Would You Rather Live For A Week As (1) Epicurus During the Last Week of His Life or (2) An Anonymous Shepherd Laying In The Grass In The Summertime With No Pain At All?

The hypothetical scenario reminded me a quote by John Stuart Mill that probably you know: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

For Mill there are special pleasures, like reading philosophy, listening to music, contemplate art, etc., that are superior to other pleasures (accesible only for animals). I understand his idea, but I reject it for similar reasons why I reject stoicism: I don't think there are intrinsically nobler people, nobler activities or nobler ways to live (or intrinsically pleasurable).

I do think there are standards to evaluate pleasures and pains among people but they're not necessary, but contingent. (After all, we are human beings, of course we share plasures and we share the absence of pain as a goal to achieve.) Cassius, I think you won't find an activity that brings pleasure in all contexts: human nature it's not about immovable truths but about change.

Finally, I know the Letter to Ideomeneus is beautiful and inspiring, but I really doubt Epicurus was really having pleasure in the previous moments of his death. So, if I had to give an answer, I'd prefer to live like the shepherd, but better I prefer to be me, in this place and this time.

Quote from Cassius

But would Epicureans agree that there are no "preferable" people, activities, or ways to live, that we we ourselves can decide to be preferable?

I'll try to answer. Have you considered that maybe the "what" is less important than the "how"? I mean, possibly there's not a specific and universal activity or object to pursue that brings pleasure in general, but there's a way to do it or to get it: the virtuous one.
So far as we know, the virtous life is the best way to live a pleasurable life: prudently, safely, friendly, painlessly, etc. Virtue is sensible to context: it tells that you'll get a lot of pleasure with food if you're hungry, thay you'll get pleasure with water if you're thirsty, that you'll enjoy a videogame if you're bored, or that you'll enjoy reading a book if you're in the mood to do it.
Not everybody enjoys the same things evidently, but it's also true that not everyone is in the same circumstances or have the same background.

Maybe you will think that my answer is circular, because virtue is the instrument to maximize plesaure. So when I recommend a virtuous way to live I'm just saying that a pleasurable life is that with pleasure. My point is that Epicurus recommended a life with prudence, and I think now I understand why it's the source of pleasure: prudence indicates how you can maximize the pleasure (reduce pain) with any activity (even if you're in bed with kidney stones).

So my answer is: possibly that thing that can bring pleasure to everyone, no matter their context, age, education, etc., is virtue (specially prudence). A shepherd without prudence will waste his resources and time. The good news is that we don't need to be Epicurus, or Socrates, in order to have prudence.

I really hope this answer have some sense, because I'm not sure if I understood completely the question in dispute.

Quote from Cassius

Cicero and others seem to infer that all true Epicureans will choose to spend their lives laying on the beach without a thought to (for example) a life as an artist or a scientist or a policeman or fireman.

What's his argument?

Quote from Cassius

how do you explain the Epicurean analysis of choosing some pleasures over others in Epicurean terms without reference to nobility or other outside standards?

Which possible epicurean standards (or procedure) do you have in mind?

Are you looking for a foundation or justification of the standard(s) in question?

Sorry, I'm playing catch-up.... Referring to PD09, I'm reading that the variables that cause pleasures to differ are intensity, duration and extent (parts of the body and aspects of the mind). If this is the case, then intensity, duration and extent can be considered useful ways to evaluate potential pleasures. This is of course in the context of what each particular individual considers pleasurable in a given situation.

Which is interesting, because the duration part of this seems to conflict with these PDs:

PD19. Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning.

PD20.The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time; yet the mind does not flee from joy, nor when events cause it to exit from life does it look back as if it has missed any aspect of the best life.

Measuring it out through reasoning (if you will), it seems that PD19 & 20 are comparing finite and infinite time, whereas PD09 is dealing strictly with finite time and therefore there's no conflict between these.

With this in mind you can evaluate hypothetical #1(Epicurus) and #2 (shepherd) like this:

- intensity: #1, intense pain, intense pleasure; intensity of pleasure outweighs pain by uncertain amount. #2, uncertain pain, uncertain pleasure; uncertain which predominates and by how much.

- duration: #1, one week. #2, one week.

- extent: #1, great breadth of mental pleasure, somewhat localized physical pain. #2, uncertain breadth of mental pleasure, uncertain physical pleasure and pain.

So to properly evaluate this hypothetical you need to get a sense of the uncertainties. We have Epicurus' letter describing his situation, but we don't know much about the shepherd. Do they love or hate their job? Are they allergic to grass? What's the breadth of their mental pleasure in this circumstance: does it align with their innermost desires? We therefore need to make up answers for all of these uncertainties, which of course is what makes this a hypothetical in the first place

Quote from Godfrey

So to properly evaluate this hypothetical you need to get a sense of the uncertainties. We have Epicurus' letter describing his situation, but we don't know much about the shepherd. Do they love or hate their job? Are they allergic to grass? What's the breadth of their mental pleasure in this circumstance: does it align with their innermost desires? We therefore need to make up answers for all of these uncertainties, which of course is what makes this a hypothetical in the first place

It warms my heart to see someone else want more details on a hypothetical and these are ones I hadn't even thought of! Well done, Godfrey !!

Quote from Godfrey

PD19. Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning.

To be clear, where Saint-Andre uses "joy" the Greek is hēdonē "pleasure." My take on that PD is that if the definition of the limit of pleasure is the removal of all pain (and after that it's just variety) it doesn't matter the amount of time, finite or infinite. If your pleasure glass is full, it's full.

But I always go back to this commentary from Diogenes Laertius when talking about Epicurus's take on eudaimonia:

Quote from Diogenes Laertius, 10.121

[121] Two sorts of happiness (eudaimonia) can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures.

It's always tricky when trying to compare what texts mean when different words are used: pleasure vs happiness. 121 doesn't say two kinds of pleasure but two kinds of well-being. I do NOT think we could substitute well-being for pleasure in PD19, but does verse 121 inform, in any way, our understanding of the PDs? Questions beget questions.

Given that Epicurus died of gallstones (and given that my wife and I recently learned that passing gallstones carries the risk of tearing the bile duct of your pancreas, leading to jaundice, sepsis, necrosis, organ failure, and death), I have to believe that the last week of Epicurus was largely spent managing excruciating pain, and, knowing that organ pain is comparable to childbirth, or getting shot, and knowing that even mild opiates barely manage organ pain, and that there is an entire medical discipline devoted to pain management, there is absolutely no way that my soul would entertain spending a week in a dying body suffering from organ failure. It is categorically excruciating, and while his Epistle To Idomeneus may be inspiring, I am convinced that dying of complications from stones is utterly horrific.

(I also have a new perspective and respect for his students: watching someone go through that is traumatic).

The anonymous shepherd may not have developed the same intellectual tools that would allow him to compose a beautiful reflection during the peak of pain due to a medically-remarkable illness, but the diversity of his pleasure is so much greater than Epicurus', I have to go with the shepherd. Epicurus may have enjoyed the maximum amount of pleasure that was available to him, which might have meant some relief through alcohol (though I have my doubts, knowing how much worse my wife would have been if she had been a drinker), a warm bath, and calm faces, but the shepherd is not physically immobile, nor is he forced to face the threat of immanent death. Perhaps if Epicurus had a bad heart and died in his sleep, but ... gallstones? Absolutely not. His physical condition was too dangerous.

Quote from Cassius

I'd like to see our format in the "Texts" section here at Epicureanfriends become more like that in the future

The Perseus Digital Library doesn't have interlinear texts, but their ability to click on every word to access the authoritative dictionaries is priceless.

At least to my current thinking, the important point in PDs 19 & 20 is limits: finite (limited) v infinite (unlimited). The limits apply to pleasure, well-being and desires equally. Adding the idea of limits to the idea that the three listed criteria of pleasure in PD09 makes the point, I think, that within our finite lifetimes we can maximize our pleasure by maximizing intensity, duration and breadth. But we should realize that we can never cross the limit into the infinite. There's no afterlife: make the most of this life and keep in mind the fact that it's going to end.

Quote from Godfrey

intensity, duration and breadth

You mentioned that these are listed somewhere. To which text or PD were you referring? Sorry, I'm missing the reference.

I still have problems with the assumption of the "uneducated" shepherd. It makes them sound ignorant. They may not be formally educated, but that doesn't mean they weren't knowledgeable about their craft. Plus, shepherds I wouldn't think were just lying around on the grass for weeks at a time. They needed to tend the flocks, take care of the sheep giving birth in that season, shear the flocks or butcher the animals depending on what they were raising the sheep for, etc. The Romantic notion of blissfully piping away the hours, lounging with a wineskin, seems to ignore a broad swath of what it actually meant to be shepherd... Plus the uncertainty of enough to eat hung over the heads of everyone.

Just providing my little black cloud to hang over the hypothetical.

Quote from Cassius

But is he knowledgeable about philosophy? Can someone be happy without philosophy? Is happiness also relative? As the saying goes, "If ignorance is bliss is the shepherd living in a constant state of ecstacy?"

I'll give you that, but I also find it interesting how many people in this forum have said that they were attracted to Epicurean philosophy because it resonated with what they were already thinking. Epicurus's philosophy has a lot of common sense and personal responsibility aspects to it. Plus, we're supposed to be modeling nature. The shepherd in the field is closer to nature than someone living in Athens. Granted, they may still be trying to propitiate the gods for good weather, crops, safe births, etc. but "it is better to follow the stories of the gods than to be enslaved by the deterministic decrees of the old natural philosophers."

What does it mean to "practice" philosophy? To me, it means to love wisdom, to practice wise living, to ponder questions to which answers may not be immediately available. Epicurus gives us a wonderful framework within which to study those questions and live that life, but it's up to us to live, study, question, seek answers, and love and practice wisdom. Could the shepherd step onto the path of wisdom on the own? Sure. Is it helpful to find a community and a framework to go further in the path? Undoubtedly! But let's not denigrate the shepherd's natural innate potential.

Quote from Cassius

But is he knowledgeable about philosophy? Can someone be happy without philosophy? Is happiness also relative? As the saying goes, "If ignorance is bliss is the shepherd living in a constant state of ecstacy?"

Depends on how one thinks of philosophy: as an intellectual pursuit (at whatever level), or a required body of knowledge (e.g. the Canon) – or as a way of living one’s daily life. If the latter, I see no reason why the shepherd – or myself, with less desire to pursue the intellectual stream and a greater desire (at my age) to live each day as well as can be (pleasure and pleasantness) – cannot live an Epicurean life. (Of course, I have been helped much by the philosophical knowledge that is represented here!)

So, I’ll take the hypothetical as given (applying my own imagination to the question) and choose the shepherd (also for the reasons that Eikadistes gave).

Stepping outside the hypothetical, I’ll choose my own life (with all its vagaries, struggles, errors and even regrets). And be grateful to Epicurus – and friends here – for the insights that help me along.

Don intensity, duration and breadth are how I'm reading PD09 at the moment. Epicurus seems to be saying that all pleasures are equal if these three things are equal. I'm interpreting this as saying if you want to analyze pleasures or maximize pleasure, these are the aspects that you have to work with, in the context of a specific situation (yours, or a hypothetical one).