Natural Wealth and Natural Goods in Epicureanism

As for the issues of "wealth" such as we discussed last night from PD15, we probably need to organize a special forum so we can compare what is in Philodemus' "Property Management" material. I will look into putting this thread there.

There's also this thread on self-sufficiency from 2021 that might be of interest:

Post

RE: Autarkia And Epicurean Living In The Modern World

I also apologize, @Macario , but I should have directly responded to the DeWitt quoted passages. I'll try to do that over the weekend. I did see that this line:
(Quote from DeWitt)

seems to convey to me the idea of contentment in relation to αυτάρκεια.
Thank you again for engaging in this conversation. I know it's been valuable for me so far to get me to delve into this topic.

Don

Sep 17th 2021

Interesting paper. (My academic background is economics – particularly labor economics; though my subsequent professional work was pension economics, first for a labor union and later for a pension trust. But all that was 20+ years ago.)

I do remember well that (neoclassical) economics eschewed any ethical viewpoint (e.g., the Robbins quote in the article). But that was (is) really a kind of deceit, since the single acceptable goal was “economic efficiency” (defined in terms of “Pareto optimality”). That put a real restraint on any discussion of income distribution, for example – or concern about people whose resource constraints kept them out of the market at all (think poverty-stricken households and healthcare). Proposals were often met with the objection: “But that wouldn’t be efficient!”

So, economic rationality was defined as efficient utility maximizing behavior via constrained choice (in the face of resource scarcity).This, of course, contrasts with the ancient Greek view of economic behavior “as rational when it was frugal in its use of means towards what they deemed as worthwhile ends.”

Bottom line: I don’t think that economics really can escape from ethical considerations.

I found it interesting (as a smalltime trader ) that Aristotle classed market trading as an “unnatural” wealth activity – apparently because it does not produce any productive, physical (in economic terms “real”) capital (I would include “technological capital”) – as opposed to merely “financial capital”, the accumulation of which may or may not be turned to productive use (“supplying people’s needs”).

As you can see, this paper stimulated some old memories. I have yet to read Philodemus, but hope to get to it soon.

It's hard to get around investing the "natural / unnatural" distinction with our modern prejudices. I'd like to see us devote some attention at some point to working on really being sure whether the way those terms were used by the philosophers really track with the meanings we infer from them today.

200. Don't think it unnatural (ἀφυσιολόγητον aphysiologēton) that when the body cries out, the soul cries also. The body says don't be hungry, don't be thirsty, don't be cold. It is difficult for the soul to prevent these cries, and dangerous for it to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence.

ἀφυσιολόγητον μηδὲν ἡγοῦ βοώσης τῆς σαρκὸς βοᾶν τὴν ψυχὴν· σαρκὸς δὲ φωνή· μὴ πεινῆν, μὴ διψῆν, μὴ ῥιγοῦν· καὶ ταῦτα τὴν ψυχὴν χαλεπὸν μὲν κωλῦσαι, ἐπισφαλὲς δὲ παρακοῦσαι τῆς παραγγειλάσης φύσεως αὐτῇ τῆς προσφυοῦς αὑτῇ αὐταρκείας καθʼ ἡμέραν.

Otherwise, the phrasing appears to be:

οὔτε δὲ φυσικὰς οὔτ᾽ ἀναγκαίας

Neither natural nor necessary

I realize it's possibly pedantic, but the words natural and necessary are simply in a negative phrase: neither X nor Y. It's not the words "unnatural"and "unnecessary" themselves.

Please, if anyone sees otherwise, post your findings!

Thanks Don. I presume that most of us have the presumption that the "natural" is "good," and that which is "unnatural" or not natural, is "bad."

Probably that's far too superficial an analysis, however, and it would be good if we had a way to make clear, up front, that just like pain is sometimes to be chosen (but not for itself) that which is not natural may also deserve to be chosen under the Epicurean framework, and an explanation of how to make that analysis.

Cassius

From an ethical economics (oikonomia) point of view:

On the investment side of things, I would suggest productive/unproductive in supplying people’s needs.

On the consumption side, I would suggest that (1) Epicurus’ formulation on the naturalness & necessity of desires, and (2) the pleasure/pain hedonic calculus (toward eudaimonia – which I think of as sustainable happy well-being) would work.

Savings versus consumption decisions might connect the two (how much do I spend to meet my needs, and how much do I save – both to meet future consumption needs and to go toward productive investment?).

With regard to income/wealth distribution, I think one needs to define the concepts of just and unjust (in Epicurean terms). Maybe some synthesis of the utilitarian “the greatest good for the greatest number” and Rawls’ theory of justice that any inequality in social and economic arrangements should give greater benefit to the least advantaged, each idea being modified by the other. And I wouldn’t think we need to get much more complex than that, with regard to either theory. (Though Rawls included a personal liberty principle and an equal opportunity principle, all three principles needing to be balanced.) I’m not sure either one can stand on its own, but its been a long time since I really looked at them.

That’s still pretty conceptual, as opposed to practical. (And I have just begun Philodemus). And I’m a bit tired today, so maybe not having a lot of clarity.

By the way, this whole discussion has reminded me of a book I read years and years ago by British economist E.F. Schumacher, called Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. He advocated building self-reliant economies at the community level -- using mostly local resources to meet local needs (e.g. community gardens), and using appropriately-scaled technology that is user-friendly and ecologically sustainable.

Quote from Don

200. Don't think it unnatural (ἀφυσιολόγητον aphysiologēton) that when the body cries out, the soul cries also. The body says don't be hungry, don't be thirsty, don't be cold. It is difficult for the soul to prevent these cries, and dangerous for it to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence.

Good quote Don !

"...dangerous for it (the soul) to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence" is intriguing. This provides maybe the simplest description of vain desires: ignoring the commands of nature. And it implies the antidote: pay attention!

"...attachment to its usual independence" is less clear.

Quote from Godfrey

.dangerous for it (the soul) to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence" is intriguing. This provides maybe the simplest description of vain desires: ignoring the commands of nature. And it implies the antidote: pay attention!

"...attachment to its usual independence" is less clear.

And I just realized that that "independence" is our old friend αὐταρκείας autarkeias usually translated as "self-reliance"! I was too fixated on the first part!!

I'll have to grab a copy of philodemus I'm suppose to be working on an epicurean economics treatise of sorts on SOFE. So I can share my findings on the forums as I go. Just have to finish slogging my way through one of Catherine Wilson's books first, she's a really good and well versed writer but very dry and technical.

PD15 Ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει.

• Πλούτος wealth, riches
• ὥρισται (verb 3rd sg perf ind mp redupl) divide, limit
• εὐπόριστός easy to procure
• ὁ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν empty beliefs
• ἄπειρον boundless, infinite (same word to describe the extent of the universe)

ἐκπίπτω

• 1. to fall out of a chariot, c. gen., Hom., etc.; c. dat. pers., τόξον δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρός Il.
• 2. of seafaring men, to be thrown ashore, Lat. ejici, Od., Hdt., etc.: of things, to suffer shipwreck, Xen.
• 3. to fall from a thing, i. e. be deprived of it, Lat. excidere, τινός or ἔκ τινος Aesch., etc.
• 4. to be driven out, of persons banished, Hdt., etc.
• 5. to go out or forth, sally out, id=Hdt., Xen.
• 6. to come out, of votes, id=Xen.
• 7. to escape, Thuc.
• 8. of oracles, to issue from the sanctuary, be imparted, Luc.
• 9. to depart from, digress, Xen., Aeschin.
• to fall off, come to naught, NTest.
• 11. of actors, to be hissed off the stage, Lat. explodi, Dem.
  • fut. -πεσοῦμαι
  • aor2 ἐξέπεσον
  • Nature's treasure has boundaries and is easy to procure; the riches based on empty beliefs are infinite and always out of reach.

Don translation: Nature's treasure has boundaries and is easy to procure; the riches based on empty beliefs are infinite and always out of reach.

Hicks translation: Nature’s wealth has its bounds and is easy to procure, but the wealth of vain fancies recedes to an infinite distance.

Saint-Andre translational: Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion are boundless.

Don

This really may go at the heart of (neoclassical) microeconomics, where economic agents are assumed to continually strive to maximize (personal) utility (at the margin – i.e. in the immediate present) in the face of income/resource constraints (scarcity) – and to try to expand the current bounds of those constraints (even at the expense, say, of future environmental costs). Traditional (neoclassical) economics recognizes no natural constraints on utility (pleasure/satisfaction) or potential wealth.

Any suggestion of natural bounds on utility maximization – which would mean a rational frugality in the face of the bounds of “natural wealth” (based on a hedonic calculus) – would be anathema to mainstream economics* (at least as I learned it). And that, it seems to me, might be the nub of an Epicurean alternative.

I haven’t finished reading the essay on Philodemus yet, but it might also be related to his criticisms of Xenophon and Theophrastus?

EDIT: I like your translation of "natural treasures" -- which I would take to be a better understanding of natural resources than the word "wealth." Modifications to what I just wrote might thereby be warranted, but I am too tired to make them just now.

_____________________________

* For a scholarly debunking of that economics, anyone interested should read Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics (by which he means that neoclassical mainstream). It can be a tough read for those unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty of marginal analysis (or even for those who, like me, once were). Keen is an economist from Australia, who is one of those behind a blog-journal called Real-World Economics – which I still get and peruse from time to time.

If anyone is curious from our last 20th get together, here is the play by Aristophanes entitled Wealth (Πλούτος , Plutus is the Latinized spelling since, evidently, *everything* has to be spelled like the Romans did it )

Plutus (play) - Wikipedia

I have finished reading the Philodemus essay, and also found this interpretation by Tim O’Keefe: “The Epicureans on happiness, wealth, and the deviant craft of property management” (Tim O’Keefe, Georgia State University) It is downloadable free as a Word doc here: https://www.academia.edu/99942…mail_work_card=view-paper

O’Keefe sees Philodemus’ objection to the oikonomia of Theophrastus and Xenophon as a techne is that that is an expertise aimed at both preserving and maximizing wealth. He contrasts this with simply attaining “’natural wealth’ that is needed to satisfy our natural and necessary desires [and] is limited and easy to obtain.” For the Epicurean, then, property management does not require some special expertise (techne), but simple practical knowledge.

In his conclusion, O’Keefe employs modern economic terms, describing the oikonomia of Theophrastus and Xenophon as “maximizing” behavior, and describes the Epicurean as following “satisficing” behavior: “When it comes to wealth, then, the Epicurean Sage is a satisficer and not a maximizer: she will not spend a lot of time worrying about finding the option that gets her the best financial return, but will go ahead and act once she’s found an option that’s good enough. And given the Epicurean conception of what we need in order to satisfy our natural and necessary desires, ‘good enough’ is easy to achieve.”

In economics, "satisficing" is a behavior which attempts to achieve at least some minimum (satisfactory) level of a particular variable, but which does not necessarily maximize its value. [Herbert Simon, 1978 Nobel laureate in economics]

O’Keefe also notes that, in modern economic terms, oikonomia would fall under heading of microeconomics, as opposed to macroeconomics – dealing with such things as inflation, unemployment, income distribution, government fiscal policy, etc. – which would be considered part of politike.

O'Keefe's title is ".... on the DEVIANT craft of property management"?

It was not my understanding that Philodemus took a negative attitude toward property management.

I need a big caveat on my comments about this thread that I really need to read some of this material before commenting extensively. I have the Voula Tsouna book but it has been too long since I read it.

Scanning over it now I see this from page XXVI

Quote

According to Philodemus, Cynics and Epicureans agree that the best life is free from toil and worry but disagree as to how it can be attained, especially in respect of the possession and administration of wealth. On the one hand, the Cynics advocate a beggarly lifestyle for the reason that wealth is troublesome and, therefore, harmful to one’s peace of mind.

On the other hand, Metrodorus maintains that a peaceful and happy life is obtained not by avoiding all toils and eff orts but by opting for things that may involve a certain amount of trouble at present but relieve us of much greater concerns in the future. Wealth is such a thing, as are health and friendship. Although its possession and administration doubtless requires thought and labor, it is better to have it than not, for its presence allows the virtuous man to live pleasantly, whereas its absence is responsible for deprivation and distress. Th e only way in which the Cynics might be able to establish that the possession of natural wealth ( φυσικὸς πλοῦτος , XIV.19) 22 is less preferable to the daily provision of goods would be to prove that, in fact, the former entails more pains and efforts than the latter. However, following Metrodorus’s line, Philodemus suggests that it is highly unlikely that such a proof would be forthcoming. One practical implication of the Epicurean position is that the good person should not reject as useless the wealth that may come his way. Th e entire argument is based on the rational calculation of pleasures and pains and also makes use of the concept of natural wealth, which is related to the concept of the measure of wealth ( πλούτου μέτρον ). 23 Since Philodemus’s presentation of Epicurean οἰκονομία (property management) involves both these notions, I shall explain them briefly.

In outline, natural wealth is one of the many objects that we naturally seek in order to satisfy natural desires and thus feel pleasure. In so far as this kind of desire has a limit, natural wealth also has a limit, and, besides, it is easy to obtain (Epicurus, Sent. 15) precisely because it is natural (Epicurus, Ep. Men. 130). 24 Correspondingly, the measure of wealth

that is appropriate for the philosopher covers the range of the philoso pher’s natural needs. “There is for the philosopher a measure of wealth that, [following] the founders of the school, we have passed down in [the treatise] On Wealth, resulting in an account of the capacity to administer the acquisition of this and the preservation of this” (XII.17–25). Further, in so far as the measure of wealth satisfi es the philosopher’s natural needs, it is slightly superior (De div. LI.27–30) or, from another perspective (see De oec. XIV.9–23), clearly preferable to poverty. In fact, there is tension in Philodemus’s position. On the one hand, he emphasizes the instrumen tal importance of wealth and its administration for the good life. On the other hand, following the authorities of the school, he holds on to the view

that the diff erence between possessing and lacking wealth, and between preserving it and not preserving it, is but small (XVIII.25–31), and he suggests that the superiority of wealth is mainly practical rather than moral.

Roughly, the position that he maintains is the following. “More” wealth may be better than “less,” because of the serenity and the material comforts that it aff ords when it is correctly used. Further, “more” wealth can be interpreted in many ways, since Philodemus does not fix precisely how much money and possessions are optimal for the philosophical life. On the other hand, “more” corresponds somehow to “the measure of wealth” but never amounts to the open-ended goal of traditional οἰκονομία , namely, to amass as many riches as possible through decent and lawful means.

Display More

If we conclude that Philodemus / Metrodorus in fact says what is summarized here, this bears on many of our recent discussions.

Quote

On the other hand, Metrodorus maintains that a peaceful and happy life is obtained not by avoiding all toils and efforts but by opting for things that may involve a certain amount of trouble at present but relieve us of much greater concerns in the future. Wealth is such a thing, as are health and friendship. Although its possession and administration doubtless requires thought and labor, it is better to have it than not, for its presence allows the virtuous man to live pleasantly, whereas its absence is responsible for deprivation and distress.

Quote from Cassius

In outline, natural wealth is one of the many objects that we naturally seek in order to satisfy natural desires and thus feel pleasure.

A very good snippet re: desires and pleasure I pasted this for that in particular, natural is a separate issue.