Posts by Mike Anyayahan

Quote from Cassius

... because i am not at all sure that such as think as this exists. If there is a change in state, as in removal of pain, then there is some action going on that explains the source of the pleasure. I do not believe that "absence of pain" alone is an activity, any more than "calmly" expresses an activity. As per the argument in these articles, especailly Wenham perhaps on this particular point, all pleasure comes through sensation, and absence of sensation is death. If you are sensing pleasure, you are sensing "something' -- even if your mind is merely contemplating, which you find enjoyable. i think it ends up being a non-sequitur, and essentially on the feeling of pleasure itself, to talk in terms of "absence of" as describing the positive experience of pleasure.

That's why this entire issue of katastematic pleasure is so important, and why Nikolsky and gosling and taylor and Wenham write to refute it. As Nikolsky state most explicitly, the entire issue of "stastic pleasure" was likely invented by a later stoic as part of their categorization obsession, and it seems to me very likely that Epicurus would have rejected the classification if he himself had been asked about it.

I agree. I don't believe in anything static as well. But for the sake of analysis, we can't help using the term since it is how we state pleasure that is not kinetic or moving. But anyways, my point is that pain and painlessness can not exist at the same place at the same moment the way the absence of pain and pleasure can not exist at the same place and at the same moment, too.

Quote from Cassius

Mike I can see why you would say "no pain" because of the point that the two feelings are separate and distinct. But in terms of 'demanding no pain at all' you would also keep in mind that we sometimes choose pain in order to produce pleasure, so while they are not the same feeling, a pleasure that is purchased at the cost of a particular pain might be a pleasure that we would choose, despite the cost in pain, would it not?

Yes. We choose pain (and skip some immediate pleasures) to achieve greater pleasure. I am referring to static pleasure that is produced by the absence of pain. If the absence of pain is the only definition of pleasure, then the stoic ataraxia must be pleasure, too. And I don't think they will agree in that case. Just like my example before, my stomach pain will not be painless at the same time, yet, when it is no longer painful, it does not mean pleasure because that state of painlessness must be different from pleasure as well. If my stomach is not any more painful, the pleasure there is when I enjoy walking which I couldn't do when I was in pain.

Quote from Charles

Why is it that we often cite Cicero? He was a Stoic and he absolutely loathed the Epicureans to no end. Is it because he wrote against them so prolifically? Or is it instead that in his refutations he presented the original ideas and opinions of the Epicureans that have otherwise been lost to history?

Cicero is a Skeptic (skeptic). I don't know how others view him, but I used to be a skeptic, and I modeled my skepticism partly from him and partly from Socrates. When I was a skeptic, I was honest to myself when presenting an opposing view. I presented it as correctly as possible so I could find the most appropriate rebuttal. I wouldn't fake myself with untrue negation of an untrue position since my aim was also tranquility by suspending my judgment. When I would present an opposing position, I would make sure I understood it correctly so that my criticism would be valid.

I am sure Cicero had the same attitude. I am confident that he presented Epicurean philosophy correctly in the character of Torquatus. I can't find any reason for Cicero to fake the Roman public since he is not a Sophist. Therefore, the Book 1 in which Torquatus presents Epicurean philosophy on behalf of Epicureans can be considered authoritative.

Quote from Charles

"Pleasure is the absence of pain" and that "pleasure is a feeling when desires are satisfied" (ie a more hedonistic pleasure)

I think my comment just above is the appropriate reply for this.

Quote from Cassius

An illustration I would give would be applicable to any pleasure, but let's just choose "dancing." The best way to experience dancing would be not to be distracted from dancing (don't fall, don't bump into others, don't get called away to do something else) and without any pain mixed in (don't be distracted thinking about painful thoughts) while you are dancing.

This makes more sense to me now. I know that pleasure is produced by the absence of pain as what I already discussed lately in the other thread. Now, at that very state of tranquility right before the production of pleasure, there is surely no pleasure yet but a plain painlessness, and it's strange to say that painlessness means pleasure. I think that pleasure begins when you start enjoying a particular desire that has no more corresponding pain like your example of dancing. I want to dance because it's fun, but it is only fun if I do not encounter distractions. Otherwise, it's not pure dancing. And if I die, I will never be happy even if there is no more pain at all. The painlessness of death will not provide me with happiness since I am already devoid of sensation. Therefore, pleasure (and happiness) is not simply produced by the absence of pain but out of a particular desire that demands no pain at all.

Cassius I also came across online lectures that say that the kind of pleasure Epicureans hold is ataraxia. Is there any truth in this? As far as I know ataraxia is what the Stoics are aiming. Does it mean the Epicurean meaning of tranquility is the same as that of Stoicism? It sounds odd. This makes me think that the absence of pain alone is not enough to define either pleasure or happiness.

Quote from Charles

I'm focusing on it only to the extent in which it was quoted in Torquatus. I'm not looking into the merits of the argument, but the literary sources that espouse it.

Would you mean the definitions of both pleasure and pain or the differences between pleasure and happiness?

Quote from Cassius

Thanks Mike! Just as you were posting that comment I was pasting the same thing into an updated version. That is one of the most clear statements of the proposition that I am aware of.

You're welcome Cassius. What makes me wonder is whether we pursue happiness for pleasure or pleasure for happiness...only if they are two different things. If they are just the same, I am curious why Torquatus had to emphasize that to live happily is nothing except to live with pleasure.

Yup. It's worth looking into. But I feel this happiness is not Eudaemonic as that of Aristotle's.

In the last paragraph of the part XVI of Book 1 of On Ends, Torquatus said "...and that to live happily is nothing else except to live with pleasure.

I"m not sure whether it has o double meaning or a problem in translation.

What about happiness? Is tbere any need to make a distiction between it and pleasure?

Cassius and Hiram Thanks for your kind concern. My family and I are safe. Our place is not in the affected areas, but the areas that are affected especially the places I used to live are now covered with ash fall and mud. Some of them are like ghost towns now. It makes me imagine how the old kingdoms in the desert world were wiped out by sands and mud. Some places are already deserted. Many people are now in various evacuation areas. They left their dogs and other domesticated animals, vehicles, and so on, yet the condition in the evacuation areas is also bad. I can't imagine how families with young children cope up. We're fortunate we live south of Luzon.

Quote from Cassius

If someone is so tightly wound that they can't laugh at a joke like that, then they might claim to belong to a super-fundamentalist Epicurean sect!

lol Humor is the name of the game for me. If the poets of antiquity were melancholic, my poetry is humor. This is why I tell my friends to eat cheese instead of saying cheese when they ask my to take a picture on them.

Quote from Cassius

I think that's an important point. I understand why people do it when they live in a super-religious atmosphere, but "atheism" has always seemed to me the assertion of a negative, rather than the assertion of anything positive, and asserting a negative hardly seems like a unifying them. The Epicurean theology gave them a "positive" to assert, along with the rest of the philosophy, as points of like-mindedness between them.

Yes. Nothing is pleasurable in bothering myself whether or not god exists. It's enough I have figured out my take in this issue, and I move on to something more positive.

Quote from Elayne

Mike, I am glad you are here and want you to stay. I have enjoyed your posts.

I call myself an Epicurean and am atheist in the same sense Epicurus was, in that neither of us believed in supernatural gods.

I am open to the possibility of the gods he talked about. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but I lack the confirmation of intuition and "images" that he experienced. I call myself an Epicurean in general, because I don't think that was the kind of atheism he was opposed to. I am not atheist in respect to his gods.

Thanks Elayne! I'm also glad to know we have similar views on these issues. I'm atheist, but I do not put so much time and effort on atheism. The least I can do in dealing with Epicurean god is to become an apatheist. I don't think it would affect my belief in the rest of Epicurus' thoughts. Again, I'd like to give an analogy. I love eating chicken, but I do not eat the wing part. I remove it and give it away to anyone who likes it. Still, nobody tells that what I have eaten is no longer a chicken...unless I have turned it into a chicken hot dog.

Quote from Oscar

No, the Garden didn't continue uninterrupted and so there's no conservative framework that I'm aware of

Yes. It makes sense, too. As far as I know, The Garden would accept people from different walks of life such as slaves and women. This attitude doesn't show any exclusivity and conservatism.

Quote from Cassius

However if any come to my attention, or I decide to start such an organization, you'll be among the first to know!

And if that happens, what would you think of me who believes in all the teachings of Epicurus except in the context of god?

Quote from Hiram

As far as I'm concerned if you think that we should live pleasantly following the guidelines in L Menoeceus, and if you agree with the basic scientific understanding of the nature of things and reject all supernatural "reality", you can proudly call yourself Epicurean because Epicurean teachings are guiding how you live your life.

Hiram That is also how I think of it. Then, I'm an Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

All of your posts have been very constructive and as far as I am concerned it is very proper that you are here. We aren't in the business of "judging" anyone as a person, we're just evaluating posts as they come in and trying to build a like-minded community.

Thanks Cassius When I came across Epicureanism, I took time studying the basic principles using all the available resources or references I could have such as the original texts, Wikipedia, blogs, social media conversations, and Youtube videos. Immediately, I fell in love with all the teachings of Epicurus...except only in the context of god.

But that does not affect Epicurus' credibility to me since I never dogmatize any philosophical system. I hold on to a philosophical system through understanding of its coherence and not through blind faith.

Therefore, it is not the whole package of the puzzle that I judge but every parts of the puzzle. If most parts of the puzzle are telling me the whole picture, I don't need the last few pieces just to make a judgement. If I make an analogy, I can say I am still a human being even if my hands and feet are cut off.

This is why I did not hesitate to self-declare that I am an Epicurean even though I have doubts on one part which on the context of god.

I'm curious if there is such a thing as conservative Epicureans who demand 100% fidelity to Epicurus, and I want to know whether or not they can consider me an Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

Of course it is "possible" for atheists to be called Epicureans. The question that has to be asked is "Is it proper to call them Epicureans?" And "In what context is it proper or improper to call them Epicureans."

Ok. And what is the proper context to say that an atheist can become Epicurean? I'm an atheist and I don't know if it's proper that I am here. I'm curious.