Posts by Don

Hmmm...

Logismos appears to be just the mental faculty to "reason" things out in everyday life. I think of it as the decision-making ability of the mind. Logismos would be the colloquial name of the ability people use when someone has made a "reasonable" decision. I **think** it would equate to your "everyday" understanding of the word "logic" you've been using, Cassius .

I would concur with your last two paragraphs. I think Epicurus would include formal logic within the paideia (enculturation; instruction; indoctrination) he criticised, ex. "Set sail in your own little boat, free from all paideia."

Here's the LSJ entry for λογισμός (logismos) http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=logismo/s

As you'll see, it references PD 16 specifically (Epicur. Sent. 16) as "reasoning power." This does not refer to "formal" logic. Here's an article about Aristotle's formal logic:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

The word most often used there is sullogismos συλλογισμός

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ry=sullogismo/s

This has more to do with calculation, computation.

Okay, I have no strong feelings in pushing that analogy. I do contend that anger can be pleasurable (as Elayne said above), but again I haven't no strong urge to flog the social media analogy.

I have to go back and re-read Tsouna's chapter on anger and pick out any excerpts from Philodemus's On Anger or start another thread if Godfrey is interested in exploring that.

This bliss pill/PD 10 thread has unfortunately taken on the odor of a Platonic dialogue to me, and I freely admit I've contributed to the stench. I feel it's turned into a lot of wordplay, Socrates-esque gadflying, and argument for arguments sake. Y'all may have a different take, but the pleasure is decreasing. Plus, I think the practical benefit is decreasing the longer it goes on. I don't necessarily think Epicurus would be pleased. I think I'm going to tap out, but feel free to continue in my absence on this particular topic.

Quote from Don

When choosing a course of action, which choice gives you pleasure?

I will admit I've actually done this in making life decisions, specifically career choices. And I think I've made the right decision. Reason has entered in and made need second guess, but I still think I made correct initial decisions then was able to reason out that it was correct for these additional reasons.

Quote from Cassius

"When making decisions, don't use logic and reason, use the Epicurean canon."

Thoughts off the top of my head:

1) Nobody outside a small circle knows what the "Epicurean canon" is. Avoid jargon.

2) Epicurus taught to use words that everyone agrees on the definition.

3) Use the word logic OR reason, not both.

4) I actually like Elayne 's use of "evidence." But...

5) Joshua brings up a VERY good example of misunderstood evidence. How to correct that?

6) What is the intent of using the word "decision"? Do you actually mean that or are you asking people to live their life based on the canon? When you say "make decisions" it sounds like discrete individual instances. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean something more general?

7) How about these?:

- When choosing a course of action, which choice gives you pleasure?

- You can *think* a choice to death. Instead... What's there feeling you get from your choice? Is it positive? Good, *now* think about the ramifications. Is it negative? It's probably not the right choice.

Okay, so nothing seismic there, but that's my contribution off the cuff.

Quote from Godfrey

Addiction is desire, not pleasure or pain. Thinking of or satisfying a desire results in pleasure or pain.

Don that's interesting that you mention anger in this context; I've been starting to think about it in light of current events and I'm curious what Epicurean writings have to say about it, particularly righteous anger. I can't think of any offhand except maybe Philodemus, who I haven't read.

Hmmm. Okay, but the addiction is caused by pleasure initially then causes pain followed by pleasure in a vicious circle. Right?

Voula Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus has a good chapter on anger.

Quote from Elayne

Don my understanding of the engineered goal of social media sites is that it isn't intended to cause pleasure but to create addiction. Which has been called wanting without liking. They are pretty good at creating that response.

But doesn't Epicurus tell us that there can be only two reactions: pleasure or pain?

Quote from Elayne

Sometimes people can feel pleasure at having biases confirmed, but much of the politically biased content is angry/paranoid in tone. It's possible for people to get hooked on the excitement of anger with really getting much pleasure from it.

But can't people take pleasure in their anger? Self-righteous anger elicits pleasure not pain ("The feelings are two.").

And the addict experiences pleasure from the hit but pain when it's not present.

Quote from Elayne

. I read a book on artificial flavoring, the Dorito Effect

That was a fascinating book. Read it a couple years ago.

Quote from Elayne

Don do you have evidence social media is making people have bliss? I thought the prevailing evidence was to the contrary. I assume that's why Cassius said no.

It's not a perfect analogy (and it's not a total bliss pill), but here's my perspective:

• People choose to plug themselves into social media
• Socal media algorithms learn what brings pleasure to reader
• Reader feels pleasure at having their preconceptions and prejudices strengthened and confirmed
• Content fed to reader may or may not reflect reality; it could be misinformation or based on conspiracy theory
• I'm making an analogy between the pleasure felt at having untrue prejudices confirmed and having pleasure from the "bliss pill/machine" filtering/mitigating the senses and reaction of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Is social media the "bliss pill" we need to deal with?

No!

I appreciate the wink and quick reply, but I'm not so sure we should be so quick to dismiss this now that Elayne has worded it that way.

Quote from Elayne

Speaking outside the hypothetical-- obviously there is no such thing currently. Could there be a technology developed which actually learns from individuals what they enjoy and dislike?

Actually, as I read this, I immediately thought of social media algorithms sealing people in their filter bubbles. A practical application of this "hypothetical" may be closer than we think (or already be here). Is social media the "bliss pill" we need to deal with?

Elayne Okay, what then is your answer to this hypothetical since I'm evidently adding this detail to the description of the bliss pill:

Quote from Don

you're ... hypothetically saying someone else's chemistry in a pill or someone else's technology in a machine will give me my own subjective pleasure better than my own subjective choices and rejections?

Metrodorus's book is entitled:

Πρὸς τοὺς διαλεκτικούς.

Pros tous dialektikous

Here's the LSJ for that:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dialektikou%2Fs&la=greek&can=dialektikou%2Fs0&prior=tou\s&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0257:book=10:chapter=1&i=1#lexicon

Quote from Elayne

Don if the fullness of pleasure is in a pill,

You're seriously going to entertain that even as a hypothetical?

Quote from Elayne

He recommends choice/avoidance because they work. If something else worked better, he would recommend something else. It's a pragmatic thing, not an absolute.

Of course, he does! I find it hard to seriously accept that you're even hypothetically saying someone else's chemistry in a pill or someone else's technology in a machine will give me my own subjective pleasure better than my own subjective choices and rejections? Are you really saying that so I don't misinterpret?

Of course, he provides a pragmatic solution. Epicurus was providing practical solutions to real-world problems. I don't think I'm being "absolutist." I'm saying I can make better choices for my own pleasure than someone else. By your "logic," I could just as easily say I'm going to let another person - or maybe the government - make choices about what would give me the most pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

to use a more classy analogy than Star Trek

Oh, you never apologize for a Star Trek analogy!

Quote from Elayne

Nowhere does Epicurus say a person should refuse to make a one-time decision for permanent complete pleasure on grounds that it's better to have less pleasure along with ongoing choices! That hypothetical is not taken up in PD10.

I'm trying not to use PD 10 anymore, that's why I didn't reference it in the response using the Canon.

Quote from Elayne

In context of the whole philosophy, choice and avoidance are used to obtain pleasure. Choice and avoidance are not stand-alone goods but skills in service of the goal. So there would be no reason to forgo pleasure and retain choice-- IF one were certain of the result.

Right. I'm agreeing with that. Choice and avoidance are instrumental to pleasure, like virtue, like practical wisdom, like acting justly. We don't disagree about that. I'm not sure where you're getting that from my response. But how do we make our choices and rejections? From our senses, our reactions of pleasure and pain, and our prolepses. If we don't have access to them, we can't make choices, etc.

Quote from Elayne

I can make one long time choice, such as I did when I purchased my condo, for pleasure. Of course, I could sell it...

Then that analogy is not not a one-time, one-and-done choice, by definition. I'm seeing the bliss pill being a point of no return. To use your analogy, taking the bliss pill would be like purchasing your condo then being locked inside forever.

Quote from Elayne

Epicurus is not focused on creating the maximum number of choices over the longest duration.

Of course not! That's absurd, and that's not what I'm saying. What Epicurus is focused on is telling us to use the Canon to make prudent decisions to make sure we live the most pleasure-filled life possible. If we cut ourselves off from the Canon, we have no hope of moving to the fullness of pleasure in our lives.

Quote from JJElbert

. Ask me another silly hypothetical question—I have no shortage of silly hypothetical answers!

LOL! Where do you stand on the aroma of dragon tears vs unicorn sweat?

(btw, I do NOT expect a response to this hypothetical )

Quote from Cassius

Before we go too down that road we'd want to consider whether Epicurean gods are conceivable or inconceivable (presumably the former) and also whether it is conceivable to talk about a human being as a god (also presumably yes, per Epicurus' letter to menoeceus and also the reference in Lucretius to Epicurus being godlike).

Oh, I would not include the Epicurean gods in the same hypothetical category as bliss pills. The former, while inconceivable or not, are an integral part of the philosophy as Epicurus and the founders wrote about it. That topic, while difficult, was of fundamental importance to Epicurus himself. I maintain it behooves modern Epicureans to understand why it was so important to Epicurus and what implications and applications it has for us. The bliss pill, on they other hand, is only an intriguing thought experiment albeit an ancient one according to the reference Joshua provided in a previous thread. I'm personally not as concerned to come to any ultimate understanding of the bliss pill. I don't expect anyone else to necessarily agree with me, but I've answered that question adequately within an Epicurean framework *for myself*.

Quote from Cassius

"Is the process of going through the details of a hypothetical of sufficient educational value to make the process worthwhile?

I think it can be worthwhile IF as long as one of the results of the process is allowed to be "There's no way to adequately answer this hypothetical given the possible parameters we can realistically assign to it."

Quote from Cassius

Yes this is the key "if it was a true bliss pill as advertised, then it would provide reliable pleasure." I understand you (Don) are unwilling to entertain that as a hypothetical so really the issue becomes are you suggesting we draw a bright line against all hypotheticals for which we have never seen an actual instance? I can see that being a reasonable position to entertain but I would think that would have far reaching implications that would require scrutiny.

We posted over each other

I guess I *am* willing to entertain the hypothetical or I wouldn't continue to discuss .

I just think there are some sloppy definitions at work when it comes to the bliss pill / existence machine. Not necessarily here, but people throw out this amorphous objection to pleasure and expect us to entertain it. It's a straw man in many ways.

I continue to ask things like:

How does it work? Does it substitute its decisions for mine? Does it make me feel pleasure where - objectively - I should feel pain (e.g., getting my arm trapped in a hay baler)?

There's too much wiggle room. Saying "it works as advertised" doesn't mean anything. Without knowing details, the question is meaningless. That's why I'm convinced it's like asking "Which would you rather smell forever: dragon tears or unicorn sweat?" Again, the question is meaningless. For me, it's the same as my objection to uploading my mind to a computer. "Who owns the hardware? How hackable is the hardware and software? Where is it housed? Who has access to my upload and what can they do with it?" Just saying "it'd be like being alive. You wouldn't know the difference." Well, I would if I started seeing ads in front of me constantly.

Quote from Elayne

Don if it was a true bliss pill as advertised, then it would provide reliable pleasure. Otherwise it's just false advertising. As I've said already, I'd tend to be distrustful of it, given the history of pharmaceutical promises! 😂 But if it were really as advertised, there's no clear Epicurean argument against it.

See, that's where I disagree with the premise of the thought experiment: "a true bliss pill." There can't be such a thing. It seems, by definition, the pill or machine is *changing* all your sensations to "pleasurable" ones. If it makes you only "feel" pleasure, even in the midst extreme of objectively pain-inducing experiences, it is substituting its chemical or technological "pleasure-inducing" effect over your natural sensation or reaction. By definition, it can never truly be "your" sensation. It may be perceived to be "your" sensation, but that's like seeing unicorns in a dream and believing they're real. Epicurus calls us to experience real, natural pleasure derived from our choices and rejections. That's my Epicurean objection to taking the pill. I assume you will counter with something like "if we feel it, it's pleasure." If I would naturally feel pain if I was awake in surgery, and the pill / machine was making me "feel" pleasure, that's not a natural reaction of pleasure and provides false sensory data on which to make decisions to live pleasurably.

Quote from Elayne

And yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say-- that as I see it, when you used PD10 to argue against a hypothetical it wasn't designed for, Cassius and I replied bringing in the context of the whole philosophy. I am trying to show you that you were doing what you said we had done. I see it as the other way around-- we were limiting the PD to its specific context without taking it to any general conclusion that would contradict the rest of the philosophy.

I'm still not convinced entirely, but for the sake of argument I'll remove my use of PD 10 to oppose the bliss pill.

So, if I'm not using PD 10, then, my objection to taking the bliss pill rests on its ability to override the Canon and substitute ones own senses and reactions for its own. Without the Canon - the use of one's senses, reactions, and prolepses - there can be no application of Epicurean philosophy in one's life. There is no choice and avoidance. The is no way to determine if you are or are headed in the direction of living a pleasurable life. Once you take the pill/machine, it will determine how your life will go, what you will feel. Once you take the pill, you cannot have reliable sensory input or be sure you're having a natural reaction to something.