Posts by ReiWolfWoman

I’m reading a book called Jane Austen’s Philosophy of Virtues. Emsley writes, “Socrates calls this kind of adherence to principle illusory, and suggests that it is actually a kind of self-indulgence that forces one to be temperate for the sake of later pleasure…afraid of losing other pleasures…is practical, and has to do with action. The philosopher’s virtue has to do with the heart and mind, with transcending and mastering fear and desire” (24). (This also reminds me of the stoic approach to pain.) What do you all think Epicurus would say to this accusation? Is there are argument to be made that virtues of heart and mind are simply an extension of the pleasure analysis with fear and desire, masquerading as a higher good? Or perhaps an argument to be made that Epicurus’s own philosophy does value a higher good in its definition of pleasure, primacy of friendship and his own time spent in self-awareness and philosophical analysis? Am I asking an obvious question?

Excellent points. I guess it is merely conjecture. We can glean what he valued for himself and his friends, which includes both spectacle and smaller pleasures and needs, but a cost-benefit analysis he would advise a ruler to perform, or that he made for himself and his friends, is difficult to decipher. He did value ethical action, not for itself but as a method of experiencing pleasure and good and diminishing pain, so I do see an argument for both public works and spectacle in what I’ve read so far. But you seem to be saying that weighing one public work/spectacle against another isn’t clear.

You have all collectively answered this question quite in depth and contemplatively. Would he also consider the financial cost to the government a wise use of its money? Does that depend on the possibility for that money to actually bring Epicurean pleasure to other citizens and people? Or would it’s probable use for something else make space travel more beneficial?

I didn’t know where else to post this, so if Cassius or Anyone wants to delete and redirect me I’d welcome it…

What do you think Epicurus would have thought of going to the moon? Would it be extraneous to friendship and community and pleasure, and therefore a search for an unnecessary (and natural or unnatural) goal? Or would he see it as a search for connection, expanding community, and a necessary pleasure of some kind for either an individual or their community?

Discuss. Thank you.

Quote from Joshua

Quote

My rhetoric professor in grad school attributed Epicurus with moderation, which I can understand but I don’t see it as his actual point - more like being (reasonable*) and “sensible” in its classical definition of awareness and affectedness of the senses.

I probably wouldn't express it the following way normally, but since you have posed an interesting question and it can be helpful to think out loud sometimes, I might answer it this way:

I suggest that Epicurus advocated not moderation, but what modern philosophers following Max Weber call instrumental rationality; choices (and avoidances) are considered rational when they are expected to lead to a desired end, which for Epicurus is the end of increasing pleasure and reducing pain.

In any case, welcome!

Thank you! That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Outside of pure logic, I think all rationality is based on a desired end. Even when it claims to be objective, it usually has a motive. That’s one reason I appreciate Epicurus, for professing such end(s).

I’m still figuring out this quote function…

My undergrad course barely touched on Epicureanism and I actually learned more about it in a graduate rhetoric class where it was more respected. My undergrad professor was clearly a mix of Aristotelian and Kantian, so that’s what I wrote my final paper on. But it’s difficult to organize any intro course on philosophy because there’s too much to cover. My rhetoric professor in grad school attributed Epicurus with moderation, which I can understand but I don’t see it as his actual point - more like being (reasonable*) and “sensible” in its classical definition of awareness and affectedness of the senses.

*When I put words in parens it’s mainly because I can’t think of a better word but I know there is one.

Quote from Eikadistes

Quote from Cassius

ReiWolfWoman tells us:

My background in Epicurus is that I was first exposed to him in an undergrad philosophy class

I'm curious about others' experience with undergraduate Philosophy programs.

The program at Florida Gulf Coast University was built around Aristotle. One professor called him "the smartest person who ever lived". The senior thesis class at the college was inspired by Alasdair MacIntyre, a virtue ethicist and modern Aristotelian. Besides this, they offered supplemental surveys of existentialist and post-structuralist thinkers, and a section on Socratic rhetoric.

My last day before dropping out was funny. I'll never forget it: that last class featured a discussion about Georges Bataille (existentialist) masturbating in front of his mother's corpse. I don't remember how much that class cost per credit hour, but however much it was, it was too much.

The Garden was not mentioned once at any point in my formal education. I didn't receive a direction, or find anything that couldn't have been found in a public library or a bookstore. ... meanwhile, extended cousins in Rome shared with me that Epicuro was part of their childhood curriculum. I'm curious about others' experiences with Epicurean Philosophy in the education system.

Display More

Quote from wbernys

Quote from Eikadistes

The Garden was not mentioned once at any point in my formal education.

Trust me Eikadistes that may be for the better.

I had a class on Ancient Greece and we talked about the philosophies of the time briefly. The professor was rather great aside from this but man he was really bad with Epicureanism. As you can imagine he was practically gushing over Stoicism (and to a lesser extent Plato) and defended them against accusations of being unemotional for an entire hour and 15 minutes class.

But when he got to Epicureanism he only spent like 20 minutes on it said and i quote (no exaggeration). "Epicureanism teaches that being on fire should be seen as no big deal because it's all just atoms in the end and that all pain is nothing because it's all just atoms and all things dissolve in the end. There's no point so just eat, drink, and be merry What a lovely philosophy". He also said Epicurus was an Atheist. Didn't mention anything about the desires, friendship, or dealing with the fears of death.

Hi All,

My interest in Epicurus was prompted by his physics, really. I was impressed by the (disregard) for the gods and (belief) in multiple causes for life. It seemed quite intuitive for me. As I read on, I found his approach to life mature and reasonable. It combined the (virtues) I found valuable with the pleasure I knew was part of the good life - all within reason. I’m most interested in dissecting the variations of determinism, chance and will. However, my interests in his philosophy are not limited - both physics and values, both self and society.

I found this forum looking up “Epicurean forum.”