Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from Diogenes Laertius

"He differs from the Cyrenaics with regard to pleasure. They do not include under the term the pleasure which is a state of rest, but only that which consists in motion. Epicurus admits both; also pleasure of mind as well as of body, as he states in his work On Choice and Avoidance and in that On the Ethical End, and in the first book of his work On Human Life and in the epistle to his philosopher friends in Mytilene.

So also Diogenes in the seventeenth book of his Epilecta, and Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are: “Thus Pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest.” The words of Epicurus in his work On Choice are : “Peace of mind and freedom from pain are pleasures which imply a state of rest; joy and delight are seen to consist in motion and activity.”

He further disagrees with the Cyrenaics in that they hold that pains of body are worse than mental pains; at all events evil-doers are made to suffer bodily punishment; whereas Epicurus holds the pains of the mind to be the worse; at any rate the flesh endures the storms of the present alone, the mind those of the past and future as well as the present. In this way also he holds mental pleasures to be greater than those of the body."

"And as proof that pleasure is the end he 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. Left to our own feelings, then, we shun pain; as when even Heracles, devoured by the poisoned robe, cries aloud,

“And bites and yells, and rock to rock resounds,
Headlands of Locris and Euboean cliffs.”

"And we choose the virtues too on account of pleasure and not for their own sake, as we take medicine for the sake of health. So too in the twentieth book of his Epilecta says Diogenes, who also calls education recreation. Epicurus describes virtue as the sine qua non of pleasure, i.e. the one thing without which pleasure cannot be, everything else, food, for instance, being separable, i.e. not indispensable to pleasure."

Come, then, let me set the seal, so to say, on my entire work as well as on this philosopher's life by citing his Principal Doctrines, so to bring the whole work to a close and making the end of it to coincide with the beginning of happiness:"

Display More

So this highlights both the pleasure of rest and the pleasure of action...

....so both "the cake AND the frosting".

Thank you for your reply Cassius. I did feel a bit "reactive" earlier today as I was writing my previous post, which is not the best frame of mind to post dialog.

Yes, you are right about me. I at times slip into black and white thinking...I do need to work on catching and correcting it (and attribute slip-ups to Christian fundamentalist upbringing).

And finally, it comes down to our slightly different interpretations of Epicurean philosophy. I need to get clear about which Epicurean ideas are ambiguous...and I need to sit down on my own and write out my personal interpretation of Epicurean philosophy, plainly and with references to the PD's etc.

Quote from Cassius

Every aspect of Epicurean philosophy is geared toward focusing on pleasure as the goal, not at "keeping our desires at a minimum" as a goal.

Cassius that's too much of a black and white, all or nothing interpretation. The desires that should be kept to a minimum are those that lead to pain and difficulty.

Now as I read your comments, I would venture to say, that on this forum you, my dear Cassius...you are forging a new kind of Epicureanism, and in fact you are a "Neo-Epicurean" yourself...and it could be called "Cassianism".

And this very well might be it's formula:

Assertiveness + material wealth + daily enjoyment of using one's wealth = the goal of life is to enjoy your material riches in physical pleasure.

So those who have the wealth to do so may follow this hybrid interpretation.

Those of us who are less wealthy understand the benefits of not investing mental energy onto all the modern "dainties" that could be acquired if one had the money to buy them. And so we turn our attention to focus much more intently onto mental pleasures.

My words of advice: What the wise should cultivate desire for (and then take action on) is this: Friendship, companionship, camaraderie, good conversations, and time to be physically present with friends.

Cassius and all, I wish you well. And may you live in blessedness.

(Of course, any and all who wish to respond here, please do so).

Thank you Don for sharing the link. I find it worthwhile and new angles to explore, with regard to the balance of pleasure over a full life --- bodily (physical sensation) and mental (delight and tranquility).

Reposting link:

Epicurean versus Cyrenaic happiness

Epicurean versus Cyrenaic happiness

www.academia.edu

This might bring up some ideas for consideration and further exploration of the differences between the teachings of Epicurus and Aristippus.

The following paragraphs are quoted from:

Epicurus | | Mt. San Antonio College

Quote

"In opposition to Aristippus, Epicurus maintains that the duration of pleasures is more important than their intensity in achieving happiness. Consequently, he argues that the mental pleasures are in general superior to the physical pleasures, because they are longer-lasting, albeit less intense. Although he finds the physical pleasures unobjectionable in themselves, he contends that the pursuit of them for their own sake leads not to happiness but to its opposite. Experience shows us that the desire for a life filled with intense pleasures will be frustrated, because there are not enough of them in the ordinary course of events. What is more, the pleasures derived from such objectives as fame, wealth, and the like are usually outweighed by the pains necessary to procure them, and the pains consequent upon such activities as feasting, drinking, and merrymaking either cancel the pleasures or leave a balance of pain. From these considerations, Epicurus can only conclude that Aristippus’ standard of judging what is good - that is, "the most intense, sensual pleasure of the moment" - is entirely self-defeating."

"The chief difference between Cyrenaicism and Epicureanism lies in their divergent conception of the nature of true pleasure. Fundamental to their disagreement is the distinction between active or positive pleasure, which comes from the gratification of specific wants and desires, and passive or negative pleasure, which is the absence of pain. Aristippus sets as the goal of life a constant round of active pleasures, whereas Epicurus maintains that the active pleasures are important only insofar as they terminate the pain of unfulfilled desires. For Epicurus, the passive pleasures are more fundamental than the active, because it is through them that happiness is gained. A human being’s ultimate goal is not a constant succession of intense sensual pleasures, but is rather the state of serenity, ataraxia, characterized by "freedom from trouble in the mind and pain in the body."

"Epicurus assures us that the calm and repose of the good life are within the reach of all. It is necessary that we keep our desires at a minimum, however, and distinguish the natural and necessary desires from those that are artificial - for example, longings for wealth, excitement, fame, and power. The latter are not merely unnecessary to health and tranquility but are in fact destructive of them. By contrast, the satisfaction of the natural desires (the desires that must be fulfilled to preserve bodily health and mental peace) and the freedom from pain that accompanies such satisfaction lead to happiness."

"Epicurus tells us that our good can be realized through philosophy, the quest for knowledge. It must be understood, however, that the function of philosophy is preeminently practical:

Vain is the world of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man. For justis there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body, so here is no profit in philosophy either, if it does not expel the suffering of the mind."

"By nature men seek pleasure, but by knowledge they are guided to the choice of the true pleasures. Without deliberation, we cannot hope either to forestall needless and artificial desires or to secure the pleasures required for happiness. In addition, without knowledge of the nature of things, we cannot rid ourselves of the fears and superstitions that destroy tranquility."

Display More

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!).

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

Just throwing this into the mix for your consideration.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

"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, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the utility calculus, the hedonistic calculus and the hedonic calculus.

To be included in this calculation are several variables (or vectors), which Bentham called "circumstances". These are:

1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?

Felicific calculus - Wikipedia

*Can you

Can post a link to the text you used, thanks.

I feel like I am not able to follow all of the various ins and outs of thought presented by Cassius regarding Epicurus vs. SPA (Socrates Plato Aristotle), as I don't have enough knowledge of those schools. Also, my knowledge of Epicurus' philosophy is sorely lacking. And I might be not directly responding to the above points, but will simply respond anyway, on the basis of my intuitive personal ideas.

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.

Thank you for all your replies. I will need a bit of time re-read and digest...will respond by the end of the day.

Living a pleasant and sweet life is a highest good and a highest aim.

Emphasis on action as a verb, rather than on an object or noun.

Living pleasantly and sweetly = living joyously, living wisely, living beautifully, living rightly.

Maybe it could be summed up with - living with a smile on one's face?

Multiple components comprise the Epicurean life. There is more to laud in the "sweetest life" than just pleasure. To say that there is only one highest good, is like saying you can only have one favorite food.

Excerpts from Letter to Menoikos, translation by Peter Saint-Andre:

"Let no one put off the love and practice of wisdom [note] when young, nor grow tired of it when old."

"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."

And from the Vatican Sayings (translation by Peter Saint-Andre):

"The noble soul is devoted most of all to wisdom and to friendship — one a mortal good, the other immortal. [note]"

Are you an introvert or an extrovert?

Brain differences can influence what feels enjoyable and pleasurable. The introvert is going to seek out and enjoy ataraxia much more than an extrovert. Understanding brain differences can create respect for both ways of navigating the world and experiencing pleasure. Here on the forum this can create space for understanding differing interpretations of Epicurean pleasure.

This article presents the differences in introvert and extrovert brains.

Introverts' and Extroverts' Brains Really Are Different, According to Science

Here's a quick-and-dirty guide to some key differences between introverts' and extroverts' brains, according to science — and it explains a lot.

introvertdear.com

The following is an excerpt:

"Why do extroverts like action, but introverts like calm?

"It may have to do with two powerful chemicals found in the brain — dopamine and acetylcholine, “jolt juices” that hugely impact our behavior."

"Dopamine gives us immediate, intense zaps of happiness when we act quickly, take risks, and seek novelty. Acetylcholine, on the other hand, also rewards us, but its effects are more subtle — it makes us relaxed, alert, and content."

"One explanation for introversion vs. extroversion, according to Dr. Marti Olsen Laney in her 2002 book, The Introvert Advantage, is extroverts are less sensitive to dopamine, so they need more of it to feel happy. The more they talk, move, and socialize, the more they feel dopamine’s pleasant effects."

"But when it comes to us “quiet ones,” too much dopamine can overstimulate us, writes Laney, like a kid with a tummy ache hopped up on too much sugar. On the other hand, when we read, concentrate, or use our minds in some way, we feel good because our brains release acetylcholine — a happiness bump so gentle that extroverts hardly register it."

Just for the record, realize that I shouldn't put down "self-help" books, as I've found great benefits in the past, seen many a time when just the right self-help book came along...it's just really a matter of personal reference.

I found Catherine Wilson's book "How to be an Epicurean: the Art of Ancient Art of Living Well" at my library. Skimmed through rather quickly, and returned it also rather quickly. It had a "fluffy" feeling to it...I think it's better to read the Principle Doctrines and contemplate their deeper meanings and how they can be applied to one's own life. Yet, if you can easily find it a library, could be good if you like things that have a "self-help" quality. (Been there, done that, too many times already).

Quote from Cassius

The standard suggestions you will read about "simple loving" and the like in other books

?

...please explain, or if you can reference to a link in the forum explaining this, thanks

Let me restate my idea:

If one assumes that short-term pleasures provide the same benefits as long-term pleasures, then one will, at times, make choices that result in less pleasure and more pain.

I vividly imagine Epicurus would welcome Cyreniacs into his Garden, because they could test out his wisdom and find personal benefit.

And yes, we each must do our own choosing, and we will each experience the results of our choices. Sometimes one makes choice and then sees that something different could be done the next time. So there is testing, observing, and learning.

I sense that my readings and interpretations might be moving me in a direction that do not fully resonate for some. I would wonder why, but may never have an answer.

I begin to feel...

...as a frog kissed by a princess, but instead of an Epicurean, I've turned into a skeptic.

After reading the above posts, some ideas come up:

It seems that one could do a hedonic calculus when making choices, but if the underlying assumption is that short-term physical pleasures are equally as important as long-term mental pleasures, then the long-term results will be a mixed bag (pleasure mixed with pain or pleasure resulting in pain), and/or one will find oneself on a never-ending hedonic treadmill.

So an Epicurean philosophy of life would be a life of guaranteed continuous pleasures ---- of a medium intensity (a nice well built fire to warm oneself together with one's friends) vs. a high intensity (too much fuel on the fire burns out too quickly). And this would be the difference between the Epicureans and the Cyrenaics.

PD 27 - Of all things that wisdom provides for living one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship.