Posts by Don

I neglected to include the Latin that comes after that phrase:

sentiri haec¹ putat

Why does Epicurus say it's not necessary to argue about this? I take this to mean "this is discernible to the senses." It's self-evident. It's like discussing if fire is hot. Duh!

I find parallels in all this in the natural, necessary discussion. The necessary desires should not, according to Epicurus, require a lot of labor to procure. If they do, maybe they're not necessary. Same thing with his saying, it's not necessary for me to try and convince you. If you can't see this, you're just not looking. I shouldn't have to work at concocting convoluted arguments to make you see pleasure is the Chief Good when it's as plain to see as fire is hot.

"Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that..."

Here's the original Latin:

itaque negat opus esse ratione neque disputatione,...

I think it's interesting that the exact word "necessity" is not used there. Instead, Cicero/Torquatus is using "opus" which (if you click the link for the definition) is normally "work, labor" but in the abstract sense can mean "need, necessity" I suppose "something that must be worked/labored for." So, I'm seeing that as Epicurus saying, according to this, "I refuse to put the work into making an argument (ratione) or having a discussion (disputatione) [about something that is SO self-evident] as..."'pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided'."

If students in later days wanted to do it, that was up to them to battle the Peripatetics and Stoics, but Epicurus was having none of it from my reading here.

Someone with better Latin skills than I (i.e., everyone), please feel free to weigh in!

Oh, I agree. Later Epicureans felt the need to combat their rivals on their turf using their weapons of logic, etc.

But that section you quote is not that. It's Epicurus pointing out that (emphasis added)

Quote from Cassius

Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict. Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided.

Quote from Cassius

Torquatus is saying that Epicurus didn't need that but Torquatus is specifically saying also that he (Torquatus) disagreed and thought the elaborate argument was a good idea

Exactly. And, frankly, I don't care if "Torquatus" thinks pleasure needs an elaborate logical argument. And I'm using " " to emphasize this isn't an Epicurean speaking, that is Cicero using the character of "Torquatus" to present Cicero's perspective/interpretation of the Epicurean position.

"Torquatus" lays out Epicurus's "pointing" in that section you quote. That's not an elaborate logical argument in your quoted section. That's Epicurus saying, look at nature!

When "Torquatus" is saying "logical method of procedure" all he's saying is it's logical for me to start by pointing out Epicurus's argument for why pleasure is the Chief Good... And he goes on to show how Epicurus pointed to why pleasure is the Chief Good.

1) Agreed.

2) Agreed, and I especially like:

Quote from Cassius

thinking about the consequences and the costs of any action is the way to select among them, since there is in fact no absolute rule of conduct that will tell you what to do in any situation other than to consider the resulting pain and pleasure.

3) Agreed. VS63 is an important one, especially the translation you've provided. But we have to be careful of what the original says. Looks like you're quoting Bailey. Here's his Commentary on that VS:

Quote from Bailey

LXIII is interesting as showing that Epicurus did not wish to push his idea of the simple life to excess: the ascetic will suffer bodily distress like the glutton and so fail to attain απονια. The text of the first few words is corrupt but has been set right by Usener. Bignone compares Hor. Sat. I. i. I02 ff. Von der Muehll reads εν λεπτότητι καθαριτοτης, but I do not understand the meaning of λεπτοτης here.

Here is Saint-Andre's commentary on that word:

Quote from St-Andre

The phrase ἐν λεπτότητι καθαριότης is somewhat obscure; καθαριότης means purity, cleanliness, neatness, scupulousness, integrity, elegance, refinement, simplicity, frugality, economy, etc., while λεπτότης means thinness, meagreness, fineness, delicacy, subtlety, etc. Can there be a purity in meagreness, a scrupulousness in delicacy, an integrity in fineness, a frugality in subtlety? Translating this phrase as "an elegance in simplicity" ties it to other statements Epicurus makes about both living beautifully (e.g., Vatican Saying #17) and living simply or naturally (e.g., Vatican Saying #21).

So, there fact that the first part is corrupted in the manuscript is an issue but it seems to me the general flavor of everyone's take does go in the direction Bailey takes it. Here's one more from a Rider essay on gratitude (sorry, don't have the exact cite right now):

Quote from Rider

There is also a proper measure for parsimony [en leptotēti], and he who does not reason it out is just as badly off as he who goes wrong by total neglect of limits.

If you want to look at the definition of λεπτότητι: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…y%3Dlepto%2Fths

Interesting enough from the definition, Epicurus also used the word to describe the eidola/images.

The "thinness, meagerness of the body" citation in the definition is to Plato's Laws which gives some credence to seeing the word used as poverty, etc. See last paragraph in English here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…b&lang=original

Quote from Plato, Laws

Athenian: And how about plunging into a bad state of body, such as leanness or ugliness or impotence? Should we be surprised if a man of his own free will ever

4) Cassius , you're bringing in the words "rigorously logical" and Epicurus's argument for pleasure as that to which everything else points is the exact opposite of that, especially in the Cicero section you quote. "Torquatus" is specifically saying Epicurus didn't need "elaborate argument"; he simply needed to point out that pleasure was the thing every living thing strives for. That is the definition of a Chief Good.

Personally, I'm coming around to agree with Daniel Dennett on free will. Just "Google" his name and "free will." There are some nice summary videos of him.

My take has been that Epicureans would prefer, as a political system, one that assures stability and personal freedom in a society, making the personal pursuit of pleasure as readily available as possible. The specific system (monarchy, democracy, anarchism, etc) would be subject to the "not harm nor be harmed" basic contract to judge its level of just rule.

Quote from Cassius

what is included in "pleasure" is extremely broad.

[Note: This turned into more of a personal statement than a direct response to this thread in the composing. I may end up moving it to my wall, but for now, here it is.]

It may be "extremely broad" but it's not limitless. From my reading, Epicurus's philosophy (as primarily transmitted to us through his writings, Lucretius, and Philodemus)* is one of rigorous personal responsibility for one's choices and a pursuit of the "health of the body and the serenity of the mind — since that is the goal of a completely blessed life." (Letter to Menoikeus) While it is true there are *numerous* personal pleasurable paths to this goal, the ancient Epicurean writers didn't shy away from discussing the "vices" that would make it difficult if not impossible to arrive at that goal. The teachers of the Garden didn't hesitate to engage their students in frank speech to "correct" their actions. It wasn't a loosey-goosey all-things-to-all-people, anything-goes, do-it-if-it-feels-good philosophy. That is more Cyrenaic than Epicurean. It's also not Platonic idealism to say some actions will generally lead to more pleasurable outcomes than others. Waffling on or downplaying some of the guardrails or boundary stones put in place by Epicurus does a disservice to the comprehensive nature of his philosophy.

That said, Epicurus doesn't give moral edicts like "no alcohol" or "no pork" or "no lying". He just said don't talk drivel when you drink, enjoy luxurious food if it is available, and no problem lying to protect your friends. The philosophy stressed the contextual nature of justice and ethics, but it also addressed the practical and expected outcomes of some of those contexts. If you drink too much for too long, you are responsible for your headache. If you are a glutton at dinner, you are responsible for your painful indigestion. If you're caught lying, you're responsible if you get caught. And Epicurus didn't shy away from calling out the negative consequences of certain actions and beliefs. The philosophy provides a more effective and practical way to live than many/most/all(?) of the alternatives, and Epicurus pointed the way without all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

*On sources: I'm generally distrustful of Cicero, a little more trusting of Seneca, and downright apprehensive about using the early Christian writers when they discuss Epicurus's philosophy, but we have no choice but to use them. That's why I only listed the three avowed Epicureans in the list above.

Quote from Cassius

I used "one conceptual path" as a proxy for "one way to live" in a general everyday sense - almost in a political - cultural - social sense, because that's where I see the concepts going -- "communism, capitalism, the kind of 'system' that's usually advocated for on conceptual grounds.

So, do you agree or not with my assertion that:

Quote from Don

Epicurus did, in fact, advocate for "one specific goal" - living the most pleasurable life - and "one way of life" - follow the guides of pleasure and pain to make your life choices.

Quote from Cassius

one conceptual path to follow

Could you define "one conceptual path" in reference to what I said in the first part of the post?

Quote from Cassius

the idea that there is one specific goal or one way of life that all people should follow

Oh, I have no problem saying Epicurus did, in fact, advocate for "one specific goal" - living the most pleasurable life - and "one way of life" - follow the guides of pleasure and pain to make your life choices. Otherwise, why would he found the Garden? Why would he write so many books, letters, and epitomes? He had an agenda. Lucretius fully believed Epicurus found the best path to organize one's life otherwise he wouldn't have written those soaring prefaces to the books of his poem. Epicurus and his students and successors waged word-battles, tooth and nail, against rival schools because they felt Epicurus's teaching and his way of living were superior to all the other alternatives. There was an "evangelist" quality to the spread of the philosophy precisely because those spreading the word felt the way of life advocated by Epicurus could help people live more fulfilling lives.

Epicurus's relativism in ethics or justice doesn't preclude him saying "Your philosophy, Plato/Aristotle/etc, will not lead to a pleasant life. Mine will!"

I'm not willing to cede the battlefield and Epicurus's own words to the enemy and play by their rules. If words like "goal" and "the good" are used by "the other side," I'm happy to redefine them with more material, tangible meanings.

Whew!! Okay, so I got that off my chest then... [steps down from soapbox, motions for next person to take the stage]

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Or What is the point of Epicurus's philosophy?

To me, that answer would be "the greatest good". I'm seeing the greatest good (is it good as in pleasing/right or good as in wares/household goods?), the goal, telos, etc as closely related if not synonymous myself.

Later.

Probably yesterday or the day before I would myself use exactly those words, and I may use them later today or tomorrow.

But I increasingly get the feeling that without strict qualification this approach is what Epicurus warned against, and that Godfrey is pointing the same way as Camotero who is stating the issue very well:

Quote from camotero

I think "the greatest good" is here being used as a platonic ideal. I think Epicurus philosophy pointed to something very material instead: Teaching how to care for the only object you can really possess (life) and how to give it the best use possible (following pleasure) while being able to resolve confusions about it (the canon).

Display More

Against my better judgement, I looked at my phone. I can resist anything but temptation. Or to put that more Epicureanly, I *choose* to not resist temptation.

Two points, and I'm off again until this evening:

Cassius : I don't really understand your reluctance or uneasiness about "those words." Epicurus repeatedly uses telos (goal) and tagathon (the good) throughout his extant writings.

Mathitis Kipouros : I think you've hit the nail on the head with your comment. Other philosophers looked to something intangible outside of nature as "the greatest good" like Virtue. Epicurus said "No, the greatest good is right here. You can feel it." That, to me, is his point. That's why the Tetrapharmakos can say "The good (tagathon) is easy to get." By the good, I read pleasure there. It's right here in front of you. Carpe the diem .

Epicurus is taking their abstract, obtuse concepts and giving them real, tangible, natural antecedents.

All for now. Great frank conversation!!

I have more to respond, but it won't be until this evening at least.

For now, I'd just ask, for anyone who wants to think about it: How would you answer this question? To what does Epicurus's philosophy point? Or What is the point of Epicurus's philosophy?

To me, that answer would be "the greatest good". I'm seeing the greatest good (is it good as in pleasing/right or good as in wares/household goods?), the goal, telos, etc as closely related if not synonymous myself.

Later.

To the best of my knowledge, Epicurus never made logical arguments for the "goodness of pleasure" but rather asserted it was self-evident and needed no proof (Tsouna, The Ethics of Philodemus p. 17 citing Demetrius Lacon, PHerc. 1012).

Later Epicureans, like Cicero's Torquatus character, maintained logical proofs were needed to combat the arguments of other schools.

That being said, if you know of a reference to Epicurus making logical arguments for pleasure as the goal, please share! That's not a challenge. Just a desire to learn!

Quote from Cassius

This conversation is driving me ever de pere to the position that Torquatus abandoned, and which Epicurus asserted, that logical proofs over the nature of pleasure are not appropriate.

That's been my position all along, especially in light of the quote from DL I just added above and here again:

Quote from Diogenes Laertius, X.137

as proof that pleasure is the end [Epicurus] adduces the fact that living things, so soon as they are born, are well content with pleasure and are at enmity with pain, by the prompting of nature and apart from reason.

Quote from camotero

Was I interpreting this wrong?

No, I don't think so. I should probably have written "Death would be the greatest evil" but even that may be overstating. But"life as the greatest good" per DeWitt doesn't strike me as helpful. It's not life per se. I think Epicurus would ask what's the kind of life you're living. Is it directed toward pleasure? Are you making choices based on moving your life in a pleasurable direction? Are you loving and practicing wisdom (ie, applying Epicurean philosophy) ?

Quote from Cassius

I agree with all that as a matter of one way of presenting the logic of stating that pleasure is the alpha and omega and all that. However in the end the logical statement comes back to the "feeling" of pleasure which is not something that can be uniformly defined for all people at all places and all times.

It's not a statement of logic. Epicurus was identifying the one thing - given to us by nature or natural selection/evolution - not gods, not God, not logic - that we could steer our own little boats by. Those feelings of pleasure and pain are the only reliable guides - not virtue, not logic. He wasn't positing a logical argument. He was pointing out what nature had provided for us. He didn't think it needed a logical proof because it was self-evident. Pleasure is "the end fixed by nature" in the Letter to Menoikeus. PD25 talks about "refer each of your actions to the end prescribed by nature."

PS: This is the other quote from DL X.137 I was looking for:

Quote from Diogenes Laertius

..as proof that pleasure is the end [Epicurus] adduces the fact that living things, so soon as they are born, are well content with pleasure and are at enmity with pain, by the prompting of nature and apart from reason.

Quote from Cassius

This formulation presumes that we have the ability to discover something that completely and accurately fulfills this definition for all times, all places, all people. I suspect rather strongly that that is not possible. THE end? Why should we presume that there is only one. Or that it is the same for all?

It seems to me you're conflating moral/ethical ends with instrumental or practical ends. Pleasure is THE (to use your capitalization) end to which everything points. Why are people virtuous? Because it gives them pleasure. Why do babies suckle? Because it gives them pleasure. And so on. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is the only thing that is "the same for all."

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Which is the definition of the "greatest good."

Well you SAY that, but I am not sure Epicurus would enthusiastically endorse that exact construction.

Is that in the PDS or even the letter to Menorceus? I don't think that "greatest good" appears there, does it?

We need to define terms. What are we referring to in the texts when we use "the good" or "the greatest good"? Are we talking about when Epicurus only uses ταγαθον (tagathon) "the good" as it appears in the Tetrapharmakos or Fragment 67 (can't conceive of "the good" ταγαθον without...) ?

Or the "primary and innate good" in the Letter to Menoikeus:

"This is why we say that pleasure is the beginning and the end of a completely happy life. For we recognize it as the primary and innate good, we honor it in everything we accept or reject, and we achieve it if we judge every good thing by the standard of how that thing affects us."

Are we referring to what Epicurus calls the telos? Cicero and Lucretius's summum bonum?

I think it might behoove is to gather every mention of each of these and their context and how they're defined. Otherwise, we're groping around in the dark.

Quote from Cassius

there is nothing that is INTRINSICALLY desirable other than pleasure itself.

Which is the definition of the "greatest good."