Differences between Epicureanism and Cyrenaicism

    This might bring up some ideas for consideration and further exploration of the differences between the teachings of Epicurus and Aristippus.


    The following paragraphs are quoted from:

    Epicurus | | Mt. San Antonio College


    Edited once, last by Kalosyni: Placed quote into properly highlighted quote field. ().

    Some quick thoughts....


    I'm not very familiar with Aristippus and his ideas. But for Epicurus it was very important to have a correct view of the gods and death, meaning a correct world view, as a central component of a life of pleasure. So I'm curious as to the world view of Aristippus was.


    In another thread we've been discussing pleasure and some of the PDs. One approach to comparing the two philosophies would be to compare "a constant round of active pleasures" to pleasure as described in PD03, PD09 and PD10. For instance PD10 could be read as a direct Epicurean response to Aristippus, although I don't know if that's historically accurate.

    Quote

    PD10 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).


    Looking at PD03 is tricky as it's usually mentioned as a rebuttal to Plato. But what if you look at it as a recipe for the best life, from which you can and should draw your own conclusions? If you are striving for the greatest pleasure, how could you go about it? People immediately jump to "Remove all pain! Remove all pain!" But is that really what he's saying? True, if you've reached the limit of pleasure then you won't have feelings of pain. So how do you do that? If you have pleasure in your stomach for a moment then there's no pain in your stomach for that moment. If you have peace of mind for a moment then there's no pain in your mind for that moment. Knowing this, you can strategize how to achieve the longest lasting, most complete and most sustainable experience of pleasure.

    Quote

    PD03 The limit of enjoyment is the removal of all pains. Wherever and for however long pleasure is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress.

    I have some issues with the Mt. SAC summary of Epicurus's philosophy. I tried to dig up another source for comparison:

    Quote

    According to Aelian (VH 14.6 = SSR 174, part),

    Aristippus…advised people not to pain themselves either in memory of what is past or in anticipation of future events (μήτε τοῖς παρελθοῦσιν ἐπικάμνειν μήτε τῶν ἐπιόντων προκάμνειν).…His advice was to keep one’s thought focused on the day, and in fact on that part of the day in which one was carrying out this or that action or thought. For only the present is ours, he said, unlike what is already over and what is still awaited, of which the former has perished, while with the latter it is unclear whether it will be.

    From Sedley, Epicurean versus Cyrenaic Happiness

    That leads to quite a different understanding than "Aristippus sets as the goal of life a constant round of active pleasures." Looks like a fruitful paper!

    Quote from Godfrey

    That leads to quite a different understanding than "Aristippus sets as the goal of life a constant round of active pleasures." Looks like a fruitful paper!

    I've really found Sedley to be my go-to modern scholar, much more so than even Dewitt (Shhh! Don't tell Cassius !)

    Thank you Don for sharing the link. I find it worthwhile and new angles to explore, with regard to the balance of pleasure over a full life --- bodily (physical sensation) and mental (delight and tranquility).

    Reposting link:

    Epicurean versus Cyrenaic happiness
    Epicurean versus Cyrenaic happiness
    www.academia.edu

    The way the quote system works these look like quotes from Kalosyni but of course they are from the article. {Note - I edited the post and now these quotes just say "Quote"} Kalosyni has found a good article for displaying in condensed form many of what I consider to be the worst and most inaccurate takes on Epicurean philosophy.


    For example I think each if the following assertions is factually untrue - and not even close to correct. These are the "neo stoic" views which make the version of Epicurean philosophy presented here - if it were true - not worth the paper it's written on:


    Quote

    Epicurus maintains that the duration of pleasures is more important than their intensity in achieving happiness.

    I suspect he is mainly referring there to the section by Torquatus in "on Ends" which says that mental pleasures can be more significant than bodily pleasures because they can last longer, but he does not say that is necessarily so, nor does he say that duration is more important than intensity. There are passages that say the opposite, including the letter to Menoeceus where he specifically says we do not choose the longest, but the most pleasant.

    Quote

    Epicurus maintains that the active pleasures are important only insofar as they terminate the pain of unfulfilled desires. For Epicurus, the passive pleasures are more fundamental

    That is the katestematic/kinetic assertion that is contained only one place in DIogenes Laertius, in a place that does not say that katestemtic is more important. The place to start reading on this is Boris Nikolsky 's article Epicurus on Pleasure.

    Quote

    Epicurus assures us that the calm and repose of the good life are within the reach of all

    Overbroad. He specifically says that the study of nature is required and that not everyone is constitutionally disposed towards wisdom. But the implication here that the "good life" is easily within reach should not be taken to mean that you can do or be whatever you want and still attain a good life.

    Quote

    It is necessary that we keep our desires at a minimum, however

    This is pure asceticism and would go even further even than do the Stoics to destroy human life -- if it were truly what he taught, but it is not. Every aspect of Epicurean philosophy is geared toward focusing on pleasure as the goal, not at "keeping our desires at a minimum" as a goal. VS63, which is rarely if ever quoted by people who make this quoted assertion, specifically says:


    VS63. Frugality too has a limit, and the man who disregards it is like him who errs through excess.



    Were these quotes an accurate summary I would consider this philosophy to be worse than Stoicism - which would be quite a feat. I won't go into each of them here beyond what I wrote above, but we can take each in turn in greater detail if anyone would like. Probably the better place for most of those would however be in the forum Epicurean Philosophy vs. Stoicism


    In regard to Sedley I too hold him in high regard. The main difference I see between Sedley and DeWitt is that Sedley writes to an academic audience and he doesn't make it his goal to write to average readers and to disabuse them of the ideas presented in the quoted-from article. That's what DeWitt does.


    If not for DeWitt I myself might well have accepted the quoted-from "stoic lite" view of Epicurus, and none of us would be having this conversation here because I would have rejected Epicurus with great prejudice and this website would not be here.


    None of these comments are aimed at Katosyni of course because what she has done in posting this is do us the favor of reminding us (as we need to be reminded constantly!) What is out there and what we are up against in trying to understand classical Epicurean philosophy.


    So Kalosyni please ask specifically about any of these quoted sections you think may be accurate and we can go through the evidence against them.

    Quote from Cassius

    The way the quote system works these look like quotes from Kalosyni but of course they are from the article.

    Yes, very important to point out. The only way I've found to get around that is to use the html editor and replace the name in the data-author field inside the woltlab element. Needles to say, it's a tad tedious.

    Quote from Cassius

    The main difference I see between Sedley and DeWitt is that Sedley writes to an academic audience and he doesn't make it his goal to write to average readers and to disabuse them of the ideas presented in the quoted-from article. That's what DeWitt does.

    I knew my comment would get a reaction ;) But seriously, I definitely see your point and the importance of the course of events set in motion by your reading Epicurus and His Philosophy cannot be overstated.

    Personally, and this due to the style of delivery, his penchant to sometimes not cite his sources, and his over-the-top Christianity spotting, I much prefer reading DeWitt's academic papers over Epicurus and His Philosophy. Not to mention Epicurus and St. Paul. But I freely admit DeWitt is a top notch scholar (and advocate) of Epicurus and very worth reading.

    Quote from Don

    Yes, very important to point out. The only way I've found to get around that is to use the html editor and replace the name in the data-author field inside the woltlab element. Needles to say, it's a tad tedious.

    Thanks, that helped me see how to figure it out. That first icon in the editor toolbar opens up the html code and there you can see and delete where the code is referencing the Author's name. Fixed.

    Quote from Cassius

    Every aspect of Epicurean philosophy is geared toward focusing on pleasure as the goal, not at "keeping our desires at a minimum" as a goal.

    Cassius that's too much of a black and white, all or nothing interpretation. The desires that should be kept to a minimum are those that lead to pain and difficulty.


    Now as I read your comments, I would venture to say, that on this forum you, my dear Cassius...you are forging a new kind of Epicureanism, and in fact you are a "Neo-Epicurean" yourself...and it could be called "Cassianism".


    And this very well might be it's formula:


    Assertiveness + material wealth + daily enjoyment of using one's wealth = the goal of life is to enjoy your material riches in physical pleasure.


    So those who have the wealth to do so may follow this hybrid interpretation.


    Those of us who are less wealthy understand the benefits of not investing mental energy onto all the modern "dainties" that could be acquired if one had the money to buy them. And so we turn our attention to focus much more intently onto mental pleasures.


    My words of advice: What the wise should cultivate desire for (and then take action on) is this: Friendship, companionship, camaraderie, good conversations, and time to be physically present with friends.


    Cassius and all, I wish you well. And may you live in blessedness.


    (Of course, any and all who wish to respond here, please do so).

    Kalosyni I would turn your comment around and say that what you are saying about me is "too much of a black and white interpretation."


    Yes I do think that some things about what Epicurus taught are indeed black and white (for example no life after death; no supernatural gods) but that others are in fact much more subtle (the role of pleasure and in fact the proper definition of pleasure.


    I certainly agree with your categorization of friendship as among the top ways to invest one's time. That is exactly what Epicurus advised in PD 27.


    I am sorry you feel that I am drawing lines between those with wealth and those without. Wealth is certainly only one circumstance that plays into how one makes one's choices, and wealth is certainly not an end in itself, any more than friendship itself is an end in itself ("Of all the things which wisdom acquires to produce the blessedness of the complete life...")


    I have enjoyed our discussions and hope you will continue to participate. Remember, however, that the forum does have a purpose and a goal beyond just discussing philosophy in general, and so I hope you'll consider that in your evaluation of what I and others post here. I do my very best to make clear from the beginning that the purpose of the forum is to explore Epicurean philosophy from the perspective of its founders, and only after that to offer variations from their original theme. There's a lot of conflict among people who spend their entire professional careers studying Epicurus as to what he meant in certain areas, and that means ultimately that it's necessary to take a position on which interpretations are within the sphere of reasonableness as to what the ancient Epicureans actually taught.


    That's why even as I speak against what I see as the errors of Stoic philosophy, I respect those who take the time to determine and explain the original foundations of Stoicism before they create their own versions under the same label. To get to the bottom of these issues there's really no other way than "frank discussion" and calling things as we see them, even when the result can appear to some to be excessively "dogmatic." You'll recall from Diogenes Laertius that to the best we can these are attributes of what the wise man will do:


    "One wise man is not wiser than another. He will be ready to make money, but only when he is in straits and by means of his philosophy. He will pay court to a king, if occasion demands. He will rejoice at another’s misfortunes, but only for his correction. And he will gather together a school, but never so as to become a popular leader. He will give lectures in public, but never unless asked; he will give definite teaching and not profess doubt. In his sleep he will be as he is awake, and on occasion he will even die for a friend."

    Thank you for your reply Cassius. I did feel a bit "reactive" earlier today as I was writing my previous post, which is not the best frame of mind to post dialog.


    Yes, you are right about me. I at times slip into black and white thinking...I do need to work on catching and correcting it (and attribute slip-ups to Christian fundamentalist upbringing).


    And finally, it comes down to our slightly different interpretations of Epicurean philosophy. I need to get clear about which Epicurean ideas are ambiguous...and I need to sit down on my own and write out my personal interpretation of Epicurean philosophy, plainly and with references to the PD's etc.

    And I and I am sure others stand ready to give you constructive comment and suggestions as you do that.


    You have been very polite and constructive so far and it is definitely within the scope of the forum to walk through the preliminary learning stages with people who have an open and constructive attitude.


    I hope you will understand however that it's a practical concern arising from many years of experience (and reading about centuries of dispute before that) that as DeWitt says Epicurus is simultaneously one of the most loved but also most hated philosophers. Many sincere people decide to cast their lot with supernatural gods or virtue idealism, and once they make up their minds to do so their constant argument has to be dealt with for everyone's sake.


    One of the most core aspects of this forum is that the world is full of people who want to selectively adopt some aspects of Epicurean philosophy (especially use if the phrase "absence of pain") and ignore or repudiate the rest.


    We therefore set up the forum as a place where those of us who want to be sure we understand the full extent of the philosophy can collaborate among ourselves free from the constant roar of greedy Acheron harping from the Stoic - Academic community.


    You'll know if and when the time for you to withdraw comes, and I doubt you are anywhere near that point yet.


    In fact I am sure we have many lurkers who are committed to other views but do not "make trouble" because they profit from reading along. I have been pleasantly surprised that we have had far fewer problems than I originally expected we would have, largely I think because we do try to be clear in the welcome message, terms of service, posts, etc that we do have these limits. So please understand that the reminders of the limits are not by any means directed at you personally but are needed to maintain the ongoing continuity of the forum as others read them in the future.

    So this highlights both the pleasure of rest and the pleasure of action...

    ....so both "the cake AND the frosting". :)

    Quote from Kalosyni

    So this highlights both the pleasure of rest and the pleasure of action...

    ....so both "the cake AND the frosting".

    Yes that is the important point - Epicurus praised both (really ALL) kinds of pleasure, and there is no reason to differentiate between the static and the moving. If you can find the time please read the article by Nikolsky "Epicurus on Pleasure" and now that you see that Diogenes Laertius confirms that Epicurus praised both / all, and he never remotely said that the active pleasures are for the sake of the static (or vice versa) then you are prepared to see that the standard argument that you should go for pleasures of "rest" in all things is hogwash. There is no true rest in human life (or in the universe for that matter) because all atoms are constantly in motion. "Rest" is a fiction of the Platonic imagination because his realm of forms (which does not exist) is the only place where "things" allegedly remain immovable and the same. There is no "horseness" - only horses, and there are in my view no real pleasures that can be considered unmoving or at rest, only some which last longer than others.

    The opening of Chapter 19 of Gosling & Taylor's "The Greeks on Pleasure" is also very informative. In it, they observe that


    " It has usually been taken as fairly unproblematic which pleasures are kinetic. All sensory pleasures fall into this category and

    perhaps some mental ones such as learning. This determines Usener’s selection of passages, and it tends to be a point of

    agreement among commentators who disagree about the nature of katastematic pleasure and its relation to kinetic." (my emphasis. Elsewhere in the book they discuss this further and make clear that kinetic implies change of any kind, which is why they include learning here, and when you think about the "change" component, it's sweeping in scope.)


    At the end of the first paragraph is the sentence "But he [a commentator] agrees that all sensory pleasures are kinetic."


    In other words, when you trace back the meaning of "kinetic" you find that it really means anything that changes, and that means not only bodily pleasure but also mental pleasure -- in fact ANYTHING that you can sense as pleasurable. Which logically leads you to the question, "Well if you can't sense katestematic pleasure (if you can sense it, it must be kinetic) then what good is katastematic pleasure?"


    And I would say thus you're on the trail of the ridiculous position that there's something special called katestematic pleasure which is what Epicurus held to be the real goal of life.


    I know my position here sounds radical and hard to accept, but read Nikolsky first (he's shorter) and then read this chapter. Gosling & Taylor - On Katastematic and Kinetic Pleasure Gosling and Taylor are well-credentialed academics and don't suffer from the disrepute in which DeWItt is held in some (not all) academic circles.




    Quote from Cassius

    There is no true rest in human life (or in the universe for that matter) because all atoms are constantly in motion. "Rest" is a fiction of the Platonic imagination because his realm of forms (which does not exist) is the only place where "things" allegedly remain immovable and the same. There is no "horseness" - only horses, and there are in my view no real pleasures that can be considered unmoving or at rest, only some which last longer than others.

    I have to take some issue with your conflating "rest" with Platonic ideals. I may be reading too much into your post, but here's my response anyway.

    If there were "no true rest in human life" that would be an abominable situation. We have to find some "rest" in the storm, otherwise we're at the mercy of the storm, tossed wave to wave. Epicurus defines (in some places) a pleasurable life as "health of the body and tranquility of the mind." That's the kind of "rest" I would say he advocated. You can't lead a pleasurable life if your body is unhealthy and your mind is troubled by fears and agitated by anxiety or anger (for example). In fact, pleasure can be more fully experienced in that state of health and "peace of mind." There's no hint of a Platonic ideal, just practicality. That tranquility (ataraxia in the phrase "tranquility of the mind") isn't the goal, but it is a pleasurable experience; plus I find it interesting that it's origin it's in a metaphor of calm seas.

    Well, "rest" is another word that has lots of shades of meaning. :)


    "Coming to rest" in atomic terms is never anything more than temporary, while at the other extreme a thing like "horseness" was intended (in my view)to refer to something eternally unchangeable.

    I haven't re-read either the Nikolsky article or the Gosling & Taylor chapter, but if I recall one of my reactions to G&T it is that there is an in my view extreme difficulty in ascertaining what "katastematic" pleasure really is if it cannot be sensed. I tend to focus on the fact that that which cannot be sensed is nothing to us, as in PD2, and if we are defining Katastematic pleasure in that way then that poses real problems for the person asserting that it is important, much less that it is the true goal of life.


    But to really dig into this it's necessary to go back in the history that G&T present, because what I am remembering is not just that any pleasure that can be sensed is by definition kinetic, it's really an issue of "change" or "motion" at the deepest level that is involved. In other words that's why the referenced "learning" but it goes further -- if you can sense any change at all, much less a beginning or an end, to the activity, then it's kinetic. In fact you pretty much have to rule out anything that is an "activity" or anything that you "feel" -- which gets into the complicated implications of "feeling" vs. "sensation." I personally think it's fair to say that if you can "feel" the pleasure then you're engaged in a kinetic pleasure, and that includes "feeling good" or "feeling appreciation for a work of art" or "feeling happy" or any other experience of life. In fact that focus on "experience" - if I recall correctly - is the point of the Wenham artlcle, because the argument would be that anything that can be "experienced" is kinetic -- meaning that katastematic pleasure (I get to the point where I hate even to type the word) cannot be "experienced."

    Wenham - On Cicero's Interpretation of Katastematic Pleasure in Epicurus


    (I'm really going out on a limb here because I haven't read Wenham in a long time, and my memory is already questionable - I hope I am at least partly right in citing him for that proposition. :) )


    Edit:

    OK yes glancing at the abstract indicates to me that while I may have to be corrected, there's probably at least some resemblance between the way I described it and the content of the article: