Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Don

One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order. That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life. Even the kinetic pleasure of good memories generally happens easier if we're not anxious or worried or unhealthy.

Agreed. And of course (preaching to the choir) this isn't some sort of mystical state, but confidence in one's worldview through observation and study. And managing (not eliminating!) one's desires using an understanding of the categories of desire. Not magic: philosophy.

Quote from Joshua

This was because he did not desire any birthday sacrifice or feast; yet he himself sacrificed on the traditional birthdays of Plato and of Socrates, afterwards giving a banquet at which every member of the circle who was able was expected to deliver an address.

--Porphyry, De Vita Plotini

So apparently feasting and sacrifices were part of birthday celebrations for Plato and Socrates. Does this make them cultish? If it makes the Epicureans cultish, they're not alone.

Great cite Joshua !

A quick thought prompted by Don 's post: did Epicurus create a cult around himself?

Did Plato? Aristotle? Epictetus? (&c) They were all the commanding personalities of their schools. Was Epicurus perhaps making his school friendlier, less intimidating? One way of doing that may have been the practice of monthly celebrations. In other words, practices that may seem cultish today may have served functions of which we are completely unaware.

To this question of "meaning" I would add:

The search for "the greatest good" in ancient times is also a question of meaning.

That "the greatest good" is pleasure leads to the question of what pleasure is, which leads to the understanding that it is an organic faculty, that humans are animals, that the mind cannot be separated from the body.

This, along with the understanding that the universe is material, leads to the understanding that th search for meaning is individual, as is the responsibility of achieving our most pleasant life.

A question that I have regarding eudaimonia goes back to the thorny issue of active and static pleasures.

If I understand correctly, Aristotle conceived of eudaimonia as requiring activity. (Compare this to *practicing* wisdom...) My question is: was Epicurus agreeing with this idea, or did he conceive of eudaimonia differently? Perhaps eudaimonia requires action, but blessedness doesn't? My depth of knowledge in this regard is lacking, so I'm just posing the question

Welcome Chryso !

BTW it's nice to hear that the Epicureans are at least getting a frequent mention!

One reflection which probably wouldn't find its way into Epictetus' or Seneca's lists is to think back on the pleasant things you experienced today. These could include big things, accomplishments, brief moments....

Building memories of pleasures is useful for bringing to mind when things aren't going well. It's also useful because the more you do it, the more you appreciate joyful moments throughout the day as they happen. As you reflect on specific experiences of pleasure, you can also examine what made them pleasurable to you, and relate these experiences to Epicurus' categories of desires and PDs dealing with pleasure.

Quote from Godfrey

each of the schools tailored their definition to their own ideas.

This is probably more accurately worded as:

Each of the schools built on the base that Aristotle had laid, in some cases refining, in others revising and/or correcting. Epicurus was of the refining/correcting persuasion. Authors such as Farrington have to various degrees minimized the work of Epicurus as being built from Aristotle, but this was actually the work of all of the Hellenistic schools. It could even be said that Epicurus was the most original in this regard, as well as being the most true to "the nature of things."

Eudaimonia features prominently in the ethics of Aristotle, and due to his prominence and resultant influence, each of the Hellenistic schools took it up. So the primary definition may come from him, but as Titus just mentioned, each of the schools tailored their definition to their own ideas.

Which doesn't help to clarify the meaning other than to say that I agree that it makes sense to examine it from an Epicurean perspective. As Titus has just pointed out, the fullness of pleasure is a good interpretation from that point of view.

Another way to think about a particular risk is to examine it using the categories of desire. If it's unnatural, that would suggest that the consequences are probably not worth the effort. If it's natural, that may narrow the possible consequences somewhat.

I don't think that sequence matters much. The calculus is more of a cost - benefit analysis: is x amount of pleasure worth y amount of pain? Wll z amount of pain produce a pleasure greater than z?

Rereading post #1, I find that "blessedness" does have a certain attraction. That might relate it to the blessedness of the gods as in PD01 and to Epicurus' comments about living like a god among men.

It seems to be pretty all-encompassing as well: not necessarily confined to mental/spiritual, but including physical and external. At least that's one (rather Aristotlean?) way to think about blessedness. The word has various connotations in modern English. Here we go again....

Welcome! Nice username

Peter St-Andre mentions in his blog post for today that he prefers "fulfillment" as an interpretation of eudaimonia. Any thoughts on this one? To me, fulfillment and happiness both seem particularly mental/spiritual whereas well-being seems to be more inclusive of mental/spiritual as well as physical. I can't say which approach is most in line with the original meaning of eudaimonia.

VS52. Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness.

Of course the first one that came to mind was the Tetrapharmakon, but I understand your reservations.

Pacatus can you summarize the doctrinal differences between the two? If that's too complicated to be reasonable, just say no.

Thanks Cassius , you do a better job of clarifying isonomy than DeWitt does! Still a lot to chew on, but you've cleared up the shocking inconsistencies.

Perhaps DeWitt's conclusions were colored by his interest in Christianity....

Thanks for the DeWitt section, Cassius ; it helps a lot to read it again.

Now I'm beginning to understand the sources of my bafflement with isonomy:

- Isonomy appears to be simply a logical formula, not a natural principle, and therefore is subject to fallacies and misuse. The formula is fine, but each premise must be evaluated for validity.

- In this way, the principle of isonomy can create conclusions which conflict with the conclusion reached by thinking through the implications of a fully material universe.

- The idea of perfection in a fully material universe is problematic to me. To my understanding, in an infinite universe there can be no "perfect" just as there can be no boundary or limit.

- "Perfection" seems to be getting uncomfortably close to Plato's ideal forms. If there must exist a perfect mirror of a human, using the principle of isonomia, mustn't there exist a perfect dolphin? Elephant? Fruit fly? &c....

- A similarly disturbing conclusion reached through isonomia might be this: "the number of living beings must be equal to the number of dead beings." This is to offset the imperfection of death with the perfection of eternal life, another logical leap of monotheistic religions.

- An interesting conclusion that follows from isonomy is that the gods must be shaped like humans. In this way they are of the same class, and logically consistent.

Quote from DeWitt via Cassius

By this time three aspects of the principles of isonomy have been brought forward: first, that in an infinite universe perfection is bound to exist as well as imperfection; that is, "that there must be some surpassing being, than which nothing is better"; second, that the number of these beings, the gods, cannot be less than the number of mortals; and third, that in the universe at large the forces of preservation always prevail over the forces of destruction.

To the best of my understanding (which may be wrong), I disagree with all three of these conclusions.

1. "in an infinite universe perfection is bound to exist, that there must be some surpassing being, than which nothing is better". This, to me, is an erroneous proposition in that it describes a finite universe, not an infinite one.

2. "that the number of these beings, the gods, cannot be less than the number of mortals". If there is no perfection, then this is erroneous in that it's comparing two different classes of beings, such as great apes and humans.

3. "in the universe at large the forces of preservation always prevail over the forces of destruction." This seems to conflict with the idea of isonomia: shouldn't the forces of preservation and destruction be equal in the universe at large? Isn't their equality a basic principle of modern science as well?

Quote

What might Epicurus have answered if he was asked what natural law necessitates the existence of the gods? Why couldn't the atomic universe simply do without them?

To my understanding, and I think it's in DeWitt and perhaps Cicero, isonomia is the concept that explains this. Isonomia would also explain why there can't be just one god.

I don't really understand the validity of isonomia, but I think the idea is that in an infinite universe, the opposite of each thing must exist, and in equal number. So if there are a certain number of mortals, there must be an equal number of immortals.

The finer point in this particular example would seem to be that isonomia shouldn't be used to posit something which is outside of the system, meaning it shouldn't be used to introduce the supernatural into a purely natural system. So this begs the question: what is meant by "immortal?"

One might see how monotheists could adapt the idea of isonomia to come up with not only a supernatural being, but also another supernatural being opposed to the first one. God and Satan, for instance.

I freely admit that I find the idea of isonomia somewhat baffling, particularly as to its validity. If anyone can clarify it, please do!

Oops, looks like I cross posted....