Posts by Hiram

Don't know but this is the place to look for it:

https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/

https://realhedonism.squarespace.com/blog/baby-hedonism

Upcoming

This is why Nietzsche, when he appointed a “new nobility” rejected the idea that things were true, or honorable, because they were “ancient”. This is not philosophical thinking.

On Venus:

http://societyofepicurus.com/venus-as-spiri…dom-traditions/

Also, while doing research for this month's 20th message, I came across the myth of Varaha, who is an avatar (a divine incarnation) of Vishnu in Hinduism in the form of a Cosmic Boar or Pig. In the myth, Varaha takes an incarnation in order to save the Earth from a demon who is tyrannizing her. In the end, Varaha heroically kills the demon and restores the Earth to safety. It is interesting to me that the pig in the West is seen as the embodiment of Epicurean philosophy, which is materialistic and a steadfast affirmation of the value and reality of matter, of bodies, and of this world, while in India this boar is the protector and savior of the Mother Earth, of matter, also. Varaha beautifully mythologizes the role of Epicurean philosophy in defending the value and dignity of, and giving meaning to, this world. The story is told here.

Quote from Pivot

...

3. Deep relationships and strong ambitions require altruistic sacrifices.

...

Issue 2: Horrible acts are considered permissible under Epicurean thought

Issue 1. I think I remember Philodemus saying that sometimes in order to keep or help a friend or loved one we suffer through many things (sacrifices, in your parlance) because the PAIN of not having the friend with us is much greater than the pain we go through assisting them.

So the key here is that it needs to pass hedonic calculus, and it does but only for people whom we truly love or who are truly worthy of our pain. Bob Marley once said there will always be people who will make you cry, and you have to choose to love the ones who are worth crying for. So two things:

1. You, if you are wise, will make the sacrifices for people who are worthy of your love.

2. You will also set BOUNDARIES with those of lesser worth. And this is JUST as important for your ataraxia. See what Michel Onfray says about eumetry.

Issue 2 - the problem is that this is not only the case for Epicureans. Think of the predator priests in the Catholic Church, THEY'RE not using hedonic calculus or Epicurean ethics but they end up engaging in these acts because they think they can get away with it. Philodemus, I believe, said in one of his scrolls that it is indeed an uneasy question whether people do awful things if they can get away with it. This is a clear and accurate description of the problem we have in front of us. Gods or karma won't fix this problem because they do not exist.

"Justice" is that which produces mutual advantage, and an evil act that is not discovered is still unjust per Epicurean definitions. So if what we are saying is that injustices happen when no one is looking, then yes. That is accurate.

Also I wish to address your worship of virtue separately. You will find this quote in “A Few Days in Athens”:

“Of all the thousands who have yielded homage to virtue, hardly one has thought of inspecting the pedestal she stands upon.“

This pedestal is pleasure.

How you deal with anger and other emotions determines if you are really Epicurean or Stoic or something else. To us, anger can be virtuous if channeled and made productive in such a way that it leads to a long-term pleasant life. Anger can be (un)natural, it can also be (ir)rational. So virtues, to us, are circumstancial. All our choices and avoidances require context to be carried out successfully and lead to pleasure.

http://societyofepicurus.com/reasonings-on-philodemus-on-anger/

On rationality, it is a tool, not an end. Reason does not furnish data from nature. It merely calculates from the data.

Our faculties of pleasure and aversion furnish data from nature on what is choice worthy and avoidance worthy, and we calculate based on that data. If we err, it is in the calculation. But there is no “error” in the data furnished (just as with the senses) because it came directly, unmediated, from nature.

The pleasure faculty, and the senses, are part of what we call the canon. Here’s a book on it:

https://newepicurean.com/other-resource…ripod-of-truth/

Choices and avoidances are done according to hedonic calculus as explained in the middle portion of the Epistle to Menoeceus. I recommend that you read this:

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2018/05/20/hap…ics-the-ethics/

Another source: Principal Doctrine 5 says a life of pleasure must be lived honorably, justly, and wisely. These are precise words. Virtue is not used here, likely because this word is not precise. And we know justice is based on mutual advantage, so the matter of divorcing one's spouse and moving to Costa Rica, if it is mutually advantageous for both, then the contract that binds them should be rewritten or abolished. If it isn't, then dialogue among the two contracted parties is needed. If you read the last ten Principal Doctrines you'll be better acquainted with Epicurean concepts of justice, and remember: a pleasant life is just, therefore relationships should be based on MUTUAL advantage (not the advantage of only one party, which is predatory, unfair, and would produce a miserable life).

On the choice and avoidance problem you present: Norman DeWitt said "an unplanned life is not worth living".

If your job AND your family make you miserable, then maybe a new job and a divorce can be planned diligently. But the question of leaving your family would require hedonic calculus. Are they sociopaths, or are they a danger to your safety? Is your wife doing something illegal that may get you into trouble? If so, this might pass hedonic calculus. Otherwise, probably not.

On whether relationships are means or ends, this is a frequent accusation. The ancient Epicureans observed that initially ALL friendships emerge naturally from mutual advantage, but later the relationship become strong and a friend may even give his life for a friend. This is a natural process.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Epicureanism…cureanism_look/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Epicureanism…ixth_circle_of/

Ayn Rand and others might say it's whimsical or irrational.

Others who are chasing the "objective" morality ghost will argue that pleasure is subjective.

There is a short article on Wikipedia on moral realism, and if we wish to engage others in philosophical discourse I do think it’s worthwhile to read these kinds of things.

As for humanism, it generally means secular human values as opposed to religious values, and includes many non-supernatural philosophies and ways of seeing the world (ours, the objectivists, the existentialists, etc). I had been a Secular Humanist long before I was Epicurean, and this has always been the community that I’ve found most open to us as well as atheists.

Same as above, to reach people with an Epicurean message, it’s a good idea to speak their language so that they can find something in common and hopefully dig deeper. The alternative is never to engage people, or to do so with obscure language or in a manner that they can’t relate to.

This question was presented @ reddit and comes up from time to time. It might be a good exercise to discuss various ways to tackle this.

------

Q. Must humanists believe in the existence of objective moral values?

According to some definitions of humanism I have seen, humanists must believe in objective morality, i.e moral realism. Is this correct, to your mind? Or can a person be a humanist and not believe that objective moral values exist?

R. I can't speak for most humanists, I suspect there are various opinions out there, but:

1. I'm an Epicurean moral realist, and YET
2. I think people who search for an "objective" morality are chasing a ghost.

I don't think objectivity needs to be a feature of moral realism. The third Scholarch of the Epicurean School, Polystratus, argued that pleasure and aversion are emergent / relational properties of bodies, and that they are "objective" insofar as they are real and experienced as real, but they are not "objective" in the sense that they are subjective, personal experiences. I believe "objective" is an arbitrary, empty idealism, and that there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that the things that make life worth living have to obey the logic of having to be "objective".

Notice that Polystratus' pleasure-based morality is firmly rooted in the physics, and in the study of nature. Notice the language: "emergent properties of bodies", and he compares this to how a magnet attracts some metals but not others, or how some herbs cure some people but not others, or how peanuts give allergic reactions to some people but not others. These relational properties of matter are REAL, and obey natural processes. And he's saying that the complexities of pleasures and aversions in all our choices and avoidances, and in all our interactions both social and physical, obey similar principles.

There are no absolutes in nature, all things are relational. Absolutes are Platonic, imagined. Time is relative. Space is relative. Motion is relative, and so is gravity or the attraction and movements between the bodies. Why should it be any different in the realm of natural ethics?

So I would say NO, humanists "must" not (or are not obligated) to chase the ghost of "objective" morality (this is the great error we find in people like Sam Harris who have not studied Epicurean ethics), and yet this does not take away from having a fully scientific, useful, pragmatic morality.

Quote from Godfrey

To clarify a definition, is it correct that autarky refers specifically to economic self-sufficiency whereas autonomy is more general?

Autarchy IS (almost always translated as) self-sufficiency. Just as monarchy means rule of one, and oligarchy means rule of a few, autarchy is to rule oneself, personal sovereignty, which naturally implies self-sufficiency.

I'd word it: - Prudence, honor and justice are prerequisites for A LIFE OF pleasure.

RE:

- Autonomy is achieved by living frugally, only desiring what is natural and what can be maintained by a source of income which provides an excess of pleasure over pain.

That is the most common way to live in autarchy, but there's no need to shun wealth or other goods, merely a need to understand the limits that nature sets for our desires. In other words, (there's a Vatican saying that says) there's also a limit to simple living where it doesn't lead to a life of pleasure.

On practice, my book includes a chapter on elaborating your personal hedonic regimen. I rely mainly on modern research and suggest exercise, laughter therapy (also known as laughter yoga), meditational practices that are known to increase levels of oxytocin and serotonin (feel good chemicals that the brain secretes), foods (cooking, eating, as well as entertaining friends)--particularly foods that act as mood boosters like yerba maté, kava, chocolate, durian, etc. Also connect with the tradition of the laughing philosophers and enjoy good comedies, I particularly like Ricky Gervais and George Carlin as laughing philosophers because they're funny AND insightful.

Yes, after Siddhartha Buddha attained nirvana under the Bodhi tree, he touched the ground (a symbol of his vow to benefit innumerable sentient beings on Earth, rather than keep his insights to himself).

He then went to the Benares deer park, and there he started preaching his first enlightened sermon, which was on the four noble truths to his first disciples.

As for feeling / desires, yes the doctrine is more ascetic than EP and there's no hierarchy of desires (natural and necessary), instead it seems that all desire is dissatisfaction / dukkha.

The Four Noble Truths and eightfold path are universally known as the core of Buddhist teaching. You can quickly search them online or on youtube and learn more.

the end in B. is nirvana, which means "extinction" (of the fires of desire)

this is confused / and not the same as with sukkha (bliss, delight, pleasure), which is the opposite of dukkha (suffering, dissatisfaction, existential angst), which is the problem that Buddha was attempting to solve. Because sukkha is the opposite of dukkha, it's often thought of as "the end" (and in Nichiren Buddhism it is).

I also think it's fair for someone who wants to delve in the differences in doctrine to consider to what extent the upayas (= efficient means) of the Buddhists can serve Epicurean ends--because many of them do, and a blind dismissal of them comes off as insincere, impractical, fanatical and uninformed. Do we want pleasure or not, and do we consider it worthy of cultivation? If we do, we will study the means to it diligently and not dismiss the means because they are not the end.

It is clear that both in Epicurean philosophy, as well as in scientific studies, and in many other (secular or religious) wisdom traditions (like Buddhism, and also hygge, sumac kawsay, etc.), there are many upayas / efficient means that lead to a life of pleasure. The clear designation of these as "means" helps to not confuse the issue.

The only other instance of “mind’s eye” in philosophical or religious literature that I know of is the third eye in Hinduism, which is one of the chakras or energy centers in the body.

Many deities, like Kali and Shiva, and sometimes the Buddha, are depicted with their third eye open. He closest thing to a scientific theory of it is that the inner core of our brain is reptilian, and that because our earliest ancestors were cold blooded they needed to be in tune with the circadian rhythms, so this third eye helped to perceive the circadian rhythms. But the eyes are there for that, they see the light of the sun and report it to the brain...

So this idea is very pre-scientific and spurious...