Managing Expectations In The Study of Epicurus

In the attempt to fully understand and implement a philosophy, each individual to some degree has a back and forth between the examining the doctrine of the philosophy and examining the conditions of their life with respect to the application of the doctrine. This may be a positive attempt to reach a deeper understanding, a negative attempt to undermine, or anywhere in between.

Regarding the doctrine of EP, there is a tremendous amount of discussion and disagreement about the nature of pleasure (pleasure, ataraxia, absence of pain, etc.). To me, pleasure and pain is the key to implementing the philosophy in one's life, it is the culmination of the Physics and the Canon and it is therefore critical to have a deep understanding of the subject, for which I personally am still striving.

Regarding the practice of EP, specifically with regards to pleasure, there have been a few threads here discussing people's very specific instances of pleasure, and I think that this is helpful to all of us.

Is there a way to examine general frameworks for applying pleasure/pain in our lives without losing sight of the individual nature of experience? Something to bridge the dogma and the specifics. A personal "macro" view to maximize the intelligent pursuit of pleasure. For me as a relative neophyte this seems to be a gap in my understanding. For instance a hedonic regimen is sometimes mentioned, which could be one way of scheduling pleasure into one's life if a person feels that that is useful. A person could also do an evaluation of pains and pleasures in their life as a means to understand for themselves how best to minimize pain and maximize pleasure, if they feel that that is valuable. Perhaps some feel that pleasure is best pursued by following their feelings in the moment. These frameworks would may be different for everybody, but it seems like a fruitful area of discussion and this could be tied in to the texts. Or is this something that everyone needs to do for themselves? I don't know.

One last thought.... Some say that PD 10 contradicts the quote from the letter to Menoeceus: "So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people or the enjoyment of sleep, as is believed by those who are ignorant or who don't understand us or who are ill-disposed to us, but to be free from bodily pain and mental disturbance. For a pleasant life is produced not by drinking and endless parties and enjoying boys and women and consuming fish and other delicacies of an extravagant table, but by sober reasoning, searching out the cause of everything we accept or reject, and driving out opinions that cause the greatest trouble in the soul." I think that DeWitt makes a good case that such a contradiction doesn't exist. Is it possible that discussing our general frameworks for applying pleasure/pain could help to clarify that these two doctrines are in perfect agreement?

Regarding "cookbooks," I have mixed feelings. I completely agree that there is no one size fits all formula for "how to be an Epicurean." On the individual level I think it can be helpful to have one's own personal go-to "recipes" but there's a danger in mindlessly following them. They can only be one part of the "navigating system" (to mix metaphors).

For my personal context I've come to EP on the verge of a life transition and after several decades of ignoring and/or suppressing pain and pleasure. So this has me 1) re-examining priorities and 2) trying to reawaken to pain and pleasure. I may be unique in this but I would guess that from time to time just about everyone does this to some degree. Also, I was raised as a Presbyterian but long ago left that. I've always lived in the western US so my perspective on religion (and many other things lol) is far removed from what I understand of the South. I get great joy in realizing the folly of gods and idealism but I particularly appreciate that Epicurus came up with an integrated approach to point out that folly and to live a complete life based on this and other observed facts.

Just some general thoughts on the topic. An interesting one! Thanks for getting this thread going, Cassius and Godfrey.

I see what you mean by one size not fitting all, but it seems to me that Epicurus and classical Epicureans were apparently big into supplying epitomes and summaries, both large and small (They were also fans of multi-volume behemoths), for ease in memorizing and really embedding the doctrines in one's mind for easy retrieval in any situation. So the idea of "cookbooks" within the philosophy has a fine pedigree.

What's *in* those "cookbooks" is a whole other on-going conversation

As for PD10 and the Letter to Menoikos, we've had an in-depth discussion on that over in that thread on the forum. I've never seen a contradiction between those two. My take is as follows:

1. Pleasure is pleasure.

2. All pleasures are good.

3. BUT. we choose and reject pleasures with an eye to their consequences.

4. There's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying a drink, sex, etc., See 1.

5. BUT the "profligate" try to overindulge those pleasures... Filling the cup after it's already full.

6. Thus leading to pain. See 3.

7. We don't judge the profligates' pleasure but we are within bounds to critique their choices and rejections if they're objectively resulting in pain in their lives.

8. Epicurus offers a way out of those unwise choices and rejections of the profligate.

I don't want to hijack this thread into a PD10 discussion but felt it was ok to weigh in since it came up.

Looking forward to seeing where this thread goes.

Thanks for the comments, Cassius . And I don't see any major differences of opinion here

On the cookbook idea, my favorite most inviting cookbooks include the following:

- Step by step directions of recipes

- Nice full color pictures to show you what the dish is supposed to look like

- Interesting prose interspersed to share background of the dishes, cultural history, or personal experiences of where the dishes came from.

A cookbook that can be browsed, simply read for enjoyment, and used in the kitchen is a winner in my book (pun intended)

Now, how this translates into an "Epicurean Cookbook for Life" is another conversation. Hmm...

- Summaries of philosophy in bite sized chunks (recipes)?

- Artwork that exemplifies Epicurean tenets?

- Short background readings of biographies, real-like applications of EP, the Tetrapharmakos, etc.

Just off the top of my head here.

I think that one ingredient that needs to be in the cookbook is:

...The feelings are two, pleasure and pain...

...they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.

..sober reasoning, searching out the cause of everything we accept or reject, and driving out opinions that cause the greatest trouble in the soul.

DeWitt points out that the greatest pleasure is escaping from a near death experience and realizing the joy of being alive. Taking this to a more prosaic level I think it, and the above italics, emphasize that we're leaving out the pepper if we focus solely on pleasure and the potential pains arising from overindulgence. We also need to address pain, as Epicurus most notably did in remedying the fears of the gods and of death. Great pleasure comes from removing a pain.

There are lots of everyday pains and fears that we all experience but which are unique to each of us. Many of these are mild and/or habituated and are misconstrued by the tranquilists as a neutral zone. Searching these out and examining their causes gives one the opportunity to remedy them, sometimes by removing the cause and sometimes through the application of a related pleasure.

In other words, focusing on either feeling to the exclusion of the other leads to an unbalanced diet. I'm beginning to realize that if we understand and use the faculty (not sure that's the right word) of the feelings as a continual interplay between pain and pleasure then the apparent chasm between "absence of pain" and pursuing pleasure disappears. It's actually extremely practical advice for daily living.

Sorry if I got off topic.... I'm just suggesting that one recipe in the cookbook might be for a person to explore what brings them pain as well as what brings them pleasure, and to taste test the interactions between the two.

I don't think that's off topic at all! By the way, well done here...

Quote

In other words, focusing on either feeling to the exclusion of the other leads to an unbalanced diet.

I liked that!

It's always struck me that Epicureanism is a philosophy of personal responsibility. You are responsible for your choices and rejections. You are responsible for assessing the consequences of those actions. You are responsible for deciding what gives you pleasure and what gives you pain without harming others or letting them harm you. And so on. It's not an easy path but is one that provides for a lot of variation. We're not going to proscribe how to live your life. We can provide a framework and foundation around which you can build a life.

Quote from Cassius

(1) In item three, the "BUT." I explain it the same way, but why is our description so focused on "buts" which imply that what we have said before is not clear. Why is it not clear enough to say "choose pleasure and avoid pain" without having to emphasize the BUT DON'T choose unwisely (or some variation). We end up looking like the "wisdom" is the end goal rather than the pleasure, and we end up sounding sometimes like we are talking to stubborn children. Is it really necessary, once we say that pleasure is the good, to have to harp on the fact that some pleasures are going to come at a cost that is not worth that pleasure? (To repeat, I am not complaining about your formulation, I am complaining about our not being in a position to have this more easily understood).

I hear you. It would be nice to put that more positively or integrated instead of X... BUT Y... It looks like we're hedging our bets or something.

I must admit that I think I'm liking DeWitt's contention that the summum bonum of Epicureanism is life itself and that the telos/goal is pleasure. I'm still wrapping my brain around that idea but feel that I like it.. I think. Maybe that's a way to go? Maybe we're starting too far along the path so we have to use the BUTs...

Quote

(2) Your item 6 ("thus leading to pain")

This is another part of the "rhetoric" issue we face. The act of being alive "leads to pain" so we cannot expect to pursue many of the pleasures we value most without some cost in pain. So the continuing underlying issue is HOW we stack the pleasure up against the pain and decide how much pain is worthwhile.

Excellent point! The "HOW" could lead to those "recipes". I've also seen the HOW as exemplified by the Principle Doctrines and other list type epitomes. The problem is there is no one HOW for everyone but (AH! There's that BUT!) we can provide principles you can apply to your life.

Quote from Cassius

I think the place to start there would be Diogenes Laertius when he says "the feelings are two" and I think there is a reference in the letter to Herodotus where the same word is apparently used.

You know me, doesn't take much to get me to look something like that up

Πάθη δὲ λέγουσιν εἶναι δύο "and they say the Πάθη are two."

Here's the link to the Greek Word Study Tool for that word at the Perseus Digital Library. There's also this from Wiktionary.

I find it interesting that "what happens" seems to be a common definition:

• (in neutral sense) what is done or what happens to a person
• (in negative sense) suffering, misfortune

I did find this page on Google Books that discusses pathe and includes a snippet about Epicurus and the Stoics.

This is definitely one of those instances that the connotations of the word don't necessarily map well - one-to-one - with English.

From what I can see, all those "feelings" are translating πάθη pathe (citations are to Diogenes Laertius sections in Chapt. X of Lives):

Quote

X.31: Now in The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and preconceptions and our feelings are the standards of truth

ἐν τοίνυν τῷ Κανόνι λέγων ἐστὶν ὁ Ἐπίκουρος κριτήρια τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ προλήψεις καὶ τὰ πάθη

X.63: Next, keeping in view our perceptions and feelings...

Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δεῖ συνορᾶν ἀναφέροντα ἐπὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὰ πάθη

X.68: If, then, we bring all these arguments concerning soul to the criterion of our feelings and perceptions...

Ταῦτα οὖν πάντα τὰ διαλογίσματα τὰ περὶ ψυχῆς ἀνάγων τις ἐπὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις

X.73: No further proof is required : we have only to reflect that we attach the attribute of time to days and nights and their parts, and likewise to feelings of pleasure and pain and to neutral states, to states of movement and states of rest

καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀποδείξεως προσδεῖται ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιλογισμοῦ, ὅτι ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ταῖς νυξὶ συμπλέκομεν καὶ τοῖς τούτων μέρεσιν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ ταῖς ἀπαθείαις, καὶ κινήσεσι καὶ στάσεσιν, ἴδιόν τι σύμπτωμα περὶ ταῦτα πάλιν αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐννοοῦντες, καθ᾽ ὃ χρόνον ὀνομάζομεν. (πάθεσι is just the dative form)

X.147 PD 24: If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to discriminate with respect to that which awaits confirmation between matter of opinion and that which is already present, whether in sensation or in feelings or in any presentative perception of the mind, you will throw into confusion even the rest of your sensations by your groundless belief and so you will be rejecting the standard of truth altogether. If in your ideas based upon opinion you hastily affirm as true all that awaits confirmation as well as that which does not, you will not escape error, as you will be maintaining complete ambiguity whenever it is a case of judging between right and wrong opinion.

PD 24: Εἴ τιν᾽ ἐκβαλεῖς ἁπλῶς αἴσθησιν καὶ μὴ διαιρήσεις τὸ δοξαζόμενον κατὰ τὸ προσμένον καὶ τὸ παρὸν ἤδη κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ πᾶσαν φανταστικὴν ἐπιβολὴν τῆς διανοίας, συνταράξεις καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς αἰσθήσεις τῇ ματαίῳ δόξῃ, ὥστε τὸ κριτήριον ἅπαν ἐκβαλεῖς. εἰ δὲ βεβαιώσεις καὶ τὸ προσμένον ἅπαν ἐν ταῖς δοξαστικαῖς ἐννοίαις καὶ τὸ μὴ τὴν ἐπιμαρτύρησιν, οὐκ ἐκλείψεις τὸ διεψευσμένον: ὡς τετηρηκὼς ἔσῃ πᾶσαν ἀμφισβήτησιν κατὰ πᾶσαν κρίσιν τοῦ ὀρθῶς ἢ μὴ ὀρθῶς.

Display More

Quote from Cassius

If Bailey's "internal sensations" is referring to the same subject, then maybe what we're missing is a word or terminology that ties pleasure and pain more tightly to some kind of "internal natural guidance system" that does in fact stand shoulder to shoulder as an equivalent with "divine inspiration" or "logic" as a concept in the fight to determine what is the proper goal of life. As it is, when we talk of "pleasure" the connotation is so tightly tied to "chocolate cake" and the like that it is hard to see the forest for the trees. When we explain to people that "pleasure and pain" are the guides to life, it would be nice to have an articulate way to explain to them that Epicurus was not meaning to list PARTICULAR pleasures or pains, but was referring to the overall mechanism given to us by nature to fulfill that guidance role.

It seems hugely important to me to be able to start with the observation that Diogenes Laertius made that "the feelings are two - pleasure and pain" in order to explain the whole issue of absence of neutral states, limits of pleasure, and especially how the presence of one equals in quantity the absence of the other.

I bet that the ambiguity that we experience in the term "feeling" would almost without a doubt have been addressed and explained by Epicurus if we had more of the texts. On that same point, my bet is also that certain aspects of this, like with the issue of "preconceptions" are buried unrecognized in plain view in front of us in Lucretius - we just fail to recognize it.

If you're referring to your first clip as Bailey and "internal sensations", yes, that's the same pathē.

I think you're onto something. Maximizing Pleasure is the goal, but we use both pathē to make our choices and rejections (okay, avoidances, but I dislike that translation). One feeling without the other as part of the Canon is like trying to ride a bicycle with one wheel.

This abstract I found online I found interesting:

Quote

In the first chapter, which is new to this edition, Konstan calls on psychology to flesh out the Epicurean understanding of empty fears and irrational desires—ancient psychology, that is: a science of the soul. Konstan’s reading of the relation between sensation (aisthēseis), the passions (pathē) of pleasure and pain, and belief (doxa) in Epicurean doctrine is unorthodox but thorough. Rather than mapping pathē onto either the soul as a whole or the body, Konstan assigns pathē to the non-rational part of the soul, the seat of sensation. He locates the emotions, which “do not seem to have a special name in Epicurean theory,” in the rational part (11). Crucial to this schema is Konstan’s claim, based on Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura and Diogenes Laertius’s doxography of Epicurus, that Epicureans did not consider emotions such as fear and joy to be pathē at all, since emotions depend on memory and reasoning, whereas pathē do not. The upshot is that fear, as a rational emotion, involves belief and evaluation, and is therefore susceptible to error; whence the psychological roots of pernicious “empty beliefs.”

This is possible direction to talk of unifying the pathē into one description.