Interpretations of PD 10 Discussion

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Ah, thanks! Should I copy my thread over to there and then delete it here?

Whatever you think is fine with me. Sometimes the best thing to do is leave a post or series of posts in place. but then make another post in the other thread with a "Cross-reference" link so people can jump over to this one and find it. Feel free to copy this over there, or just place a link to this location in the other thread (As you probably know, each post is numbered so you can link to a particular post.)

X (10)

"EΙ TA ΠΟΙΗTΙΚA TΩΝ ΠEΡΙ TΟΥΣ AΣΩTΟΥΣ ΗΔΟΝΩΝ EΛΥE TΟΥΣ ΦΟΒΟΥΣ TΗΣ ΔΙAΝΟΙAΣ TΟΥΣ TE ΠEΡΙ ΜETEΩΡΩΝ ΚAΙ ΘAΝATΟΥΚAΙ AΛΓΗΔΟΝΩΝ ETΙ TE TΟ ΠEΡAΣ TΩΝ EΠΙΘΥΜΙΩΝ [ΚAΙ TΩΝ AΛΓΗΔΟΝΩΝ]* EΔΙΔAΣΚEΝ ΟΥΚ AΝ ΠΟTE EΙΧΟΜEΝ Ο TΙ ΜEΜΨAΙΜEΘA AΥTΟΙΣ ΠAΝTAΧΟΘEΝ EΚΠΛΗΡΟΥΜEΝΟΙΣ TΩΝ ΗΔΟΝΩΝ ΚAΙ ΟΥΔAΜΟΘEΝ ΟΥTE TΟ AΛΓΟΥΝ ΟΥTE TΟ ΛΥΠΟΥΜEΝΟΝ EΧΟΥΣΙΝ Ο ΠEΡ EΣTΙ TΟ ΚAΚΟΝ."

“If those things which make the pleasures of debauched men, put an end to the fears of the mind, and to those which arise about the heavenly bodies, and death, and pain; and if they taught us what ought to be the limit of our desires, we should have no pretense for blaming those who wholly devote themselves to pleasure, and who never feel any pain or grief (which is the chief evil) from any quarter.” Yonge (1853)

“If the objects which are productive of pleasures to profligate persons really freed them from fears of the mind—the fears, I mean, inspired by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, the fear of death, the fear of pain—if, further, they taught them to limit their desires, we should not have any reason to censure such persons, for they would then be filled with pleasure to overflowing on all sides and would be exempt from all pain, whether of body or mind, that is, from all evil.” Hicks (1910)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky and death and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires <and of pains>, we should never have cause to blame them: for 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.” Bailey (1926)

“If the practices productive of the pleasures of profligates dispelled the fears of the mind about celestial things and death and pains and also taught the limit of the desires, we should never have fault to find with profligates, enjoying pleasures to the full from all quarters, and suffering neither pain nor distress from any quarter, wherein the evil lies." De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 235 (1954)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of the dissolute were able to drive away from their minds their fears about what is above them and about death and pain, and to teach them the limit of desires, we would have no reason to find them the limit of desires, we would have no reason to find fault with the dissolute; for they would fill themselves with pleasure from every source and would be free from pain and sorrow, which are evil.” Geer (1964)

“If the causes of the pleasures of the dissipated released mental fears concerning celestial phenomena and death and distress, and in addition taught the limit of desires, we should never have any reason to reproach them [i.e. the dissipated], since they would be satisfying themselves with pleasures from all directions and would never have pain or distress, which constitutes the bad.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)

“If the things that beget pleasure in dissolute individuals could dispel their minds' fears about the heavens, death, and pain, and could still teach them the limits of desires, we would have no grounds for finding fault with the dissolute, since they would be filling themselves with pleasures from every source and in no way suffering from pain or grief, which are evil.” O'Connor (1993)

“If the things which produce the pleasures of profligate men dissolved the intellect's fears about the phenomena of the heavens and about death and pains and, moreover, if they taught us the limit of our desires, then we would not have reason to criticize them, since they would be filled with pleasures from every source and would contain no feeling of pain or distress from any source—and that is what is bad.” Inwood (1994)

“If the things which debauched men find pleasurable put an end to all fears (such as concerns about the heavenly bodies, death, and pain) and if they revealed how we ought to limit our desires, we would have no reason to reproach them, for they would be fulfilled with pleasures from every source while experiencing no pain, neither in mind nor body, which is the chief evil of life.” Anderson (2004)

“If those elements that are productive of the pleasures of the debauched released them from the mental apprehensions aroused by natural phenomena, fear of death, and <obsessive anticipation of> pain; if, in addition, they formed their characters in such a way that they knew when to set a limit to their desires, we would then never have anything to censure them about: indeed, they would then be fully actualizing all the pleasures and in no way would they have either what is painful or what is productive of grief in them—and it is this latter condition <which they would be avoiding> that is morally bad.” Makridis (2005)

“If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that's what is bad).” Saint-Andre (2008)

“If the things that produce the debauchee's pleasures dissolved the mind's fears regarding the heavenly bodies, death, and pain and also told us how to limit our desires, we would never have any reason to find fault with such people, because they would be glutting themselves with every sort of pleasure and never suffer physical or mental pain, which is the real evil.” Strodach (2012)

“If the objects that afforded pleasure to profligate men actually freed them from mental fears, namely those that relate to celestial phenomena and death and pain, and also taught them to limit their desires, we would never have any occasion to find fault with such men, since they would then be filled with pleasures from all sides and would be free of all pain and grief—that is, of all that is bad.” Mensch (2018)

“If the things that produce the pleasures of the dissolute released our minds from fear of celestial things and death and pain, and if they taught us the limit of desire, then we would have nothing to reproach in them, since they would then be replete with pleasures from every source and devoid of pain or sorrow from any source, which are precisely what is bad.” White (2021)

There are a few inconsistencies we can flesh out.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Even if that pleasure is real- which seems very difficult to implement for me-, I would be so shocked about the waste of my life that the only possible answer for me would be to reject such a machine.

The true waste of life is an existence where happiness is controlled by a machine. Rejecting necessity is a worthy goal (and is literally the plot of The Matrix and the theme of most of Rage Against the Machine's songs, which is tight).

“[T]here is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.” (Epicurus, Vatican Saying 9)

Quote from smoothiekiwi

But then, which role does the machine take? It controls my world, it controls my life, my happiness and unhappiness, so it's God. When I become plugged in, the machine becomes my own, personal God; she controls every aspect of my experience.

A god, according to Epicurean sources, is either (1) an animal who has perfected their existence to such an existent that they have become incapable of being troubled, destroyed, or inconvenienced, or (2) mental images that inadvertently enter our minds, which alert us to the the possibility of living a better natural life. A machine cannot be a god because it is neither an organism living a perfect existence, nor an image that only interacts with the rest of us accidentally, inadvertently, and randomly, through dreams. A machine feels no pleasure, no pain, and has no sense of prudence. Furthermore, the entire existence of the machine is, literally, designed to interfere with human beings. An entity that troubles others is unworthy to be venerated as a god. Rather, it sounds like just another troublesome obstacle, like a destructive force of nature (but, in this case, artificial), not a path to growth and satisfaction.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

In that case, the whole Epicurean argument- which states that there can't be any omnipotent God-, doesn't work. It's like applying Scepticism to a world in which in has (by whatever means) been proven that truth exists. Or Christianity to a world where it has been proven for certain that there can't be a God.

The Epicurean argument is alien and ineffective to a world where it has been proven that there is a God; but because this machine is God itself, we have to employ other philosophical traditions in order to determine if we should surrender to a God.

This speculation, that a monotheistic entity exists, is an example of what Epicurus would call a "liability to vain imagination", a "groundless", "illusory", or "vain fancy", an "empty imagining" or a "senseless whim". In other words, it is a proposition that is neither based on sensory data, internal feelings, or mental anticipations, but, rather, is a pure product of the imagination. To entertain an idea would be as fruitless as testing for the existence of elves and faeries. Surely, like the Skeptics, we could devote thousands of pages to refuting every idea under the sun. However, in Epicurean philosophy, prudence is the greater virtue, and a speculation that does not lead to practical wisdom is empty.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

So tl;dr- such a "bliss machine" doesn't destroy the hedonistic argument, simply because the hedonistic argument never claimed to know the ultimate truth. It's designed to live everyday life, not to answer every possible philosophical question. And, as Don already stated, this mind experiment is- and will stay for the foreseeable future- a mind experiment. In case that someone discovers a perfect experience machine which provides only natural pleasures without any drawbacks, let me know- I would love to try it out

There is a fundamental difference between painlessness due to maximizing the enjoyment of a natural life versus sedation due to an emotional withdrawal from the challenges of a natural existence. The "bliss machine" is a form of sedation. In fact, I think in this case, a thought experiment isn't even necessary. Just look at alcoholism and opiate abuse throughout "advanced" countries. There is a possibility of abusing "bliss". There is no possibility of abusing "painlessness" if we look at it honestly, because we cannot achieve "painlessness" through any other means besides fulfilling our potential as human beings. We couldn't enjoy exercise or companionship connected to a machine. The machine does not require that we act sensibly, with decency and dignity. It just requires our submission.

Quote from smoothiekiwi

Well, but when it produces more pleasure in the end than normal life, why shouldn't I sacrifice virtue and dignity for more long-time pleasure?

I think you're going in the right direction with that question, but by inserting "long-time" or "long-term" you would be focusing exclusively on the "duration" of the pleasure and I doubt that would be correct Epicurean theory. Duration would (in my understanding) be only one of the aspects, and you would need to consider "intensity" or some other measure:

Letter to Menoeceus: "And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant."

Even that quote might not be entirely clear but I think it is evidence that we measure pleasure by more than just duration in time.

And that question of determining "the most pleasant" is relevant to the bliss machine hypo at a fundamental level. The "unreality" that is the basis of so much objection to the experiment is I think sensing in part the issue that is referenced by Epicurus as "the most pleasant." The issue is probably not that there is an absolute scale of "most pleasant for everyone" or "the best pleasure" or "the highest pleasure" for everyone, but there is still an issue of "what kind of pleasure" is being experienced by the individual that is relevant to the question.

Just to refresh my memory Don do you have a preferred interpretation of what is translated as "the greatest pleasure"?

Thank you. What I am asking you also is "What do you take 'most pleasant' to mean"?

How do you describe in words the attributes of one pleasure that make it more or less pleasant than another?

Right I am not trying to ask a trick question or box anyone in. I am not sure I can answer it myself.

But I think it is legitimate question which we should be able to use the texts to answer.

Another way to ask the question might be:. "What factors should I consider in deciding what pleasure is greatest? Can you give me any help with that?"

I think "duration" / "time" is documentable in the texts (per the quote above).

I think "intensity" is probably also documentable in terms of the references to "pure pleasure" ( I will look for the PD reference).

But I suspect there are or should be other factors, or else we should have an explanation as to why there are not.

(Edit:. This is a topic we've referenced before so I am interested in any comments from anyone and not only Don)

I think you are absolutely right that the answer is and must be subjective.

But does that mean that it is impossible to put into words any factors that describe the feeling of pleasure other than how long it lasts?

( ..... He asks rhetorically to no one in particular.... )

As to the "intensity" factor I think I would cite:

PD09. If every pleasure could be intensified so that it lasted, and influenced the whole organism or the most essential parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another