Posts by Rolf

Quote from Cassius

Given Epicurus' framework, I think it is clear that Epicurus would say that 'absence of pleasure' equals pain.

How would this look in practice?

Quote from Don

As far as the "feelings are two," I fall back on the modern psychological research on valence and activation. You'll see some of this on this forum if you search for circumplex or Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, https://lisafeldmanbarrett.com/

There's also some research here:

https://psu.pb.unizin.org/psych425/chapt…cumplex-models/

My basic understanding, both Epicurean and modern, is that if you are alive, you are feeling something. There is no neutral state. It may be intense (high activation) or mild (low activation); and there will be an unpleasantness/pleasantness dimension (valence). But you never feel neutral if you're being honest with yourself.

Thanks Don, it's helpful to hear it in more modern, scientific terminology.

Quote from Cassius

We refuse to believe, however, that when pleasure is removed, grief instantly ensues, excepting when perchance pain has taken the place of the pleasure; but we think on the contrary that we experience joy on the passing away of pains, even though none of that kind of pleasure which stirs the senses has taken their place; and from this it may be understood how great a pleasure it is to be without pain.

Why is this? If the absence of pain is pleasurable, then shouldn't the absence of pleasure be painful, by necessity? When pleasure simply fades away, what are we left with if not pain?

Hey everyone!

I've hit a bit of a road block again with the concept of "the feelings are only two". I've read up on this before and asked questions about it, but I'm still not entirely confident in my understanding. Specifically, I'm wondering:

• How are "neutral" feelings explained? (ie. When one does not feel particularly good or bad.) If I have a stomach ache, then I am experiencing pain in my stomach. But when my stomach is not aching, I wouldn't say I'm experiencing pleasure in my stomach. It just doesn't hurt. Additionally, my mental state quite often feels neither pleasurable or painful. I just feel okay.
• How are "bittersweet" feelings explained? (ie. Experiences that are both pleasant and painful, such as the rememberance of a lost loved one.)
• If the feelings are only two and pleasure is the absence of pain - illustrated by the vessel analogy - does this mean that every pleasure corresponds to the removal of some pain? I can see how natural pleasures like eating, sleeping, or friendship relieve hunger, fatigue, or loneliness. But how do we account for unnecessary or extravagant pleasures, like eating ice cream or reading poetry? What pain is being removed?
• Speaking of the vessel analogy and the general idea of pleasure reaching its limit at the absence of pain - does intensity of the pleasure/pain play any role in the "fullness of the vessel"?

I already have an idea of the "Epicurean response" to some of these questions, but I find it helpful to twist and bend ideas as much as possible to ensure that I understand them properly and that they hold up to scrutiny. Thanks in advance!

Welcome, Karim! Happy to have you here.

Quote from Robert

Habitual attachment to an unnecessary pleasure creates mental turmoil

Good point Robert - sort of an inverse of Menoeceus 131:

“To grow accustomed therefore to simple and not luxurious diet gives us health to the full, and makes a man 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.”

Quote from Cassius

I wonder if there is a way that it can be made more clear that the cup is full rather than empty? The black color alone might be hard to determine whether empty or full (?)

I was thinking the same thing. Copilot AI suggests something like the attached image - the wavy line makes it clearer that liquid is inside, but it also makes it seem like the cup is not completely full. Thus, I settled on the design I put together in Inkscape. I feel it’s somewhat that it’s full of liquid - as opposed to the oval being white showing emptiness - but I definitely echo your concern and I’m open to any ideas.

Quote from Rolf

Decided to try learning Inkscape at one in the morning...

I had intended for it to look like this, but I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how to easily remove the segment at the top of the bottom oval. Here I’ve done it by hand with a white pen tool.

Quote from Bryan

Posting an update to coins and rings I have been making, They are still a bit rough, but if anybody wants any, let me know. The necklaces and the coins are the easiest to make, and the Lucretius Trio ring is "on hold" at the moment (but I should be able to make more, somewhat better versions, soon).

These are beautiful, Bryan!

I also believe that a good symbol should be able to be represented in many different styles and colours while remaining recognisable. Take, for instance, the many renditions of the Christian cross. Here's a couple mockups of a more stylised, hand-drawn (though unfilled) kylix I threw together in Canva.

Decided to try learning Inkscape at one in the morning... Harder than I thought! Think I'll stick to pen and paper for now.

That said, I'm liking the idea of a full kylix as a symbol more and more. Beyond Lucretius' vessel analogy itself, the classic ancient Greek wine cup represents pleasure (and not ascetic "necessary only" pleasure!) and ties back to the historical and cultural origins of the philosophy.

I also toyed with the idea of combining a balance scale with the kylix - the scale "plates" hanging from each handle or something like that, to represent prudent and measured pursuit of pleasure. However, it would perhaps be overly complex for a simple symbol.

Some great ideas here! I’ve really been enjoying looking at all of them.

I’m firmly in the camp of “symbols should be simple enough for a child to draw”. With that in mind, I like the idea of a full cup as a symbol, representing the vessel analogy and thus the prudent pursuit of pleasure - neither ascetic nor reckless.

Quote from Cassius

the first and second most important doctrines on the list are telling you to first and foremost watch out for those who would manipulate you with bad motives.

Which doctrines are you referring to?

Related question: How does a modern-day Epicurean reconcile a) the predominant theory that the universe has a beginning with b) the Epicurean idea that the universe has no beginning and end?

Cheers! 🥳

Interesting video, but I doubt she’d align herself with Epicurus - she’s a hard determinist.

I don't believe in free will. This is why.

Learn more about differential equations (and many other topics in maths and science) on Brilliant using the link https://brilliant.org/sabine. You can get st...

youtu.be

Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?

Check out the math & physics courses that I mentioned (many of which are free!) and support this channel by going to https://brilliant.org/Sabine/ where you ...

youtu.be

You don't have free will, but don't worry.

In this video I explain why free will is incompatible with the currently known laws of nature and why the idea makes no sense anyway. However, you don't need...

youtu.be

Quote from Patrikios

Does this seem meaningful?

That’s a great way of phrasing it, thanks Patrikios. It’s an ideal, just as reaching a complete absence of pain (100% pleasure/0% pain) is an ideal. Epicureanism is still useful even if we never reach this idyllic place.

Quote from Cassius

Now "wise" has many shades to it, and i don't think there's an absolute definition that applies to everyone.

You’re right, defining the term “wise” is important here. The way I understand it, the word “wise” here is used to mean having a full grasp on Epicurean philosophy and the prudent pursuit of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

But there are in my view clearly lines of clinical issues where it's going to be unreasonable to say that such and such a person is "wise."

I’m talking more about whether such people have the capability to become “wise” (ie. “Fill their vessel” and experience continuous pleasure through prudent choice and avoidance). Not whether or not we would fall them are wise in their current state.

What kind of “clinical issues” would discount somebody from achieving a proper grasp on Epicurean philosophy, in your view?

I see where you’re coming from, and I agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t necessarily interpret the quote the same way. Are you saying that Epicurus means that there are only 1) those with the “right physical constitution” and 2) those who have no hope of a pleasurable life? The way I understand the quote, there is a lot in between - I take it to mean that there are people who can experience pleasure, but lack the “physical constitution” to be truly wise and prudent due to circumstances outside of their control. There are many people with chronic physical or mental illnesses that can be mitigated but not removed - would Epicurus say that these people lack the “physical constitution” to be wise?

Quote from Cassius

I'd call that realistic rather than pessimistic, and I'd call it much preferable to imagining that there is a better life after death, or a magic pill that overrides nature, becaus those things just don't exist, and I'd rather know the truth about my situation rather than spend whatever time I have under fake pretenses.

I agree, well said.

Quote from Cassius

"A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation."

This one has always been a bit prickly for me. If Epicureanism is a philosophy that is beneficial for everyone, and wisdom is so vital for prudently pursuing pleasure, then the idea that certain people are involuntarily unable to work towards this feels rather deflating. What is one to do if they lack the “physical constitution” or live in the “wrong nation”? Does Epicureanism still have something to offer such people, or are they better off looking elsewhere for pleasure and the reduction of pain?