Article by Voorhoeve: Epicurus on Pleasure, A Complete Life, and Death: A Defense

This looks to be a promising article from the title. I haven't had time to read but might be worth discussing. Without reading further I am not sure what to think about the "exercising our rational capabilities" comment (especially since this was presented in an Aristotle group) but I do like even at first glance the "establishing control over our lives."

Epicurus on Pleasure, a Complete Life, and Death: A Defence

Epicurus argued that the good life is the pleasurable life. He also argued that 'death is nothing to us'. These claims appear in tension. For if…

www.academia.edu

If this is worthwhile we'll add it to the "files" section.

NOTE: I have now read it all, and I have presented lots of criticisms of it below, but it is a very good article for focusing on the issues involved in viewing Epicurus' goal as "Tranquility."

I don't buy this, and ONCE AGAIN I think the problem is we're getting tripped up by logical games about "good" and "bad" and the "greatest good" and so forth.

Why is it a problem to hold both, at the same time, that:

(1) the state of being dead is nothing to fear in itself, because it causes us no pain, because "we" are not there to experience it,

AND

(2) the state of being alive is desirable, as it is our only our chance to experience pleasure, so therefore we want to live as long as we can experience enough pleasure to make the pains of growing older worthwhile.

I see nothing contradictory between those two, and in the letter to Menoeceus Epicurus said:

Quote

And he who counsels the young man to live well, but the old man to make a good end, is foolish, not merely because of the desirability of life, but also because it is the same training which teaches to live well and to die well. Yet much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born but ‘once born make haste to pass the gates of Death’. For if he says this from conviction why does he not pass away out of life? For it is open to him to do so, if he had firmly made up his mind to this. But if he speaks in jest, his words are idle among men who cannot receive them.

So my view is that Epicurus held BOTH, at the same time, without contradiction, that:

(1) the state of being dead is nothing to fear in itself, because it causes us no pain, because "we" are not there to experience it, AND

(2) the state of being alive is desirable, as it is our only our chance to experience pleasure, so therefore we want to live as long as we can experience enough pleasure to make the pains of growing older worthwhile.

I particularly do agree with the part I underline here:

I have never heard of this clip from Clement of Alexandria but I now want to find it because I think it helps illustrate the issue very well:

Julia Annas isn't someone recognizable to quote to others, but she's right too.

Cicero's quote isn't quite as clear, but it's usable too.

All are good quotes to use against someone (maybe even the author of this article?) who wants to posit "Absence of pain" as Epicurus' complete statement of the best life.

Yep, he's a Tranquilist, and suggests that the best way to live a pleasurable life is to give up conventional ideas of pleasure (that way you won't worry if you aren't achieving pleasure!). Not surprising to see him starting to quote Nussbaum.

Hard to state Tranquilism more clearly than this (page 9 of the article)

So he (the writer) and Nussbaum, even though both are into tranquility and the natural and necessary divison, cannot even agree among themselves as to what "empty" means. More evidence (to me) that the word "empty" is clear mainly in describing the usefulness of the empty analysis itself (for which I do not blame Epicurus, but these writers who think this word makes sense without more clear explanation of what is being discussed).

And if you accept the view that "freedom from pain and anxiety" was Epicurus' view of how to live life, then indeed you'll spend your time limiting your desires and withdrawing from society.

On the other hand what Epicurus did was pursue his desire for pleasure and happiness through the study of nature and the spreadings of his philosophy through constant controversy against other schools, and to live out his life pleasurably among many friends (with courtesans and slaves and multiple houses and apparent material well-being) close to the very center of an Athens that was filled with people who despised his philosophy.

So I think Epicurus would reject this author's characterizations of what Epicurus taught, and I think "we" should too. Which doesn't mean there's not a lot to learn from this article, because by talking about it we get a better focus on the issues.

By all means, sir Tranqulist! Let's shut down this online forum, forget looking for Epicurean friends, forget taking action to secure our lives and our friends lives, and let's just go "eat a piece of cheese," " have a conversation with a friend," and "look at a beautiful sky." And if we do bother ourselves with philosophical (or related religious) issues, let's just "think them through" without caring whether we help our friends or anyone else who might be caught up in anxiety and distress because of those issues.

Not surprising he cites Warren, and not surprising that he tends toward the conclusion that the Epicurean, once he has become a tranquil sage, has no motive to regard death as a "comparative evil." This is ambiguous, but I can't agree with it because it seems clear that Epicurus saw no contradiction in holding that state of being dead is not painful, but, at the same time, it is undesirable to suffer an early death.

Ok, this is his conclusion, and I pretty much wholeheartedly reject it. The word "pleasure" is mentioned but once and then in the context of "The pleasures of Tranqility." This is Tranquilism, not - in my view - what Epicurus taught.

To end on a high note, this is a good quote from Philodemus which he includes near the end of the discussion. I would say Philodemus has a much better grasp of the teachings than does this writer:

Yes! Along with my standard caution that if what he says doesn't track with the main body of the work, be cautious! But I do think that most of the time what can reliably be reconstructed DOES track with the rest.

Quote from Kalosyni

1) pleasure (and pain) as guiding choice and avoidance, and living a full social lifestyle, from an extroverted disposition and a physically visceral experience.

2) pleasure (and pain) as guiding choice and avoidance, and living a quiet and reserved lifestyle, from an introverted disposition and a mentally rich experience.

So how you choose to live most pleasantly is coming from your in-born nature (or nurtured) disposition.

Yes - that's always a major point. Diffferent people have different circumstances, and different immediate needs and wants.

Sometimes you're in a "defensive" position and need to focus on getting rid of pain; sometimes you're in a more "offensive" position when your life is pretty much in order, and you can afford to be more aggressive in pursuing specific pleasures you'd like to pursue.

There's no one-size-fits-all approach that applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time. If you're "sick" by all means get treatment; if you're healthy, by all means go skydiving if that's what you'd like to do.

How's this for a "chess" analogy?

When you're "sick" and you are under attack from specific pains, you pretty much have your chessboard laid out for you. You are close to being in checkmate and you have to focus immediately on the response to the attack.

When you're "healthy" you still have a chessboard, because life doesn't have unlimited options even for the most rich and most powerful, but you're more like at the opening of the game, with both sides equally equipped, and you have the first move -- you can choose many different options, and it's up to you to decide among them.