily happiness.

Unfortunately, for the sake of making this point, Kd completely mischaracterized Jarrell's statement, which was as follows:

"Where's the happiness? The Joie De Vie? Must we allow it to be hammered from us by events which are beyond our control? Or must we work all the harder to create genuine happiness and pull from these events that which will place another brick in our own foundations? The latter is my choice. Happiness is preferable at all times, despite the work it takes to achieve true and lasting happiness. It's also necessary for us to be happy to produce the results we wish. This must apply doubly to those of us looking for freedom and liberty. How satisfying will it be if we achieved those goals riding on depression, anger and sadness as our primary steeds? That would make for a miserable journey, I think. Somewhere on that journey we must seek out, find and embrace happiness as our method, rather than the "Dark Side". It has to be preferable to depression and anger."

Jarrell clearly and correctly affirms that since happiness is the ultimate and primary value, anger and sadness etc. should not be our "primary steeds".

It thus seems to me that kd is operating more from the need to discredit others than he is from pessimism, and seeing less of that will make us all a whole lot happier...