Carl Sagan, the 4th dimension, episode 20 of Lucretius Today, physics

This conversation is driving me ever deeper to the position that Torquatus abandoned, and which Epicurus asserted, that logical proofs over the nature of pleasure are not appropriate.

And I am taking more and more the attitude that they Plutarch quote (we need to see if we can agree on a good translation) was aimed at the same target - that attempts to define a "greatest good" are intrinsically Platonic and unproductive.

Which is not a complaint Camotero but a good thing!

Let's see how Don or others would respond to your question.

I am thinking this is an area, like anticipations, where DeWitt was going in the right direction but maybe did not go far enough. I think you are interpreting DeWitt's intent correctly, but I doubt his intent is fully satisfactory - there was more to be said.

Quote from camotero

Was I interpreting this wrong?

No, I don't think so. I should probably have written "Death would be the greatest evil" but even that may be overstating. But"life as the greatest good" per DeWitt doesn't strike me as helpful. It's not life per se. I think Epicurus would ask what's the kind of life you're living. Is it directed toward pleasure? Are you making choices based on moving your life in a pleasurable direction? Are you loving and practicing wisdom (ie, applying Epicurean philosophy) ?

Quote from Cassius

This conversation is driving me ever de pere to the position that Torquatus abandoned, and which Epicurus asserted, that logical proofs over the nature of pleasure are not appropriate.

That's been my position all along, especially in light of the quote from DL I just added above and here again:

Quote from Diogenes Laertius, X.137

as proof that pleasure is the end [Epicurus] adduces the fact that living things, so soon as they are born, are well content with pleasure and are at enmity with pain, by the prompting of nature and apart from reason.

Well you have observed correctly there that I need to be more accurate. Logical discussion over pleasure certainly seems to be something Epicurus or at least some Epicureans engaged in at times, probably to respond to Platonic logical arguments. They didn't just say "I am not going to discuss it."

But he doesn't rely ultimately on those for his ultimate proofs - he "points" to young living things, and observes sugar is sweet, and uses the canonical faculties which are not themselves something that do or can require logical proofs themselves.

So I think he does both at separate times and from separate perspectives and that we have to be dexteritous enough to follow him / them in the different contexts.

To the best of my knowledge, Epicurus never made logical arguments for the "goodness of pleasure" but rather asserted it was self-evident and needed no proof (Tsouna, The Ethics of Philodemus p. 17 citing Demetrius Lacon, PHerc. 1012).

Later Epicureans, like Cicero's Torquatus character, maintained logical proofs were needed to combat the arguments of other schools.

That being said, if you know of a reference to Epicurus making logical arguments for pleasure as the goal, please share! That's not a challenge. Just a desire to learn!

For a non-Greek allegorical anecdote about the good as a noun:

I recently purchased a small ceramic sculpture. One day as I was observing and thinking about it, it occurred to me that it was precious in a certain way and that it could be instructive to compare it to "the good." How would I respond to it as something "precious?" Observe it, treat it with care, contemplate it, place it somewhere that I can maximize my opportunities to appreciate it.... Considering it precious, should I stress out over damaging or losing it or maximize my pleasure regarding it? I also realized that while it may seem precious to me, to someone else it may seem like junk! (But this realization digresses from my point.)

Well, naturally I arrived at the conclusion that the best thing to do is to maximize the pleasure that I can gain from this object. In this particular case the pleasures are primarily mental: observing the object, thinking about other pieces by the sculptor and the ideas she may be working with, trying to understand how it was constructed, thinking about what it is that I enjoy about it, noticing the various textures, remembering the pleasant circumstances in which I first encountered it, &c.... (I guess if I had a different disposition I may have concluded that it's my virtuous duty to care for it, but that's not where I ended up.)

My point is that it's possibly useful to think of the sculpture as a proxy for "life itself," and to think of my conclusion of the best thing to do as "the goal." Of course one may arrive at their own conclusions....

(For the record, the sculpture isn't all that precious but, personally, I'm enjoying it greatly.)

Quote from Don

That being said, if you know of a reference to Epicurus making logical arguments for pleasure as the goal, please share!

I don't want to get too far off track here by over-focusing on this particular point, but I personally consider PD3-4 to be a "logical" argument (dealing with the issue of the limit of pleasure, which is not particularly relevant or important unless you are dealing with Plato's logical "pleasure has no limit and therefore cannot be the greatest good" argument). Aside from PD3-4 there is no clear and obvious and prominently placed statement of the role of pleasure in the opening PDs, and that in itself is something that has always struck me as a fascinating difference between the PDs and the letter to Menorceus. If the PDs were intended to be a prioritized list of important things to remember (and I think they are) and if Epicurus considered identification of "the greatest good" to be important to us (which I don't think is true) why does the top ten not include "Pleasure is the greatest good."? At least according to Torquatus / Cicero that is what "all philosophers agree" to be the ultimate question. It appears to me that Cicero should not have included Epicurus in that list of "all philosophers".

I have more to respond, but it won't be until this evening at least.

For now, I'd just ask, for anyone who wants to think about it: How would you answer this question? To what does Epicurus's philosophy point? Or What is the point of Epicurus's philosophy?

To me, that answer would be "the greatest good". I'm seeing the greatest good (is it good as in pleasing/right or good as in wares/household goods?), the goal, telos, etc as closely related if not synonymous myself.

Later.

Quote from Don

Or What is the point of Epicurus's philosophy?

To me, that answer would be "the greatest good". I'm seeing the greatest good (is it good as in pleasing/right or good as in wares/household goods?), the goal, telos, etc as closely related if not synonymous myself.

Later.

Probably yesterday or the day before I would myself use exactly those words, and I may use them later today or tomorrow.

But I increasingly get the feeling that without strict qualification this approach is what Epicurus warned against, and that Godfrey is pointing the same way as Camotero who is stating the issue very well:

Quote from camotero

I think "the greatest good" is here being used as a platonic ideal. I think Epicurus philosophy pointed to something very material instead: Teaching how to care for the only object you can really possess (life) and how to give it the best use possible (following pleasure) while being able to resolve confusions about it (the canon).

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Or What is the point of Epicurus's philosophy?

To me, that answer would be "the greatest good". I'm seeing the greatest good (is it good as in pleasing/right or good as in wares/household goods?), the goal, telos, etc as closely related if not synonymous myself.

Later.

Probably yesterday or the day before I would myself use exactly those words, and I may use them later today or tomorrow.

But I increasingly get the feeling that without strict qualification this approach is what Epicurus warned against, and that Godfrey is pointing the same way as Camotero who is stating the issue very well:

Quote from camotero

I think "the greatest good" is here being used as a platonic ideal. I think Epicurus philosophy pointed to something very material instead: Teaching how to care for the only object you can really possess (life) and how to give it the best use possible (following pleasure) while being able to resolve confusions about it (the canon).

Display More

Against my better judgement, I looked at my phone. I can resist anything but temptation. Or to put that more Epicureanly, I *choose* to not resist temptation.

Two points, and I'm off again until this evening:

Cassius : I don't really understand your reluctance or uneasiness about "those words." Epicurus repeatedly uses telos (goal) and tagathon (the good) throughout his extant writings.

Mathitis Kipouros : I think you've hit the nail on the head with your comment. Other philosophers looked to something intangible outside of nature as "the greatest good" like Virtue. Epicurus said "No, the greatest good is right here. You can feel it." That, to me, is his point. That's why the Tetrapharmakos can say "The good (tagathon) is easy to get." By the good, I read pleasure there. It's right here in front of you. Carpe the diem .

Epicurus is taking their abstract, obtuse concepts and giving them real, tangible, natural antecedents.

All for now. Great frank conversation!!

Quote from Don

Cassius : I don't really understand your reluctance or uneasiness about "those words." Epicurus repeatedly uses telos (goal) and tagathon (the good) throughout his extant writings.

Maybe the context of my comments is that I personally am constantly looking to the way that non-philosoohers will take these formulations, and I think it is very easy to fall into phrasings that reinforce negative paradigms - such as the idea that there is one specific goal or one way of life that all people should follow. Presumably it is clear to us that we mean pleasure as a feeling and we are contrasting that with absolute systems of all types, but I am not sure that is the case even here sometime, and I feel absolutely sure it is a tremendous problem outside our hallowed walls here.

The whole paradigm is set up to reinforce absolutism in many ways, and breaking through is apparently a multi-thousand-year project that seems always in danger of being squashed entirely.

So certainly the words we are discussing must be used and exchanged, but we are playing in hostile territory so swords (for the anti-Epicureans) should remain at hand!

(And I do get the impression sometime that all of us would like to think that everyone in the world has everyone else's best interests at heart, but I do not think that is the case, and the texts we read from the ancient world were not written in that context either. I don't doubt but that Plato and even Cicero and no doubt many others saw their task as persuasion to their positions, so everything has a motive aspect to consider.

Quote from Cassius

the idea that there is one specific goal or one way of life that all people should follow

Oh, I have no problem saying Epicurus did, in fact, advocate for "one specific goal" - living the most pleasurable life - and "one way of life" - follow the guides of pleasure and pain to make your life choices. Otherwise, why would he found the Garden? Why would he write so many books, letters, and epitomes? He had an agenda. Lucretius fully believed Epicurus found the best path to organize one's life otherwise he wouldn't have written those soaring prefaces to the books of his poem. Epicurus and his students and successors waged word-battles, tooth and nail, against rival schools because they felt Epicurus's teaching and his way of living were superior to all the other alternatives. There was an "evangelist" quality to the spread of the philosophy precisely because those spreading the word felt the way of life advocated by Epicurus could help people live more fulfilling lives.

Epicurus's relativism in ethics or justice doesn't preclude him saying "Your philosophy, Plato/Aristotle/etc, will not lead to a pleasant life. Mine will!"

I'm not willing to cede the battlefield and Epicurus's own words to the enemy and play by their rules. If words like "goal" and "the good" are used by "the other side," I'm happy to redefine them with more material, tangible meanings.

Whew!! Okay, so I got that off my chest then... [steps down from soapbox, motions for next person to take the stage]

1 - I suspect depending on time zone Camotero is going to have a good reply!

2- it's not so much that the words themselves are the issue as much as the way that they are employed. Words too are just tools, just like the virtues! :-). Even "greatest good" can be wielded helpfully - we agree on that - but the issue of "how" I think is deeper than it appears.

If wielded in a way that implies that there is but one conceptual path to follow, as if there is magic in numbers or words as Plato would imply, then that is very damaging.

If wielded using "true philosophy" however then it's the most helpful way of explaining life. Using words to explain that words cannot suffice to show us the way is tricky business!

Quote from Cassius

one conceptual path to follow

Could you define "one conceptual path" in reference to what I said in the first part of the post?

I used "one conceptual path" as a proxy for "one way to live" in a general everyday sense - almost in a political - cultural - social sense, because that's where I see the concepts going -- "communism, capitalism, the kind of 'system' that's usually advocated for on conceptual grounds.

Quote from Cassius

I used "one conceptual path" as a proxy for "one way to live" in a general everyday sense - almost in a political - cultural - social sense, because that's where I see the concepts going -- "communism, capitalism, the kind of 'system' that's usually advocated for on conceptual grounds.

So, do you agree or not with my assertion that:

Quote from Don

Epicurus did, in fact, advocate for "one specific goal" - living the most pleasurable life - and "one way of life" - follow the guides of pleasure and pain to make your life choices.