Posts by Don

Ask and ye shall receive... The Lucretius bits of the Caldwell diary (attached)

I hope you don't mind, but I couldn't resist trying to find the books you mentioned online. The Tyndall one of far more detailed about Epicurus than I expected.

Quote from JJElbert

John Tyndall; The Belfast Address; 1874. A history of atomism, and an argument against the 'God of the Gaps'.

Address delivered before the British association assembled at Belfast.

Quote from JJElbert

George Santayana; Three Philosophical Poets;1910. Contrasts Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe.

Three philosophical poets: Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe, by George Santayana...

Quote from JJElbert

James Parks Caldwell; Diary; 1863-1864. Prison diary of a Confederate soldier, praises Lucretius.

I wasn't able to find this one freely available. It appears the diary was first published in book form in A Northern Confederate at Johnson's Island Prison: The Civil War Diaries of James Parks Caldwell, George H. Jones, Ed. 2010. 277 pages.

"A college graduate at 16 and a founder of the Sigma Chi fraternity, Caldwell entered the Confederate Army as an artillery lieutenant. He fought at Shiloh, Port Hudson and other campaigns before being captured in 1863 and imprisoned on Johnson's Island, in Lake Erie, near Sandusky, Ohio. He kept a daily diary for 18 months, describing the prison food and conditions, as well as his classical and intellectual interests. The book features letters, a poem, notes, and an index."

I hope you don't mind, but I couldn't resist trying to find the books you mentioned online. The Tyndall one of far more detailed about Epicurus than I expected.

Quote from JJElbert

John Tyndall; The Belfast Address; 1874. A history of atomism, and an argument against the 'God of the Gaps'.

Address delivered before the British association assembled at Belfast.

Quote from JJElbert

George Santayana; Three Philosophical Poets;1910. Contrasts Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe.

Three philosophical poets: Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe, by George Santayana...

Quote from JJElbert

James Parks Caldwell; Diary; 1863-1864. Prison diary of a Confederate soldier, praises Lucretius.

I wasn't able to find this one freely available. It appears the diary was first published in book form in A Northern Confederate at Johnson's Island Prison: The Civil War Diaries of James Parks Caldwell, George H. Jones, Ed. 2010. 277 pages.

"A college graduate at 16 and a founder of the Sigma Chi fraternity, Caldwell entered the Confederate Army as an artillery lieutenant. He fought at Shiloh, Port Hudson and other campaigns before being captured in 1863 and imprisoned on Johnson's Island, in Lake Erie, near Sandusky, Ohio. He kept a daily diary for 18 months, describing the prison food and conditions, as well as his classical and intellectual interests. The book features letters, a poem, notes, and an index."

Quote from Cassius

The way the quote system works these look like quotes from Kalosyni but of course they are from the article.

Yes, very important to point out. The only way I've found to get around that is to use the html editor and replace the name in the data-author field inside the woltlab element. Needles to say, it's a tad tedious.

Quote from Cassius

The main difference I see between Sedley and DeWitt is that Sedley writes to an academic audience and he doesn't make it his goal to write to average readers and to disabuse them of the ideas presented in the quoted-from article. That's what DeWitt does.

I knew my comment would get a reaction But seriously, I definitely see your point and the importance of the course of events set in motion by your reading Epicurus and His Philosophy cannot be overstated.

Personally, and this due to the style of delivery, his penchant to sometimes not cite his sources, and his over-the-top Christianity spotting, I much prefer reading DeWitt's academic papers over Epicurus and His Philosophy. Not to mention Epicurus and St. Paul. But I freely admit DeWitt is a top notch scholar (and advocate) of Epicurus and very worth reading.

Quote from Godfrey

That leads to quite a different understanding than "Aristippus sets as the goal of life a constant round of active pleasures." Looks like a fruitful paper!

I've really found Sedley to be my go-to modern scholar, much more so than even Dewitt (Shhh! Don't tell Cassius !)

I have some issues with the Mt. SAC summary of Epicurus's philosophy. I tried to dig up another source for comparison:

Quote

According to Aelian (VH 14.6 = SSR 174, part),

Aristippus…advised people not to pain themselves either in memory of what is past or in anticipation of future events (μήτε τοῖς παρελθοῦσιν ἐπικάμνειν μήτε τῶν ἐπιόντων προκάμνειν).…His advice was to keep one’s thought focused on the day, and in fact on that part of the day in which one was carrying out this or that action or thought. For only the present is ours, he said, unlike what is already over and what is still awaited, of which the former has perished, while with the latter it is unclear whether it will be.

From Sedley, Epicurean versus Cyrenaic Happiness

About half way through, will listen in commute home.

I'm beginning to think the biological "homeostasis" is the (or is akin to the) Epicurean "health of the body and serenity of the mind."

Thoughts, Godfrey ?

Quote from Godfrey

PD03 isn't an unattainable goal, I think we've all had moments of experiencing the limit. But if we were able to live constantly in that state, then we'd be like the gods!

Ok I think I can give you that one. It's just not an attainable permanent state.

The Next Big Idea: FEELING & KNOWING: Unlocking the Secrets of Consciousness

Look up the term “Renaissance man” in the dictionary, and you'll probably find a photo of Antonio Damasio. He is a polyglot, an avid reader of fiction, a…

wondery.com

Just started listening to this, but it's quite interesting so far. I'll be interested if Godfrey has lapped me We seem to listen to similar podcasts.

I get the impression that Domasio is using "feelings" like Lisa Feldman Barrett is using the word "emotions."

Quote from Godfrey

PD03, PD09 and PD10 are all interesting in that they are providing counterfactual arguments (I think "absurdities" is too strong of a word) while at the same time adding clarity and details to those looking for it.

Hmm. I not sure PD03 is counterfactual as much as it is an unattainable goal (unless you're a god!). If a person was exclusively experiencing no pain in their body or mind anywhere, they would, by definition, be experiencing nothing but pleasure. Once that state (again only attainable by a god) is reached, pleasure cannot be "increased" but simply varied.

I freely admit I may be using "unattainable goal" to mean the same thing as Godfrey's "counterfactual" like the rank/compare debate I just had with Cassius.

I'm using Nathan's compilation again for reference here:

ὅρος τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἡδονῶν ἡ παντὸς τοῦ ἀλγοῦντος ὑπεξαίρεσις. ὅπου δʼἂν τὸ ἡδόμενον ἐνῇ, καθʼὃν ἂν χρόνον ᾖ, ουκ ἔστι τὸ ἀλγοῦν ἢ λυπούμενον ἢ τὸ συναμφότερον.

“The limit of great pleasures is the removal of everything which can give pain. And where pleasure is, as long as it lasts, that which gives pain, or that which feels pain, or both of them, are absent.” Yonge (1853)

“The magnitude of pleasures is limited by the removal of all pain. Wherever there is pleasure, so long as it is present, there is no pain either of body or of mind or both.” Hicks (1910)

“The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together.” (Hicks 1925)

“The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body nor of mind, nor of both at once.” Bailey (1926)

“The removal of all pain is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. And wherever the experience of pleasure is present, so long as it prevails, there is no pain or distress or acombination of them.” (De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 226, 241; 1954)

“The removal of all that causes pain marks the boundary of pleasure. Wherever pleasure is present and as long as it continues, there is neither suffering nor grieving nor both togethers.” Geer (1964)

“The removal of all pain is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, pain or distress or their combination is absent.” (Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115; 1987)

“The limit of the extent of pleasure is the removal of all pain. Wherever pleasure is present, for however long a time, there can be no pain or grief, or both of these.” O'Connor (1993)

“The removal of all feeling of pain is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Wherever a pleasurable feeling is present, for as long as it is present, there is neither a feeling of pain nor a feeling of distress, nor both together.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“Pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of all sources of pain. When such pleasure is present, for as long as it lasts, there is no cause of physical nor mental pain present – nor of both together.” Anderson (2004)

“Pleasure has its <upper> limit in the removal of everything that produces pain. For, wherever that which produces pleasure resides, for as long as it abides, there can be nothing that produces pain, grief, or both.” Makridis (2005)

“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.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“The quantitative limit of pleasure is the elimination of all feelings of pain. Wherever the pleasurable state exists, there is neither bodily pain nor mental pain nor both together, so long as the state continues.” Strodach (2012)

“The limit of pleasure is reached with the removal of all pain. Whenever pleasure is present, and for however long, there is neither pain nor grief nor any combination of the two.” Mensch (2018)

Quote from Godfrey

Over the millennia and through various languages and various intentions, that word "pleasure" has taken on a life of its own. Kind of like the word "Epicurean"

I would agree. Pleasure, especially in Christian theology, seems to have become equated with sin and vice. Suffering and pain would be rewarded in the afterlife, unless you ended up in the Bad Place or even Purgatory where you had to be purged and purified of your sin. Did/do they use the word "pleasure" even to refer to the Good Place? Or talk around it with words like bliss or rejoicing or something?

Quote from Cassius

It is very interesting to me how when we spoke on the podcast we seemed to more easily agree that we were on the same page, but in putting the positions down in writing we seem to find agreement harder.

Honestly, the time delay in writing and the inability to actually have a conversation might be part of it.

Plus I let my passions get the better of me on that post. I'm gonna give a little mea culpa on that one.

Quote from Cassius

Maybe you would prefer to use another word than "ranking" because you think all rankings require an outside standard, but that would again be a definitional choice on which to be clear and it's not my understanding that the word "ranking" and the "process of ranking' must require an absolute standard - it seems to me the word can be used properly referring only to our own individual standard that is in fact contextual, as you say, and changes even within us over time and circumstance.

Okay, yes yes. I think we are understanding the word "rank" in two different senses. That's seems to be the crux of my issue. Not that rank doesn't have the two senses but we're let's say talking past each other. That's the issue with posting rather than talking! That could have been resolved in a back and forth in two minutes rather than multiple posts over a week.

To me the word "rank" is a fixed order. I got no problem with "comparing" two or more options on the fly with the caveat of comparing them again later. So if you use "rank" I'm going to substitute "compare."

So, with reading your thoughtful, methodical post above it seems we ARE in agreement. Whew! LOL! Thank you for your patience!!

Quote from Cassius

I would say that this is one of those areas where once we identify an absurdity (the assertion that all pleasures are identical in every respect) we immediately reject it as having possibly been Epicurus' position and we immediately go elsewhere looking for a proper understanding of his assertions.

That was my point in an earlier post. Epicurus is saying in PD09 "If X were the case, then Y" but he's asserting a counterfactual. PD09 has to do with the impossibility of equating all the possible pleasureable activities in which humans can engage. They're all distinct, but similar in that they bring pleasure. They can't be condensed etc however. There are many pleasures which we can desire and these desires must be chosen or rejected based on measuring them against the criteria of whether those desires fulfilled will lead to a more pleasurable life or not. Not measured against a hierarchy somewhere.

I've also come to think that PD09 is directly related to PD10. That's another counterfactual "If X were the case, then Y." PD09 establishes there are myriad pleasures. PD10 established those pleasures enjoyed by the profligate ARE pleasurable but not necessarily choice-worthy because they don't dispel fears of death, etc., and do not lead to a more pleasureable life.

Quote from Cassius

I do think that pleasures have to be ranked so that we can intelligently choose between them.

No, no, no. I thought we had agreed on this one. We choose by applying whether a specific pleasurable activity leads to a more pleasurable life. We don't need to consult a list or ranking or hierarchy. We should not "rank" pleasurable activities in the abstract. There is no absolute hierarchy for all time of pleasures even for the individual.

All we can say is right here, right now, this activity option before me would lead to a more pleasurable life, therefore, at this time, I will choose to engage in this. This activity which I desire to engage in in the future may be pleasurable in that future moment, but will in the end bring more pain into my life. Therefore, I reject it. I reject that anyone can sit down, go through a list of let's say 100 pleasures and rank them and adhere to that list for all time at every moment throughout their life. What is choice-worthy is contextual, dependent on circumstances, and what is choice-worthy now may not be when circumstances are similar in the future.

Quote from Kalosyni

So considering things for their long term pleasure...

A habit of eating candy has a high likelihood of resulting in tooth decay and a trip to the dentist (not fun!).

Exactly! There's nothing "morally" wrong with getting pleasure from eating candy from time to time. You can make that "calculation" and choose that pleasure. That adds variety to your pleasure if the candy was easily gotten. If you eat candy at every meal and between, that may be pleasurable in the moment, but over time it's going to provide more pain to your life than pleasure.

Quote from Kalosyni

Instead of "moral rightness or wrongness" would replace that with "joy and enjoyment vs. "pain".

I could concur with that, I think. Epicurus dealt in justice as a contract, so that morality of the Utilitarians seems problematic to me.

Quote from Kalosyni

The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1747–1832) for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to induce.

Bentham was definitely influenced by Epicurus's philosophy, but Bentham was not an Epicurean. I think we are talking about making a sort of "calculus" in the broad sense, but as I remember the Utilitarian felicific calculus is much more analytical and literally a calculation of adding up hedons (units of pleasure) and the pain units (word escapes me). The circumstances aren't a bad list of characteristics to consider, but I'm skeptical they can really be quantified like the Utilitarians want to.

Quote from Cassius

That is EXACTLY what I am saying!

Alright! Look at that. And it only took several days and a number of posts

Quote from Cassius

And then the appropriate decision for that person is to pursue that decision with all the energy they can muster:-)

Well, that part sounds like a lot of work. Is that the pain to endure for a "greater" pleasure?

Quote from Cassius

I think in regard to that distinction we are really talking subtle preferences in words.

Subtle but important. I think we're getting somewhere now though!

Quote from Cassius

I use "better" when I mean to refer to some kind of intrinsic "nobler" or "worthier," and I am not meaning to refer to that in terms of pleasure, so I don't call one pleasure "better" than another unless I am trying to be very clear that "better" is subjective and really means something else (more intense, longer lasting, or some other feeling.)

Cool. Okay, I think I'm good with that. So, "better" is just a subjective feeling and not a value judgement. "I like to eat chocolate better than coffee candy" is a fine sentence to use in everyday life. Or even "Chocolate candy is better than coffee candy" is fine as well as a subjective emotional personal reaction to an experience. And you're using "greater" as a synonym for "better" in this narrow, subjective sense? If that's your take, we're sympatico here.

Quote from Cassius

I clearly and emphatically in my own life would rank the pleasure of pursuing philosophy or the hobby in a hiearchy such that I devote much more time and attention to it than to eating candy.

Ah! Here we go! The ranking is where our two roads are diverging. Why do you insist a "ranking" is necessary? (Are you?)

You mention that the pleasure of pursuing philosophy is "higher" in your hierarchy of pleasurable activities than eating candy? As if it was predetermined or (gasp) ordained that this is so.

I would say you've simply determined, through reasoned, prudent application of seeing the goal as the pursuit of a pleasurable life, that the pleasure of studying philosophy will lead more assuredly and more efficaciously to a pleasurable life than the mere eating of candy will. You still enjoy eating candy, right? It's still pleasurable? You are just going to devote more time to something (i.e., philosophy) that will be of more help in leading you toward the goal of having a pleasurable life than you will indulging in some candy now and then.

My point is that it doesn't matter where a specific pleasurable activity falls in some conceptual hierarchy that you might sit down and construct. I realize you haven't (I'm assuming) sat down and categorized ALL the possible pleasures in your life into a concrete, written hierarchy that you consult in making a decision. You determine, at any given minute, this is a choice I can make that will lead to a pleasurable life. The hard thing is to do this deliberately, prudently, and consciously and not be buffeted by the winds of fate and chance, pushed along mindlessly. That's where I get that Epicureanism is a philosophy of personal responsibility for one's actions and decisions.

Now, if saying the pursuit of philosophy is a "greater" pleasure than eating candy is your shorthand for that wordy paragraph, we're on the same page. If not, let the games continue

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

My position is that the common denominator is simply that all things that result in pleasure is simply the fact that they bring pleasure. Sometimes for a short time, sometimes long, sometimes intense, sometimes subtle. But it's *always* pleasure

I have absolutely no problem with that statement so I wonder what you think is the best way to state what it appears to you we are disagreeing about(?)

Good question

My interpretation of what you're saying (and PLEASE correct me if I'm misinterpreting!) is that your position is that some pleasures are "better"/"greater" than others: e g., Eating chocolate candies is "better" than eating coffee candies (for you). Pleasures can be "ranked."

My position is that ranking pleasures into a hierarchy is a pointless exercise. All things which give pleasure give pleasure, period, by definition. BUT, and this is Epicurus's innovation, they also differ from each other, including importantly the context within which the pleasure is experienced. Pleasure is a common characteristic of pleasurable experiences. We are attracted by pleasure. Pleasure is a good thing. But those who denigrate pleasure try to reduce it to a monolithic hornets nest of vice and something to be shunned and mistrusted. Epicurus says, "No, pleasure is pleasurable. Duh! Why would we reject it?" BUT just because all pleasure is pleasurable, doesn't mean you have to experience EVERY pleasurable thing.

The ONLY thing that matters is the pleasure-giving experience in front of you at any given moment - or that is planned for in the future - and the choice of whether or not to pursue or reject THAT pleasure using the criteria of whether or not THAT pleasure leads to a more pleasurable life experience or not. It's contextual. This pleasure may be indulged in now here, but at another time and place it should be rejected or delayed.

PS: In just reading the De Finibus sections you've laid out for Ep. 94, I think "Torquatus" is laying out this same argument.