Epicurean philosophy vs. Stoicism in public popularity

Quote from Cassius

In other words I don't think any of us have a problem with saying that "in general" we can use the past to point the right direction in the future, but we certainly can't do that all the time, and we have to understand that the universe isn't mechanistic or determined or fated or guided by divinity and so walk and chew gum at the same time.

One of the few things we can use to make choices and rejections in the present is whether we reacted with pleasure or pain to a specific action in a specific situation in the past. Is the current situation similar enough to the past situation to warrant one decision or another? Barring that, have we observed others taking actions that had painful or pleasurable outcomes *from our perspective* in similar circumstances to this? We don't have to accept a mechanistic or divine universe to use observation and perceived causes and effects to make prudent decisions.

Don Adding "almost" anyone to your assertion is fine. Low empathy humans are a small percentage of the population.

I'm on the other end of atypical-- I can't even stand to watch fake violence in movies, lol. So my decisions regarding potential harm to strangers need to take my atypical responses into account. This is more useful than trying to make myself become typical. It's also helpful to my pleasure to remember that the majority of others are likely not being consciously cruel when they do things to each other that make me cringe. Most likely, their empathy settings are more in the center. If I failed to keep this in mind, I would think I was surrounded by psychopaths on all sides.

It's not a virtue of mine, relative to them, that I avoid doing things they do-- it's only a virtue in regards to my own pleasure. They wouldn't be happier changing to be like me, either, so far as I can tell.

As far as the limits of pleasure, maximum pleasure, I think we have discussed this before, and I have not changed my position from what I outlined in my article here 😃: On Pain, Pleasure, and Happiness

What I mean by pleasure occurring or not is that it depends on material causes, not on people's opinions about what ought to happen. Like that quote about facts not caring about someone's opinions. A person may think folks ought not get pleasure from someone else's suffering, but that has no bearing on whether or not such a thing happens in real life. For instance, my opinion does not affect the reality of schadenfreude, a "normal" phenomenon I don't experience.

Maximum pleasure is exactly what an ordinary person would say it is-- total filling of one's mind and body with wonderful bliss-- and it occurs when all pain is absent. When one has achieved maximum blissfulness, it's unmistakable. One will not want anything more at that time, as Epicurus noted. Contrary to rumor, regular humans can experience this.

The maximum possible pleasure over a lifetime is realistically not likely going to involve continuous total bliss, because we don't have the power to prevent every pain, including pains that can stand in the path to pleasures--- but we can obtain a lot more ongoing pleasure than most people realize. And to do so requires dropping Stoicism and usual virtue ethics completely! We must evaluate all decisions and virtues in light of pleasure as our sole guide and goal. Yes, of course, it's smart to take into account both our past experiences and the experiences of other humans in similar situations. That's basic physics.

Quote from Elayne

I'm on the other end of atypical-- I can't even stand to watch fake violence in movies, lol. So my decisions regarding potential harm to strangers need to take my atypical responses into account.

In other words, Elayne is much better suited constitutionally to being a doctor rather than an infantry captain!

And I am constitutionally unable to run a "Meat-producing" plant like with chickens, hogs, etc. I am no vegan myself, but if it were left up to me no one would have any animal-product food available again

Quote from Elayne

It's not a virtue of mine, relative to them, that I avoid doing things they do-- it's only a virtue in regards to my own pleasure. They wouldn't be happier changing to be like me, either, so far as I can tell.

Ah, that's my point. Someone observing your behavior may attribute it to your "virtue." You know that's an erroneous interpretation, but you're not responsible for correcting their mistaken opinion. [Unless you want to engage in some Epicurean evangelism, of course. That's up to you.] You know you're doing it because it brings you pleasure.

Quote from Elayne

I have not changed my position from what I outlined in my article

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at that.

Quote from Elayne

What I mean by pleasure occurring or not is that it depends on material causes, not on people's opinions about what ought to happen.

Okay, I have no problem with this then. Your previous phrasing read to me like you were advocating some kind of sui generis arising. I interpreted it to mean you were implying something different. As long as we're clear the work needs to be done and choices and rejections need to be made to bring it about, we're in agreement.

Quote from Elayne

Maximum pleasure is exactly what an ordinary person would say it is-- total filling of one's mind and body with wonderful bliss-- and it occurs when all pain is absent. When one has achieved maximum blissfulness, it's unmistakable. One will not want anything more at that time, as Epicurus noted. Contrary to rumor, regular humans can experience this.

Quote from Elayne

The maximum possible pleasure over a lifetime is realistically not likely going to involve continuous total bliss, because we don't have the power to prevent every pain, including pains that can stand in the path to pleasures--- but we can obtain a lot more ongoing pleasure than most people realize.

Quote from Elayne

We must evaluate all decisions and virtues in light of pleasure as our sole guide and goal. Yes, of course, it's smart to take into account both our past experiences and the experiences of other humans in similar situations. That's basic physics.

Yep, I agree with this statement, too.

So.... Do we disagree somewhere then that I'm missing? Is there anything I've stated that you take issue with? Or that I've implied that you don't agree with? I'm sincere and not being mean, sarcastic, or flippant here. I'm genuinely curious to dig into details.

Quote from Don

"Epicurus clearly tried to break sharply away from "virtue for virtue's sake." Virtue, he taught, was instrumental to pleasure and thus to leading a pleasurable life. So, it seems to me that Epicureans are still going to act virtuously to the outside observer. The inner motivation is going to be far different than the Stoic or Aristotelian, but the visible form/action is going to be similar."

and very importantly, you said:

"People who take pleasure in what the average human would find morally or ethically repugnant aren't living according to Epicurean principles and so we would have reason to intervene and attempt to get them to change. Just because they are feeling pleasure doesn't make their life choice-worthy. I wrestle with this, but the more I think about it, the more I'm coming to these conclusions."

Don I initially entered this conversation replying to Joshua, and you made these assertions above in your first response to me. Later, you also said there were actions that would lead to pleasurable lives for "any" organism, I disagreed, and you modified your statement to apply to "almost all"-- and that I agreed with.

For the first quote above, I would make that same adjustment-- that "almost all" Epicureans are still going to act in ways that most outside observers would label as virtuous.

And for the second paragraph, I think you are incorrect. If these people are truly taking pleasure in what most others would find repugnant (and when I say this, please be assured that I am _always_ referring to the overall pleasure/pain consequences of decisions, not only the immediate ones), then they _are_ living according to Epicurean principles if they make these choices. Our reason to intervene is on our own behalf. And if as a group we contribute consequences to their actions which then change their pain/pleasure outcomes, they may be wise to change their decision. However in some cases, their pleasure will outweigh any painful consequence others can devise, in the same way that I doubt any amount of torture could cause me to betray one of my children. Their lives can be choice-worthy to them and not to others.

Here I am not only speaking about psychopaths. There are people who take great pleasure in actions which their current majority culture labels repugnant but who cause no actual harm to anyone-- and this is definitely a common human social situation, especially in association with religions, not a rare or hypothetical event. For instance, in some cultures, anything other than heteroromantic love and sex is treated with disgust and in some cases still today with the death penalty. Would you say that a consenting adult same-sex couple in such a culture was not Epicurean to have a relationship even at risk of death? I certainly would not.

A majority reaction of repugnance is not a ruler to measure individual pleasure or Epicurean wisdom.

That second comment was what initiated my whole train of objections. If you no longer agree with what you said, then we have no disagreement!

ADMIN NOTE: At this point in the conversation, Don wrote a post which launches a discussion more oriented toward "justice" than the original point of this thread. Here is a screen-clip of the post and you can find it and the ensuing discussion here. Please pursue the "justice" discussion there, and pursue the main point of this thread continue here.

Hi,

I come from the stoic camp and cross over not as an scout but as an deserter ( based on a Senece quote )

I think these are the main points for the popularity:

- There is a divine rest in nature (like in the deep respect of Einstein (see Einsteins God, natural forces/laws, string theory, M theory .....)

- Success of modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

- Rationality science friendly

- Social, Connection of all humans, nature, political responsibility ....

But I think 1. all these aspects are even in Epicurean philosophy but more realistic/naturalistic/scientific.

For example

- a deep respect for nature but without divinity/God/fate/plan;

- taking reason to question thoughts/actions/judgments and using psychologic techniques when useful for pleasure etc. not everything is an opinion (like in CBT );

- Rational (+ importance of empirism/sense data) and social (friendly, justice is important, but not metaphysical, so more realistic )

And 2. It is so good that Epicurus binds pleasure and virtue together, with pleasure as the end:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example:

Say there is a competion between a Stoic and Epicurean in staying out in the cold in winter.

Why does the Stoic this ? -> For the sake of virtue ( courage, moderation)

Why does the Epicurean do this ? -> Maybe for better health, sustain pleasure and choose a little pain for it.

So let´s say after 2 hours a medical practitioner would come and says, that a longer stay would risk your health, you should stop that.

=> The Epicurean uses his prudence/wisdom to choose that it´s enough for the pleasure of health and stops it.

=> The Stoic: Health ? It´s a preferred indifferent, to train virtue like (courage/endurance/moderation ) is the highest value (Stoic wisdom). But when to stop ?

Only when virtue can´t be trained any further, maybe by fainting, loosing consciousness .... ?

Or dying because of freezing ? But ok life/death is even an indifferent...... Virtue is the highest goal.

So the Stoic would be irrational ?

Stoic: "But not so fast : Even the Epicurean has to use prudence/wisdom/virtue for his decision to stop because it is in complete control, pain / pleasure / health are not... And pain will not say you when it is enough freezing, so why concentrate on any other in life as virtue ?."

Epicurean: "Yes, but my prudence values life/pleasure/health as goods, not virtue, because virtue as an instrument has no limit to calculate on, it is never enough it is abstract. I have trained endurance, the virtues and my health, you can loose everything if you freeze to death for virtue, on pleasure/pain and related goods you can calculate your optimum and limits".

= > So to live pleasantly you need to live virtuously and vice versa.

-------------------------------------------------

What to you think ? Have I understand it right ?

I think you're on the right track and even before that -- welcome to active posting after lurking for quite a while!

As I scan through your comments I think all of them are correct. It occurs to me to say that my experience is that there are very "practical" people for whom your observations are pretty much all they ever need to see. Given those observations, which are correct, they then go back to focusing on the practical side of life, where they are most comfortable, and that's all they need to know or care about. That's fine.

But there are others who really "get into" the logical arguments that divide the two schools, and those people don't find it satisfying to stop at the observation that "the virtues" and "pleasure" go hand in hand. And it's also my experience that many of those people who don't want to stop there are some of the most devoted Stoics, because they are focused on the "epistemological" issues, even maybe more so than the physics issues.

Maybe to better explain the point I am thinking about I would suggest you read sometime (if you haven't) the latter books of Cicero's ON ENDS where he attacks Stoicism from his own more standard "Academic" perspective. His attack is really vigorous and I think makes a lot of sense even from (or especially from) a non-Epicurean perspective, and Cicero probably helps draw into the open why people should be dissatisfied with Stoicism.

So my answer to your question is "yes I think you understand it right as far as you have gone so far." And the question of whether you want to go further to focus on the more abstract issues is entirely up to you and what makes you happy - since from our Epicurean perspective your goal is in fact happiness based on pleasure, rather than as the Stoics might say, "knowledge for the sake of knowledge." For some people it takes plowing into the more abstract issues, for others it doesn't.

Setting aside Hegel's own peculiar terminology (world-spirit, Notion, etc- I'm not here to promote or defend Hegel's philosophy) I find Hegel's summary of Stoicism, in Phenomenology of the Spirit, to give a pretty good insight into its allurements and its ultimate flaw, ie its sterility.

...whether on the throne or in chains, in the utter dependence of its individual existence, its aim is to be free, and to maintain that lifeless indifference which steadfastly withdraws from the bustle of existence, alike from being active as passive, into the simple essentiality of thought. Self-will is the freedom which entrenches itself in some particularity and is still in bondage, while Stoicism is the freedom which always comes directly out of bondage and returns into the pure universality of thought. As a universal form of the World~Spirit Stoicism could only appear on the scene in a time of universal fear and bondage but also a time of universal culture which had raised itself to the level of thought.

The freedom of self-consciousness is indifferent to natural existence and has therefore let this equally go free: the reflection is a twofold one. Freedom in thought has only pure thought as its truth, a truth lacking the fullness of life. Hence freedom in thought, too, is only the Notion of freedom, not the living reality of freedom itself. For the essence of that freedom is at first only thinking in general, the form as such [of thoughtJ , which has turned away from the independence of things and returned into itself. But since individuality in its activity should show itself to be alive, or in its thinking should grasp the living world as a system of thought, there would have to be present in thought itself a content for that individuality, in the one case a content of what is good, and in the other of what is true, in order that what is an object for consciousness should contain no other ingredient whatever except the Notion which is the essence. But here the Notion as an abstraction cuts itself off from the multiplicity of things, and thus has no content in its own self but one that is given to it. Consciousness does indeed destroy the content as an alien immediacy [Sein] when it thinks it; but the Notion is a determinate Notion, and this determinateness of the Notion is the alien element which it has within it. Stoicism, therefore, was perplexed when it was asked for what was called a 'criterion of truth as such', Le. strictly speaking, for a content of thought itself. To the question, What is good and true, it again gave for answer the contentless thought: The True and the Good shall consist in reasonableness. But this self-identity of thought is again only the pure form in which nothing is determined. The True and the Good, wisdom and virtue, the general terms beyond which Stoicism cannot get, are therefore in a general way no doubt uplifting, but since they cannot in fact produce any expansion of the content, they soon become tedious.

I also think Hegel's note on the historical context of Stoicism is relevant to explaining its relative popularity today- a time of universal fear and bondage. A general feeling of isolation, alienation, and powerlessness can be addressed a number of ways; what Stoicism offers is a kind of deliberately induced dissociation. And as others have noted, the Stoic asceticism does seem well-attuned to the present social orthodoxy, where work, family, fitness, "the grind" etc are exalted at the expense of pleasure.

The Epicureans offered, among other things, a community. They were not monks withdrawn from society but they did offer a certain breathing space free of society's pressures. The practical difficulties of establishing and maintaining such a community today are no doubt enormous. I understand that Philodemus wrote some guidelines for running a Garden, I'll have to see what he has to say.

I don't recall seeing that from Hegel previously -- thanks for posting!

This discussion inspired a few memes ...