Why Tranquility Should Not Be the Main Goal for an Epicurean

Couple of comments on that article. First: i wish she had included a cite on where to find this in Aristotle, but I think this true and a crucial observation for Epicureans to understand about the prevailing view that Epicurus faced:

That is why I argue that PD3, and all Epicurean discussion of "absence of pain" as constituting the highest state of pleasure, is really aimed at establishing pleasure as the highest good, not at making the point that modernists allege (they allege that absence of pain is some uniquely desirable special kind of pleasure - a "fancy pleasure" as described in Elayne's article).

In truth, I would argue, PD3 and PD4 are like PD1 and PD2 - they are statements that establish something else and far more important than what may appear to be on the surface.

PD1, if accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the supernatural meddling gods of the majority view.

PD2, if accepted, makes it impossible to believe in life after death and in the threats and rewards of an afterlife of the majority view.

and PD3, if accepted, makes it impossible to accept the argument of Plato and Aristotle that "Pleasure" can not be the highest good.

Again, the point is this: that Plato and Aristotle and others had seemingly proved to the majority's satisfaction that pleasure alone cannot be considered to be the good. From their perspective pleasure has no "limit" - more of it is always better, so it fails to meet the test of "such that no added good could make it any better." Epicurus answers that and provides a proof of its error by pointing out that "the limit of the quantity of pleasure is the absence of pain." This produces the vessel analogy that a vessel (a human life, viewed as the maximum amount of pleasurable experience a single human can feel) can only be filled so far, and once a vessel is filled to the brim, it cannot be filled any further. Thus PD3 is in my view a backhand / roundabout way of saying what you would expect Epicurus to say: "Pleasure is the highest good."

But just as he chose to say "There are no supernatural gods" and "There is no life after death" in a roundabout way, to "inoculate" you against the reverse opinion, he said "Pleasure is the highest good" in a roundabout way, to inoculate you against accepting the specious arguments of Plato and Aristotle and the rest.

I agree with this fundamental point too:

OMG YES this is so true from my point of view too! --->

To repeat - I would contend that In the minds of many modern writers (many, not all), THAT is the reason they push "tranquility" and seek to ignore "pleasure" by redefining it as "absence of pain" - because they want to ELIMINATE pleasure from the entire discussion!

...Which means that every emphasis on tranquility and similar concepts should be rigorously and vigorously scrutinized to determine whether the writer is in fact explaining an aspect of pleasure as taught by Epicurus, or is seeking to overturn and rewrite the entire system of Epicurus to conform to Stoic principles.

And outside of Epicureanfriends.com and other contexts and writers who explicitly make this point early and often (like this Striker article), I would say that a large segment of modern "Epicurean" commentary in fact undermines and would destroy what Epicurus in fact taught.

And the Stoic task was not only more "ambitious" but also unnatural, foolish, and impossible - and the list of negative adjectives could go on and on.

I agree with this too, but due to the damnable Stoic/religious influences that are so widespread today, I think in most contexts when you can make the statement underlined in red you should go further and clarify that Epicurus did not think you reach that state through mind games (like the Stoics) but through the aggressive and vigorous study of nature and the taking of all actions that are possible to create and maintain your state of pleasurable living in the real world.

As Joshua said in the current podcast, or as Raymond Massey character says at the end of the "Things to Come" scene, the work of getting your life in order philosophically is not the end of the process, but only the beginning. Yes philosophy itself is pleasurable, but once you have your philosophical life in order you aren't finished, you're only beginning. Then and only then are you prepared and equipped to go out into the world and do what needs to be done to obtain and secure your pleasant life.

So in post number 18 above, when Kalosyni writes:

There is this important clarification of 'the happy person will be unperturbed":

I agree with Gisela Striker there too. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, a pig is still a pig. "Ataraxia" is (like aponia) a negative term, and would In my view never be used by Epicurus as the primary way to express and convey the ultimate goal of life.

A negative term suits very well to explain why Plato and Aristotle are wrong in saying that pleasure cannot be the highest good, but a negative term is never going to take the place of hedone, or other words like euthymia, as the positive way Epicurus would articulate the guide and goal of life.

Call it a matter of style, or tone, or a 'sense of life' issue, but if there is a "Stoic personality" and an "Epicurean personality" (and I would say there probably is) then I would say that the Epicurean personality is going to find much more pleasure and affinity in the "positive" rather than the "negative." Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius just ooze with sourness and negativity and darkness and defeat.

And the article concludes with a very good taking-apart of the Pyrrhonist view that happiness IS tranquility. It's impossible for me to read very much about Pyrrho without seeing him as absurd and a good example of what not to believe and to do, and that's a very good end to the article.

This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time! Thank you again Kalosyni!

Martin - I think if I were looking to nominate someone for "Foremost Living German Scholar on Epicurus" I would have to put Gisela Striker's name near the top of the list. Can you think of anyone better?

Might be fun sometime to think about listing them by nationalities. I would put David Sedley at or near the top of the Englishmen, and I would list Boris Nikolsky as important in Russian, but I am not sure as to French or American or others.

I do not know of any better living German Scholar on Epicurus than Gisela Striker.

I think a lot of the points in this article are relevant to conversations we have had with Don in the past, so notwithstanding his podcasting sabbatical I am looking forward to his comments on Striker's article!

Striker:

I concur with what has been said. I'll just add several observations:

In debate he was looked down upon by no one, for he could both discourse at length and also sustain a cross-examination, so that even Nausiphanes when a young man was captivated by him : at all events he used to say that we should follow Pyrrho in disposition but himself in doctrine ; and he would often remark that Epicurus, greatly admiring Pyrrho's way of life, regularly asked him for information about Pyrrho ; DL Lives IX.11.64 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…hlight=epicurus

So, Epicurus was evidently an admirer of Pyrhho's way of life, just not his philosophy (since he rejected Nausiphsnes in the end, too)

Striker: "It seems that Democritus was concerned to admonish his fellow citizens to refrain from polypragmosyne, being busybodies and meddling with other people's affairs; advising them that cheerfulness and peace of mind are more likely to flourish in a quiet life of minding one's own business"

This sounds generally Epicurean to me.

Striker: "Skeptical tranquillity can only be reached if one does not try for it"

This sounds generally Zen Buddhist to me.

Striker: "As far as tranquillity is concerned, skepticism might do just as well, or, for that matter, drugs, since we are now not talking about how people actually live, but only about how they feel. But the suggestion that people might be made happy by an ample supply of drugs that would make them feel euphoric or calm looks repellent to us, and would no doubt have looked repellent to the ancient Greeks also."

Striker pegged my argument against the "experience machine" here, ...but I don't want to open that kettle of fermenting fish!

I had to choose between thumbs up and laugh so I choose laugh, but both apply!

Yes I agree too.

I can see the possibility of arguing reasonably against all three items that tranquility, if defined as absence of anxiety, does not meet a strict definition of a "pleasure," if we consider pleasure to be a "positive experience."

But that kind of argument would be a word game where in my view you would want to specify why you were playing it and what you hoped to accomplish. I think most people in common conversation would consider "he is tranquil" would be a common-sense description of someone enjoying some pleasure (sleep, rest, relaxation, daydreaming, etc.)

So maybe the real issue here is that confusion (or manipulation) arisese when people slide back and forth between (1) common sense discussion and (2) academic word-splitting without being clear what they are doing and trying to accomplish.

The whole question of talking about "highest pleasure" sets off alarm bells in my mind because how can that discussion really have any meaning without combining it with all sorts of other qualifying terms that explain the context in which you're talking.

It's kind of like waving a globe at someone and screaming "THIS IS THE WORLD" over and over and over.

Yes, it's a representation of the world, but it's not equivalent to the world in every respect. In most cases that kind of observation goes without saying, but not always. Is the person shouting "THIS IS THE WORLD" crazy? Or are they in the middle of a legitimate but heated discussion about the best way to draw maps and theories of cartography? The context of a discussion can determine whether what the people are saying is brilliant, or insane.

Quote from Kalosyni

Now for Epicureans the goal is to live life the most pleasureably, because this life is the only life. And to live pleasureably both includes and goes beyond tranquility.

Yes I think a large part of the issue is that this kind of formulation (and yours here is very on point I think) is necessarily extremely broad and even "abstract." "Living pleasurably" is such a broad description that (necessarily) means so many different things to different people that its necessary to keep in mind that it's an "outline" type of statement that must be translated into reality.

Quote from Kalosyni

I need to study the basics more and take better notes, and learn how to present my ideas in a cleaner, clearer fashion.

If it's of any help, over the time that I've been posting here I've found a similar need to be more precise in my wording. But I've also found that that is part of the process of learning and communicating philosophy and has been very beneficial for me.

Quote from Kalosyni

...at what point does an Epicurean say: "I've studied the teachings and I've learned the teachings, now I will simply just live the teachings." Yet, one would not feel fully contented until one as established the fundamental material attributes underlying the Epicurean lifestyle.

One of the best ways that I find to understand the teachings is to try to live them and then evaluate the effects in terms of enjoying my life. Participating here is part of that process: instead of a physical Garden, we have this community where we can share ideas, get feedback and continue to study. So, to me, you begin living the teachings early on and continue to do so. And you continue to study indefinitely: there's always some new nuance to appreciate and incorporate into understanding and living. Understanding is continuously growing, branching out into new areas and providing additional pleasures!

For me, I want a philosophy of life to put into practice, and that's what I'm finding steadily more and more with Epicurus's philosophy. Something to use as a measure against which to weigh life decisions. There aren't commandments, but there are "have you considered this?" elements.

That's one of the things that drew me first to Buddhism: Buddha's teaching that "Don't take my word for it. Test what I've taught. If it works, do it. If not, throw it away." The trappings and supernatural components (ex., rebirth) steered me away.

I have found Epicureanism an eminently practical perspective rooted in the material world that gives direction to one's path thru life.

And this virtual Garden has been a big component of coming to these realizations.

Ευχαριστώ! I give thanks to all those fellow travelers in the Garden Path.

Quote

A question that comes up for me lately is, at what point does an Epicurean say: "I've studied the teachings and I've learned the teachings, now I will simply just live the teachings." Yet, one would not feel fully contented until one as established the fundamental material attributes underlying the Epicurean lifestyle.

After having studied "enough", the confidence that our intuition and the philosophy match comes up as an inner sensation. If pleasurable, we can keep delving into ever more details but there is no need to do so. This is similar to science: Once we have studied enough science to reach the confidence in an exclusively material world, there is no more need to study more science unless we need specific knowledge for a hedonic calculus. However, if science gives us great pleasure, we may choose it as our main hobby or profession and thereby spend a large part of our life studying or contributing to science.

While reading more Epicurean texts and contributing to the forum is pleasurable for me, I spend most of my free time on other pleasures and on preparations for other pleasures.