New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Right. They put out position papers stating their objections. You make a statement, plant your flag, and move on.
Although, I suppose we need to have refutations ready at hand... So, I suppose I can see where you're coming from.
It would be soooo nice to have just ONE of those 
That's a "ha ha I wish we could" rather than a "ha ha you're funny"
Well, what's stopping us? 
Display MoreDisplay MoreAn Epicurean dialogue may go:
Epicurus: Does this action you desire bring pleasure now?
Pythocles: Yes.
E: Then it is good. However, let me ask, Does this same action bring pain in the future?
P: Possibly.
E: Ah! Does the pleasure you would feel now outweigh the pain you will feel later?
P: The pain, I imagine, would be long-lived for my life
E: Then choose wisely with that in mind. Even though your action brings pleasure now, consider the goal is leading the most pleasurable life.
Yes of course I agree that to be the practical conclusion.
Again unfortunately, we are faced with the problem that the overbearing established viewpoint starts before that point, and wants to question whether pleasure is in fact, or can in fact, be considered to be "the" legitimate goal or even "a" legitimate goal.
Plato and Aristotle and the rest cut their knees off at the earlier stage because through their logical arguments they convince people that they should not even consider pleasure to be "A" good, much less "the" good.
Well, then, maybe the position is simply to assert "Forget Plato and Aristotle." They've constructed a Potemkin village of illusion and made you live it. Abandon all brainwashing and set sail in your own little boat
Not everyone will want to fight that battle, but it is probably where the Epicureans were ultimately defeated - when they stopped fighting it and gave in on the issue to the group that Torquatus says he agreed with.
An Epicurean dialogue may go:
Epicurus: Does this action you desire bring pleasure now?
Pythocles: Yes.
E: Then it is good. However, let me ask, Does this same action bring pain in the future?
P: Possibly.
E: Ah! Does the pleasure you would feel now outweigh the pain you will feel later?
P: The pain, I imagine, would be long-lived for my life
E: Then choose wisely with that in mind. Even though your action brings pleasure now, consider the goal is leading the most pleasurable life.
And this is all off the cuff. I reserve the right to extend and amend my remarks
This discussion about "one and many" (and universals) implies some kind of "essence" linking all the members of a class together. That was rejected outright by Epicurus if I remember correctly.
I think we fall into the trap of fighting in the enemies' arena if we go too far down this way. They've created ingenuous trap doors and hidden hazards on their playing field. I don't know how profitable it is to argue with them if we can't even agree on ground rules. I think that's one of the major problems with the later Epicureans brought up in De finibus.
Personally, I think Socrates is making a mountain out of a molehill. As humans, we categorize things all the time, focusing on some characteristics and excluding others. Libraries do this with books. A book about ice skating in Greenland: is it a book about ice skating? Is it a book about Greenland? Pick one. Move along. Just like "the one" of sports. Is football a sport? Is badminton a sport? Is chess a sport? Are there many sports or one sport? We categorize things. Get over it. It's not a big deal.
I think also though that this is a different problem than the one he makes for pleasure. There I think he's intentionally confusing two things: the feeling itself and the sources of that feeling.
That's a lot of text! I didn't read all the gadfly's arguments, but here's my take.
Socrates is doing a semantic slight of hand. He's using (the feeling of) pleasure and (something that gives) pleasure synonymously.
My position is that Epicurus used the FEELING of pleasure as the standard, highest good, etc., irregardless of its source. This gets at the personal, inward pathē nature of pleasure Epicurus was talking about.
Socrates uses pleasure in the sense of "a pleasure" as in "a source of pleasure."
There are many sources of pleasure, but someone can tell if they're feeling pleasure.
I completely agree it's up to Kalosyni to say if she is in agreement with what Godfrey and I have added.
But, it at least seems to me, by entertaining the idea that pleasure can be the guiding principle of one's life, to quote Obi-Wan Kenobi (to stick with Star Wars references), "You've taken your first step into a larger world."
I sympathize with Cassius 's perspective and concerns, but...
A. The ultimate goal that I would like to choose for myself is to live joyously and sweetly.
B. The guide to my living joyously and sweetly is to use pleasure which is governed by wisdom and reason.
So for me it is to pursue pleasure when governed by reason and wisdom. And to be kind to myself when I make errors in judgement (which invariably will happen). Or, if at times I act out of impulse (without considering the consequences of my actions) then I shouldn't be surprised by the chance of experiencing unexpected consequences which may lead to less joy and less sweetness.
I think you know more than you think you do.
A. Yes! Agreed! 
B. Yes, although I'd suggest a slight edit...
Using wisdom and reason, I make choices to pursue my goal of living joyously and sweetly (i.e., pleasurably).
Wisdom and reason in this case are instrumental goods used to work toward the highest good of living joyously and sweetly.
As to your last part, Epicurus had this to say:
"some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency."
meme from one of the early Star Wars movies where the rebel general exclaims "It's a trick!"
https://www.dictionary.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/its-a-trap-300x300.gif
Oh, you know I'm itching to "reply" to Socrates, but I'll control myself.
defining every desirable experience in life as pleasure - because we feel it to be desirable.
Hmmm. I may quibble with your wording and want to debate *again* the importance of the distinction between desires and "pleasure as the feeling and guide"... But I'll control myself until Kalosyni has a chance to consider our back and forth and respond.
Before Don and I go too far in debating what "others" may be doing, we really need to hear back from Kalosyni to hear more explanation from her on what she means in saying:
Multiple components comprise the Epicurean life. There is more to laud in the "sweetest life" than just pleasure.
Multiple components comprise the Epicurean life. There is more to laud in the "sweetest life" than just pleasure.
To return to Kalosyni 's original statement...
The are myriad, numerous experiences and components to laud in the "sweetest life", but the most important - the "highest" thing - to laud IS that they are part of our sweetest life possible. According to Epicurus, all we choose to do should point us in the direction of living the sweetest life. Sometimes we choose (or have no choice due to disease, death of someone close, etc.) to experience pain for a greater, pleasurable goal. I seem to always use the example of the choice of the pain of exercise 
Epicurus gives us agency to affect the arc of our life. We do not live at the whims of Fate. We choose. We reject. We live!
That *was* Epicurus's rebellion against SPA (I'll be contrary and say ΣΠΑ ) "You're all wrong. The highest good - the star by which you should steer your ship - is the feeling of pleasure or pain. Steer towards pleasure. I don't have to 'prove' this with flowery rhetoric or fancy logic. I point to children and animals, to blessed Nature herself. That is sufficient. You all are deluding yourselves and your students with talk of virtue and 'the beautiful, the honorable (kalos).' I spit on the kalos unless it brings pleasure!"
Decades ago (literally), I remember thinking (and I'm sure it's not original to me) that "the meaning of life is a verb, not a noun." Life is meant to be lived.
Now I think, Epicurus's philosophy is that life is meant to be lived pleasurably. Our life's path points to pleasure as our North Star. It is the destination. Along the way there will be obstacles, taking our path along circuitous routes to that goal, some painful and tortuous. But we keep our eyes on the North Star to guide us in the right direction.
"Let no one put off the love and practice of wisdom [note] when young, nor grow tired of it when old."
Yep, because the practice of philosophy "the love and practice of wisdom" leads to living pleasurably (also translated sweetly, joyously).
"Practical wisdom is the foundation of all these things and is the greatest good. Thus practical wisdom is more valuable than philosophy and is the source of every other excellence [note], teaching us that it is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously. [note] For the excellences grow up together with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life is inseparable from them."
The context is important here, too. In the lines directly before this, Epicurus is writing about not endorsing the pleasures of the profligate and making decisions that will lead to a pleasurable life. Practical wisdom - phronesis - is essential for making those decisions on what desires to choose and which to reject to pursue a pleasurable life. The pleasurable life is "inseparable from them" precisely because they are instrumental to the highest good.
I would agree that there are multiple pleasures and multiple components that lead to a pleasurable life.
Saying "pleasure is the highest good" doesn't mean it's the "best good thing among rivals." It means it's the goid thing toward which every other rival points. It's at the apex of possible candidates for all good things. That doesn't mean prudence isn't good. We practice prudence and justice and virtue because they lead to pleasure. They are instrumental goods to leading a pleasurable life, which is the highest good.
I'll dig up my translation of the Letter and respond to your excerpts asap.
