Posts by Don

If Joshua gets pleasure from the work, that's what's most important!

Cassius , you do raise good points about discovered the how and why different modern (in the widest sense) authors have such divergent views of Epicurus: DeWitt/Jefferson/Wright vs Santayana/Nietzsche/ad nauseum. And there seems to be historical precedent for "setting the record straight" even during Epicurus's lifetime.

I did find that paper I found interesting because it does seem to highlight the need to take pleasure in the arts without analyzing them too much. However, if our enjoyment can be enhanced or enriched by a deeper understanding by someone's labors, I don't see a conflict (at least as I write this )

Glad you found it interesting.

I too had the same reaction to the academic term in the title. I also skipped ahead to the sections on Epicurus

You make very good points, Cassius ! I believe I was a little too cavalier in my assessment.

As to your mention of poetry, I just posted in the "arts" threads a paper I discovered that addresses Epicurus's views on the arts. I think the author makes some strong points.

With the recent postings of music and poetry, I found this article I discovered online interesting: Epicurus and Aesthetic Disinterestedness. I wasn't familiar with the term but I felt the author made some strong points.

I did a word search for "Epicurus" and skimmed those sections. It seems like Santayana just took the worst stereotypes of Epicurus and ran with that. I see a couple of his points that could be refuted by one or two PDs or Vatican Sayings. Just seems like sloppy scholarship.

Being that Elayne took the time to compose her reply, I want to respond in kind as thoughtfully and respectfully as possible.

Quote

I disagree with Don that it is inferior if a scientist makes pleasure primarily out of doing research, vs some broader collection of pleasures. If that is the most reliable pleasure for the scientist, why wouldn't she choose it? "Moment-by-moment" pleasures _can_ create an overall pleasurable life.

To be clear, I think it's neither inferior nor superior to any other pleasure. If their research gives them a "reliable pleasure", they should, by all means, choose it. And I agree that momentary pleasures can add up to long-term pleasures. My unease was that, in the podcast episode, I interpreted it as if this one activity - scientific research - was all-encompassing. I don't think you can judge someone's well-being on one activity. It seems I may have interpreted this incorrectly, and that the idea being advocated for was a scientific outlook on life.

Quote

I do not think comparing science and profligacy makes sense-- they are nowhere near the same. But I have an implicit assumption here which I need to make clear-- I am talking about a real scientist, one who understands the use of evidence the same way Epicurus did-- because that _is_ science.

Please don't think I was equating science and profligacy. That was not my intention, and I apologize if that's what came across! My only intention in citing PD 10 and and the Letter to Menoikos was the idea of singling out momentary pleasures without an eye to the sustained pleasures of a pleasurable life overall. I think Cassius and Martin addressed this in Episode 31 when they were talking about Polyaenus concentrating on *just* geometry before coming to Epicurus. Polyaenus - arguably - "broadened his horizons" and realized there was more to life than geometry although he didn't abandon his studies. He merely broadened his interests and integrated geometry into a broader study of nature. Again, my concern in bringing up PD 10 was concentrating on one kind of pleasure - the pursuit of scientific research in this case - and, as I mentioned above, I may have misinterpreted what was being conveyed.

Quote

Such a person would not have supernatural fears or be prone to non-evidence based contagious social ideas in the first place, because of having a scientific approach. That is the person's immunity to being dragged off track away from pleasure.

Now, we're getting to the idea that Martin so nicely put it in Episode 31 in talking about implicit vs explicit philosophies of life...

Quote

My scientist was not really hypothetical. My dad is a retired physicist and my mother was a mathematician. I never knew anyone who _only_ did science, lol, but I grew up surrounded by scientists and their families, and they were among the happiest (meaning, for me, experiencing sustained pleasure) people I knew. They were not beset by superstition... but they were not explicitly philosophers either. Many of them spent long waking hours pursuing their research projects. They all had families whom they enjoyed spending time with as well, and like my dad, they often spent family time teaching their children about science. Some of my most pleasurable memories involve my dad teaching me physics, from early childhood. It was a central pleasure, which seems to me very similar to Epicurus' instructions about studying nature with friends.

I observe that if a person is securely absent supernatural beliefs, they often tend to intuitively do the hedonic calculus, and they are often quite skilled without a sense that they have a philosophy. And if they have lived a long life making wise choices but have not formally written down or thought out a philosophy, I am very resistant to saying their happy lives were just due to blind luck. No-- they were happy due to their understanding of the scientific process and their natural ability to choose pleasure (including sometimes experiencing pain for greater pleasure).

"...without a sense that they have a philosophy..." From my understanding, this is exactly what Martin was saying about implicit and explicit philosophies. Everyone has a "philosophy of life" whether they express it that way or not. We all operate under certain paradigms, and I don't think "blind luck" has much to do with it. Although some people *do* operate that way, careening from drama to drama, highs to lows to highs to lows, with no underpinning framework.

I firmly believe that you don't have to formally acknowledge your "philosophy" - or even think through the ramifications of it - to have a "philosophy." That would be an implicit philosophy, one you don't give much thought to but which has grown up around you, within you, and with which you make decisions in your life. One's "understanding of the scientific process and their natural ability to choose pleasure (including sometimes experiencing pain for greater pleasure)" *is* their philosophy of life. As Godfrey said in an earlier post, Epicurus did not necessarily create the Canon or his Philosophy. It was a natural process which he examined, codified, and refined to make it easier for people to study and to make practical use of. That's not saying some don't stumble across it as a natural process. I would say it's even probably more likely that some will make use of Epicurean ideas sans Epicureanism in our modern secular society. Our modern scientific worldview owes a debt to Epicurus and Lucretius after all!

Quote

As an adult, I have met non-scientist atheists who understood just enough about science to feel secure in rejecting un-evidenced notions and social fads, and I have observed that these people, over time, develop great skill in choosing pleasure-- but they are not philosophers. This evidence, right in front of me, prevents me from making assertions that someone must have a philosophy to wisely choose a pleasurable life.

Epicurus was able to develop his philosophy because it (IMO) is the _only_ one you can have if you are a scientist and pay attention to reality. No other philosophy holds up at all, under scrutiny.

"...but they are not philosophers..." That is exactly my point! You don't have to be a capital-P Philosopher to have a "philosophy of life," an in-grained operating system, if you will, by which you make decisions about our life. And, again, Epicurus was observing Nature, how it worked, and examining it then teaching others to *consciously* apply what he observed and learned instead of having to make it up as they went along.

Quote

I am extremely glad I found Epicurus-- but I was also already practicing the philosophy without calling it one, and it was functioning well.

Exactly!! You were practicing the "philosophy" before you were practicing the Philosophy! I really think Godfrey really hit on something with...

Quote from Godfrey

Epicurus didn't invent the Canon, he observed and articulated it. It's a natural process involving pleasure.

We can implicitly be "practicing Epicureans" without knowing that's what we're doing! And that may be enough for some people, but I still maintain that it's better to examine your philosophy of life explicitly to see where it's working, where it's not, and to see if there are others - either ancients or moderns, whether they be philosophers or other thinkers - who have worked out the kinks so to speak so you don't have to! It's not a requirement, but I think it can lead to a wider perspective and a deeper understanding of why you do what you do and how to do it better, more efficiently, and with more wisdom (It's a philosophy, after all).

Quote

As far as obstacles go, for me they have not been alternative philosophies and superstitions but normal griefs of life-- which I feel fully when they come up. I am not afraid of my feelings, and similar to Epicurus I would say that the most severe griefs do not last in their most intense form very long, and the milder griefs are not difficult to cope with, when one focuses on activities that bring pleasure-- for me, the main antidote to grief is social pleasures. Hugging my friends and family, singing together, eating and talking together, etc. I have had many griefs in life, and that is what has worked for me-- I don't tend to philosophize about grief. Often pleasure is strong even after losses, when I think about how fortunate I was to have known and loved the person who is now gone, and take time to remember them. I find pleasure in the sensation of poignancy and nostalgia.

Elayne , I thought this was eloquent and poignant, and I couldn't agree more! For myself, I have found that one of the best ways of dealing with grief - especially at funerals - is to embrace the celebration of the person's life. The loss is felt - and felt deeply - but I agree with Epicurus when he says that we need to take pleasure in memories for what was. I felt this way before I found Epicurus, too!

I think we're getting hung up on the word "philosophize." Your "philosophy" about grief comes through loudly, beautifully, and eloquently here, and it is a full, rich philosophy.

Quote

What I'm wondering if I hear in Don's words-- and maybe not, Don -- please correct me if I'm wrong-- is an implication that pleasures must not just be sustained but somehow of a superior type, perhaps what I call a "meaning project", and I disagree with that. Some people do require a meaning project for pleasure, but not everyone does. It is a matter of temperament and likely neurology. But I strongly disagree that there are inferior and superior pleasures, if the pleasures are truly equivalent in their fullness. There are no trivial vs important pleasures. That is idealism and abstract thinking creeping in. Then you wind up with people saying things like "we should not try to have pleasure but meaningfulness"-- but what is meaningfulness without pleasure? What is beauty? Why would anyone want any of these things without the pleasure in them?

No, I do not think some pleasures are of a "superior" type. And I don't think there is any "meaning" to life - other than to live a sustained, pleasurable life while we are living. There is no Ultimate Meaning. We are atoms and void in this particular arrangement for a finite time. There is no meaning imposed by some supernatural being. Those who try to say their life has "meaning" - I think - are confusing it with well-being, satisfaction, ... dare I say pleasure.

I do not think there are superior and inferior pleasures. I *do* think there are positive and negative choices leading to more or less pain and/or pleasure. That's why I feel we can say the profligate who over-indulge in drinking, drugs, sex, etc., are not making "good" (not in a Platonic sense) decisions for themselves. That way does NOT lead to sustained pleasurable lives. A chilled glass of wine in the shade on a warm, summer day can be enjoyed with pleasure. Four bottles of whiskey imbibed in the street on a cold winter night may have brought pleasure for a short time, but it wil NOT lead to a sustained pleasurable life.

And I don't think there are trivial or important pleasures. There may be simple vs complex pleasures, but I don't think that's the same thing. As a matter of fact, I can walk through the woods, look up, and feel a wash of simple pleasure as I take in the delicate verdant patterns of sunlight through the leaves. I can take pleasure or satisfaction from completing a complex task with many steps.

Quote

It is quite possible to intuitively understand and practice this without ever being a philosopher, and I've seen it done and don't even think it is extraordinarily rare. We don't see those folks on our philosophy forums, because they probably don't even know it is a thing, but they are out there enjoying life.

No argument there! We may be having a semantic argument over definitions in the end. In many ways, we are ALL philosophers in that we will intuitively have some kind of "philosophy" to live by, that's one's "implicit" philosophy or as Cambridge defines it: the way that someone thinks about life and deals with it. I still maintain that examining one's small-p philosophy and making it an extrinsic philosophy is valuable rather than making it up as you go along. It can ground you. It can provide a broader context. It can be an eye-opening experience. But it's not necessary. One can go about one's life with one's own personal "way that [one] thinks about life and deals with it." But, over the millennia, many people have given many different ways of life a lot of thought. One doesn't have to be a Lone Ranger.

BINGO! Explicit vs implicit! Those were the words and concepts I was thinking of. You articulated it much better than I did. Thank you!! That was an interesting discussion, gentlemen!

I must admit, however, that it was a little odd to hear my posts read out loud.

Quote from Cassius

I suspect that the reason Don enjoyed it, and I *know* the reason I enjoyed it, is that I really wouldn't consider this to be "rap," at least not in the American sense. Not sure what to call it but it is very enjoyable music!

Oh, I'm fine with the rap part. While I'm not an aficionado of the genre, I can appreciate the spoken word style. My worry was that I've seen a lot of bad rap pieces with science or history themes that I feared it might be a bad parody style. It was not! Quality production and spot on lyrics! Again, well done!

Elayne : Thank you for that heartfelt response! With that additional context, I don't think we're as far apart as either of us originally thought . I'll try and give a fuller reply this evening.

As a teaser, I do not think pleasures need to be "superior" in some way. Stay tuned...

I'll admit I was skeptical when I saw the post, but that was a very enjoyable piece of work! Greatly enjoyed the lyrics and music. Nice work!!

I would echo Joshua 's recommendations. I know Hiram Crespo published a book but I haven't read it. He also contributed a chapter to a recent book on life philosophies.

Honestly, my recommendation would be to stick to the reading list that Cassius has posted to this site. Read multiple translations of Epicurus's works and Lucretius.

Quote from Cassius

By emphasizing that the atoms have no color Epicurus is illustrating that there are in fact no contextless absolutes, either in heaven or inside an object. The statement that "Yellow does not exist apart from things that are yellow" has profound extensions far beyond the purely scientific question of how an atom might look under a microscope to most people most of the time.

In this I see reflections of the Buddhist concepts of dependent arising, no-self, and related ideas. The Buddha is said to have taught:

Quote

When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.

That sounds a lot to me like "When I exist, death does not; When death is, I am not."

There's also the Epicurean doctrine of "The only thing that exists is atoms and void." I would add "... At the most fundamental level." This does NOT negate the everyday existence of planets, rocks, trees, and me! But qualities like color, size, shape, etc., arise from the coming together of various arrangements of atoms in the void. Those characteristics do not exist apart from those atomic arrangements, from the most subtle (consciousness) to the most physical (Mt. Everest).

Now, Buddha and Epicurus put those realizations to work in different ways! But it seems to me both were thinking along parallel paths at least part of the way.

That highlighted section sounds very reminiscent of Buddhism. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

Quote from Cassius

Quote

Garden Dweller : Should the student of Epicurus carefully guard against anything that would disturb, modify or distort one's senses and sensory observation of the natural world?

Let's not skip over this last question, either, as I think this is an EMPHATIC yes! Now I am all in favor of painkilling drugs when needed, but the senses are vital to us, and efforts to dull them in general (which is essentially what the Stoics advocate) are exactly the wrong direction. Not to mention to problems that alcohol and other mind-altering drugs can lead to. We certainly aren't talking being Puritans, but I think it is pretty clear that overindulgence in mind-altering substances can be very harmful to our overall ability to lead a life of pleasure.

I think we have to be careful here. As Cassius says we're not Puritans. DL Lives X.119 says that "Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly." (my own translation of "οὐδὲ μὴν ληρήσειν ἐν μέθῃ"). This was from Epicurus's Symposium. So I think it's important to remember there is no Epicurean prohibition against drinking "strong drink" as far as we know, but, like all actions, one assesses the resulting pleasure and pain involved in moderate drinking vs overindulgence. And Epicurus reminds us to not act foolish.

I think you're onto something there, Godfrey . I like where you going if I follow you correctly. I also like that you're making a clear distinction between the faculty of the Feelings (pleasure and pain) and the desires. The Feelings are part of the Canon, how we decide what actions to take, i.e., in what desires to pursue and what to reject. The goal or telos is the living of a pleasurable life.

There's only one edit I'd suggest to your statement:

Quote

"the pursuit of desire fulfillment is guided by the experience of pleasure and pain,"

I sometimes forget that the "Feelings are two: pleasure and pain." Epicurus sees value in both pleasure and pain as criteria by which we make our choices and rejections. We should pursue a sustained pleasurable life as the goal but use the Feelings of both pleasure and pain (along with the Anticipations and Senses) to make the choices that will result in that goal.

Quote from Godfrey

The natural state that I'm referring to is the smooth and integrated functioning of the sensations, prolepses and feelings. So it would be the experience of pleasure functioning in a way as to be a proper guide for the pursuit of pleasure.

Got it! That helps, and well stated, Godfrey !

Godfrey : When you say:

Quote

To me the default and the general rule is the natural state.

Is the natural state the experience of pleasure, the seeking of pleasure, or something else? I'm not being critical! I just want to make sure I understand what you're referring to. Same with Martin , when he says "it's natural." Is it the experience or the pursuit of pleasure that is the natural state to which we need to return?

Quote from Cassius

Godfrey how frequently do you think that this condition ("nothing is interfering with this process") will exist? Frequently enough that it ought to be considered a default position, on the order of observing that all young things at birth pursue pleasure and avoid pain? Or infrequently, but important to identify as the general rule? Or somewhere in between? What does the answer tell us about how we should state the general rule. Or is it useful or not useful to state a general rule?

I think you raise good points, Godfrey , but I would posit that one's life doesn't have to be in shambles to need a philosophy of life to come back to. I'll freely admit that most people's default is simply to deal with life's situations at random as they arise. But how do we make sense of life's ups and downs? How do we deal with tragedy? How do we orient ourselves to have sustained pleasure? Do we experience pain and frustration and see no bigger reason for it?

I do think that as infants, animals (incl. humans) seek to have their basic desires fulfilled to achieve pleasure (look at the face of a sleeping infant when a full belly). But rapidly, humans are acculturated. We learn to rationalize, to subliminate, to hide behind facades. "Smiles, everyone," as Mr. Roarke used to say on Fantasy Island. I think the answer to Cassius 's question on how often there's no interference is rarely (if I understand his question )

[ADMIN EDIT: This is a copy of a post from Don that was placed originally in another thread.]

Poor Polyaenus! He has such an unfortunate English pronunciation to his name (Yes, evidently I'm 12 years old! "Many an.." you get the idea.) I saw the technical Latin pronunciation is po-lee-EE-nuhs. The Greek is Πολύαινος (Polyainos), something like pol-Ü-eye-nos in Ancient Greek or modern Greek sort of like pol-EE-ehnos (I think).

He's not mentioned a lot in the ancient texts, but I think the dictionary entry above doesn't include Philodemus. I seem to remember mention of him mentioning Polyainos in his works.

DL mentions him by name, X.24:

Quote

Next came Polyaenus,37 son of Athenodorus, a citizen of Lampsacus, a just and kindly man, as Philodemus and his pupils affirm.

and footnote 37 reads

Quote

One of the four pillars of the school : a great geometer until he became an Epicurean (Cic. Ac. Pr. 106 and De fin. i. 20). A letter of Epicurus to him is mentioned by Seneca (Ep. 18. 9).

Cicero's Academics seems to just mention him by name. De Fin has this:

Quote

It is also unworthy of a natural philosopher to deny the infinite divisibility of matter; an error that assuredly Epicurus would have avoided, if he had been willing to let his friend Polyaenus teach him geometry instead of making Polyaenus himself unlearn it.

and Seneca mentions this

Quote

(Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVIII) Even Epicurus, the teacher of pleasure, used to observe stated intervals, during which he satisfied his hunger in a stingy (maligne) fashion; he wished to see whether he thereby fell short of full and complete happiness, and, if so, by what amount be fell short, and whether this amount was worth purchasing at the price of great effort. At any rate, he makes such a statement in the well known letter written to Polyaenus in the archonship of Charinus. Indeed, he boasts that he himself lived on less than a penny, but that Metrodorus, whose progress was not yet so great, needed a whole penny. Do you think that there can be fullness on such fare? Yes, and there is pleasure also, – not that shifty and fleeting Pleasure which needs a fillip now and then, but a pleasure that is steadfast and sure.

That's not a lot to go on. There's the Wikipedia article that mentions an Italian translation of fragments.

I think it's also worth noting the "stated intervals" of Epicurus fasting or eating minimally. This implies that he in fact didn't live on bread and water all the time (as some try to say) but it sounds like he did experiment from time to time during "stated intervals" to ascertain his limits as to what would satisfy him and provide pleasure/absence of pain of hunger. (Side note: it appears the actual coin mentioned by Seneca is the Roman as: Epicurus didn't require a whole "as" but Metrodorus did: Et quidem gloriatur non toto asse se pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto.Here is a site talking about the purchasing power of Roman coins.)

Poor Polyaenus! He has such an unfortunate English pronunciation to his name (Yes, evidently I'm 12 years old! "Many an.." you get the idea.) I saw the technical Latin pronunciation is po-lee-EE-nuhs. The Greek is Πολύαινος (Polyainos), something like pol-Ü-eye-nos in Ancient Greek or modern Greek sort of like pol-EE-ehnos (I think).

He's not mentioned a lot in the ancient texts, but I think the dictionary entry above doesn't include Philodemus. I seem to remember mention of him mentioning Polyainos in his works.

DL mentions him by name, X.24:

Quote

Next came Polyaenus,37 son of Athenodorus, a citizen of Lampsacus, a just and kindly man, as Philodemus and his pupils affirm.

and footnote 37 reads

Quote

One of the four pillars of the school : a great geometer until he became an Epicurean (Cic. Ac. Pr. 106 and De fin. i. 20). A letter of Epicurus to him is mentioned by Seneca (Ep. 18. 9).

Cicero's Academics seems to just mention him by name. De Fin has this:

Quote

It is also unworthy of a natural philosopher to deny the infinite divisibility of matter; an error that assuredly Epicurus would have avoided, if he had been willing to let his friend Polyaenus teach him geometry instead of making Polyaenus himself unlearn it.

and Seneca mentions this

Quote

(Seneca’s Letters – Book I – Letter XVIII) Even Epicurus, the teacher of pleasure, used to observe stated intervals, during which he satisfied his hunger in a stingy (maligne) fashion; he wished to see whether he thereby fell short of full and complete happiness, and, if so, by what amount be fell short, and whether this amount was worth purchasing at the price of great effort. At any rate, he makes such a statement in the well known letter written to Polyaenus in the archonship of Charinus. Indeed, he boasts that he himself lived on less than a penny, but that Metrodorus, whose progress was not yet so great, needed a whole penny. Do you think that there can be fullness on such fare? Yes, and there is pleasure also, – not that shifty and fleeting Pleasure which needs a fillip now and then, but a pleasure that is steadfast and sure.

That's not a lot to go on. There's the Wikipedia article that mentions an Italian translation of fragments.

I think it's also worth noting the "stated intervals" of Epicurus fasting or eating minimally. This implies that he in fact didn't live on bread and water all the time (as some try to say) but it sounds like he did experiment from time to time during "stated intervals" to ascertain his limits as to what would satisfy him and provide pleasure/absence of pain of hunger. (Side note: it appears the actual coin mentioned by Seneca is the Roman as: Epicurus didn't require a whole "as" but Metrodorus did: Et quidem gloriatur non toto asse se pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto.Here is a site talking about the purchasing power of Roman coins.)

[Admin Edit: This post was copied and placed in the forum devoted to Polyaenus.]