Posts by Godfrey

The pleasures are not identical, and that’s where so much confusion can be sown by devious minds I'm thinking that that is a big reason why Epicurus kept pointing out that pleasure is pleasure, a faculty. Rather than argue with Platonists and Academics about what type of pleasure is good, or better or greatest, he made the distinction between pleasure and desire. This was one of his great innovations! "Everyone knows what pleasure is and pursues it, even babies and Cows. If you want to talk to me about what's greater or good-er, talk to me about desires."

Cassius, I'm suggesting that this is where the opponents won the war, in focusing on ranking pleasures instead of desires. As you know, this separation has been tickling me for a while... I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly but it seems promising. Plus like so many of Epicurus' ideas, it seems to relate favorably to modern science. Just an added bonus

DESIRES

Quote

PD29 Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion).

PD26 The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject if they are hard to achieve or if they seem to produce harm.

PD30 Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind.

(LM127ff) One should keep in mind that among desires, some are natural and some are vain. Of those that are natural, some are necessary and some unnecessary. Of those that are necessary, some are necessary for happiness, some for health, and some for life itself. A correct view of these matters enables one to base every choice and avoidance upon whether it secures or upsets bodily comfort and peace of mind – the goal of a happy life.

(LMxxx) Third, keep in mind that some desires are natural whereas others are groundless [note]; that among the natural desires some are natural and necessary whereas others are merely natural; and that among the necessary desires some are necessary for happiness, some for physical health [note], and some for life itself. The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life. Our every action is done so that we will not be in pain or fear. As soon as we achieve this, the soul is released from every storm, since an animal has no other need and must seek nothing else to complete the goodness of body and soul. Thus we need pleasure only when we are in pain caused by its absence; but when we are not in pain then we have no need of pleasure.

(LMxxx) Fourth, we hold that self-reliance is a great good — not so that we will always have only a few things but so that if we do not have much we will rejoice in the few things we have, firmly persuaded that those who need luxury the least enjoy it the most, and that everything natural is easily obtained whereas everything groundless is hard to get. So simple flavors bring just as much pleasure as a fancy diet if all pain from true need has been removed, and bread and water give the highest pleasure when someone in need partakes of them. Training yourself to live simply and without luxury brings you complete health, gives you endless energy to face the necessities of life, better prepares you for the occasional luxury, and makes you fearless no matter your fortune in life.

Display More

GOALS:

Quote

PD22 You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion.

PD25 If at all critical times you do not connect each of your actions to the natural goal of life, but instead turn too soon to some other kind of goal in thinking whether to avoid or pursue something, then your thoughts and your actions will not be in harmony.

PD15 Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion have no end.

PD16 Chance steals only a bit into the life of a wise person: for throughout the complete span of his life the greatest and most important matters have been, are, and will be directed by the power of reason.

As far as greater, better, more luscious, tastier &c pleasures.... I keep thinking that the only mechanism that Epicurus (not Cicero, the Cow) explicitly provided for ranking, prioritizing or choosing/avoiding was desires. He seems to me to keep saying that "pleasure is pleasure", a pathe. Why else would he repeatedly make the point that if all other things are equal (condensing/accumulation, duration, location in the body and so on) then pleasures would never differ from one another?

Maybe the Cow makes this point further on, but look at how much confusion he's wrought in just this brief passage! Very effective rhetoric!

Does anybody know if Epicurus ever referred to a hedonic calculus, or did Bentham come up with that? Or was it in Lucretius? I think I recall the phrase turning up in one of Epicurus' letters, but I don't know where and could be mistaken. It might be an interesting item to clarify. I'm asking just for curiosity and not to make any point.

If Epicurus were to weigh in, he might say:

Quote

PD3 The limit of enjoyment is the removal of all pains. Wherever and for however long pleasure is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress.

PD9 If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.

Good discussion; dealing with Cicero brings up lots of issues!

The foray into mathematics brought to mind a tangentially relevant sci-fi short story, "The Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang. It concerns an alien first contact and the efforts to understand the alien linguistics and physics, and deftly illustrates possible ramifications of different worldviews. The physics comparison begins with two different ways of approaching the optical problem of a stick apparently bending in water, which I seem to recall from Epicurean texts or a forum post at some point.

The story was made into the movie Arrival a few years ago. I'm sure the treatment in the original story is much more relevant here though.

But that's quite a long way from Cicero. Keep up the good work!

Post #19 might relate to our previous discussions about circumplexes in some fashion, but as I ended up confused as to the exact definition of a circumplex, I'm not sure if it illustrates what one is or what one isn't

There are definitely different paths into Epicurus, and the more one digs into the philosophy the more one finds, both regarding things Epicurus was responding to and the ways his thinking permeates our world today.

The pre-Socratics were a further and important influence on Epicurus, as well as on SPA, and there's much to be gained from understanding them as well.

SPA do have a grossly distorted impact on today's society, but dissatisfaction with that is exactly what has led many of us on the winding road to Epicurus. So to some extent I think the points that you are making, Cassius, are baked in to Kalosyni's thinking. I'm just getting the sense, which may or may not be correct, that in this particular thread they're digressing from where the thread was initially headed.

B. Or maybe: Pleasure and pain are the guides to my goal of living joyously and sweetly, as I choose or flee from my desires using wisdom and reason.

Cassius if I may be so bold, it seems to me that Kalosyni has again intuitively followed the thinking of Epicurus by skipping the SPA word games and ended up at PD5. I understand the value of examining the word games, at least in some situations, but in this case it feels like it's muddying the water. But please correct me if I'm wrong!

Quote from Kalosyni

Emphasis on action as a verb, rather than on an object or noun.

For some reason this brings to mind static and kinetic pleasures. Expressed as verbs, static pleasure is understanding the correct philosophy while kinetic pleasure is living joyously, wisely beautifully, rightly.

Regarding politics, I agree with Joshua that Epicurus pre-dated much of today's political and economic theory and therefore it's a bit of a stretch to make a case for him espousing libertarianism, Marxism or any other current or recent ideology.

For my own curiosity about an Epicurean take on politics, I've just begun reading Wilson's How To Be An Epicurean. I've been avoiding that book because it veers into politics, but since it was listed in the recent thread on books on practical EP I figured I'd give it a chance.

Some comments on the first pages of the book. Wilson clearly states that the book is her take on EP and that not everyone will agree with her. Paraphrasing another statement of hers, the value of studying a philosophy is in learning to think for oneself, not in becoming a follower. I find this line of thinking refreshing, particularly when considering the oft expressed desire for Epicurean "spiritual exercises" along the lines of Stoic practices.

But I digress. Comments on Wilson probably belong in another thread. I just wanted to mention her as someone to read for an alternate take on reading politics into EP.

The link to Hadot appears to be to a book of the same title but by different authors. I've never heard of the linked book or it's authors. Is anybody familiar with it/them as being useful?

Personally I haven't found a good book on how to practice EP: I think we need to write one

I agree with Cassius that a major part of the process is just changing or fine tuning your world view. I'm also finding that the more that I live with that world view the clearer the practical details become and the better I'm able to interpret the nuances of the doctrines. But, at least for me, it's a long process and one that I'm still in the middle of.

Desire, Wikipedia excerpt from post #74:

"Desires are states of mind that are expressed by terms like "wanting", "wishing", "longing" or "craving". A great variety of features is commonly associated with desires. They are seen as propositional attitudes towards conceivable states of affairs. They aim to change the world by representing how the world should be, unlike beliefs, which aim to represent how the world actually is. Desires are closely related to agency: they motivate the agent to realize them. For this to be possible, a desire has to be combined with a belief about which action would realize it. Desires present their objects in a favorable light, as something that appears to be good. Their fulfillment is normally experienced as pleasurable in contrast to the negative experience of failing to do so. Conscious desires are usually accompanied by some form of emotional response. While many researchers roughly agree on these general features, there is significant disagreement about how to define desires, i.e. which of these features are essential and which ones are merely accidental. Action-based theories define desires as structures that incline us toward actions. Pleasure-based theories focus on the tendency of desires to cause pleasure when fulfilled. Value-based theories identify desires with attitudes toward values, like judging or having an appearance that something is good."

Pleasure: I can't remember if I posted a specific definition other than to describe pleasure as a perception which is one of the two aspects of the faculty of Feelings.

Returning to my obsession with pleasure v desire, I'd add the thought that perhaps when you are fully aware of your pleasure, you aren't experiencing desire. This doesn't mean that desire is opposed to pleasure, only that it can result in pleasure and is different from pleasure. If pleasure and desire were equivalent then you would experience maximum desire at the same time as maximum pleasure. I find that that isn't the case. Therefore it doesn't make sense to rank or categorize pleasures, at least not in the same way as desires. I think that this begins to separate the idea of absence of pain from the categories of desire, and might prove to be a rebuttal to the ascetic argument upon further development....

I would argue that Cicero is a cow

At first blush my bovine rebuttal is that it's true that all organic life possesses the faculty of Feelings to some degree. What distinguishes you and I, but not Cicero (partly because he's dead) from a cow is our degree of awareness of our Feelings.

I agree with Don in post #83. And I would add that to me the only point in ranking pleasures is to argue with opponents of Epicurus. The end result of that is comparable to having a fourth leg of the Canon: it's an interpretation that tries to accommodate someone who isn't necessarily interested in understanding EP but rather in undermining it. So I think at some point we reach a limit to the value of studying Cicero if our goal is to live the philosophy. I realize though that there are two agendas here: living the philosophy and promoting/defending the philosophy.

Quote

PD 9: If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.

I would paraphrase this as "it's silly to rank pleasures"

"The most pleasant", to me, refers to a life, not to a pleasure. And the most pleasant life would be one that has been fully aware of available pleasures and has worked to maintain those pleasures through prudent management of desires.

Quote from Don

The sense I was trying to get across with the "a desire is a mental concept" is that a desire is something you can think about. In fact, the thought "I want X" (and its many permutations) is itself the desire. On the other hand, pleasure and pain are something that happens to you.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around desire as well. Don I think we're in agreement as to pleasure, although I'm not sure whether Cassius agrees with our take. (???)

The first sentence of the Wikipedia quote lists desire as wanting, wishing, longing or craving; I've also seen it called an emotion. I agree that agency is key to desire, I'm just not sure how it all fits together.

Thinking this through, say for example that you had just decided to give up alcohol. You find yourself walking in Munich and suddenly you are strolling by a beer garden and see and smell some of the excellent local beer. Wham! You get hit by a tremendous craving for some delicious golden brew: it's visceral. But you have agency to decide whether or not to give in to the desire. Is your mental concept the "place" where the agency comes from? Further, it's possible that you would just experience a feeling of pleasure from the sights, sounds and smells of the garden, the day, and the people enjoying themselves, without any desire at all. I'm not sure that this clarifies anything, but I've just experienced mental pleasure by imagining this scenario! Maybe mixed with just a tiny taste of desire...

Bottoms up!