Rebuttal to a Stoic who stated that "flourishing" would be a "better" goal of life than Pleasure

First, you have to understand that Pleasure to Epicurus was extremely broad, encompassing all that is desirable in life (because it is not painful).

But you're really talking about a time frame issue.

Pleasure is the guide and one of only two feelings, but Epicurus says at the opening of the letter to Menoecus that the goal of life is happiness. When you dril down into the sources you find that a life of happiness means a life in which pleasure is predominating over pain. It is not necessary to eliminate all pain in order to be happy, as Epicurus himself was happy even in pain in his last days.

As Diogenes of Oinoanda said:

Quote

Fr. 32

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.

Torquatus also says something very similar, that a life of happiness is a life of pleasure.

"If then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on Pleasure, whereas Pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that Pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of Pleasure."

There is also a David Sedley issue on this:

"Epicurean vs Cyreniac Happiness" which discusses this time frame issue. Pleasure is the ultimate way to describe anything that is desirable. Happiness is a pleasure, but "happiness" as in "a happy life" refers to an assessment as in discussing a "happy life" which is an abstract concept, and this distinguishes the Epicureans from the Cyreniacs as Sedley explains.

I see I really only addressed part of those questions, and at the very least 2 and 3 are separate. I will come back when I have more time but i welcome others to chime in as these are common questions.

Quote from Matteng

2. Following Pleasure directly, leads not always to happiness but sometimes to misery (sugar, drugs, anti-social behaviour). Following to aim at the good life has not that problem (Virtue).

This one is the kind of objection raised by someone who just refuses to read what Epicurus had to say and to think things through categorically and logically, Here's the sequence:

Pleasure and Pain are the only two feelings. Every experience falls in one of those two categories, just like all of the universe is divided into bodies and space.

Epicurus says the goal is Pleasure, because that includes all that is desirable, given that the feeling of pleasure is the only measure of desirability. However there are times that in order to achieve what is desirable (pleasure), we must endure pain in order to obtain greater pleasure. The ONLY reason we are enduring that pain is to achieve pleasure, so the logic of the goal being pleasure is not violated. The amount of pain we choose to endure is less than the pleasure we expect to receive. The logic of pleasure as the goal is not violated by sometimes choosing pain.

And again since the feeling of pleasure is the only measure of what is desirable, there is no "good life" (happiness) other than a life of pleasure. Virtue in Epicurean terms is whatever course of conduct leads to pleasure. Virtue has no absolute abstract meaning as these other people are asserting. Asserting something to be "the good life" without defining the good life as pleasure (which they refuse to do) is absurd.

Quote from Matteng

3. Following human flourishing means social activities, following Pleasure could lead to unsocial immorality actions, when that (unjust activities) give Pleasure, an Epicurean could not have Objections.

This is one of the most disreputable of all the objections. Who gets to define and ordain that "social activities" are good and "unsocial / immoral activities" are bad? We are supposed to just accept THEIR decrees as to what is good and what is bad?

Nature gives individuals only pleasure and pain by which to decide what to pursue and what to avoid. Nature does not write in the sky what all men at all times and all places are required to do as "moral." Epicurus totally objects abstract and absolute standards of virtue and morality because there is no true and real basis for such absolute standards in nature. There are only parficular people living at particular places and particular times, and their feelings of pleasure and pain. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The earth belongs to the living..."

Epicurus states his denial of absolute justice explicitly in the principal doctrines, and Torquatus explains this at great length as to all of the virtues.

Quote from Matteng

4. Pleasure is only an temporary End but in life there is no end but is everlasting activity. Evolution gives no everlasting happiness based on pleasure. Eudaimonia was defined by Aristotles as an activity not an end state. Does a happy person or god do nothing when reached everlasting Absence of Pain ?

Most of this probably does not need an answer except as to the last -- the idea that people would "do nothing" when they achieve "absence of pain" is the real atrocity of the "tranqulity is king" perspective. That attitude achieves what it sets out to do - it reduces Epicureanism to a philosophy of doing nothing, experiencing anothing, achieving nothing.

Ant that's exactly what the historical record shows is the OPPOSITE of the lives that Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans actually lived.

The goal is pleasure, which includes everything in life that is desirable. When there is only two of anything, and one is desirable and the other is undesirable, thenyou want all of the desirable and none of the undesirable. This is not rocket science and the ancient Epicureans understood it so thoroughly that Epicurus thought he had no need to include it in the letter to Menoeceus. He did not have any way of knowing how decadent the world would become 300 years later and how the lack of including it would be twisted to make a philosophy of pleasure into the equivalent of a philosophy of death-worship - the very thing that Hegesius had advocated and the Epicureans rejected.

One last comment for now - as to "flourishing" -- what does that word even mean? It's a weasel word that avoids the real question of what is good and what is bad, how to live and how not to live. Nature gives us only the feelings of pleasure and pain as inputs and we must reason based on those, rather than on vague notions of "virtue" or "worth" or "nobility" which are implied to exist under analysis like Aristotle is proposing. And he never establishes an ultimate basis for any such concepts other than looking at what great men of the past have done, and that proves nothing. "Flourishing" means nothing that can be grounded in nature rather than in pure opinion - just like the word "virtue" itself.

Quote from Cassius

One last comment for now - as to "flourishing" -- what does that word even mean?

You took the words out of my mouth. I was going to post this exact same question. I *really* dislike it when "flourishing" is used as a translation of eudaimonia. That translation does nothing to explain the original Greek. Sure, in a circuitous way if we contort certain meanings, ... maybe?? "Flourishing" is worse than "happiness" as a translation. Does "flourishing" just mean "livin' your best life"? But what does "your best life" mean? Is that subjective? Objective? GAAAHH! It's a never-ending circle. My preferred translation for eudaimonia is still well-being or more fancy: subjective well-being. To expand that "a subjective feeling of wellness, wholeness, contentment, security, and confidence in one's ability to weather the storms with a mental foundation free from fears and anxiety." But that isn't as catchy as "flourishing" (insert eye roll here)

Quote from Don

You took the words out of my mouth. I was going to post this exact same question. I *really* dislike it when "flourishing" is used as a translation of eudaimonia.

I have a strong suspicion that Don and Cassius might not be the greatest fans of spiritual wellness influencers. I sense some tension in their inner energy currents restraining their flourishing potential. Cleanse your chakras, Gentlemen.

I'm with all the comments so far. Perhaps looking beyond the language of the Epicurean and the Stoic we need to consider the hegemon(s) of most ancient Greek philosophy recognized only the very deepest thinkers, Plato's and Aristotle's elites, and perhaps Epicurus' Wise Man can aspire to achieve the perfect life.

In any defense of Epicurus, I'm happy to rely on the first four Doctrines plus the letter to Menoeceus, especially the explanation of Prudence in the letter.

If the Stoic interlocutor with Matteng is neither an elite student of Stoicism as it has evolved, nor an attentive listener on Epicurean explanations he can't understand that philosophers believed hardly anyone is a perfect practitioner of any philosophical belief, and therefore hardly anyone can live a perfect life in an imperfect world. (For me, no one can)

For the student, for the people working to preserve our best understanding of Epicurus' teaching, the battle is a worthy engagement. For the rest of us the choice of words usually has ideosyncratic meaning as he/she is seeking a happy life and trying to understand the world around us. If the word "flourishing" is such an important word choice for the Stoic to make an argument with the Epicurean, I'd nod my head and say, "Have a nice day." (I say tomato, you say tomatoh)