Episode One Hundred Thirty Eight - Letter to Menoeceus 5 - Pleasure Part One

    Quote from Joshua

    The very existence of desire indicates a lack of satisfaction.

    Maybe that is a large part of the problem of terminology, and gets us into the "confident expectation" material.


    If I am happy and healthy now, I still want to "desire" that to continue. I am never satisfied to think "Ah, I am happy now, I need nothing more, time to die." I always want ("desire")the continuation of pleasure, even though I know that in the end I will die and I will experience no more. Even when i am closed to my experience being full of pleasure and all pain being absent, I still want that experience to continue.


    Possibly we need to go back to the physics for help here. It has seemed to me in the past that the key to proper interpretation of many aspects of the philosophy is that nothing is ever truly "at rest" -- our atoms are constantly moving, our bodies and minds are constantly functioning, and they never stop until we die. That observation is also helpful in seeing the limits of "tranquility" - we're never really at rest. We may wish our sailing to be smooth and undisturbed, but the analogy of sitting at anchor in a harbor in perpetuity "is not what ships are for."


    We at the very least desire this motion to continue, and we cannot ever say "I have reached a state of motion that I find perfect and therefore I will freeze everything in place." That is not possible, nor a conceptually sound way to look at life, I would have to think.


    So I don't know that the "very existence of desire" in the most general sense indicates a lack of satisfaction, unless you want to say that you should be satisfied where you are at a particular moment and then stop all the activities of life and die.


    So maybe I would argue that the existence of desire indicates that you are alive - not that you are in a state of frustration.


    I can certainly see that the desire to stay alive runs into the knowledge that we can't do that perpetually, but when you drill down that level I think you're at the point of the cliche of "making the perfect the enemy of the good."

    Perfection (eternal life) is not possible to us, but that does not mean that we consider life, and the desire for its continuance through an natural lifespan, to itself be a frustration. Does it?

    I think Martin's observations in the podcast were particularly helpful when he referred to pleasure as a "drive for action" or something like that. I remember analogizing that to Nietzsche's "will to power" phrase. I've never understood Nietzsche well enough to be sure what he was talking about, and I can't parse his original German phrase. But with the understanding that the "power" being referenced is not "power over other people" but "the power to obtain one's desires," I think the phrase fits what we are talking about. And I would think that given all the urgency that Epicurus and Lucretius display in pursuing pleasure without delay, and with knowledge that life is short, a good case can be made that "desire," in the very general sense of the will to pursue a pleasurable life, is something that Epicurus would urge to be maximized.


    The issue seems to me to be that like "Pleasure," the word "desire" is a very high level abstraction and includes within in innumerable examples, some of which will lead to greater pleasure than pain if pursued, and some of which will lead to more pain than pleasure if pursued. And at that level it doesn't make sense to consider "desire in general" to be a negative thing, but rather a positive, and to ensure that it is a positive by categorizing the desires according to their expectancy of in fact leading to greater pleasure if pursued (which is in fact what the natural and necessary formula does).


    So just like Pleasure, some Desires are to be pursued in certain circumstances, and some should not be pursued, but at no point do we consider either "Pleasure" or "Desire" to be tainted terminology. In fact I would come very close to applying the same phrasing as in the letter and paraphrase the result as: "All Desires are good, because they are desirable, but some desires may lead to more pain than pleasure and thus should not be chosen."


    Of course that takes us down the road of parsing what "good" means, but that kind of parsing comes with the territory when there are no absolute standards, and only the feelings of pleasure and pain as ultimate guides.

    Quote from Cassius

    So just like Pleasure, some Desires are to be pursued in certain circumstances, and some should not be pursued, but at no point do we consider either "Pleasure" or "Desire" to be tainted terminology. In fact I would come very close to applying the same phrasing as in the letter and paraphrase the result as: "All Desires are good, because they are desirable, but some desires may lead to more pain than pleasure and thus should not be chosen."

    Rather than being a question of what the good is, to me this approach invites confusing desires with pleasures. Martin 's description seems quite accurate. The confusion might come about because, as far as I can tell, Epicurus didn't define desire. He only gave categories of desires. But if we look to modern science (to my understanding) we see that desire is different from pleasure or pain. Even though he didn't define desire, by his treatment of the various ideas I think it's clear that Epicurus was in basic agreement with modern science.


    Did Aristotle or Plato define desire? Maybe Epicurus felt no need to define it because he had no objection to the common notion of it.

    Quote from Cassius

    I would come very close to applying the same phrasing as in the letter and paraphrase the result as: "All Desires are good, because they are desirable, but some desires may lead to more pain than pleasure and thus should not be chosen.

    I want to go back through the arguments in the thread and reasons, but this one stuck out to me.


    I'd have to say no to that paraphrase. Epicurus explicitly describes some desires as groundless, empty, vain. That doesn't sound like a description of something "good." In fact, it sounds like something to be avoided.

    Quote from Don

    Epicurus explicitly describes some desires as groundless, empty, vain. That doesn't sound like a description of something "good." In fact, it sounds like something to be avoided.

    Yes I think we've got an interplay of issues here mainly arising from the word desire and how specifically to define in.


    Pleasure is the only word that Epicurus held to be always "good" -- Did he say that specifically, or is PD08 the closest to that? (PD08. No pleasure is a bad thing in itself; but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.)


    So maybe the better question to ask in paraphrase would be - Would it be correct to say?


    "No desire is a bad thing in itself, but some desires bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasure achievable from the pursuit of the desire."


    Or was Epicurus saying that some desires (e.g., seeking to live forever) are intrinsically "bad"? Seeking to overcome death would jump out at me as an example of a desire that would in every case lead to frustration, but even that one might be viewed in a better light depending on how the desire was pursued. Would it not be ok for a medical researcher to spend their lives on life extension research, if that researcher didn't obsess over success?


    Examples of desires we might generally agree would lead to bad results (seeking great political power, riches, etc) would likely still not be something that Epicurus would say would "always" lead to undesirable results. (And if the result doesn't "always" happen then the thing is not intrinsically bad, correct?)


    So where I am going is that unless we can articulate a desire that is intrinsically "bad" then we've got to set up a definition of "Desire" that accounts for its essential role in life but also describes how it can be misused.

    Quote from Cassius

    Pleasure is the only word that Epicurus held to be always "good" -- Did he say that specifically, or is PD08 the closest to that?

    Letter to Menoikeus: [130] So, all pleasure, through its nature, belongs to us as a good; however, not all are elected; and just as all pains are entirely evil by their nature, so not all are always to be shunned.It is proper when judging these things to consider what is advantageous and what is not advantageous for you; in other words, what the consequences will be. We consult the consequences of our actions; because, on the one hand, pleasure over time can lead to pain; and on the other hand, pain can lead to pleasure.

    Quote from Godfrey

    The only things which are intrinsically "good" or "bad" are pleasure (good) and pain (bad). Everything else, including desire, only lead to greater or lesser pleasure or pain

    And Epicurus saying in the letter that sometimes we treat the good as bad and the bad as good is a very clear statement and stark reminder of how "relative" those terms (good and bad) really are.


    Nevertheless the world throws around those terms (good and bad) as if they were handed down on tablets from Mt. Sinai!

    One of the issues at play here seems to be the use of the words "good" and "bad" which begins to - albeit unconsciously - give desire and pain and pleasure a moral coloring. I don't think that's useful for our discussions, so I would like to steer us away from any deliberate or accidental moral arguments.

    In the original, pain is κακος kakos which is sometimes translated as bad but the original had the following connotations:

    As a measure of quality: bad, worthless, useless

    As a measure of appearance: ugly, hideous

    Of circumstances: injurious, wretched, unhappy

    As a measure of character: low, mean, vile, evil


    As a "measure of character", yes, maybe we could interpret kakos as "bad" or "evil" but only because a person with that character is going to cause distress, pain, etc.


    But applied to pain itself, we have to look at a "measure of quality", so pain is bad like a piece of rotten fruit has gone "bad." It's worthless, useless, etc. Or as a "measure of appearance," pain leads to unhappiness, to a wretched existence, etc.


    But pain is not morally "bad."


    Desire's are not "bad" or "good." They are "natural" or "κενος 'kenos'/empty (like the void)." Empty is not a moral judgement. To me, it beautifully encapsulates the "groundless" nature of those desires. They can never be filled, never be satisfied, it's like trying to fill the void. It can't be done.


    Pleasure is our innate "agathos/good" because it elicits the opposite of pain, moving us to health and peace in our mind and body.

    Pain is inherently "kakos/bad" because it elicits the opposite of pleasure, moving us to sickness and distress in our mind and body.


    So, I don't think it's helpful to think of desires as "good" or "bad". They just are. I'm going to address my (current) take on what they are in the next post... always reserving the right to revise and extend my remarks. ;)


    PS: Extending and revising already here... One of the connotations of agathos "good" and kakos "bad" are useful and useless, respectively. Another way of saying it is beneficial and harmful. Seeing pleasure and pain in that way may be helpful as well.

    Here's where I'm at on what desires are. Some of this has already been offered by ya'll so I fully admit this is not necessarily original! I'm just consolidating my understanding. So...


    The BIG category under which all this falls are the pathe. This literally means "that which happens to someone, that which is experienced." Everything we "feel" falls under this category.


    The only ways we experience something is whether it causes us to feel pleasure or whether it causes us to feel pain. That's why - to my understanding - is why Epicurus was so adamant about two feelings especially against the Cyrenaics. If it happens to us, we feel it. Whether that's a subtle pleasurable feeling or an intense pleasurable feeling or a twinge of pain or a terrible pain. That's it. Only two ways of feeling.


    That's why the table in the post above puts pathos/pathe at the top under which are pleasure and pain.


    That's why I like the idea of desire and phobos/"fear" being the starting points for the two schemas under pleasure and pain. I took phobos to mean "fear" because it's SO associated with English -phobia now. But at its root it means

    fear, terror, alarm, fright, panic

    the act of fleeing: flight, retreat

    which is exactly the same idea for the words Epicurus uses for choice and "avoidance" - literally, choice or "flight/fleeing"

    Desire is an attraction to something pleasurable

    Flight is a repulsion from something that causes pain


    The feeling of desire attracts us to a pleasure leading to a feeling of joy/khara (I **really** want to explore how khara got into that schema!!)

    The feeling of wanting to flee repels us from a pain that leads to a feeling of distress


    I don't think we "desire" pain, BUT we can *choose* to undergo the pain - fighting the urge to flee - IF we are relatively convinced that going through the pain will lead to a feeling of pleasure. We are choosing to undergo the pain BECAUSE we have a *desire* - an attraction - for the pleasure at the other end. We do not have a desire to undergo the pain. We would rather flee from the pain... BUT we can *choose* otherwise due to our practice of practical wisdom.


    We can anticipate the pleasure, and that in itself is pleasurable.


    I'm intrigued by Joshua 's concept of desire as a lack of satisfaction or a knowledge of some lack in ourselves that we endeavor to fill. But I'm wondering whether it's focusing on a "lack" or whether we're instead focusing on the pleasure that will accrue from fulfilling that desire. It's not the pain that's the focus but the pleasure at the end that initiates a feeling of desire. I'm still working on that. Pain can be a guide, it IS one of the two feelings after all! But it is also something that we don't seek out for its own sake. If someone says "Hot peppers cause pain." Objectively, yes. Subjectively, some people derive pleasure from spicy food. The hot pepper is not "bad" or "good", painful or pleasurable in itself. It is only our feeling about the hot pepper that causes us to be attracted to it or to flee from it.


    Still working through this. Consider this my on-going stream of consciousness on this thread!

    I also think it's instructive to look at that word "natural" in the "natural" and "empty" desires.

    Natural is φυσικός "physikos" "natural, produced or caused by nature, inborn, native."

    The natural desires are the ones that we're born with, the ones that naturally arise because of our being physical, material, mortal beings.

    The "empty" desires then - to me - refer to desires that have been inculcated in us by culture, indoctrination, societal expectations, etc. They do not naturally arise within us. They are desires we've been taught that we "should" have -- lust for power, greed for unlimited wealth, etc. -- but that can never be satisfied.

    Quote from Joshua

    I'm not sure I can get on board with the underlined part above. Lucian opposes fear to hope, which I think is nearer the mark;

    Quote

    And from this point, as Thucydides might say, the war takes its beginning. These ambitious scoundrels were quite devoid of scruples, and they had now joined forces; it could not escape their penetration that human life is under the absolute dominion of two mighty principles, fear and hope (ἐλπίδος καὶ φόβου) and that anyone who can make these serve his ends may be sure of a rapid fortune.

    Which drives me on to my next (tentative) conclusion--that fear and hope are both kinds of desire. Desire is everything that happens when you see things as they are, and wish that they were different. When unscrupulous scoundrels prey on hope and fear, they prey on desire.

    As i mentioned, I'm intrigued by Joshua 's thesis, and additionally I was taken with the idea of hope and fear (ἐλπίδος καὶ φόβου). So, I was really wondering where Epicurus may have used ἐλπίδος (which is the genitive of ἐλπίς) "hope, confidence, expectation"


    Fragment 116: I summon you to unceasing joy and not to empty and trifling virtues, which destroy your confidence in the fruits of what you have. ἐγὼ δʼ ἐφʼ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς παρακαλῶ καὶ οὐκ ἐπʼ ἀρετὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις ἐχούσας τῶν καρπῶν ἐλπίδας.


    Fragment 445: We must not blame the body for the greatest evils nor attribute our troubles to mere circumstance. Instead we seek their cause within the soul: for by giving up every trifling and fleeting desire*** we give birth to a confidence perfect (ἐλπίδα ὅλοι) in itself. (For *** see below)


    Letter to Menoikeus 134: Because, on the one hand, one can generally hope for the intercession of the gods by means of worship… ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐλπίδα παραιτήσεως ὑπογράφει θεῶν διὰ τιμῆς


    The Strong's Concordance even has this:

    G1680 - elpis - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
    G1680 - ἐλπίς elpís, el-pece'; from a primary ἔλπω élpō (to anticipate, usually with pleasure); expectation (abstractly or concretely) or confidence:—faith,…
    www.blueletterbible.org

    "from a primary ἔλπω élpō (to anticipate, usually with pleasure); expectation (abstractly or concretely) or confidence:—faith, hope"


    So, elpis does have sense of "desire for something pleasurable" but it seems to be more of a "confident hope" or "anticipation with the expectation of coming to fruition" whereas "desire" writ large has no sense that it will be fulfilled for sure, it is more a longing for something pleasurable.


    Still thinking...


    ***The "trifling and fleeting desires" referenced in Fragment 445 also shed an interesting light on this discussion. Interestingly, the word epithymia is NOT used here:

    πᾶσαν ματαίαν τῶν ἐφημέρων ὄρεξιν (ἐφημέρων = ephemeron)

    "Every trifling 'ephemeral' desire"

    ὄρεξῐς "yearning, longing, desire"


    Even LSJ defines it as opposed to φυγή which is the *exact* word used by Epicurus in "choice and avoidance/flight"


    Epicurus also uses this word in Fragment 202:

    He who follows nature and not groundless opinions is completely self-reliant. With regard to what is enough by nature, everything he owns is a source of wealth; whereas with regard to unlimited desires (τὰς ἀορίστους ὀρέξεις), even the greatest wealth is poverty.


    It shows up in Demetrius Lacon's PHerc831 (Column 16) as "empty desires" κενῶν [ὀρέ]ξεων

    DCLP/Trismegistos 59491 = LDAB 591

    So, in addition to epithymia we have to take orexis into account:

    Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ὄρεξις

    Quote from Don

    So, I don't think it's helpful to think of desires as "good" or "bad". They just are.

    I almost hate to comment on this because my thought is not major and I don't want to interrupt the stream of the posts from Don.


    But this formulation prompts me to comment that while pleasure and pain are feelings that are presumably reported "involuntarily", I would think that many desires have a much larger component of voluntary choice in them. I realize the limits to this statement, but we can to some extent by willpower express or suppress our desires, while that is probably not as much true with pain and pleasure itself.


    So the comment "they just are" may be true in that they are not inherently bad or good, but if there is a larger component of choice attached to desires then that would be a significant difference (which reminds me of the comment later in the letter about attaching praise or blame).


    I remember and agree with what Joshua said in the episode about how often in the end it does not work to suppress desires. But nevertheless there probably is a distinction worth noting in how most feelings of pain and pleasure are much more immediate and automatic, while many types of desires involve complicated mental calculations that are chosen and far from automatic.


    Sorry for the interruption - please carry on Don!

    Quote

    One of the issues at play here seems to be the use of the words "good" and "bad" which begins to - albeit unconsciously - give desire and pain and pleasure a moral coloring.

    I resist this formulation as well. Also, the word "natural" has become hugely problematic--Natural Law, so called, is something like a 4th revelation in Christianity after the person of Jesus and the two testaments. Montaigne made the odd claim that atheism was 'unnatural', and the claims have only gotten worse since.

    Quote from Joshua

    I resist this formulation as well.

    Most all of the comments in this thread I agree with and they are very productive to help us challenge ideas that we think are wrong.


    I hope everyone will help us remember - however - that our goal should be to eventually emerge from these details with some high-level conclusions about what we think Epicurus was saying. We'll discuss as much of all this as we can on the podcast, but the goal eventually needs to be something in writing that summarizes the major distinctions between "desire" and "pleasure" in Epicurean philosophy.


    Perhaps even a comparison chart with Desire and Pleasure as the column headings and as many lines as necessary for the major points about them and how they differ or are the same as to each point.

    Quote from Cassius

    I almost hate to comment on this because my thought is not major and I don't want to interrupt the stream of the posts from Don.

    Quote from Cassius

    Sorry for the interruption - please carry on Don!

    LOL! ^^ Methinks you imbue my stream of consciousness with too much significance, but I appreciate the thought.

    Quote from Cassius

    So the comment "they just are" may be true in that they are not inherently bad or good, but if there is a larger component of choice attached to desires then that would be a significant difference (which reminds me of the comment later in the letter about attaching praise or blame).

    Oh, I agree! My only intent was to get away from moral judgements. Desires arise naturally from our physical needs and from just living our life but they also arise from things we've been inculcated to desire by society and culture. They're not *morally* good or bad but they can be useful to our life and existence or detrimental to our well-being if we choose to follow them. If we choose NOT to follow those that are useful for our life, that's not going to go well for us. Likewise, if we choose TO follow unhealthy or harmful desires, that's not going to go well for us either. But we should leave the morality out of it. "Oh, you did THAT! You're a BAD person!"

    Quote from Cassius

    I remember and agree with what Joshua said in the episode about how often in the end it does not work to suppress desires.

    Agreed! Suppression seems to me to be unnatural. You can deny there's a tiger behind the tree, but it's going to eat you nevertheless. Likewise, you can deny you have desires - "I can suppress my desires! Look at how righteous I am!" - , but those desires are going to well up, frustrate you, and they're going to come spilling out one way or the other.

    That said, I think one can learn to recognize desires as they arise in the mind and to choose wisely which ones to follow and which ones not to. That's not suppressing our desires. That's gaining the facility to recognize helpful and harmful consequences more readily, more accurately, more wisely. It may look like suppression to someone unaccustomed to this kind of practice, but I think it is a very different thing.

    Quote from Joshua

    Also, the word "natural" has become hugely problematic--Natural Law, so called, is something like a 4th revelation in Christianity after the person of Jesus and the two testaments. Montaigne made the odd claim that atheism was 'unnatural', and the claims have only gotten worse since.

    Agreed. What I like about "natural" in the context of Epicurus's writings and other Epicureans is that - originally - it wasn't tainted with our cultural baggage. But it's hard to extricate it from all that!! That's one thing I was trying to get at in post #31 above. That natural vs empty dichotomy to me is helpful in getting at the idea that "natural" desires arise within us from our being part of Nature: material, mortal beings living our lives. Some "only natural" (or unnecessary) desires come from acculturation (ex., a desire for a particular kind of food that brings pleasurable memories from childhood), but many - to my understanding - empty desires arise from being "told" by society/culture/media that we should - must! - want power, money, numerous material possessions ("Latest iPhone! Gimme! Gimme!"), etc.

    Quote from Cassius

    I hope everyone will help us remember - however - that our goal should be to eventually emerge from these details with some high-level conclusions about what we think Epicurus was saying. We'll discuss as much of all this as we can on the podcast, but the goal eventually needs to be something in writing that summarizes the major distinctions between "desire" and "pleasure" in Epicurean philosophy.


    Perhaps even a comparison chart with Desire and Pleasure as the column headings and as many lines as necessary for the major points about them and how they differ or are the same as to each point.

    Agreed! Without a conclusion, we turn into ever-arguing Sophists! :) Some distinct points for me:

    1. I am fully onboard with Godfrey 's insistence on maintaining the distinction between desire and pleasure. That's important.
    2. My current contention is that Pleasure and Pain are the two big categories into which we can categorize everything that happens to us (the literal meaning of pathe).
    3. As such, desire as a thing (What kind of thing?) is subordinate to or contained in or a component of one of those two buckets.
    4. Observation: We can choose to fulfill a desire. We cannot choose to feel pleasure. I think that's an important distinction between these two categories.
    5. Observation: In response to Joshua , I believe there is a distinction between "desiring something" and "hoping for something." I can desire a particular outcome, or I can hope for something (or as an alternative translation of elpis "have confidence in something happening"). I think those are two different things and I would contend that the desire is more basic while hope/confidence is more aspirational. Hmm... Maybe I'm just wordplaying here, but this is the direction I'm heading. Hope/Confidence/Elpis seems to always point toward a beneficial or pleasurable outcome, whereas the consequence of desire is not always beneficial to me. I can't think that an "empty hope" or "empty confidence" is a logical thing to say. Granted, I may "hope beyond all hope" or something like that. I am reminded of the recent Sandman episode where Dream and Lucifer are battling each other in a "Sword in the Stone" type Wizard duel and SPOILER Dream declares, "I am Hope." "Lucifer was left flabbergasted and without a suitable counter because the Devil could not conceive of anything that could best Hope." I don't think it would have had the same impact or result if Dream had declared "I am Desire" (especially because Desire is one of Dream's Endless siblings).
      1. I realize I'm going off on a side track, but I just found this link on The Sandman fan forum and it specifically links Desire (of the Endless) with the Greek word Epithumia! Sorry. Fan of the comics and the new Netflix show.

    That'll do for now. I'll hold off on streaming any more until more can add their thoughts.

    I agree with most everything in that last post. I would want to clarify this part however:


    Quote from Don

    Oh, I agree! My only intent was to get away from moral judgements. Desires arise naturally from our physical needs and from just living our life but they also arise from things we've been inculcated to desire by society and culture. They're not *morally* good or bad but they can be useful to our life and existence or detrimental to our well-being if we choose to follow them. If we choose NOT to follow those that are useful for our life, that's not going to go well for us. Likewise, if we choose TO follow unhealthy or harmful desires, that's not going to go well for us either. But we should leave the morality out of it. "Oh, you did THAT! You're a BAD person!"


    You are listing there numbers of ways that desires arise (naturally from physical needs, living our life, things we are inculcated to desire by society and culture. Agreed. But per the letter to Menoeceus do we not also to some degree choose our own desires, consistent with our free will, and indeed to the events arising from those choices praise and blame do attach?


    Quote

    [133] For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame


    "They're not *morally* good or bad " I think I would agree with that statement, since we are basically jettisoning absolute standards of morality, with the result that we are pretty much talking about "What we find to be desirable" and "What we find to be distasteful." But within the paradigm that there is no absolute morality, there is still sort of a factual or consensus "agreement" (possibly related to the justice discussion) that it is valid for us to consider some actions to be praiseworthy and others to be blameworthy.


    I am thinking that is a very important part of this discussion. We're all in agreement I think in Epicurean terms that there is no "absolute" morality in the sense established by supernatural gods or ideal forms. But on the other hand there always remains pleasure and pain, and among our friends at least we presumably share certain views on what makes us happy and what makes us sad, and through that perspective there does in fact remain an important concept of "praiseworhiness" and "blameworthiness."


    So - "Oh, you did THAT! You're a BAD person!" cannot refer to an absolute morality, but to the extent we want to define "bad" we can still talk about our norms of agreement on working together for our mutual benefit and not harming each other.


    Correct or no?

    Quote from Cassius

    But per the letter to Menoeceus do we not also to some degree choose our own desires, consistent with our free will, and indeed to the events arising from those choices praise and blame do attach?

    Oh, agreed. But I would re-word your statement to say:

    "We choose which of our desires we will fulfill, consistent with our free will"

    We don't necessarily choose which desires arise within us. Many - most? - of our desires arise from things outside of ourselves. Of course, we have desires to drink, eat, etc., that arise from bodily interoception. We may also have desires that arise naturally from within our memories of past pleasures we'd like to repeat. But we also have desires that arise from outside influences - people talking, commercials (in the modern world), reading, etc. Desires we may not have thought of without those outside influences.

    So, I'm not entirely convinced that we "choose" our desires entirely. But I am completely onboard with the fact that we "choose" to follow or avoid desires which arise.

    And this is exactly why we can attach praise or blame to the consequences of the act of fulfilling those desires which we choose to act upon. We have the free will to act on desires or not to act on desires. We are responsible for our actions, and, in some senses, ALL actions are the result of fulfilling certain desires.

    Here's my translation of that Menoikeus section:

    For that person, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, for although necessity is beyond our control, they see that chance is unstable and there is no other master beyond themselves, so that praise and its opposite are inseparably connected to themselves.

    Those things that happen "by our own power" are our responsibility. We can be praised for some things that we do, and we can get the opposite of praise for other things that come about "by our own power." If some action is detrimental to our own well-being or harmful to society at large, we can be held responsible for that if it was indeed "by our own power" that it came about. We can't be held responsible for someone's boat being wrecked at sea. We CAN be held responsible if we were the one to forget to tie it off at the harbor and it drifted out and THEN got wrecked in a storm. Okay, that's maybe a weird example but I'll let it stand.

    Quote from Don

    We don't necessarily choose which desires arise within us. Many - most? - of our desires arise from things outside of ourselves.

    As to the arising of desires (thoughts?) there is of course also the Epicurean theory of images:


    [15.16] Cicero to Cassius

    [Rome, January, 45 B.C.]


    I expect you must be just a little ashamed of yourself now that this is the third letter that has caught you before you have sent me a single leaf or even a line. But I am not pressing you, for I shall look forward to, or rather insist upon, a longer letter. As for myself, if I always had somebody to trust with them, I should send you as many as three an hour. For it somehow happens, that whenever I write anything to you, you seem to be at my very elbow; and that, not by way of visions of images, as your new friends term them, who believe that even mental visions are conjured up by what Catius calls spectres (for let me remind you that Catius the Insubrian, an Epicurean, who died lately, gives the name of spectres to what the famous Gargettian [Epicurus], and long before that Democritus, called images).


    2 But, even supposing that the eye can be struck by these spectres because they run up against it quite of their own accord, how the mind can be so struck is more than I can see. It will be your duty to explain to me, when you arrive here safe and sound, whether the spectre of you is at my command to come up as soon as the whim has taken me to think about you - and not only about you, who always occupy my inmost heart, but suppose I begin thinking about the Isle of Britain, will the image of that wing its way to my consciousness?


    3 But of this later on. I am only sounding you now to see in what spirit you take it. For if you are angry and annoyed, I shall have more to say, and shall insist upon your being reinstated in that school of philosophy, out of which you have been ousted "by violence and an armed force." In this formula the words "within this year" are not usually added; so even if it is now two or three years since, bewitched by the blandishments of Pleasure, you sent a notice of divorce to Virtue, I am free to act as I like. And yet to whom am I talking? To you, the most gallant gentleman in the world, who, ever since you set foot in the forum, have done nothing but what bears every mark of the most impressive distinction. Why, in that very school you have selected I apprehend there is more vitality than I should have supposed, if only because it has your approval. "How did the whole subject occur to you ?" you will say. Because I had nothing else to write. About politics I can write nothing, for I do not care to write what I feel.

    Quote from Cassius

    As to the arising of desires (thoughts?) there is of course also the Epicurean theory of images:

    You bring up an interesting question with that parenthetical "thoughts?" :)


    As to "images," yes, that would substantiate an external stimuli for most/many of our desires (thoughts?). So maybe modern Epicureans can take that idea of external stimuli affecting our thoughts, memories, etc. as canonical?

    As to the actual mechanism of the external stimuli, I take the concept of the images/eidolon/spectres as an historical curiosity and pre-scientific idea. We know there aren't streams of atoms being generated as films impacting our minds. I'm pretty confident saying "know" there, too. But the idea of external stimuli impacting our thoughts, vision, hearing, smells, etc., etc. Oh, yeah. That's definitely a thing.