Posts by Don

Post

RE: Do Pigs Value Katastematic Pleasure? ( Summer 2022 K / K Discussion)

I wanted to address the title of Metrodorus's book that is cited by Clement of Alexandria.

The title in Greek is:

Περι του μειζονα ειναι την παρ' ἡμας αἰτιαν προς εὐδαιμονιαν της ἐκ των πραγματων

The "New Advent" English translation is:

On the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which arises from Objects

I don't entirely agree with the translation choices made there, but they'll do well enough.

What I want to do is look at several key words that impact our current discussion on…

Don

July 4, 2022 at 4:46 PM

In light of Metrodorus's book title and reference, I found VS45 very interesting:

VS45 The study of what is natural produces not braggarts nor windbags nor those who show off the culture that most people fight about, but those who are fearless and self-reliant and who value their own good qualities rather than the good things that have come to them from external circumstances.

οὐ κομποὺς οὐδὲ φωνῆς ἐργαστικοὺς οὐδὲ τὴν περιμάχητον παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς παιδείαν ἐνδεικνυμένους φυσιολογία παρασκευάζει, ἀλλὰ σοβαροὺς καὶ αὐτάρκεις καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀγαθοῖς, οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν πραγμάτων μέγα φρονοῦντες.

Note that what Saint-Andre translates as "external circumstances" is πραγμάτων - the exact same word Metrodorus uses in his book title: Περι του μειζονα ειναι την παρ' ἡμας αἰτιαν προς εὐδαιμονιαν της ἐκ των πραγματων

There's also the μειζονα and μέγα in the two passages.

I think VS45 and the title of Metrodorus's book title are saying the same thing: we can rely more on the pleasure that arises from within us than we can on the pleasures that arise from external circumstances.

In my view: The pleasure from internal sources is katastematic ; the pleasure from external activities and circumstances is kinetic (arising from πραγμάτων ).

Quote from Cassius

The problem that most people legitimately won't understand is that "engagement with the moment" involves every intellectual and emotional response in life no matter how "sublime" and "high" and even "noble."

See, I don't think my definition/examples of katastematic pleasures are sublime, high, or noble. I think they're just different than dancing, drinking, dining, having sex, etc. Freeing ones mind from an erroneous belief or delusion doesn't involve a physical/visible action but a mental action. As @Nate mentioned, it's all based on a physical bodies so I hesitate to say "physical" but it'll do.

I'm trying to understand why Epicurus felt obliged(?) to use the katastematic/kinetic dichotomy but I do not think he dwelt on it. He needed to differentiate his school clearly from the Cyrenaics and this seems to have been the fastest route. So he took it and moved on.

Quote from Cassius

I can't imagine Epicurus saying, for example, "If you wish to make Pythocles Happy, do not give him more happiness, but diminish his joy and delight."

Good one!

Quote from Nate

I think it is important to re-state that the mind is a type of body, and that the satisfactions of the mind are, themselves, pleasures of the body. Regardless of any schema designed to organize the different pleasures into categories, all pleasures are pleasures of the body, require some type of energetic motion to instigate, and some of those active bodily pleasures are felt by the mental organ instead of the visual, auditory, chemical, kinesthetic, or thermal organs.

I think this is an important observation. Yes, the mind is a body composed of atoms just like the rest of the physical universe. I also think there are katastematic and kinetic pleasures, but I'll get to that in a moment. Nate's point though is one reason I'm always skeptical of some commentators saying that the motion of kinetic has to do with atoms moving. I don't think that's it at all.

Quote from Nate

I am very suspicious of the concept of katastematic pleasures in the first place because the related word katastēmatikós was elsewhere used to describe "sedation". If that were accurate, then the Cyrenaics would have a legitimate point about equating ataraxia with dreamless sleep.

On re-reading your post, Nate: Are you saying you're skeptical of the concept itself of katastematic pleasures? Or that Epicurus used that dichotomy between katastempatic/kinetic?

As for Epicurus using the term, in my mind, I'm (fairly firmly) convinced that he did. The quote from On Choices and Avoidances in Diogenes Laertius plus other citations and references sort of clinches it for me. By Zeus, even DeWitt seems to have accepted it

On the concept itself, I am not too concerned about colloquial uses of the term katastematic like "sedation." LSJ simply glosses it as "pertaining to a state or condition."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Κκ , κατάσσυ^τος , καταστηματικός

see also

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κατάστημα

So, to me, katastematic pleasures are those that pertain to a state of being (a state of being free of fear, a state of being free of pain, a state of being calm, a state of being in homeostasis, etc.) which can be extended with little effort. Once the "fear of death" is eliminated, one can exist in a state free of the fear of death indefinitely (as long as one doesn't fall back into error... although the characteristics of the wise one include "once the sage has become wise, they will no longer fall back into ignorance". Once you eliminate a false belief, it's eliminated.)

Kinetic pleasures - those sanctioned by the Cyrenaics and others as "pleasures" - are active pleasures in which one engages in the moment. Kinetic pleasures are fleeting but they provide variety to one's existence.

Katastematic pleasure is the music playing in the background of the movie scene pulling the story together. Kinetic pleasures are the explosions and action sequences and provide the variety to the story. Both are necessary for an interesting superhero movie (Sorry, best film analogy I could come up with!)

Quick thought:

As animals, we have a desire to feel pleasure.

As humans, we have the capacity to choose which desires to feel pleasure we pursue.

Let's start with some definitions and we're going to focus on the word Epicurus uses not the translation for right now:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἐπιθυ_μ-ία

I'm including the Blue Letter Bible entry to illustrate that the Christians took επιθυμία to be inherently bad. Mostly I think because any choice not sanctioned by the church was evil. Rememder that the Greek for choice is αίρεση hairesē whereby we get English heresy.

G1939 - epithymia - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G1939 - ἐπιθυμία epithymía, ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah; from ; a longing (especially for what is forbidden):—concupiscence, desire, lust (after).

www.blueletterbible.org

And finally, some translations for επιθυμία :

Woodhouse, S. C. (1910) English–Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language‎, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.

appetite idem, page 35.

aspiration idem, page 45.

bent idem, page 74.

caprice idem, page 112.

concupiscence idem, page 156.

craving idem, page 182.

desire idem, page 215.

hunger idem, page 410.

inclination idem, page 428.

itch idem, page 461.

longing idem, page 498.

lust idem, page 505.

passion idem, page 597.

predilection idem, page 634.

proneness idem, page 653.

vagary idem, page 942.

want idem, page 961.

whim idem, page 976.

wish idem, page 983.

So you can decide to fulfill an επιθυμία or not. It is an opportunity for a volitional and/or a cognitive act. It could also be a sensory stimulation as in realizing you're hungry or thirsty.

You want something. You decide whether or not you pursue it, to fill that perceived need. So, sensation may be part of it.

The feeling you experience by fulfilling that want, desire, passion, hunger, longing is either pleasurable or painful.

Still thinking...

I think Godfrey 's point that desires (επιθυμία ) and pleasure (ηδονή ) are two different things is a very important one, and conflating the two is part of the trouble in discussing this topic.

In re-reading G&T I'm struck by their conclusion in 19.4.30:

Quote

It seems simplest just to suppose that when the organism is functioning harmoniously it is always having some form of perception; that since the operation is harmonious the perception is pleasant and without pain; and that is just what aponia is. Ataraxia is the condition when, because of correct views, our expectations are undisturbed by fear, our desires do not pursue empty objectives and our memories are pleasant: this leaves us to enjoy our pleasures unanxiously.

This seems in line with where I'm coming down, especially in light of Metrodorus 's fragment. G&T's "when the organism is functioning harmoniously it is always having some form of perception" seems to me to have parallels to the homeostasis and interoception of modern biology. Their "this leaves us to enjoy our pleasures unanxiously" seems again to bolster the points I was trying to make in post #92 above. Ataraxia and aponia become the condition (katastema) that is always available to us once we internalize Epicurus's teachings, freeing us to enjoy the pleasure that comes from our prudent choices of which desires will lead to a pleasurable life.

Quote from Cassius

I keep coming back in my mind to one of the biggest challenges here being the over-restrictive definition of pleasure that we live under today

Agreed. There's a linkage of "pleasure" with "profligacy" or "indulgence" in modern parlance... And it seems Ancient parlance, too.

Quote from Cassius

that if you feel ANYTHING at all (and we are constantly feeling lots of things as part of being alive) then those feelings are either (1) pleasure or (2) pain.

Agreed. I am coming around to feeling this and not just intellectually thinking it. I don't think there is a neutral state although I'm going to have to go back to Barrett and Lembke to think about this in light of their research. (Sent thoughts, Godfrey ?)

On a related note, it seems Dewitt was fully on board with katastematic and kinetic pleasures in Epicurus's philosophy.

To me, this is making more and more sense (in light especially of Metrodorus's book reference). We can be more sure of internal freedom from pain in the body and internal freedom from disturbances in the mind than we can of external sources of pleasure... Even if necessary pleasures are easy to come by. The katastematic pleasures of ataraxia and aponia are "states or conditions of being" generated from within ourselves. We free our minds from trouble and fear by internalizing Epicurus's principles on the gods, death, the nature of the universe, etc. - by mulling them over and accepting or rejecting their validity and veracity. We free our bodies from pain by healthy habits and prudent choices. *Ataraxia & aponia* allow for continuing pleasure regardless of external circumstances. If we have them, we have well-being (eudaimonia). Kinetic pleasures or pleasures of sight, sounds, touch, etc. vary the pleasure and we enjoy luxuries if and when they become available.

Not an entirely thought out position, but this is where I'm heading.

Quote from Cassius

I took that as a statement that pleasure is not always ever-present in one form or ano

ther, meaning that pleasure might not always be available as a guide.

Ah! Got it. Mea culpa.

I wasn't saying pleasure isn't or can't be present.

But, by definition (I think), if we're making a choice about an action, the pleasure we will get as a result of that action is in the future. We have not felt *that* pleasure yet but are using past and present pleasure to extrapolate into the future that *choice* A will bring X amount of pleasure in the future; choice B will bring Y amount of pleasure and Z amount of pain. If predicted X is greater than Y pleasure, I should go with choice A for that pleasure. (I'm excluding pain in the equation for ease of argument, but that would factor in if I were to choose C pain for greater future pleasure).

We're always weighing present pleasure being felt now or was in there past against future pleasure that will be felt then.

That's what I mean by the present guide and the future goal.

Quote from Cassius

I am kind of surprised that you take that position

Just so we're clear and I can verify that I'm making the point I thought I was:

What position do you think I'm taking?

Quote from Cassius

Pleasure can be thought of as a feeling which serves as a guide because it is ever-present in one form or another.

But pleasure isn't always being felt when making choices and rejections. True, we're either feeling pleasure or pain, but we're often extrapolating to future pleasure when making choices of actions.

Quote from Cassius

As for what the "goal" is - is not the "goal" something more conceptual that is not presently with us and may never be reached?

So, in light of my comment above, the pleasure we're aiming for as our goal is "not presently with us" which makes that pleasure the/a goal.

I see pleasure as both the guide and the goal.

We aim toward the goal of a pleasurable life. That's the "greatest good (thing)" to my understanding.

We use the goal of pleasure as the guide in making our choices and rejections.

Cassius , I like your phrasing better than Dewitt's and yours doesn't rely on "Latin doesn't have a definite article."

Quote from Cassius

I think the motivation of the "Wikipedians" is to reduce the types of pleasure to only those which are "approved" and that makes way for Platonic / Aristotelian categorization into "better or worse" pleasures.

I'm going to again stress that we're not dealing with a monolithic authoritarian editorial board of "Wikipedians." Each and every one of us has the ability to sign up for a free account and add content. Whether that's just External Links to pertinent papers on JSTOR or Academia or books, or actually adding prose edits in articles ***and backing them up with citations***, we can all do it. There's no barrier. I would have done it myself today but I was under the weather and took a sick day. My plan is to include some additional material directly in the katastematic article. It could use some bulking up.

What we're really dealing with here are people - the hoi polloi to use Epicurus's term - working under the influence of popular acculturation and academic indoctrination. They have not set sail in their own little boat, free from all indoctrination. The hoi polloi are not aware there's even a controversy. Although, I will admit there *may* be some Stoic or Platonic sympathizers selectively editing Wikipedia. Yet another reason to get an account, get on, and at least start providing some *referenced* counterpoints.

Quote from Cassius

"I've told you that "Pleasure" is the goal of life

I agree 100% with you. Why then, I ask, does Dewitt not want to just stop at saying this? Dewitt's whole "Epicurus didn't say pleasure was the greatest good. Life is the greatest good" is, in my opinion, an unnecessary obfuscation. When he writes in that paper Cassius posted today:

Quote

Pleasure Not the Greatest Good

IN SPITE of this teaching it was not the doctrine of Epicurus that pleasure was the greatest good. To his thinking the greatest good was life itself. This was a logical deduction from the denial of immortality. Without the afterlife this present life becomes the concentration of all values. Pleasure, or happiness, has its place as the end, goal or fulfilment of living.

It was the Stoics and Cicero who concocted and publicized the false report that Epicurus counted pleasure as the greatest good. This is mistakenly asserted in all our handbooks.

I see nowhere in any of Epicurus's writings or any early adherents of the Garden to substantiate a phrase like "Life is the greatest good." At least Dewitt does say "pleasure is the end, goal or fulfilment of living." But that's what the "greatest good" is although he tries to jump through some hoops to say otherwise. (Dewitt tries to use VS42)

This wording bothered me in DeWitt's book and it bothers me here. It seems a milquetoast concession to an uneasiness to just saying "Pleasure is the Greatest Good. It is the thing to which all things point."

Even if someone wants to say Epicurus was using the philosophical terminology of the other schools in saying "the greatest good" (I think this was not the case and that Epicurus was genuinely saying 'pleasure is the greatest good') "Life" can't be the "greatest good" because our lives can't point to life. That's a tautology. Maybe "Living is a pleasure."? Ok, but yeah.

I'm sorry to bring up the rabbit hole again, but it bothers me. To my understanding, pleasure is the greatest "thing" to which we can aspire in our lives because everything we do ends with "Should I do this?" And we answer the question in the end "is it pleasurable or painful?" If you ask"is it virtuous?" you have to answer a whole set of other questions that finally boil down to "will this provide me with pleasure or pain?"

I find Dewitt's formulation of "Life is the greatest good" a tad nonsensical. Of course, life - living - is great and a good thing but it's great because it's the only thing we have! We exist now. After we exist, we do not exist. Non Fui, Fui, Non Sum, Non Curo. Yes PD2 says "Death is nothing to us; for what has disintegrated lacks awareness, and what lacks awareness is nothing to us." Before we "disintegrate" we're alive, we're living, we're making choices and rejections, and that's great. That's a pleasurable thing to experience. But I'm not persuaded by his "no definite article in Latin" idea, not his saying the Stoics and Cicero are the ones responsible for "Pleasure is the greatest good" from what I've seen.

And I know this has been written and cited before by Cassius, so in the interest of fairness and to work on my citation habits:

File

Epicurus: The Summum Bonum Fallacy

The aim of this article is to show how the lack of a definite article in Latin obliterated the doctrine of Epicurus that life itself and not pleasure is the greatest good.

Cassius

February 13, 2022 at 4:00 PM

Common Fallacies About Epicurus (#2): Epicurus maintained that Pleasure is the “Greatest Good” – NewEpicurean

Oh, and btw, I am feeling a little better after sleeping much of today away. From miserable to uncomfortable. The terrible can be endured...

Quote from Kalosyni

I would add that your label of the "Wikipedia-Epicureans" would refer to the "tranquility-as-the-goal-Epicureans".

Exactly. Wikipedia editors (of which I am one and anyone else can be, too!) are, for the most part, entering third-party information that should be sourced. There is nothing - except time - stopping any of us or anyone else from entering information, citations, and references to Nikolsky, G&T, Wenham, DeWitt, Sedley, the sun-size paper author I forget their name, et al. to Epicurus-related articles on Wikipedia.

(Unless someone would like to share an experience that didn't go well in the past? Even so, the opportunity still exists.)

Quote from Godfrey

My thinking is that pleasure is typically a result. Desires are something that we can tangibly work with. Epicurus' concern is with describing practice, with things anybody can do to achieve pleasure. He doesn't care what type of pleasure you achieve, he's concerned with how you go about achieving pleasure. And to him, you do this by working with your desires and with your pains. If you understand your desires, you will be more effective at achieving pleasure. As you minimize your various pains, these will by definition be replaced with pleasure. But you must always remember that your guide and goal is pleasure. Understanding desires and removing pains are only tools for pursuing pleasure. We can also pursue various pleasures for pure enjoyment, but for an effective practice to achieve lasting pleasure he focused on working with desires and on things which cause pain.

Brilliant!

Quote from Godfrey

Correct me if I'm missing something, but I've never found a connection between pleasure and natural and necessary in any of the writings of Epicurus. The connection that he consistently makes, in all cases (at least in translation) is between natural and necessary and desires. In the PDs it's between desires and pains. But never pleasures.

You are correct. The word used is επιθυμία (epithymia "desire, yearning, longing; passion") not ηδονή (hedone)

Quote from Cassius

And I grant you it takes effort to get through the lengthy and detailed discussions in Gosling and Taylor and Nikolsky but they WILL help on this issue.

Before I dig into them again:

A) Do they accept that Epicurus used the terms katastematic and kinetic, but those terms have been given undue importance by ancient and modern commentators?

B) Do they assert that Epicurus never used the words?

If B, I have strong objections to that argument.

In fact, let me copy the relevant passage from DLX.136 (emphasis added

Quote

He differs from the Cyrenaics with regard to pleasure. They do not include under the term the pleasure which is a state of rest (καταστηματικὴν), but only that which consists in motion (κινήσει). Epicurus admits both ; also pleasure of mind as well as of body, as he states in his work On Choice and Avoidance and in that On the Ethical End, and in the first book of his work On Human Life and in the epistle to his philosopher friends in Mytilene. So also Diogenes in the seventeenth book of his Epilecta, and Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are : "Thus pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest." The words of Epicurus in his work On Choice (and Avoidance) are : "Peace of mind and freedom from pain are pleasures which imply a state of rest ; joy and delight are seen to consist in motion and activity."

So, what is DL "asserting" here?

• Cyrenaics only include kinetic pleasures under their definition of pleasure.
• Epicurus includes BOTH kinetic and katastematic in his definition.
• Where does Epicurus say BOTH pleasures are included? In the following works:
  • On Choice and Avoidance
  • On the Ethical End
  • the first book of his work On Human Life
  • the epistle to his philosopher friends in Mytilene
• Plus Metrodorus says both kinetic and katastematic pleasures are included in the Epicurean definition of Pleasure in Timocrates.
• Plus Diogenes (of Tarsus) says this in the seventeenth book of his Epilecta

There's no hierarchy asserted here. And the passage goes out of its way to say BOTH kinetic and katastematic pleasures are *included* in the Epicurean definition of pleasure in contrast to the Cyrenaics. And it cites *six* works that specifically make this point.

That's the kind of thing that needs to be accounted for: What's actually stated in the text.

PS. I should have also added that in addition to katastematic and kinetic pleasures, DL writes that Epicurus includes BOTH "pleasure of mind as well as of body." The Cyrenaics only included physical pleasure. So, those textual citations that DL cites appear to emphasize Epicurus included ALL pleasures: katastematic and kinetic, mental and physical, etc.

PPS. I'm wondering if Epicurus equated katastematic with mental and kinetic with physical? I'm not advocating that (yet), just raising the question.

Quote from Cassius

Unfortunately i cannot agree even with this statement.

It sincerely confuses me as to how you or anyone can say that. It's not Diogenes Laertius (DL) "asserting" this or even paraphrasing it. He's quoting Epicurus's On Choices and Metrodorus's Timocrates. I'll go back and read Gosling and Taylor and Nikolsky, of course, to refresh my memory of their arguments, but the ancient booktitles are there, and I think *that* has to be accounted for. If we start saying, "Oh, Epicurus didn't really write that in a book with that title!" we're on a Skeptical slippery slope as to what few ancient texts we have. The flip side of this is Cicero and his whole creation of the characters Villeius and Torquatus and being able to take creative liberties with their dialogue. Yes, we can be a little more skeptical and critical of his work. But DL makes a point of basically saying, "I'm not making this up. Here are their exact words from these books."

Quote from Cassius

Whatever Epicurus may have thought about K/K, those thoughts were not significant enough to make it into those key documents.

To that, I'd say "Bingo!" According to On Choices and other quoted material, Epicurus used the words katastematic and kinetic. Yes, I will continue to "assert" that. But *maybe* they weren't central to his philosophy because THEY'RE BOTH PLEASURES. He didn't see the need to belabor the point. He didn't put them in a hierarchy. He recognized that, sure, there are different kinds of pleasure. In fact, there are two general "species." But his philosophy stood on the assertion that PLEASURE is the Good to which everything else points. He then needed to demonstrate *how* to live pleasurably by making choices and rejections, etc. My take on the On Choices quote from Epicurus is (and I'll go ciceronian and put dialogue in his mouth):

Epicurus: "Sure, I'll agree with the general idea that there are katastematic and kinetic pleasures, but the important thing is that they're *both* pleasurable! You also have two hands. Do you lift heavy stones with only one hand? Of course not! In the same way, to have a pleasurable life you need to consider all pleasures as available to you, and choose among all pleasures prudently, making choices and rejections among them. There is a time for stillness, there is a time for dancing."

It's not Epicurus saying katastematic pleasures are the *only* Good or the *only* Telos, it's the ancient and modern commentators trying to paint him into a Platonic or Aristotlean corner. I'm seeing this through a Princess Bride lens with Epicurus saying to his critics and the academics on the word "katastematic": "I don't think it means what you think it means."

Quote from Cassius

what is hardly more than a footnote in DL assumes significance out of all proportion to anything else, and comes to be seized on so as to take the place of the core original point about pleasure in the first place.

Oh my, look at that. I think we might actually agree on that point.