Tranquilism
Tranquilism is a philosophical concept that emphasizes the prevention of cravings and the absence of frustration or suffering as key to achieving a tranquil state. This idea is closely associated with Epicurean philosophy.[1]
Core principles
At its core, tranquilism posits that the relief of suffering, rather than the pursuit of peak hedonic experiences, is central to happiness. According to Lukas Gloor, cravings constitute suffering, and a tranquil state—free from tension or frustration—is what many aspire to achieve.[2] This aligns with Epicurean philosophy, which values katastematic pleasures such as the absence of pain (aponia) and freedom from distress (ataraxia).[2]
Jonathan Leighton further discusses tranquilism as emphasizing the importance of eliminating frustration and cravings to achieve well-being. The absence of conscious needs to change one's experience is key, marking the boundary of suffering. Tranquil states lacking tension or frustration are desirable and can be hedonically neutral or positive. This philosophy parallels Epicurean views, which define pleasure as the absence of pain and trouble. In such tranquility, there is no urgency to alter circumstances, potentially leading to high life satisfaction and positive affect. However, non-suffering is distinct from intense joy associated with dopamine or serotonin surges.[2]
Epicurus, the founder of Epicureanism, taught that everything is composed of atoms and that the ultimate purpose of life is to achieve freedom from bodily and mental pain.[3] This freedom is a key aspect of tranquilism, as it emphasizes resilience and indifference to external harms. Epicurus argued that by understanding death and dying from an atomistic perspective, one can develop a resilient tranquility that makes individuals practically invulnerable to almost all bodily and mental pain.[3]
Axiology
Tranquilist axiology challenges hedonism by rejecting the idea that experiences have intrinsic positive or negative value based on pleasure or pain. Instead, it defines well-being as the absence of craving for change. According to tranquilism, an experience is optimal if there is no consciously experienced need for alteration. Rather than a scale from bad to good, tranquilism presents a spectrum from non-optimal to optimal states of consciousness. The absence of pleasure is not inherently negative unless there is an unmet need for it. Rooted in Buddhist and Epicurean thought, tranquilism reinterprets well-being as contentment and freedom from desire.[4]
Ethical implications
Tranquilism suggests that ethical priorities should focus on comparing the relief of different levels of suffering rather than comparing happiness with suffering. This perspective shifts the focus from creating happiness to relieving suffering, suggesting that a tranquil state can be equated to high life satisfaction and positive affect.[2]
Historical context
Epicurus' teachings on atomism and tranquility have been preserved through personal letters and summaries by later commentators, such as the Principal Doctrines and the Vatican Sayings. These texts reflect Epicurus' views on death and dying, emphasizing the importance of tranquility in the face of mortality.[3]
Philosophical influences
Aristotle’s philosophy of tranquility is grounded in his ethical framework outlined in Nicomachean Ethics, where the ultimate goal of life is achieving eudaimonia—a state of flourishing or living well. Unlike rule-based ethics, Aristotle emphasizes the cultivation of virtues, or character traits that lie between extremes, through the idea of the “golden mean.” Tranquility, for Aristotle, is not just the absence of disturbance but the result of a balanced and virtuous life. Key virtues such as sophrosyne (moderation) foster inner calm by avoiding excess or deficiency in emotions and behavior.[5]
Aristotle also stresses the harmony of the soul, where reason governs spirit and desire, leading to inner peace. Beyond moral virtues, he values intellectual virtues like wisdom and understanding as essential for tranquility. Furthermore, Aristotle views virtuous social relationships as vital for emotional well-being. Thus, tranquility arises from a life lived in virtue, balance, rational reflection, and meaningful human connection.[5]
The author Cassius Amicus critiques modern interpretations that treat tranquility as a detached, Stoic-like state superior to pleasure. Often labeled “Tranquilism” or “Tranquilizerism,” this view dilutes pleasure’s meaning to fit tranquility into a higher ideal. However, Epicurus himself never separated tranquility from pleasure as a distinct ultimate goal. Instead, tranquility is best understood as a form of pleasure—a continuous life free from disturbance by pain or fear.[6]
Marcus Cicero, an opponent of Epicurus, described the ideal life as one of “tranquility crammed full of pleasures,” where bodily and mental pleasures remain undisturbed by pain or fear—especially fear of death or supernatural powers. Such a life requires a strong mind free from anxiety and fear; this calmness is itself a form of pleasure, not separate from it.[6]
In short, tranquility is not an end beyond pleasure but the state of ongoing pleasure experienced when pain and fear are absent, representing the highest and most desirable life according to Epicurean philosophy.[6]
Contemporary applications
The Center on Long-Term Risk, a nonprofit dedicated to minimizing worst-case scenarios involving advanced AI, prioritizes suffering reduction over happiness maximization. This approach reflects tranquilist ethics by emphasizing prevention of immense suffering potentially caused by technological advances like terraforming planets or running vast AI simulations that could generate vast suffering for sentient beings.[7]
Within this context, Lukas Gódor’s modern concept of tranquilism proposes that the moral goal should be to reduce suffering by aiming for tranquility, understood as the absence of desire, rather than the pursuit of positive experiences. Gódor’s approach draws from Buddhist ideas but notably does not engage with the pessimistic tradition of philosophers like Schopenhauer, who also advocated desirelessness through asceticism. This omission is seen as a shortcoming in current philosophical discourse on suffering and tranquility.[7]
See also
References
- ↑ "Tranquilism". Center on Long-Term Risk. 18 July 2017. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Jonathan Leighton (2022). The Tango of Ethics: Intuition, Rationality and the Prevention of Suffering. Andrews UK. p. 65. ISBN 9781788361033. Search this book on
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Bruce Peabody, Erin A. Dolgoy, Kimberly Hurd Hale, ed. (2021). Political Theory on Death and Dying. Taylor & Francis. p. 71. ISBN 9781000451788.CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list (link) Search this book on
- ↑ "Tranquilism". Center on Long-Term Risk. 18 July 2017. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Ranatglt (18 December 2023). "Aristotle's Philosophy of Tranquility: Finding Harmony in Virtue". Medium. Retrieved 20 May 2025.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Amicus, Cassius (December 10, 2017). "In Life, There Is No Antidote to Pain But Pleasure". New Epicurean. Retrieved May 20, 2025.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Moya, Ignacio L. (15 June 2023). "Human Extinction in the Pessimist Tradition". Scholarship@Western. The University of Western Ontario. Retrieved 20 May 2025.
This article "Tranquilism" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Tranquilism. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
