Search Results

In the last paragraph of the part XVI of Book 1 of On Ends, Torquatus said "...and that to live happily is nothing else except to live with pleasure. I"m not sure whether it has o double meaning or a problem in translation.

Yup. It's worth looking into. But I feel this happiness is not Eudaemonic as that of Aristotle's.

(Quote from Cassius) You're welcome Cassius. What makes me wonder is whether we pursue happiness for pleasure or pleasure for happiness...only if they are two different things. If they are just the same, I am curious why Torquatus had to emphasize that to live happily is nothing except to live with pleasure.

(Quote from Charles) Would you mean the definitions of both pleasure and pain or the differences between pleasure and happiness?

Cassius I also came across online lectures that say that the kind of pleasure Epicureans hold is ataraxia. Is there any truth in this? As far as I know ataraxia is what the Stoics are aiming. Does it mean the Epicurean meaning of tranquility is the same as that of Stoicism? It sounds odd. This makes me think that the absence of pain alone is not enough to define either pleasure or happiness.

(Quote from Cassius) This makes more sense to me now. I know that pleasure is produced by the absence of pain as what I already discussed lately in the other thread. Now, at that very state of tranquility right before the production of pleasure, there is surely no pleasure yet but a plain painlessness, and it's strange to say that painlessness means pleasure. I think that pleasure begins when you start enjoying a particular desire that has no more corresponding pain like your example of dancing.…

(Quote from Charles) I think my comment just above is the appropriate reply for this.

(Quote from Charles) Cicero is a Skeptic (skeptic). I don't know how others view him, but I used to be a skeptic, and I modeled my skepticism partly from him and partly from Socrates. When I was a skeptic, I was honest to myself when presenting an opposing view. I presented it as correctly as possible so I could find the most appropriate rebuttal. I wouldn't fake myself with untrue negation of an untrue position since my aim was also tranquility by suspending my judgment. When I would present an…

(Quote from Cassius) Yes. We choose pain (and skip some immediate pleasures) to achieve greater pleasure. I am referring to static pleasure that is produced by the absence of pain. If the absence of pain is the only definition of pleasure, then the stoic ataraxia must be pleasure, too. And I don't think they will agree in that case. Just like my example before, my stomach pain will not be painless at the same time, yet, when it is no longer painful, it does not mean pleasure because that state o…

(Quote from Cassius) I agree. I don't believe in anything static as well. But for the sake of analysis, we can't help using the term since it is how we state pleasure that is not kinetic or moving. But anyways, my point is that pain and painlessness can not exist at the same place at the same moment the way the absence of pain and pleasure can not exist at the same place and at the same moment, too.

(Quote from Cassius) Lol. Volcano is nothing to fear. Yes. I know that Epicurus is hedonistic. I don't think he promotes Taoism or Zen Budhism. This is why my strong argument is that death will guarantee the removal of all pains, but it will never provide us any pleasure.

And Epicurus wouldn't tell us to live with pleasure if only the removal of pain is the end.

(Quote from Cassius) Yes. Epicurus has made it clear when he expressed repeatedly across his works that we should live a prudent life. Prudence is impossible without reason.

But abstract general reasoning is no prudence at all. It's a different animal.

(Quote from Cassius) Lol. Nietzsche would surely tell him the opposite. I guess he would say that a Platonic reasoning is indeed for animals or for humans with herd mentality.

Cicero's comment presupposes that pleasure is irrational which is contrary to what Torquatus explains about the use of virtue for pleasure. I think it is just an argumentative device he made in order to insert the popular notion of pleasure as against that of Epicureans. Cicero loves teasing for an argument to come out as opposed to Socrates who loves interrogation.

I am beginning to see that pleasure and happiness are two different things, and it seems that happiness is a somewhat remote state as compared to mental pleasure. It appears to me that happiness is a circumstance while pleasure is a kind of feeling. Torquatus said that the greatest pleasure of the mind is a contributor to happiness. This implies a connection of two different things. In the last paragraph of part XVII of Book 1 of On Ends, Torquatus said "This is now entirely evident, that the ve…

(Quote from Oscar) Yes. That's exactly the point. Like what I argued yesterday here, death will guarantee the removal of all pains, but it will never give us pleasure since the dead are already devoid of sensation, hence they could never want or be satisfied.

(Quote from Cassius) Again, like what I mentioned to you yesterday, I do not believe in anything static or a certain kind of state. We just can't help using the term for the sake of analysis. The fact that the absence of pain produces pleasure simply explains they are different from each other. When I produce a meal, the meal is not me.

I guess it's not wrong to believe that the word happiness that is repeatedly used across Epicurus works is Eudaimonia. I don't think of any problem with it so long as we understand that the highest good is pleasure and not happiness. The important thing is that we are aware that the relationship between the two makes each other like identical. Torquatus said that "to live happily is nothing except to live with pleasure." Even Aristotle said that happiness "...is some plain and obvious thing like…