Perspectives On "Proving" That Pleasure is "The Good"

Hmm...well, I see that Epicurus is solidly in favor of the cradle non-argument.

And since he refuses to even allow it to be an argument, I guess I can only say I disagree.

I guess I could even go further and say that since it isn't an "argument", and no reasoning was used to arrive at it, then it can't possibly have any other implications. That addresses my original concern with the cradle argument. It's not an argument. Solved.

Seems like it would make it difficult to engage with others though. Not sure? Want to discuss? Nah. Come back when you agree.

And I'm not even saying I disagree with the conclusion. I just think there is a better way of getting to it. Or should be - not to say I have one ready to go.

Quote from Cassius

So how would you restate your concern Todd, that looking to examples of people who have not had the time or exposure to ground their actions on "abstract reasoning" is a poor idea for getting at examples of the calling of Nature?

Why is that a poor way of looking at the question? Because they are not "educated" in some goal other than the one they were born with?

I would state my concern more or less the way I did above. Looking to a supposedly uncorrupted state of nature is problematic.

If you want to be more specific about what is corrupted and why, as you seem to be with the idea of "uneducated", I would be on board with that, although I personally don't think the solution is in that direction, because the reasoning is going to be even more involved. That is a very different thing than just pointing at babies though.

Quote from Cassius

I take it your ultimate question is probably "Why" should we look to nature at all

No! Emphatically no! I'm all in favor of nature (i.e., the universe, reality). I just think the particular way nature is used in the cradle argument was sort of inherited from other philsophers and not closely examined. I think it deserves some close examination at the very least.

I guess the fundamental problem I have is the idea that living things start good, and then get worse.

Actually, a lot of the time they start good, and get better. Not always. But sometimes. I would even venture to say most of the time.

I hate the idea that such a wonderfully positive philosophy has to be founded on that rotten, pessimistic core assumption.

It's looking to the newborn as the pinnacle of humanity, and everything else is corrupt.

It reeks of Plato to me

Quote from Don

Quote from Todd

I guess the fundamental problem I have is the idea that living things start good, and then get worse.

Oh, I don't necessarily think good/bad is the way to go. We as humans are observed (especially as children) to instinctively gravitate towards what gives us pleasure (in the widest sense) and to recoil from that which gives us pain. It's not good or bad. That's just what happens. As adults, we should learn - per Epicurus - how to do that skillfully to provide ourselves with a maximally pleasurable life. Some adults find other motivations and stop listening to their pain/pleasure guide.

Yes. I agree with this, and that's what I think makes the cradle argument unnecessary. We all do it, not just infants. I'm perfectly fine with saying, "See, it's easy to see how infants seek pleasure and avoid pain. They have simple goals." You could then say, "Older people are more complicated. They seek pleasure in more advanced ways, and they often appear to seek pain in the short-term. But they hope that will bring them even greater pleasure later."

I think that is a great formulation. It avoids the "infants are just better" problems.

Quote from Don

Quote from Todd

Maybe this will be clarifying: In your opinion, is the cradle argument an example of "reasoning"?

I would call it observation, seeing things the way they are.

Sorry to bring this up Don, after you just handed me a solution.

I can't accept the idea that anyone is capable of observing data and understanding it directly. You need a theory to make sense of the data, which requires reasoning. And if you don't think you do, then you really do.

Aside from the risks of having a theory and not knowing it, there's also the practical problem that "just observing" doesn't provide any way to discuss, disagree, or improve. You need something to talk about. Unless you disagree on the bare facts of what you actually experienced, the thing you talk about is a theory.

It's maybe beside the point now, but I have a hard time letting this kind of thing slide without remark.

Quote from Don

I could see that formulation, but I'd push back on "infants are better."

They're not better. They're a data point. Animals are another data point. These demonstrate through observation that this is a natural inclination to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Adults not seeking pleasure but are another data point demonstrating what happens when we don't skillfully seem pleasure.

Pain and pleasure don't tell us what to act upon but themselves. They are a guide. We use our reasoning ability to weigh outcomes and seek that which will lead to a maximally pleasurable life.

I'm not saying infants are better, but that seems to be exactly what the cradle argument is saying. It holds up infants (and animals) as an ideal.

If it only said, "infants are simple, and therefore easy to understand," I would be all for it.

But it doesn't say that. And I suspect the reason it doesn't is because that form of argument came from somewhere else (definitely true), and it was adopted a bit uncritically (my own, slightly heretical idea).

I agree that they are all data points.

Hey, this may seem like a big oversight, but I just realized those quotes above were from Cicero. I had assumed they were from Epicurus.

So maybe I've conceded too much.

I don't see any references to babies or animals in either the PD or the Letter to Menoeceus. Of course that doesn't prove Epicurus didn't use the cradle argument. But the case remains open!

Doesn't change anything in my positions, but it sure was disappointing to read a full-throated endorsement of the cradle argument and think it was coming from Epicurus!

Furthermore, FWIW, the second paragraph sounds like some inter-Epicurean debates around this. In the time of Cicero(?) so I'll take that with a big grain of salt...but there may be more support for my anti-cradle argument than I first thought.

Quote from Cassius

Others again, with whom I agree, finding that many arguments are alleged by philosophers to prove that pleasure is not to be reckoned among things good nor pain among things evil, judge that we ought not to be too condent about our case, and think that we should lead proof and argue carefully and carry on the debate about pleasure and pain by using the most elaborate reasonings

"I" here, I presume is Torquatus. He hardly even sounds like an Epicurean. They're talking about pleasure, and he's like, well, I agree with the people who think there are good arguments on both sides, blah, blah, blah. So we shouldn't be overconfident. Oh, but we need to be sure to use the most elaborate reasonings! (At least he wants to use them carefully!)

This guy is a joke. Next.

If this is the best evidence we have for the cradle argument, then I'm getting ready to declare victory. I bet Epicurus never used any such argument. Maybe he said something like, "Its pleasure. Not open for discussion." But maybe he didn't try to drag the babies into it after all.

Quote from Cassius

Todd can you clarify for me what your own current views are as to whether "pleasure" is the highest good, and the role of "reason" in the establishment of truth?

Easy.

1) Pleasure is the highest good.

2) The role of reason is to interpret the data provided by the senses.

"Interpret" might be doing a lot of work there, I would include making judgements of value as part of that - deciding what pleasures are to be chosen or avoided, for example.