I think that this is markedly different from the Jeffersonian "rich simplicity". I think that happiness, unless it is constantly worked on, will just go away. Therefore, I don't believe that there is a sort of achievable Nirvana that, once established, will provide lasting pleasure. Once attained, the original goal is useless and new goals have to be set. Nirvana is therefore a paradox. It is a mystical promise of transcendence, that, once achieved, will eradicate the need to set any further goals for oneself. But it is nothing more than a goal itself. So if the goal is to have no further wants or desires, then why pursue it in the first place?

Moderation is similarly frustrating to me. Who wakes up one day and says to himself, "Oh look, I am so moderate. That makes me happy. I'll just keep being moderate."? Is it really one of those transcendent goals that, once achieved, serves to bring enduring happiness? And what kind of moderation is it supposed to be? Should a man only pursue moderately good looking women, vote for moderately honest politicians, and eat moderately well prepared food? Moderation can easily turn into mediocrity. I believe that it's almost certainly the same thing. It's one thing to talk about the moderation of alcohol and fatty foods because they are specific things with well-known negative consequences when taken to excess. But is it enough to not drink too much or eat too much in order to reach one's full potential as a human being? I don't think so. Moderation is a little piece of advice given to beginners before they learn the ropes, but after that it's useless. While Nirvana is the goal of having no goals, moderation is the goal of having mediocre goals.

I don't think that Jefferson serves as a good example of his own ideal. He was an extremely accomplished man and he never grew complacent. He may have taken pride in the simple pleasures of life, but he never actually stopped at making them the whole of his pursuits. If he had, I think he would have found himself restless and unhappy. Instead, he was rich, powerful, and brilliant. He almost certainly attained his full potential as a human being.

*The word used varies from sect to sect.

@ db0: Plato was not a Stoic. You're right, though, that Stoics (and others) mocked Epicureans. Quite unfairly, IMO.

You are absolutely right, Adam. Modern thinkers will give three reasons why moderation in pleasures is required. First, Neurologically, too much pleasure overloads the brain's pleasure-centres, prohibiting further sensations and depletes the feel-good neuro-transmitters serotonin and dopamine. Second, psychologically, it creates inflated expectations and a sense of boredom ( Hedonic treadmill). Third, physiologically, overindulgence in recreational substances like alcohol, nicotine or narcotics and even food creates tolerance, addiction or unhealthy obesity.

As usual you have written a good piece and I agree that all things must be in moderation.