Posts by Julia

Quote from Cassius

Of course, i wouldn't say that it's illegitmate by nature to set your goals low and work to achieve them so you can say that you are "satisfied." There's no way by nature to say that that's wrong, as it could give that type of person100% pleasure if they lower their sights and also experience no pain. But many people, and I would say most people, would look at the missed opportunity of pleasures that could have been achieved at a reasonable cost in pain and have regret - a form of pain - that they did not use their lives more aggressively.

Oh, wow – yes, needlessly lowering my bar would cause so much regret that I never even considered it!

Quote from Cassius

Yes I would like to say at my time of departure that I am satisfied, but paradoxically I don't think it would be possible for me to say at the end that I was satsified if I had set "being satisfied" as my guide all along the way.

That's very true! I don't think I could have come up with that – it is very compelling. Thank you!

Something else came to mind: Satisfaction is the pleasure of successful Choice, whereas Relief is the pleasure of successful Avoidance -- so maybe it worked so well for me, because looking for Satisfaction forced me to look for Choice (instead of staying overly focused on Avoidance). It feels quite right now, and would imply that simply sticking to "Pleasure is the guide and goal, and Julia has to especially remember her Choices!" means I can reap the benefits without risking the dangers

This explains nicely why pleasure is the goal, but it does not explain why it should also be the guide towards that goal…?

Isn't aiming for satisfaction going to result in the maximum pleasure? What's the difference between hedonic calculus and making sure you're as satisfied as possible in as many areas of life as possible? To help me see the difference, can you give me a counterexample, where my choice of words would be misleading?

I would argue that newborns tend to be more about immediate gratification (little pleasure right now; Cyrenaic), whereas older animals (including humans) shift towards delayed gratification (to maximise pleasure over time according to predicted future; Epicurean), and I would further argue that the sensation of success in that latter process – that is: the sensation accompanying the pleasure derived from successfully executed hedonic calculus – is called satisfaction (or pleasure of reward). Satisfaction is the pleasure of reward, the pleasure of hedonic calculus done well (eg: made a plan, came through, no regrets).

If one specific pleasure is the indicator of how well I compute and follow through with hedonic calculus, then doesn't that specific pleasure become my guide (towards maximising the net sum of all pleasure, which is still my goal)?

In my own experience: When I initially said "OK, let's maximise pleasure!" that worked well, but it remained very hard to start, let alone complete unpleasant tasks (for more pleasure later). The general pleasure (of all types except satisfaction) I predicted I would gain was insufficient to motivate me (even for unpleasant but ordinary tasks that are sensible, necessary, even urgent); however, focusing specifically on the satisfaction I predicted I would feel after each potential course of action, it became much clearer to me which course of action is correct, and also only then could the predicted general pleasure really unfold and push towards motivating me, too. It's as if predicted satisfaction turns predicted pleasure into present motivation. With that, satisfaction became the guide, did it not?

Hello everyone

a little while ago, I noted how "satisfaction" seems to help me do proper calculus and helps me to follow through on it; both to forgo immediate (but empty) pleasures, and to work towards delayed gratifications (see post #4 in linked thread). Since then, I'm wondering about the difference of "satisfaction" versus (katastematic) pleasure.

Can you please give me a (hypothetical) example for why "satisfaction" (as opposed to: "pleasure") as the guide of life comes short of, passes by, or otherwise misses the goalpost? Isn't satisfaction exactly what "net pleasure" is? What's the difference between satisfaction, and a pleasure I enjoy remembering? What's the difference between pleasures I enjoy remembering versus those that brought me net pleasure? Isn't it the same?

Isn't the amount of satisfaction gained what makes the key difference between unnatural/limitless/corrosive desires, natural-but-unnecessary, and natural desires? Meeting natural desires is always satisfying, meeting unnatural desires is never satisfying, and the satisfaction of meeting natural-but-unnecessary desires is smaller, the stronger the expectation/dependence/addiction to the unnecessary substance/action is (which makes them a slippery slope).

Do the sources contrast "satisfaction" with another term (such as "pleasure") somewhere?

Thank you

Thank you for sharing that quote!

Quote from Cassius

continuous pleasures […] sustained pleasures

What we consider to be painful and pleasurable is relative to our past experiences. Pleasures and pains both wear off with time. As such, no single pleasure can be sustained continuously – and that's not an opinion, that's biology. Now, the fragment uses the plural; that can be interpreted in a number of ways. However:

Whenever one pleasure ends and another pleasure begins – when, say, the pleasure of warmth ends to be replaced by that of a long winter hike – that winter hike will, by necessity, contain the pain of the absence of warmth and the presence of cold; vice versa, the winter hike contains the pleasure of watching bird and breathing fresh air, which were absent inside the warm cabin. In this way, by necessity, every pleasure – if at all, save only that of brief ecstasy – contains some pain.

How that pain is met is just as important as how the pleasure is met; and I chose to accept it as a fact of life, and dismiss it as fast and best I can, focusing my attention elsewhere instead (something I called "embrace" before).

Furthermore, what we consider a good time is relative to our past experiences (and unnatural desires instilled through media and society at large); today's good week is tomorrow's normal week, and also today's bad week is tomorrow's normal week. This is why, in times of abundance, running away from pain will only serve to narrow down the corridor of what is experienced, whereas in times of want, running away from pain will serve to widen the corridor of what is experienced.

Now, one might think: "That's fine, I'll narrow the corridor way up there, where all the pleasures are." However, that is precisely what doesn't work – because, as I said initially, pleasures wear off with time, and so that will be one dull, bland and pale corridor to rot away in. Instead, in times of abundance, the way to go is to seek out discomfort and pains to maintain one's experience of good things as pleasurable.

As for times of want, I suspect the vast majority of us, myself included, doesn't live on a remote trapline in the Yukon, where what is necessary for mere survival entails more than enough discomfort, pain and struggle already; and neither did Epicurus, which is why the Letter To Menoeceus says:

Quote

To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes one alert for the needful employments of life, and when after long intervals we approach luxuries disposes us better towards them, and fits us to be fearless of fortune.

I don't see the point in whining about the cold and the struggle, when I could just embrace it to get going to begin with, could just accept and dismiss it while I'm at it, and in this manner enable myself to shift my attention and enjoy breathing clear air, watching the birds.

Living in continuous pleasure without a recurring, prior pursuit of that pleasure is harmful, because it invariably leads to a progressive narrowing of the corridor of things which bring pleasure, which is at the very heart of addiction. The only way to keep that corridor wide and open is to do unpleasant things: Chop all the firewood for winter, instead of having it delivered. (There's nothing wrong with, e.g., earning money to then have firewood delivered. That's not instant gratification; there was a struggle for that pleasure, it was just done differently.) Clean your own house, instead of hiring a maid. Save up instead of taking out loans. Take a cold shower. Pleasure without pursuit switches the brain to an endorphin-driven system instead of a dopamine-driven system, and that means it kills one's motivation and drive, resulting in a lifestyle that is a pain in itself but very hard to break out of – because to break out of it one would need motivation and drive. That deadlock only exists, because abundance is not what we evolved to live with; humans thrive in struggles – well-chosen and calculated to yield net pleasure, but still: struggles. We thrive with pleasures which require recurring prior effort to capture them. Avoiding all struggle results in living with a big box of junk food, smartphone in hand. Instant gratification, no drive.

The opposite (dopamine-driven) route is that of purposely seeking out pleasures that are hard to get. In pursuing them, in accepting-but-dismissing the pain involved to get to them, one will at worst make oneself unusually motivated and driven, but that's not such a bad thing, because there are always nice adventures to be had. Those are the people who want to get out, want to go on a hike, a bike ride, build a shed, get things done – and who, in the end, happily enjoy even the simple pleasures nature readily provides, such as fresh food and clear water.

Now, I really want to agree to disagree, and that's why to be fair I'll read replies, but I won't reply in turn, because I don't want to argue this point any further (as I consider it to be a biological fact).

Quote from Cassius

The rejection of a neutral state is probably inconsistent with the flatness of "when they feel nothing."

Just because there is no neutral state doesn't mean people can't feel as though they were in one; what is more: to "feel nothing" is qualitatively different from "feeling to be in a neutral state". I think it is the subjective experience that TauPhi is aiming at, and it is indeed possible to subjectively "feel nothing"; emotionally, physically, or both.

Quote from TauPhi

Pain is not the only path towards pleasure.

I agree with everything you said, except for this; it's just not possible, physiologically. Your nerves will eventually de-sensitise and get used to whatever pleasure they consistently get, unless that is interrupted sufficiently long and often to re-sensitise them, the only way to do that is by pain, and this is true equally of mental and bodily pleasures, because in the end, both are just nerves.

The average life easily contains enough pain to achieve that re-sensitisation. However, there is no pleasure in warmth which has been there, unchanging, for your entire life. Likewise, there is no pleasure in eating cake, if that's all you've ever been eating. And finally, the only sustainable way to solve this is to get out in the cold, have some bread and water – and that can be done reluctantly, miserably, or you can embrace it and make a day of it. Either way, it entails the pain of having no cake and no warmth for a while. Does that mean it is net painful? No, of course not; but being cold is not a pleasure in itself, either.

There is joy in variation because variation itself is a joy (for most people). However, by necessity, there is no variation in being constantly at the absolute limit of pleasure. There is a much lower, sustainable limit of pleasure, where a stronger pleasure is recurrently interrupted by a weaker pleasure; and because everything is relative, including pleasure and pain, that means variation, by necessity, interrupts pleasure with pain. That's just how nerves and neural networks work.

There's no such thing as a permanent high; there's also no such thing as a permanent low. With time, what is perceived as neutral shifts. The same is true for the extremes we can handle, both positive and negative, because what we perceive as endurable shifts, too.

I cannot make my warm, soft, calm corner any better by making it warmer, softer or calmer; it is already perfect. So when it gets boring to my Self (my body seems like it would love to stay there forever), the only thing I can do is to get up and leave it behind – but that's physically painful compared to staying where I was. It is a net positive, because my mind is happy – but my skin and bones are unhappy. If I wouldn't simply embrace that as a part of life and focus on what is to be gained, it would only serve to add mentally misery to the physical pain, and that certainly wouldn't help things.

Anyways, I rest my case. Agree to disagree, I suppose?

PS: I think "to embrace specific calculated pains" was a bad choice of words for what I mean; "to both accept and dismiss specific calculated pain" might be clearer: It feels painful to go for a hike through the ice (feedback from my body), but that doesn't mean I am in pain while I do it (state of my Self). With other things, I am in pain while I do them (current state of my Self), but I do them anyway because I know it will pay off later (projected future state of my Self and/or my body). What I am aiming at is to not whine about the cold after I made the choice to go out (which will only make me miserable), but to focus on all the rest (which is probably the same as to say: tap into the background pleasure TauPhi mentioned?) or at least focus on the future.

Quote from Kalosyni

As for anything that feels like it is a "hedonic treadmill"...I would suggest slowing down and putting more attention on the specific experiences and to "open up the senses" to be fully present both in your mind and body.

To agree and expand: When seeking ever more pleasurable activities, the range of experience gets increasingly narrow. It is common knowledge that with drugs, increased doses are needed to elicit the same sensation; however, the same basic principle applies to all comforts. Eventually, one hops from one previously-pleasurable activity to the next, without deriving much satisfaction from them anymore. Additionally, ordinary chores become increasingly excruciating.

This is why that which one should habituate oneself to are simple pleasures. Only then can '"opening up the senses" to be fully present both in mind and body' really break the hedonic treadmill. That is to say: The hedonic treadmill is broken by widening the range of experiences towards the painful. This is how joys that turned bland eventually regain their brilliance; and by being prudent and putting some limit indulgence, they can keep that brilliance until the day we die.

Quote from Matteng

What speaks against the idea that intense sensual pleasures go beyond the limit of absence of pain?

Speaking in a physiological manner, either a receptor is fully (ant)agonised or it isn't. As such, even on the biochemical level, the absence of pain is the limit of pleasure. (Substance use, particularly using superagonists or otherwise in high doses, can exceed what the body evolved to experience, creating states of bliss unachievable by natural means; however, the result is long-lasting, sometimes permanent anhedonia, as even the most beautiful day pales in comparison to our modern level of chemical engineering…) If you're speaking of one's absolute limit of pleasure, as opposed to what is possible in the moment (which is less), or what is sustainable (which is even less), to be a bit blunt about it: States of intense sensual pleasures paired with the absence of all physical and mental pains, the very moment of climax, say, would be that limit, I suppose. The absolute limit of pleasure is not eating an apple in a tent, because while you do that, you might long for the presence of a loved one and a comfortable bed – however, that might be the limit of pleasure sustainable during a long trek.

Note that pleasure is present only where and while pain is absent. I can laugh at a joke while my knee hurts. My knee can hurt while my skin, bones, muscles and sinews left and right of it feel good.

Quote from Cassius

"give definite teaching and not profess doubt?" (Diogenes Laertius 121)

And you yourself always say that one has to keep in mind the entirety of the sources; when the evidence is insufficient, that doubt may well be expressed, eg in the form of multiple possible explanations. Again, this is more like maths, where there are countless unproven hypothesis and various theories about them, each with their own reasons for and against.

Contrast that to cults, organised religions, or contemporary ideologies: They claim their truth is absolute and complete. They claim to have it all figured out.

Epicurean philosophy is a dogma in method, from which content derives (like maths). Organised religion and modern ideologies are dogmas in content, which is simply declared and to be taken at face value. And just like mathematicians are to be dogmatic about 2+2=4 and are to continue to profess that at every chance they get, so should we "never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy." The defining feature is not just knowing where you are, but also knowing how you arrived at where you are…

…to which Christianists would, of course, retort "I got here by reading the Bible", but I think you know what I'm getting at there is no need for trust, faith or believe in Epicurean philosophy (nor is there such a need in maths); there is no need for authority, hierarchy, power or a sense of superiority, either; not in the way this is true about cults, organised religions or modern ideologies.

Quote from Cassius

Is that ("finding the truth and saying it is xyz") not exactly what Epicurus does when he says things like:

It is; however (and I will use "dogmatic" in the modern sense here):

1. It's one thing to say "Nature shows that…" and another thing to say "I command that…".
2. Epicurus was was not dogmatic such as to shut down any discussion; nor was he dogmatically closed-minded, ever willfully ignorant of evidence that might persuade him to change his position.
3. Epicurus was dogmatic about that we ought to think for ourselves, use our own sources of evidence (senses/feelings/anticipations) and our own mental faculties in the proper way (how to think). As such, he was dogmatically anti-ideological.

Do you see the difference? Epicurus was like maths, in the sense that mathematics is dogmatic about the fact that 2+2=4 and that everything else is, by necessity, wrong – but this follows clearly from the assumptions (which take the place of the canon), and it is reasoned with proper logic, not with magical thinking or invocation of authority; and anyone is welcome to debate the issue, try to make their case for 2+2=5 as best they can (and be proven wrong).

The leaders of organised religions do not give reasons, not even if they change their mind (eg Papal infallibility), and they do not permit doubt, not even with good evidence (eg Giordano Bruno). They simply assert out of the blue, and that's the end of it. They invoke authority.

Did Epicurus say: "Death is nothing to us because I said so"?
Did he say: "There are infinitely many atoms because the gods told me they tried to count them but couldn't"?

The "dogmatism" of Epicurean philosophy is neither authoritarian nor prescriptive, and as such has nothing to do with that of organised religions or contemporary ideologies, other than having historically been called using the same word, which has since shifted meaning considerably. This difference in the type of "dogmatism" is analogous to that of mathematics versus organised religion/modern ideology.

Quote from Cassius

"I merely need to welcome it" could be read as a kind of muted Stoic-sounding indifference.

That's not what I say. I don't say "I don't care about the presence or absence of pleasure". I say "I welcome its presence," and I mean that in the same way as Don has just explained perfectly the meaning of "to welcome sth": the arrival of pleasure causes joy, it is a thing I am grateful for, but it is also something I don't need to push myself towards – it happens on its own. I don't need to discipline myself to eat more of my favourite foods, I just need to welcome the joy of them and the eating of them, and the pleasure of the eating of them, that happens practically on its own.

Quote from Cassius

rather than seeing themselves as sort of idly waiting to welcome whatever happens to come along

That's not quite true for me. Unless I make a concrete mental effort to do just about anything, my Self (as opposed to my body) will remain in thought worlds, and my body (as opposed to my Self) will continue to behave as a piglet would (seeking a soft corner with a heated blanket and comfort food). To do anything at all, I need to first bring the two together. Next, I need to muster the mental power to force my body to move against its drive for immediate gratification, because I know there is more pleasure to be had by delaying gratification. This is to say: Even to shower I need to call to mind "I do this now, because I will feel better after!" Unless I did that, unless I would briefly acknowledge and then account for the pain involved, unless I would embrace it for the sake of the reward that's sure to come, and quickly moved my mind firmly into the mental space of how I will feel after I have showered, I would not be able to do it. I simply couldn't be bothered, even though I would be filthy. And this is not speculation, this is tried and tested, time and again. My mind would dissociate from the body again, wondering off into thought, and my body would move itself to a warm corner and wrap itself up in a warm, soft cocoon.

While these mechanics probably start with much smaller actions in me compared to average people, they remain the same no matter what I do. Others who also have a strong ability to dissociate, such as David Goggins, are similar. He is quite clear about that, in his two books, and also in subsequent interviews: He hates running, but he loves what he gains from it on a personal, private level so much that he continues to do it, and he does it by not thinking about running, but by firmly holding in mind what he gets in return, as well as by not engaging in arguments with his own mind, because it will only find excuses, weaken his resolve, make him quit, which will then make him miserable. He idly wasted his life away before that, barely scraping by, over-indulging in junkfood and TV – and I'd be no different; as a matter of fact, I've been there.

I suppose this comes down to a difference in nature and nurture, leading to different dispositions, requiring different remedies on the detailed level, the split-second by split-second level of how to operate one's mind and body, despite the overall goal and guide to life being the same.

(1) Every set of ideas, by being coalesced into an ideology, will have a power structure, because it is the defining nature of an ideology to no longer have free discourse amongst equals; an ideology says of itself: "We found the truth, and it is xyz."

(2) The stronger the hierarchies in a group are, the more likely, the faster, the worse will the abuse be that happens in that group.

(3) Each ideology and group attracts a certain type of person more than other types. Supernatural religions and fascism attract (a) people who love to have authority and (b) people who sheepishly follow authority. They do not attract people who seek equal footing and open discourse. Furthermore, fascism and most supernatural religions attract people who enjoy external validation of their own "superiority" over everyone else.

Putting those three ingredients together is a surefire way for disaster.

However, note how they apply equally to Catholicism and Nazism. The label of "religion" is not required; a cult, corporation or even a nation can serve as the highly-hierarchical group, too. The ingredient of "supernatural" is not required, and as as a matter of fact, it is a mere correlate, but not causal at all, as can be seen in indigenous tribes, in Icelandic folk superstitions, in Wicca (I think) and other supernatural believes, which are not ideological, hierarchical, authoritarian, or "superior".

Quote from Don

But we need not embrace or glorify them. And yes, some negative feeling/pain is sometimes necessary for achieving positive feelings/pleasure by one's future self. My go to example is exercise. Those who claim to glorify pain as in "no pain, no gain" are actually saying that they will willingly experience pain but you know what... They leave out the gain, which is taking pleasure in the results of their action!

I think here it depends quite a bit on one's subjective understanding of what "to embrace" means: In my understanding of the words, I willingly embrace some calculated pain (eg physical exercise), because I keep the results firmly in mind. If I were to reluctantly, grudgingly endure it, I would not be able to maintain the task (and thus forgo its favourable long-term effects).

I don't glorify pain, it is not an end in itself, but I do embrace pain and discomfort, because I know it is not just one, but indeed the only path towards pleasure, which is my goal and guides my selection of which pains to embrace and which to shun (because it either does or doesn't outweighing the pain previously endured to attain it).

In my understanding of "no pain, no gain" to stress this cause-effect relationship as a means to assist the athlete in enduring by firmly holding in mind "Pain now brings gains later!", to help focus on the ends more than the means.

As such, "No pain, no gain" and similar sentences for me are a way to avoid being overly mindful to the present moment (where the work is being done), and to instead help me stay mentally in the space of my goal, where I want to go. It also helps me to remember that (almost always) the more I get done now, the better I will feel later. This is just hedonic calculus; after all, I say: "No pain, no gain." and I do not say: "Whatever the gain, I'm here for the pain!"

This brings to mind three quotes of Epictetus (yes, that guy!), which can easily be distorted (from their historical meanings) to fit Epicurean philosophy:

• "No great thing is created suddenly." → Exercising for 10 seconds won't keep me fit.
• "Say to yourself what you would be; then do what you have to." → I want to keep fit; I won't allow my mind to weasel its way out of it with ludicrous excuses; exercise is not up for debate!
• "The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it." → The greater the difficulty, the more satisfaction in surmounting it. → Chopping the entire stack of firewood in fall is a massive chore, but the pleasure I will get from this for the next months to come makes it worth it, and knowing I have it done will be very satisfying, so let's not be mindful of the present moment, but instead keep that future pleasure in mind!

I, by virtue of being human, gravitate towards pleasure and comfort naturally; this happens on its own, I don't need to actively maintain it, as it is its own reward; I don't need to embrace it, I merely need to welcome it. However, unless I embrace painful activities), I will run out of pleasures and comforts (I will run out of money, become unhealthy, and neuro-adaptation will make me suffer boredom, depression, and irritability even though I am warm, fed, and safe). To shy away or at best reluctantly engage in them destroys my drive and discipline; to glorify pain displaces pleasure as the proper guide. This is why, to me, to embrace specific, calculated pains is simply the correct middle ground, and a means to an end, just like virtue. As a matter of fact, I think it prudent to embrace these pains (but certainly not all pain, as in Stoic fatalism).

To sum up my take: Such sentences all serve to avoid mindfulness to the painful present, and serve to hold firmly the in mind the pleasant future.

Quote from Eikadistes

Nonetheless, it seems like supernatural religion lends itself to misinterpretation

Please be aware that phrasing it like this can be misleading with regards to cause and effect.

I posit that, because human nature is constant, it is a group's structure, which will dictate its behaviour in the long run. This implies that supernatural religions behave the way they do because of the structure of their social hierarchies and their group interests, not because they are supernatural religions. While it is possible for a group to hold a supernatural belief with no power structures, no hierarchies, no organisational interests (eg public image, spreading, political power), it is not possible for such a group to maintain its cohesion and coherence to one set of texts and one interpretation long-term. This is to say: Either you do not manage to keep the religion frozen in time, or you create a group structure which lends itself to abuse; to freeze a religious practice without creating structures which will invariably be abused sooner or later, is impossible.

A few humans have an intense drive towards power, and most humans have an intense drive to conform. Furthermore, it is not just that power attracts the corrupt, it is also that the majority of humans (including good people) will become corrupt and abusive if they are given power (and having a firm ideology, religious or otherwise, guards and assists an individual against this). This is why a group's structure will eventually be exploited, unless it is built in a way that specifically prevents that. Supernatural religion, by attracting certain types of personalities more than others, is almost always build to freeze the religion in time and to support positions of power. Furthermore, organised religions exhibit the same tribal effects that every organisation has: expand in size, expand in reach and power. This, too, is part of human tribal nature. This is why we see these things happen in religion time and again; but it is neither due to nor limited to religion, supernatural or otherwise.

Once the individuals have made up their mind, they will twist words and misinterpret their sources, to make them fit; but this is a rationalization, it happens after they made up their minds. The same order of events is at work in secular organisations which commit heinous crimes: First they decide, then they rationalize.

If anyone wants to dig deeper, here are a few links to start out with:

• Ash Conformity
• Milgram Experiment
• Stanford Prison (note how hard it was for some to quit after it was aborted)
• Hofling Hospital
• Strip Search Phone Calls

Being very clear about cause and effect here is important, because secular groups can be just as vicious and harmful; the 20th century is riddled with examples of that, and we have yet to see the end of history. This means we should remain aware of the mechanics at work, because similar things can happen pretty much anywhere, any time.

Exactly what Don just said. I completely agree.

This article offers a bit of a roundabout answer to your question, especially towards the end; and even though it is about the Cynics, I found the example of their extremes helpful to see my own views more clearly and solidify them. As a matter of fact, it is that article along with this video, which led me to frame my post (the one Cassius linked to) specifically the way I did.

Quote from Kalosyni

suicide is a choice and those that say suicide is not a choice because it seen as the only option

In my opinion, calling suicide "a choice" is simultaneously true and false, similar to how saying that addicts "choose" to pursue their drug is simultaneously true and false, because it glosses over the distinction between the inside-view of the affected person and the outside-view of a 3rd person, thus concealing from clear cognitive awareness the effects of the limits of free will (the effects of self-fulfilling prophecies, delusions, compulsions, addictions), but acknowledging them and accounting for them is key to overcoming the issue at hand. This is why I avoid reference to "choice" in either case: I think it is mischaracterising to the point of being counterproductive.

Quote from Kalosyni

I partially point to and blame the passive nature of the Buddhist philosophy and the constant preaching of the "acceptance of what is". (and of course Buddhists don't say much about seeking pleasure).

I agree. There is a stark difference between acknowledging and accounting for reality, versus passively accepting a situation and projected future. Establishing a realistic and specific goal of what one's good life could very-well look like (seeking pleasure) is absolutely key to developing and sustaining the drive and discipline required to get out the backward momentum, out of the gravity well of the black hole of misery.

Quote from Kalosyni

I think an important element is overcoming a sense of powerlessness and instead learning how to make change happen in one's life. By regaining a feeling of being effective and a sense of personal power to do what needs to be done

I agree (post #3). Regaining a sense of agency, of personal power to mold one's own future is key, so long as it stays realistic and specific, which is to say, so long as it does not sprawl into maladaptive daydreaming ("I will be rich and famous…"), which is a source of disappointment in itself ("…and once I'm rich and famous, I will be happy!"), and only serves to cement the delusions of powerlessness and hopelessness.

The Guidance of Satisfaction

Upon committing to pleasure as the guide to life, it becomes apparent that a calculated embrace of certain pains is a necessary evil. (For example: The mind requires a recurrent experience of discomfort to derive pleasure from comforts. The human body requires movement to stay healthy. Avoidance of work results in the pains of poverty (for most people), and even inconsequential procrastination leads to an anguish of the soul.) While I know this rationally, I struggle putting it into practice, and this self-sabotage is an unnecessary pain in itself. Furthermore, I know cognitively that I can be happy along the way by keeping my goal in mind and thus savouring the pleasure derived from completion of each (painful) step (and in this sense, pleasure guides my life by allowing me to measure my success (according to the needs and wants of my body, mind, and soul, not necessarily according to societal prescription), which means pleasure remains my guide while I'm engaged in painful tasks). Despite this, I am recurrently tempted by ill-advised short-term pleasures and immediate gratification, which makes me struggle to get going and keep going. It is important for me to specifically pursue satisfaction – the pleasure of reward –, as opposed to just any pleasure (see post #6 here for more explanation). Of course, your mileage may vary, but here is how things work for me: In my mind, there is a conscious, cognitive process, which happens somewhat automatically, and is recurrent sufficiently often without deliberate intervention. This process acts as a hedonic calculator to determine my mid- to long-term plans. In contrast, any short-term planning is something I need to perform as a deliberate part of my daily practice (if I don't write it down, I sleepwalk through mindless, unstructured days). In order to stick to these short-term plans (which are the steps towards my mid- to long-term plans), I cannot (yet?) think of "pleasure" as my guide and goal, because that would get me derailed by opportunities for immediate gratification. Instead, I need to align my feelings, thoughts and actions with maximising "satisfaction" (instead of "pleasure"). By specifically focussing on satisfaction, I can stick to my plans much better. Because this serves to maximise the long-term net sum of all my pleasures, it just adds an intermediate layer, is merely an aid for translating mid- to high-level Epicurean philosophy into immediate, low-level actions (see this thread for more on that).

To assist me in overcoming the initial resistance when starting a challenging activity, and also to assist me in staying with it, in seeing things through, I use this post to gradually compile a list of cherry-picked, concise, formulaic quotes of why and how Epicureans embrace delayed gratification and pleasures which require prior, recurring struggle to capture:

• As The Good is easy to get, So The Bad is patiently met. (Philodemus; Tetrapharmakos; Hedonicon translation)
• We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied. (VS14)
• To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes one alert for the needful employments of life, and when after long intervals we approach luxuries disposes us better towards them, and fits us to be fearless of fortune. (Letter To Menoeceus, 131)

Please see the cross reference for why "satisfaction" is not a the guide to life; it is merely a helpful trick to not neglect Choice (to not be stuck in Avoidance).

Cross Reference / Related Threads:

• Why isn't "satisfaction" the guide to life?
• Aspects of Pleasure – Dopamine, Endorphine, Continuity
• Why Do We Consider The Absence of Pain To Be Pleasure?

In this episode, it was briefly mentioned how there is reason to belief Lucretius had died before finishing his poem, which would otherwise have included another book discussing the nature of the gods. To everyone who — like me — is a bit bummed out by this, it might offer some cold comfort to keep in mind De Rerum Natura was rediscovered in the library of a Christianist monestary, and chances are, had Lucretius finished it, had it included a book discussing the gods, the entire poem might not have survived — or, in any case, the very section of the poem which we're now missing might have been thrown out the library, such that we'd now be missing it all the same.

Just a brief note: It was fleetingly mentioned in the podcast that some people today are unhappy about the fact that ancient Epicureans had a bit of a missionary zeal. To those people, I would say that we likely owe much, if not most of our current knowledge of Epicurean philosophy to this, and further, I would urge them to consider the difference between flying one's banners and opening one's door to newcomers, versus actively seeking out strangers to the point of pestering people, because, as is usual, there are degrees, which implies taking caution against any absolute position.