Posts by Rolf

Quote from vlasalv

I suppose, at least in my early understanding, that Epicurus indeed used the words 'pleasure' and 'pain' as conceptual markers rather than literal interpretations. His 'pleasure' seems to point more toward an inner tranquility - a state of peace rather than momentary delight. In that light, certain pains might be endured for the sake of greater inner peace, if they lead to that deep serenity. I wonder if Mildred Lisette Norman, the Peace Pilgrim, reached that state. Could she be seen as a modern figure who attained the god-like state that Epicurus spoke of?

Hey Vlas, welcome to the forum! I'm sure others will be able to explain this better, but the equating of "pleasure" with "a tranquil state" is a common pitfall in the understanding of Epicurean philosophy. When Epicurus says pleasure, he means pleasure. This includes pleasure of all kinds: The "state of peace" and the "momentary delight". The goal of Epicureanism is very much pleasure, complete pleasure, and not some kind of detached nirvana-esque state of serenity - no "god-like state", at least not in any typical understanding of the term.

Which Is It? Is "Ataraxia" Or "Pleasure" The Ultimate Epicurean Goal? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

This might be a good place to start!

Quote from Don

And there's nothing "sinful" about overindulging in wine, for example. But if you're going to, you've made a choice and you'll have to deal with the consequences. No more, no less.

Well said Don, that's exactly how I see it.

Quote from Cassius

This has been a good thread and maybe not gotten to exactly the destination Rolf may have thought but it points out how important it is to be precise.

Quote from Rolf

There's nothing inherently despicable about living a life filled with pain, it's just misguided and unnecessary.

Even here, we have to balance the wording that Torquatus and Epicurus used about "blame":

Quote from Torquatus

On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of the pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain emergencies and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.

Quote from Epicurus to Menoeceus

[133] For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.

Display More

Hmm, this is certainly an interesting counterpoint. You're right about the importance of precision in language - I appreciate your frankness!

These two quotes do sound rather uncharacteristically harsh to my ear. Alhough perhaps the former is a case of Cicero's embellishment. Epicurus using the word "blame" in the second quote makes sense to me, as I read it as him saying that we can only hold ourselves accountable for what is in our control. Feel free to correct me if I'm off-base here.

Count me in! I can't promise I'll be available every week, but I'd love to hang out and discuss with everyone on a semi-regular basis.

Quote from Kalosyni

The usual cognition of the word "pleasure" and which has been with me most of my life until encountering Epicurean philosophy, seems like it has almost an eternal "prolepsis" of being bodily sensation and a kind of movement/active state, (and pain being a sensation that is more than just a mild discomfort). In my mind this leaves out the state of "feeling satisfied" (and therefore not needing anything to be different than it is).

I think part of it is learning to become more aware of one's feelings, along with gratitude and appreciation. While in the past, before encountering Epicurean philosophy, I might have dismissed a state of "mere" satiety as a bland neutral state, I can now see that this is a pleasure in itself. This in particular has been a great boon to me, as it's helped me to gain a far more positive perspective on both my own life and life in general, by realising how much pleasure there really is.

Wherever in the case of desires which are physical, but do not lead to a sense of pain, if they are not fulfilled, the effort is intense, such pleasures are due to idle imagination, and it is not owing to their own nature that they fail to be dispelled, but owing to the empty imaginings of the man. (PD 30)

I'm having some trouble understanding this one, specifically the grammar. What is Epicurus saying here?

Quote from Cassius

Yes definitely Godfrey:

Article

On Pain, Pleasure, And Happiness

Brief: The feelings are only two, pleasure and pain—there is no third state such as neutral, and there are no “fancy pleasures” which are different from regular pleasures. Because there is no neutral, reducing pain in life is only possible if there is a corresponding increase in pleasure. The extent of pleasure can be maximized by making sure to attend to all parts of one’s body, including the brain. Happiness is comprised of a pleasurable life. The capacity for pain is a valuable warning system and should not be disabled except in unusual conditions. The experience of pain is to be avoided except when it is chosen for the sake of greater pleasure/ lesser pain over the lifespan. Humans have many shared responses of pain or pleasure to specific experiences, and they also have individual variations. The standard of pleasure in one’s life must be one’s own subjective feelings, not a generic advice. There are many pitfalls to avoid if one desires a happy, pleasure-filled life, such as a false belief in a neutral state, practices which attempt to disable the normal capacity to feel pleasure and pain, and failure to consider the long-term pains and pleasures resulting from actions. In discussing pain and pleasure, Epicureans stick to real life situations, not hypothetical philosophical puzzles.

Elayne

July 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM

Reading this now - immensely helpful. Perhaps it would be good to consolidate these particularly useful posts/articles somewhere on the site? There's so much good stuff on here but it feels a bit scattered.

As a result of Cassius' friendly encouragement, I've decided to post this publicly, along with a tongue-in-cheek title.

Something I really appreciate about Epicurean philosophy is that there is no concept of sin. I don't necessarily mean the concept of religious sin - I was not raised religious - but the idea of falling short of some ideal. With other philosophies of life I've tried on, I always feel this shame or guilt whenever I miss the mark. Maybe I indulged too much in worldly desire and clinging (Buddhism) or allowed my emotions rather than virtue guide me (Stoicism). But with Epicureanism, I haven't "sinned" if I do something that results in more pain than pleasure. It's a learning process. Sometimes I drink too heavily on a night out and feel hungover the next day, and realise that I would've been better off drinking more moderately. But it's not some kind of stain on my soul. Life can be messy and Epicurus, from what I understand, gets this. There's nothing inherently despicable about living a life filled with pain, it's just misguided and unnecessary.

The phrase "Prudent Enjoyment" has been on my mind today. Or in the imperative, "Enjoy Prudently". I think it sums things up nicely.

Or if you speak emoji, 🎉⚖️.

No leaping pig on this one, but decided to try another interpretation of an Epicurean flag, this time featuring the vessel of pleasure and pain.

Quote from Cassius

"For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living creature has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look for anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained because of the absence of pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure."

Hmm, I do find myself struggling to reconcile this one. Could you help me break it down?

Does my understanding of the value/importance of katastematic pleasure sound correct to you?

Really interesting discussion, thanks everyone. I’ll be sure to check out Nikolsky and later G&T, though I feel I should first get a broad understanding of the philosophy via Austin and DeWitt.

That said, I’m not sure I quite see the point at issue here. Pleasures vary in duration, intensity, and location. Of course I would prefer a katastematic pleasure. More sustainable, longer lasting pleasure. It’s like asking someone if they want $1000 now or $100 per month for 2 years. It’s a matter of prudence.

At the same time, I don’t think that turns such pleasures into a specific goal. The goal is still just pleasure generally. I forget who said this, perhaps it was an older forum post, but getting wrapped up trying to define pleasure and pain sort of takes away from the whole “pleasure and pain are our inherent, instinctively knowable guides” thing. I do understand that it’s important to discuss this stuff though - I find myself especially interested in hearing criticisms and flawed takes on Epicureanism. It helps me to understand what is *not* Epicureanism. I suppose you could say I’m not just looking for an understanding of epicurean philosophy, but an absence of misunderstanding.

Cassius Would you be able to sum up this flawed view of katastematic pleasure that mainstream academia purports?

Well said Cassius!

Quote from Cassius

So Patrikios, who is older like me, due to our age can look upon some experiences as the best we could even hope for, while Rolfe who I understand is much younger, can look aghast at the things that might be 100% pleasing to old guys, and yet there is no philosophical problem.

Exactly! This state of 100% pleasure/0% pain could present itself as a peaceful tranquility, sitting out in nature, but it could just as well occur while dancing to loud music with friends.

I’d also like to reiterate that this state (which I view as more of a hypothetical ideal - correct me if I’m off-base) is NOT a one-and-done state you achieve and then live in perfect harmony for the rest of your days. It’s not nirvana. It’s simply a description of the greatest pleasure one can experience. Our pleasure and pain levels are constantly fluctuating as we move through life.

Quote from Patrikios

Quote from Rolf

Likewise, “absence of pain” and “pleasure” mean the same thing (considering only pleasure and pain exist), but the negative form, “absence of pain”, implies the highest degree of pleasure.

Rolf , thanks for this thoughtful perspective. I understand the “spotless” analogy.

I’m wondering whether “absence of pain”, implies the highest degree of pleasure fits for all persons. Couldn’t the “absence of pain” lead one to simply be in a relaxed, neutral state; with highest degree of pleasure coming from a favorite kinetic pleasure?

I may be missing something in the way you described the analogy.

This is something I’m still wrapping my head around, so I might not be the best person to ask. That said, according to epicurean philosophy there is no “neutral state”. There is only pleasure and pain. So a complete absence of pain indicates a complete presence of pleasure. The way I understand it, this “absence of pain” is more of an ideal state, a goal, rather than something that we are realistically going to achieve. As far as I’m aware, you could switch out “absence of pain” here with “100% pleasure” and it would mean the same thing. “Absence of pain” is just used to emphasise the completeness of pleasure we should strive for.

I suppose such an ideal state could present itself as a relaxed and tranquil state, but it could just as easily be a moment of ecstatic joy and laughter with friends. Epicurus wasn’t talking about some state of perfect pleasure that lasts forever once achieved, like nirvana or something. Instead, our pleasure and pain levels are constantly fluctuating.

Woah, exciting stuff! It’s insane how we’re able to detect things like this from such a tremendous distance.

I apologise for hijacking this thread with *yawn* philosophical discussion, but hypothetically speaking, what would happen to Epicurus’ argument on the existence of life across the universe if we somehow ruled out the existence of life beyond earth?

Quote from Cassius

It does not appear that we currently have a thread devoted to the Leaping Pig, at least not here in this forum where it needs to be. This is to start that thread so we can eventually explore details such as :

1. Where it was discovered.
2. Where it is now.
3. References to it in articles and journals.
4. Creating a replica via 3d printing.
5. How it ties in with Epicurean iconography.

I would also like a graphic version that can be added to the right-hand panel of graphics, probably right underneath the explanation of the EpicureanFriends logo. Something that looks like a flag, perhaps incorporating a circle or other reference to the sun, so that we have two "in your face" references at once.

"Oh, you don't like Epicurus' view of how to consider the size of the sun, we'll just say til the end of time: 'The Size of The Sun Is As It Appears!'"

"Oh, you don't like Epicurus' view of Pleasure as the goal of life and you think certain animals are 'unclean,' well then we'll adopt a PIG as our mascot!"

As to "in your face" references:

In closing I argue that the size of the sun is an Epicurean shibboleth. In Epicurus,in Lucretius and in Demetrius,we see the same nostrum repeated, with progressive elaborations that do not fully clarify the basic precept. The persistence of Epicureans in this formulation is not so much the result of reflexive dogma or pseudo-intellectual obscurantism as it is a passphrase, a litmus test. Think like an Epicurean, and you will figure out that the sun’s appearance and the sun itself are two related but distinct things with two different sizes; that you must keep the infallible data of the senses, tactile as well as visual, in proper perspective when making judgments about your perception; and that the available data is insufficient to estimate the sun’s magnitude to an acceptable degree of confidence (compare Barnes: 1989, 36). Think that Epicureans believe the sun’s diameter is a foot,that they are absurd,and you have exposed yourself as un-Epicurean. The first/second-century AD Stoic doxographer Cleomedes, who as Algra points out “nowhere takes account of the Epicurean principle of multiple explanations,”likewise fails this test when he mocks Epicurus’ position on the size of the sun.

Display More

I'm a bit of a flag nerd and decided to take a crack at this!

Edit: Realised that the "sun" was not aligned so went back to fix it. Also created versions using the classic piggy.

Quote from Godfrey

Personally, I'm using "slogans" these days. Many of the best ones are ones that I just make up to fit my current situation, some aren't Epicurean but are compatible with the philosophy, depending on what I keep in mind when thinking about them. I put one on the home screen of my phone and think about it throughout the day. Then after a couple of days I switch to another one.

A model for this is the Buddhist lojong slogans. Depending on the translations, some of those are applicable. Of course, those refer back to Buddhist concepts, but I just happily bastardize them to my own ends.

Oo, I hadn't heard of lojong before. Very interesting. Do you have any favourite slogans? What would you say is the difference between a slogan and a motto?

Quote from Eikadistes

Glad you asked!

My personal favorite is from DRN 2.991, CAELESTI SVMVS OMNES SEMINE ORIVNDI meaning "We have all come from heavenly seed", which I really like because it summarizes, anticipates, and informs Carl Sagan's observation that "we are made of star stuff". (Got it tatted a while ago!)

As far as those go, ΛΑΘΕ ΒΙΩΣΑΣ is also a favorite, "Live Anonymously" (or "unknown", etc.):

Antiquity also provides us with SIC FAC OMNIA TAMQUAM SPECTET EPICVRVS, meaning "Do all things as if Epicurus were watching", a kind of ancient, Epicurean version of "What Would Jesus Do?"

Then also, we have FELIX QVI POTVIT RERVM COGNOSCERE CAVSAS meaning "Happy [is] the person who knows the causes of things" from a piece of work by Virgil that I forget.

Juvenal shares with us RANDVM EST VT SIT MENS SANA IN CORPORE SANO... meaning “You should pray for a sound mind in a healthy body...” which has a nice, confident, encouraging ring to it.

And then, of course, Horace gives us CARPE DIEM, which we all know as meaning "Seize the Day", but, personally, I prefer that we "Pluck the day [from the vine of time".

Sorry for the overshare! These are always fun questions.

Display More

Ah, a kindred spirit! A lovely collection of sayings. Badass tattoos too, super clean.

Quote from Cassius

Thinking back to past romances, some of those people were better at different aspects of life than others. Some were smarter, some were more athletic, some were richer - any combination of characteristics you can think of - some brought different combinations of pleasures and pains to the table, all of which I can choose to think of as a lump sum or I can choose to evaluate them independently, and each step of the way during the review those aspects are going to ring painfully or pleasurably. But the bottom line is that if you remember it as affecting you at all, you remember it either positively or negatively, with greater or less duration, greater or less intensity, or greater or less part of the body or mind that is affected. But if you judge it to have affected you, and if it did not affect you painfully, then it is justifiable to judge the affect to have been pleasurable, because you choose to judge all experiences in life to be pleasurable unless they are painful.

Some of the cites behind that are here: https://wiki.epicureanfriends.com/doku.php/the_norm_is_pleasure_too

Hmm, I'm not necessarily referring to a past relationship that was both good and bad. What I'm talking about is more the bittersweet feeling that comes with reminiscing over something pleasant that has been lost. Romantic heartbreak, a child moving away from home, a close relative passing away.

For the sake of example, let's assume that that which has been lost was primarily or purely pleasant. When reminiscing over these, one feels both joy over the good memories and sadness over the loss. A bittersweet feeling.

How is this to be reconciled under the Epicurean view of "pleasure or pain, not both"?

Quote from kochiekoch

Hi Rolf and welcome!

'Bittersweet' memories of past romances are rough. I know.

Epicurus, I believe would have counseled to have gratitude for the pleasure of the experience and the skills acquired for the next romance. This way the pleasure outweighs the pain.

Sounds trite and true but valid in my opinion: 'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all'.

https://www.historythroughfiction.com/blog/famous-literary-quotes-four

Thanks Koch, happy to be here!

I'm not asking about how Epicurus would handle past romances, but how these bittersweet feelings are reconciled within the Epicurean view of pleasure and pain. According to the Epicurean view, pleasure and pain cannot be felt simultaneously (in the same part of the body?). Thus, I am unsure how such bittersweet feelings fit in.

That said, I completely agree with your approach to breakups.

Quote from Godfrey

PD09: If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.

Pleasure can be examined in terms of intensity, location and duration. If you really look at your present experience at any time, you may find that you're happy even though you just stubbed your toe. Or that your toe feels intense pain, but your belly is pleasantly full. As to mental pleasures of the bittersweet variety, I think of them as comparable to multitasking. Current neuroscience (to my understanding) has found that multitasking is in actuality just rapid task switching. In the same way, I would posit that bittersweet is actually bitterthensweetthenbitterthensweetetcetc. The pleasant memory prompts the pain of loss, which might then be replaced by a pleasant memory and so on. Or a pleasant memory may prompt the pain of loss, and the pain of loss lingers. Or vice versa.

An experiment that I occasionally do is when I feel like I'm in a neutral state, I try to really examine how I'm feeling. I always find that I'm experiencing pleasure and/or pain: it's just that the intensity may be very low, or a pleasure somewhere is offsetting a pain elsewhere. We are constantly experiencing pleasure/pain, both as a complete organism and in our various parts. Some of these concepts need to be felt as well as reasoned out, which is part of the point of the Epicurean canonic.

Aha! It's starting to click for me now. "Bitterthensweetthenbitterthensweet" is a good way of describing it. I certainly agree that "these concepts need to be felt as well as reasoned out" - these things can be awfully confusing from a logical perspective but clear as day when experienced. Sort of in the same way that people can debate endlessly on the meaning of "pleasure" and "pain", when in fact it is terribly obvious to anyone (or anything) that has been alive.

The experiment you mentioned is a good idea. I'll have to try that. Though to be honest, when I start focusing intensely on how I feel, I usually end up fixating on minor bodily aches and pains...

Thanks for your replies, everyone!

Quote from Don

That said, whether you take a realist or idealist position on Epicurean gods is secondary - in my opinion. David Sedley is the main popularizer of this position, but I believe it was floating around prior to his and A.A. Long's exposition of it. I usually go to Lucretius point about "you can use Bacchus to refer to wine, Ceres to refer to the grain harvest, etc, but know you're using metaphors" kind of thing. I can walk into a cathedral and be awed by the grandeur. That doesn't mean I need to accept the theology inherent in the architecture. I can enjoy religious music but don't need to believe in gods. I probably think of myself as a functional atheist. I find it unlikely there are gods of any kind with an objective physical existence. Are there aliens more intelligent than humans? Sure, I can believe that. But they are not "gods" but simply other beings in the infinite universe.

That's a reasonable explanation. I'd say my thoughts align with yours on this Don, at least at this stage. I agree that the important thing here is the materialistic view of reality (ie. The three points you listed). Thanks for the great write-up!

Quote from Cassius

So there are many deep implications of the physics and epistemology that you never get to until you get past the superficial idea that Epicurus only cared about "pleasure" and nothing else.

Ahh okay, I see where you're coming from. Is this what's known as "canonics"? I hadn't heard that term before coming here. I ought to read up on this area of the philosophy. DeWitt's book is on its way so I'll dive in once I'm finished with Austin's.

Quote from Cassius

even to the point of conquering death

Woah, I was following until this part. What's the logic here?

Hmm, I'm still not sure I understand. The whole "not mixed, but different reactions in different aspects of their experience" part just feels like semantics to me, rather than an actual distinction.

Could you explain it through the example I gave of thinking back to a past romance?

Cassius