Posts by Rolf

Quote from Kalosyni

How much work should be put into pursuing what is hedonicly pleasurable and how much work should go into pursuing human needs.

I would argue that “what is pleasurable” and “human needs” are one and the same. I’m not sure if Epicurus himself said this, but personally I find it most prudent to focus my efforts first on needs (that is, necessary desires), since their absence tends to result in pain.

Once I have those secured, I am free to pursue unnecessary pleasures (what I assume you mean by “what is hedonicly pleasurable”). I don’t see it as “work” though. If the work I put into attaining something pleasurable causes an more pain than the resulting pleasure, it’s not something I want to be pursuing anyway.

Quote from Don

There's also the prolepsis of justice which doesn't physically exist but "we know it when we *see* it." That one, I've taken to be akin to the innate sense of fairness exhibited by various animals, ex.

Hmm, the concept of an innate justice feels a bit iffy to me, too close to objective morality. Didn’t Epicurus say something about how justice is only a social contract in which we agree to neither harm nor be harmed? How does this mesh with the idea of a prolepsis of justice? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something.

After our discussion last Sunday, I’ve been thinking about prolepsis and the epicurean gods. I’m currently listening to a podcast episode on the topic, and it was mentioned that that prolepsis of the gods perhaps unique in that it’s a prolepsis on something that is intelligible but not sensible. This made me think about how this could be.

Perhaps it’s not about the gods actually existing, but merely the fact that when humans have a telos (pleasure, in this case), it is a natural feature of our minds to consider the pinnacle of that telos; in this case, a perfectly incorruptible and tranquil being, that is to say, a god.

Quote from Don

A more productive way to think about pursuing pleasure is to get out of its way, to recognize the pleasure that's already present in our lives and to which we stubbornly refuse to admit into our lives.

I was interested in Taoism for some time before my discovery of Epicurean philosophy, and this reminds me of a common Taoist adage about “getting out of one’s own way”.

I don’t love relating the philosophy to religious and spiritual doctrines, but I find this particular idea rather helpful.

Quote from Kalosyni

Is there such a thing as not enough effort or too much effort when working to remove pain?

Speaking for myself here: I’m not putting in enough effort to remove pain if I’m still experiencing an abundance of (removable) pain. I’m putting too much effort into removing pain if the effort itself is increasing the level of pain I’m experiencing.

In other words, if one could achieve maximum pleasure with no effort, then there would be no reason to put in any effort. But since this is seldom, if ever, the case, my answer is “as much effort as it takes”.

Hmm, I’ll try to put this into words. With all due respect to Kalosyni, “effort” seems like a strange way to conceptualise the pursuit of pleasure. I suppose in a sense the answer is “as much effort as possible” - what else could be more important?

Just as it would be strange for a Christian to ask how much effort they should put into loving god or whatever it is they do, an Epicurean asking how much effort they should put into maximising pleasure seems to imply that there is something other than pleasure that they’d rather be experiencing.

Something else that springs to mind is that ultimately this question comes down to hedonic calculus. If the “effort” you’re putting into the pursuit of pleasure is leading to more pain than pleasure, then one “should not” put that amount or type of effort into that particular venture.

I also just find that the term “should” clashes with Epicurean ideas. Should according to what standard? One can only decide for themselves what is prudent.

No idea of the original source, but I saw this online and it made me think of the way people attribute human-like qualities (anger, dissatisfaction, need) to the gods - which is instrumental to the idea that they are both willing and capable of interacting with us.

Any suggestions for audio readings?

Quote from Joshua

Loeb edition by Rouse, and revised by Smith, is great for the Latin facing text alone.

Verse translation? Rolfe Humphries.

I should make a tier list one of these days.

Thanks Josh - I’ll look into Humphries’ translation. I’d like to read something in verse, though I understand it might be less faithful than a more direct translation? He does have a great name, though.

Quote from Don

LOL "Best" is a loaded question. Most literal? Most readable? Prose adaptation or poetic translation?

Haha, fair point! “Favourite” would’ve been a better word.

I’m looking to pick up a copy of Lucretius’ De rerum natura while I wait for DeWitt’s book to arrive. Does anyone have a recommendation for a translation?

This is excellent, thank you!

To be honest I think a big reason why people believe in telepathy and the like is because it sounds cool

Another thing that rubs me the wrong way with these sorts of parapsychology investigation groups is that they start with a theory and then try to prove that it’s true - not how science should be carried out. In their minds, telepathy or whatever else exists, and they just have to prove that it’s true. In other words, they’re attached to their hypothesis. No matter how many experiments fail to show any concrete evidence, they stick with the same hypothesis.

That said, I’m no expert on this and I would love to hear your thoughts Patrikios!

Quote from Patrikios

Institute of Noetic Science

Perhaps I’m missing something, but this organisation seems to be the antithesis of the Epicurean worldview: belief in the supernatural. After reading up on them a little, they seem to be widely regarded as pseudoscientific. I’ll also note that despite over a century of research into things like telekinesis, not one person has been able to demonstrate such abilities under controlled, repeatable condition.

Quote from Kalosyni

Lol, I was thinking the other way around...lol, that you Rolf were coming from an ascetic view (due to your comment about ice-cream).

Not at all! I’m the furthest thing from ascetic and I don’t believe that Epicurus was one either. Ice cream is great and can certainly make life richer and more pleasurable. That said, I think we can both agree that ice cream is not necessary for a pleasant life.

All I’m talking about here is the classification of desires as laid out. My disagreement stems from your statement that we “only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to one’s resources.” I don’t think that something being unnecessary to happiness implies that it is always difficult or reckless to attain, and I don’t think that Epicurus meant it in this way either.

Quote from Kalosyni

I think that I talked about movies in another thread (but have forgotten exactly what I said, and forgotten what thread that was in). But this is a good time to talk about it again...because I would question whether or not harm might come about to an individual if they were to watch a lot of movies about people who desire and chase after great wealth, status, power, control, perfect beauty, perfect safety, or non-stop sensory variations...but it will depend on the person and the circumstances...so no absolute rules.

Haha, I was hesitant to use movies as an example but couldn’t come up with anything better in the moment - I remember that you’re not a fan. The word “movies” could be replaced here by practically any pleasure that is neither inherently harmful nor necessary for happiness.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Rolf

I don’t know if I agree that natural/unnecessary desires are “difficult or impossible to attain”, or that they should be viewed negatively at all. From what I understand, this category simply refers to things that are pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness.

"pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness"... maybe the word "optional"?.

And yet I see it differently, as "unnecessary for survival" - and you only label something as natural/unnecessary when it is difficult/impossible to get or depleting/reckless to ones resources.

Something that causes pain would go into the "empty" category (as in empty of pleasure).

I would label something natural but unnecessary if it is a natural desire (ie. Not arising from false beliefs or fears) but not strictly necessary for my happiness.

Movies are clearly not necessary for happiness or survival - countless people have been happy and healthy without them. And yet watching movies is not an inherently harmful or empty desire. In which case, what are movies other than natural but unnecessary desires?

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you Kalosyni, and please correct me if I am, but it seems that your definition leads to an ascetic view of Epicureanism in which we should only pursue what is strictly necessary.

Quote from Kalosyni

Okay, regarding my "mistaken" idea in post 22 above (of only two categories)...now revising back to three, lol:

• natural/necessary = necessary for life and for well-being
• natural/unnecessary = difficult or impossible to attain, and beyond ones means or recklessly depleting ones needed resources in order to attain
• empty = greed for status/wealth/power/control/perfection/non-stop sensory variations

I don’t know if I agree that natural/unnecessary desires are “difficult or impossible to attain”, or that they should be viewed negatively at all. From what I understand, this category simply refers to things that are pleasurable but not strictly necessary for happiness.

A can of soup and some bread will fulfil my hunger, but I won’t deny myself the pleasure of a steak dinner if the opportunity arises and it doesn’t cause an excess of pain.

It is painful to not have any food at all, but I am not (or should not) be caused any pain by eating soup and bread rather than a steak dinner. The way understand it: Necessary desires cause pain in their absence, unnecessary desires do not (or should not).

Decided to look up some definitions on my beloved Wiktionary and found something interesting.

The third defintion of the word "luxury" is given as: "Something that is pleasant but not necessary in life."

This seems to fit perfectly with the Epicurean view of desires that are natural but unnecessary.

On the other hand, the defintions given for the word "extravagance" are markedly anti-Epicurean, aligning more closely with empty/corrosive desires, such as "excessive" and "prodigality".

I realise that dictionary defintions rarely represent concrete, objective meanings, but perhaps they can be useful in pointing us towards how words are most commonly used and interpreted.