Interpretations of PD 10 Discussion

Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
    Quote from Don

    In the end, the argument doesn't provide benefits to real people.

    Don this comment is very close to the issue that I think a number of us to have been circling around for a while on these issues. My own conclusion is that the wider interpretation DOES provide real benefits to SOME real people, but for other real people it does not.

    I think you'll be really interested in the discussion we had today, so I took the time to edit it immediately so we can keep the conversation moving forward. When you find time to listen to it, be sure to listen all the way to the end, where I think some of the most important discussion takes place.

    RE: Episode Fifty-Four: Reason Is Dependent On The Senses

    Quote from Cassius

    My own conclusion is that the wider interpretation DOES provide real benefits to SOME real people, but for other real people it does not.

    And one of the keys to this is going to be the definition we use for "logic" and "reason" which is addressed near the end of the podcast. I am particularly interested in as much feedback as possible from people on this point, as you will understand when you listen.

    Don if I'm not mistaken-- and I may be, I didn't go hunt through and check-- I thought you were the one who brought up PD 10 as evidence Epicurus would advise against the bliss pill. So that is why I mentioned it again-- you said we were making it do things it wasn't written to do. And I was countering that the whole reason PD 10 came into play on that question was that you used it as an argument. But by your proposal to limit PD10 to only a specific circumstance, it doesn't apply anyway. If you weren't the one who started that, then my reply wouldn't make as much sense 😂.

    I think you are reading far more into PD10 than it says. Epicurus doesn't take it as far as you have. It's not stated as a universal piece of advice.

    Elayne , I did bring up PD 10 in the other thread in relation to the bliss pill, but I thought this thread was to specifically discuss the meaning and application of PD 10. But I'm happy to summarize my thoughts overall on that specific topic.

    The more I consider the bliss pill / experience machine, the less helpful I think that thought experiment is. I'm equating the pill/machine with unicorns, centaurs, and other mythical things. Discussing whether or not to take the pill or hook yourself up to the machine is, from my perspective, as helpful as talking about how pleasurable would it be to ride a unicorn over a rainbow.

    It's going to come up, however, in any general conversation about pleasure being the goal of life. That's why Wilson had to address it. I also agree with her that Epicurus would advise not to take it.

    I still think Epicurus would not recommend taking the bliss pill or hooking yourself up to the experience machine for the following reasons:

    • Pleasure is the goal, and specifically living the most pleasurable life.
    • We use our senses and the reactions of pleasure and pain (and the prolepses) to know the real world.
    • We use the information from our senses and our reactions of pleasure and pain to make prudent decisions about our actions to move ourselves steadily in the direction of living the most pleasurable life.
    • If we are somehow cut off from the real world, our senses will not work.
      • If the machine, only our mind will be provided sense data and it cannot be checked through the other senses.
      • If a pill, not knowing how it works it's hard to say, but again there is an imposed block on senses by definition.
    • Without our senses, there's no way to use the Canon to make decisions to live the most pleasurable life.
    • Additionally, from what I can see, the pill and machine would impose someone else's algorithm on what constitutes pleasure on me. If you say, no the pill and machine make you see what's pleasurable to you, we're back to arguing whether unicorns or centaurs are better at chess.

    Therefore, I don't think it's productive to tie ourselves in knots discussing such a remote hypothetical when Epicurus was looking for a philosophy to help people in the here and now. I understand Wilson's rationale for including it in her article and concur with her assertion regarding Epicurus's reaction to it.

    Quote from Elayne

    I think you are reading far more into PD10 than it says. Epicurus doesn't take it as far as you have. It's not stated as a universal piece of advice.

    LOL. Now, that's the same thing I said about your and Cassius 's interpretation. You're going to have to be more specific on what you mean by *my* "reading more into (it)". I think I'm taking the most conservative interpretation possible in light of what's actually written and taking it along with what else Epicurus wrote on this exact topic.

    I think that Doctrine is addressing a specific life situation and refuting a specific accusation leveled at the Epicureans, namely that they're nothing but Cyrenaics under a different name.

    If by a "universal piece of advice," you mean do I think Epicurus would advise anyone that a pleasurable life could not be lived by living a profligate life, I would agree. That is exactly what he says. Do I think that Epicurus would say that IF that life could dispel the fears and anxieties about the gods, death, etc., that it could be a pleasurable life? Yes. But I believe Epicurus was a realist and dealt with real solutions to real world problems, and as in this life the profligate life will undoubtedly lead to more pain overall than pleasure, he would not recommend it as a series of choice-worthy pleasures.

    To add some additional details from my perspective using vocabulary from Episode 54 of the Lucretius podcast:

    1) I believe the "pleasure" pill / machine would prevent the senses from being reliable, therefore, there would be no way to make choices based on reliable information.

    2) Epicurus made repeated observations on the profligate life leading reliably to more pain than pleasure; therefore, that lifestyle is to be "censured" and not recommended if one wants to achieve the goal of leading a pleasurable, happy, blessed life.

    Don if it was a true bliss pill as advertised, then it would provide reliable pleasure. Otherwise it's just false advertising. As I've said already, I'd tend to be distrustful of it, given the history of pharmaceutical promises! 😂 But if it were really as advertised, there's no clear Epicurean argument against it.

    And yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say-- that as I see it, when you used PD10 to argue against a hypothetical it wasn't designed for, Cassius and I replied bringing in the context of the whole philosophy. I am trying to show you that you were doing what you said we had done. I see it as the other way around-- we were limiting the PD to its specific context without taking it to any general conclusion that would contradict the rest of the philosophy.

    Yes this is the key "if it was a true bliss pill as advertised, then it would provide reliable pleasure." I understand you (Don) are unwilling to entertain that as a hypothetical so really the issue becomes are you suggesting we draw a bright line against all hypotheticals for which we have never seen an actual instance? I can see that being a reasonable position to entertain but I would think that would have far reaching implications that would require scrutiny.

    Quote from Elayne

    Don if it was a true bliss pill as advertised, then it would provide reliable pleasure. Otherwise it's just false advertising. As I've said already, I'd tend to be distrustful of it, given the history of pharmaceutical promises! 😂 But if it were really as advertised, there's no clear Epicurean argument against it.

    See, that's where I disagree with the premise of the thought experiment: "a true bliss pill." There can't be such a thing. It seems, by definition, the pill or machine is *changing* all your sensations to "pleasurable" ones. If it makes you only "feel" pleasure, even in the midst extreme of objectively pain-inducing experiences, it is substituting its chemical or technological "pleasure-inducing" effect over your natural sensation or reaction. By definition, it can never truly be "your" sensation. It may be perceived to be "your" sensation, but that's like seeing unicorns in a dream and believing they're real. Epicurus calls us to experience real, natural pleasure derived from our choices and rejections. That's my Epicurean objection to taking the pill. I assume you will counter with something like "if we feel it, it's pleasure." If I would naturally feel pain if I was awake in surgery, and the pill / machine was making me "feel" pleasure, that's not a natural reaction of pleasure and provides false sensory data on which to make decisions to live pleasurably.

    Quote from Elayne

    And yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say-- that as I see it, when you used PD10 to argue against a hypothetical it wasn't designed for, Cassius and I replied bringing in the context of the whole philosophy. I am trying to show you that you were doing what you said we had done. I see it as the other way around-- we were limiting the PD to its specific context without taking it to any general conclusion that would contradict the rest of the philosophy.

    I'm still not convinced entirely, but for the sake of argument I'll remove my use of PD 10 to oppose the bliss pill.

    So, if I'm not using PD 10, then, my objection to taking the bliss pill rests on its ability to override the Canon and substitute ones own senses and reactions for its own. Without the Canon - the use of one's senses, reactions, and prolepses - there can be no application of Epicurean philosophy in one's life. There is no choice and avoidance. The is no way to determine if you are or are headed in the direction of living a pleasurable life. Once you take the pill/machine, it will determine how your life will go, what you will feel. Once you take the pill, you cannot have reliable sensory input or be sure you're having a natural reaction to something.

    Quote from Cassius

    Yes this is the key "if it was a true bliss pill as advertised, then it would provide reliable pleasure." I understand you (Don) are unwilling to entertain that as a hypothetical so really the issue becomes are you suggesting we draw a bright line against all hypotheticals for which we have never seen an actual instance? I can see that being a reasonable position to entertain but I would think that would have far reaching implications that would require scrutiny.

    We posted over each other :)

    I guess I *am* willing to entertain the hypothetical or I wouldn't continue to discuss :/ .

    I just think there are some sloppy definitions at work when it comes to the bliss pill / existence machine. Not necessarily here, but people throw out this amorphous objection to pleasure and expect us to entertain it. It's a straw man in many ways.

    I continue to ask things like:

    How does it work? Does it substitute its decisions for mine? Does it make me feel pleasure where - objectively - I should feel pain (e.g., getting my arm trapped in a hay baler)?

    There's too much wiggle room. Saying "it works as advertised" doesn't mean anything. Without knowing details, the question is meaningless. That's why I'm convinced it's like asking "Which would you rather smell forever: dragon tears or unicorn sweat?" Again, the question is meaningless. For me, it's the same as my objection to uploading my mind to a computer. "Who owns the hardware? How hackable is the hardware and software? Where is it housed? Who has access to my upload and what can they do with it?" Just saying "it'd be like being alive. You wouldn't know the difference." Well, I would if I started seeing ads in front of me constantly.

    Well we will soon be able to answer the question:

    "Is the process of going through the details of a hypothetical of sufficient educational value to make the process worthwhile?

    I would say that's probably he question. I am thinking the answer is "yes."

    Quote from Cassius

    "Is the process of going through the details of a hypothetical of sufficient educational value to make the process worthwhile?

    I think it can be worthwhile IF as long as one of the results of the process is allowed to be "There's no way to adequately answer this hypothetical given the possible parameters we can realistically assign to it."

    Quote from Don

    "There's no way to adequately answer this hypothetical given the possible parameters we can realistically assign to it."

    Ok that's very close to the same question. Must a hypothetical be "realistic" to be worth entertaining. That could be very close to the issue of "conceivability" apparently discussed by Epicurus. Is there, or should we consider there to be, a bright line against hypotheticals which are "inconceivable?" I think there are at least a couple of examples of "inconceivability" as a criterion in Lucretius but I would have to check.

    Before we go too down that road we'd want to consider whether Epicurean gods are conceivable or inconceivable (presumably the former) and also whether it is conceivable to talk about a human being as a god (also presumably yes, per Epicurus' letter to menoeceus and also the reference in Lucretius to Epicurus being godlike).

    Quote from Cassius

    Before we go too down that road we'd want to consider whether Epicurean gods are conceivable or inconceivable (presumably the former) and also whether it is conceivable to talk about a human being as a god (also presumably yes, per Epicurus' letter to menoeceus and also the reference in Lucretius to Epicurus being godlike).

    Oh, I would not include the Epicurean gods in the same hypothetical category as bliss pills. The former, while inconceivable or not, are an integral part of the philosophy as Epicurus and the founders wrote about it. That topic, while difficult, was of fundamental importance to Epicurus himself. I maintain it behooves modern Epicureans to understand why it was so important to Epicurus and what implications and applications it has for us. The bliss pill, on they other hand, is only an intriguing thought experiment albeit an ancient one according to the reference Joshua provided in a previous thread. I'm personally not as concerned to come to any ultimate understanding of the bliss pill. I don't expect anyone else to necessarily agree with me, but I've answered that question adequately within an Epicurean framework *for myself*.

    I agree with Don.

    And I think my answer to the bliss pill would be tentative and empirical: I'll observe its effects in others who take it, and begin to form my conclusions then. Ask me another silly hypothetical question—I have no shortage of silly hypothetical answers!

    Quote

    Without the Canon - the use of one's senses, reactions, and prolepses - there can be no application of Epicurean philosophy in one's life. There is no choice and avoidance. The is no way to determine if you are or are headed in the direction of living a pleasurable life.

    This quote of Don's seems like a good summary to me. It addresses hypotheticals and also provides grounds for evaluating a life of "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll."

    Quote from Godfrey

    This quote of Don's seems like a good summary to me. It addresses hypotheticals and also provides grounds for evaluating a life of "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll."

    I completely agree with what Don stated and what Godfrey quoted too, but I do not believe it addresses, at least fully, the proper use of hypotheticals - if there is one - in philosophy. But I'll have to come back to this later....

    I think that's not what EP means, and PD 10 does not say that either. That's taking PD10 too far.

    Nowhere does Epicurus say a person should refuse to make a one-time decision for permanent complete pleasure on grounds that it's better to have less pleasure along with ongoing choices! That hypothetical is not taken up in PD10.

    In context of the whole philosophy, choice and avoidance are used to obtain pleasure. Choice and avoidance are not stand-alone goods but skills in service of the goal. So there would be no reason to forgo pleasure and retain choice-- IF one were certain of the result.

    Just practically speaking, sometimes I can make one long time choice, such as I did when I purchased my condo, for pleasure. Of course, I could sell it, but pragmatically I have limited the ease of choosing to live elsewhere tomorrow. I could have retained more freedom of choice by taking a home with the shortest possible lease, so I could exercise choice frequently. But that kind of thing doesn't show up in PD10 nor elsewhere.

    Epicurus is not focused on creating the maximum number of choices over the longest duration.

    I am going to agree with Elayne even after I said I agree with what Don quoted, and this is an interesting application of the recent back and forth Elayne and I have been having. I think the statement is correct, as far as it goes, when limited to "in one's life" as if we are talking about one of us. That's a concrete application in which I think it is correct.

    But Elayne is also extending the statement to its logical conclusions, and in doing so she is showing that a flat logical reading of it WOULD go to far.

    This is back to our discussion of the interplay of logic and feeling/observation. Elayne is pointing out the issue from the position of making sure that the statement is logically consistent with the whole. She is correct in how the issue should be explained in the widest context. If we limit the discussion and state our limitations, then Don's view is acceptable.

    We're making progress I think in seeing that we've got to articulate things in a "logically consistent" fashion while paying attention to both the "reasonable person" standard to come up with a "rule" or a "systematic explanation" and also the particular perspective of an individual focusing on what seems real to them locally.

    I do not believe that Epicurus would say that his philosophy was anything less than rigorously logical and reasonable. We can achieve that aim, i think, and we HAVE to if we're going to be able to explain these issues to wider groups of people.

    Cassius I'm not using logic. I'm using descriptions of what PD 10 says and what it doesn't. When Epicurus puts pleasure first, it's an actual feeling. I'm just describing the options in the choice, in terms of the desired feeling. I'm using prudence in weighing options, but nothing I'm saying is based on formal logic. It's descriptive.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. The Religion of Nature - as supported by Lucretius' De Rerum Natura 4

      • Kalosyni
      • June 23, 2025 at 12:36 AM
    3. Replies
      4
      Views
      488
      4

    4. Godfrey

      June 23, 2025 at 12:36 AM

    2. New Blog Post From Elli - " Fanaticism and the Danger of Dogmatism in Political and Religious Thought: An Epicurean Reading"

      • Cassius
      • June 20, 2025 at 4:31 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      723

    2. Does The Wise Man Groan and Cry Out When On The Rack / Under Torture / In Extreme Pain? 19

      • Cassius
      • June 20, 2025 at 1:53 PM
    3. Replies
      19
      Views
      1.6k
      19

    4. Cassius

      June 20, 2025 at 1:53 PM

    2. Best Lucretius translation? 9

      • Rolf
      • June 19, 2025 at 3:01 PM
    3. Replies
      9
      Views
      376
      9

    4. Cassius

      June 19, 2025 at 3:01 PM

    2. New Translation of Epicurus' Works 1

      • Eikadistes
      • June 16, 2025 at 6:32 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      353
      1

    4. Cassius

      June 16, 2025 at 6:32 PM