Another Tetrapharmakos Video Discussion

Yes, I agree. Although we will not be experiencing any pain after we are dead, and this is good news, this is not the focus -- instead, the "good news" of Epicurus is pointing out how much of life is actually already and easily pain-free -- which helps us be grateful for what we have and make the most of our lives.

Quote from Cassius

But Epicurean philosophy not only does not teach that there is no need to wish for "more" life, it teaches that life is desirable, because life is absolutely necessary for the experience of pleasure. Life is so desirable, and so important, that every aspect of life which is not specifically painful is worthy to be considered pleasurable.

And the natural fact that pleasure is linked to well-being (physical and mental), while pain is linked to ill-being (with the occasional exceptions where a temporary pain must be endured – e.g., a trip to the dentist – to ensure continued pleasurable well-being). And well-being is conducive of a longer, healthier, happier (more pleasurable) life; ill-being, the opposite. Of course, there are nuances in the real complexities of living and choosing – but I remain amazed at how these simple, clear concepts have gotten so corrupted.

[I hasten to admit that I am not particularly disciplined re the so-called “hedonic calculus” on a day-by-day basis – but that is my responsibility, and I will not hide it “under the bushel” of some obfuscatory philosophy.]

In my random surfing, I found the essay cited below, from which I include the following quotations:

“Our body enjoys doing what is healthy. And this may be a key to Epicurus’ view. What Epicurus terms katastematic pleasure is much like Aristotle's unimpeded activity of a natural state; it is the natural pleasure experienced when the organism is functioning smoothly. It is the pleasure of being alive; living and functioning in a healthy way feels good because it is good.”

“Lack of disturbance does not mean lack of sensory perceptions, and lack of pain does not imply lack of feeling or pleasure. Since we are hylomorphic beings––beings of animate and sensate flesh––pleasure requires involvement of the body and senses. To enjoy sensory pleasure we need to have a healthy constitution; therefore, we can most enjoy sensory pleasures when we enjoy them in moderation.”

“To summarize, it is clear that Epicurus believed that the highest pleasure is the stable pleasure of complete calmness of soul and lack of pain. Human beings in that state can enjoy the kinetic pleasures that sweeten the senses: music, art, nature, sensory delights. Pleasure comes from sufficiency, not lack. … However, Epicurean wisdom teaches that in fact we do not need much to live a rich and fulfilling life. When we experience a state in which we are satisfied and complete, we can enjoy all the variations that life brings.”

https://cup.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Philosophies-of-Happiness-Appendix-6.pdf

++++++++++++++

The author seems to commit the same “higher pleasure” error mentioned by Cassius above – but does seem to succeed in arguing against the notion that a state of katastematic pleasure somehow obviates the natural, healthy desire for varying kinetic pleasures – on the contrary. And pleasure is pleasure.

Late Note: I found the author of the above -- Diana Lobel, associate professor of religion at Boston University. The above comes from her book Philosophies of Happiness.

++++++++++++++

As a personal aside, re the italicized sentence above – A therapist friend once asked why I continued my particular indulgences in tobacco. I said: “Because I enjoy it.” His response: “Your body doesn’t.”

Great article find (at least from that excerpt you shared), Pacatus ! I'm looking forward to reading the whole thing.

Quote from Pacatus

The author seems to commit the same “higher pleasure” error mentioned by Cassius above – but does seem to succeed in arguing against the notion that a state of katastematic pleasure somehow obviates the natural, healthy desire for varying kinetic pleasures – on the contrary. And pleasure is pleasure.

I find their use of "highest" unfortunate, but I don't see them making the usual "highest pleasure" mistake many authors do. I personally would agree with the author. One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order. That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life. Even the kinetic pleasure of good memories generally happens easier if we're not anxious or worried or unhealthy.

Quote from Don

One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order.

Yes, that seems to be the author's general point. And I found it to be an enlightening one (probably means I haven't been paying close enough attention to you! ).

Quote from Don

One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order. That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life. Even the kinetic pleasure of good memories generally happens easier if we're not anxious or worried or unhealthy.

Agreed. And of course (preaching to the choir) this isn't some sort of mystical state, but confidence in one's worldview through observation and study. And managing (not eliminating!) one's desires using an understanding of the categories of desire. Not magic: philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

Then I would point out that never does Epicurus himself ever state that these four short statements are his "capital doctrines:" There is *one* occurrence of a formulation similar to this, in a Herculaneum scroll, and no other ancient source contains this formulation. Yes it's arguable that the actual doctrines can be construed to say something similar, but they say much more, with much different connotation.

In general, I found the video quite appealing and every of the four points of emphasize was embedded in explanations and references to the letter to Menoikeus. The author also delivers graphics which give more color to the topics.

I do agree that the Tetrapharmacos formula falls short of delivering the whole curriculum of Epicureanism and we even don't know exactly the context in within it is delivered. On the other hand it catches topics that are of great importance in both Menoikeus, PDs, DRN. I still find it valueable as a formula for repetition and "meditation" on Epicurean ethics.

Quote from Cassius

This is the real heart of the problem. This slide and the audio overlay state that these are the two kinds of pleasure that Epicurus promoted, and this is simply not correct.

I agree with you that it is problematic and the video's author isn't doing a good job in explaining what he is probably trying to argue. I like Don's statement:

Quote from Don

That's my general perspective: we need to find that state of equilibrium and good working order (katastematic) as a ground from which to enjoy the stimulative (kinetic) pleasures of life.

For the lay people who aren't familiar with Epicurus at all it's important to know, that pleasure isn't simply eating ice-cream or drinking wine. That's probably why the video's author mentioned it.

My main issue with the video is, that it doesn't promote this forum where to find more nuanced and source-orientated discussions, that leave behind the simplistic terms for the laymen.