HOW DO YOU TAKE YOUR HAPPINESS: WEAK OR STRONG?

Bertrand Russell in his History of Western philosophy interprets Epicureanism as a philosophy which was based on the avoidance of fear.

Because religion and death were seen as such great sources of fear, Epicurus denied Providence and immortality, and this became a “gospel of liberation”. Seen in this light, it’s in tune with modern humanism. Russell’s critique, however, portrays the philosophy as rather lacking in spirit, “a valetudinarian’s philosophy, designed to suit a world in which adventurous happiness had become scarcely possible.” (Epicurus suffered from ill health throughout his life.)

Back to square one then. (See 21-02-04 and understand how far the dementia has got!) Nietzsche says plunge in and accept life in all its pleasure and pain. Epicurus, by contrast, turns away and recommends a quiet life. The Buddha would question the whole enterprise of pursuing a worldly happiness that’s inevitably fleeting, and yet the foundations of the religion and its practices are based on the avoidance of suffering, and the "goal" - though Buddhists would never describe it as such - is a state of awakened calm and bliss.

I suspect that there’s nothing to choose between them! Whether people hunt down their happiness for years, paddle contentedly in the shallows or just forget about it is, ultimately, a choice that is deeply personal - and irrational.