How to Live in Times of Upheaval: The Categories of Desire

This is an interesting line of exploration Godfrey which may be useful in some situations. My only hesitation is that that I am thinking that certain things should be examined from the stance of whether or not they are realistic and based in reality, rather than labeling them as an "incorrect" desire (unnatural or unnecessary).

When one clearly see things for what they are -- and when one realizes that what they are wanting is not realistic or may have painful consequences -- then the desire for those things can evaporate/dissipate on its own.

Quote from Godfrey

SYNOPSIS OF THE CATEGORIES OF DESIRE:

Natural and necessary desires: a) some for happiness; b) some for physical health; c) some for life itself

Natural and unnecessary desires: a) due to groundless opinion; b) don’t bring pain if unfulfilled; c) require intense exertion

Unnatural and unnecessary desires: a) due to groundless opinion; b) don’t bring pain if unfulfilled; c) hard to achieve; 4) seem to produce harm

As far as I understand, only unnatural would be defined as due to groundless opinion.

So the way I would define "natural and unnecessary" - would be this: a) brings more pain than pleasure; b) produces harm; c) difficult to obtain; d) and, also at the same time as any of the previous three, it doesn't bring pain if unfulfilled.

There is a lot of interesting stuff here that may be useful, and I will linger over the list of questions for a little while longer, and then may say more.

Thanks Godfrey about referencing to PD30.

What is happening for me right now is that I am mulling over the these labels for the three categories, and mulling over if the labels are helpful for me or not

The three categories are useful to understand Epicurus' philosophy and for prioritizing among those desires for which it is obvious into which category they fall. For natural but not necessary desires and for desires for which the category is not obvious, e.g. because of individual preferences or circumstances, it is more useful to answer the question whether the expected pleasure is worth the expected pain from fulfilling the desire.

Quote from Martin

For natural but not necessary desires and for desires for which the category is not obvious, e.g. because of individual preferences or circumstances, it is more useful to answer the question whether the expected pleasure is worth the expected pain from fulfilling the desire

I completely agree Martin. The question "whether the expected pleasure is worth the expected pain from fulfilling the desire" is the foundational starting point of every issue in the Epicurean ethics. "Natural" and "necessary" are circumstantial - even air and water and food are neither natural nor necessary at every moment of life. All can be postponed for at least a few moments in favor of some other activity that might be appropriate to preserve life or achieve a more ultimately successful life (successful in terms of the ultimate balance between pleasure and pain).

In this question for a text reference I personally always turn back to Torquatus' explanation of why the natural and necessary categories are helpful. Just like Torquatus gives useful explanations of other ethical issues that appear to us to be ambiguous, he does the same thing here by pointing out that the issue is whether a desire has a "limit" and can be gratified, or whether the desire is illogical to pursue because it can never be achieved: because "the principle of classification [is] that the necessary desires are gratified with little trouble or expense; the natural desires also require but little, since nature's own riches, which suffice to content her, are both easily procured and limited in amount; but for the imaginary desires no bound or limit can be discovered."

Quote

Nothing could be more useful or more conducive to well-being than Epicurus's doctrine as to the different classes of the desires. One kind he classified as both natural and necessary, a second as natural without being necessary, and a third as neither natural nor necessary; the principle of classification being that the necessary desires are gratified with little trouble or expense; the natural desires also require but little, since nature's own riches, which suffice to content her, are both easily procured and limited in amount; but for the imaginary desires no bound or limit can be discovered.

Desires that can never be met are bound to fail and lead to more pain than pleasure, but by prudently selecting desires for goals which can be met, we can logically hope to experience more pleasure than pain from the selection.

To interpret this doctrine to imply that Epicurus held : "We will be better off if we set the goal of only desiring to eat bread and water and live in a cave" - which a lot of writers are not just implying but clearly stating - is a perverse misinterpretation (to put it mildly).

Quote from Godfrey

But, for whatever reason, these athletes have determined that the pleasure will outweigh the pain. Maybe that pleasure is in following the dream, maybe in reliving memories of the pleasures of competing at the highest level. And maybe in reliving these memories while they hobble around on artificial joints.

I agree with the implication of your post that I too would never see the Olympic reward as worth the effort. But I also think the point of overriding importance is that Epicurus would not have made that judgment for other people, and the evidence is against that he did so, and so to interpret "natural and necessary" to day that an ascetic life is "better" would be (in my mind) to drive a stake through the heart of the philosophy.

I know I beat this drum despite my confidence that you don't advocate that - the problem is there are far too many people that do. And for there to be a vigorous Epicurean community in the future, it will be necessary to show the vigorous people who could make such a community that vigor is welcomed, not looked down upon. You don't create a world changing philosophy, and stand up to the oppression of religion, as Epicurus did, without being vigorous.

Quote from Godfrey

I guess my wording wasn't very accurate, as I wasn't trying to imply that at all.

It's me. I tend to be on high alert for Buddhism/Stoicism lurking under every bed.

(But that's NOT a reference to you; it's a valid reference to the "outside world."

I made this chart as I was contemplating the various categories of desires. I came up with a few new labels, but these labels may or may not work for others. Everyone might want to consider if these labels or other labels help with cognition and clarity.

Any thoughts or further ideas?

__________________________________

* Updated chart Aug. 9th 1:22 pm ET

** Second update Aug.10th 10:52 am ET

I should add to the above chart...that essential drives cause pain when unfulfilled (and they may or may not be easy to aquire).

_____________________________

* Have now updated chart

Ok I am coming here after the pig latin discussion so I may be off on a tangent but in regard to that chart in the last post, or any chart, it seems to me the basic ground rules are:

(1) Nature give us ONLY two criteria to use for deciding what to choose and to avoid, and those criteria are pleasure and pain.

(2) I perceive that in some minds, this statement of only two criteria sounds like Epicurus was referring to "the pleasures of the moment" and "the pains of the moment." I do *not* see that as a correct inference and I do not think Epicurus was saying that. To me it is very clear that Epicurus is saying that each decision much consider *all* pleasure and pain (mental and bodily) over *all* periods of time (now, tomorrow, for as a long as we live) and that each decision must evaluate *every possible* ramification before you can conclude that the action should be taken or avoided. Of course it is not possible to do an extensive analysis every moment about every decision, and you have no guarantee that your assessment will be correct, because you cannot have total control over the future. But doing our best to make such an analysis *is* essentially what we are doing by internalizing all the considerations and learning to adjust our conduct over time according to the results that our actions bring.

(3) All the discussion of "natural" and "necessary" is *contextual*, and cannot be reduced to universals that apply to all people at all times and all places. Even breathing can be postponed if by holding your breath to swim out of a cave you save your life. As Torquatus said, the classification has a principle, that things which are most natural and most necessary are generally going to be the easiest to obtain, and therefore can generally be obtained with the least resulting pain, but that is **not** a general statement that nature universally demands that you *only* eat bread and drink water and live in a cave. The natural and necessary classifications can act as a general guide for those times when you don't have enough information to be confident that what you can do will be achievable. What is expected as we get smarter over time, however, is that we learn to know what is and is not possible, and at what cost of pain, so over time we move out of the cave and we start eating more than bread and drinking more than water, unless circumstances demand otherwise. And generally speaking circumstances do *not* demand otherwise, and we *can* do a lot better than bread and water and caves.

(4) The most important observation to make at this point in the analysis is that we frequently choose pain in order to gain more pleasure, and so the fact that an action may result in *some* pain is absolutely *not* a reason not to engage in it. The question is the *net result.* If the action generates more pleasure than pain, then it is justifiable to take it. Of course we frequently have lots of choices from which we can choose among, so we also have to not only compare the pleasure and pain from a single action, but we have to compare the net pleasure/pain that would result and choose from between alternatives by comparing the net amount of pleasure.

(5) As to the "emptiness" or "vanity" of some desires, it is obviously a bad idea to set your sights on achieving goals that are impossible to obtain - like living forever - because the impossible will by definition not be achievable, and you will always end up frustrated. But how do you know ahead of time whether a goal is possible or not? And exactly how long you should try to live, or exactly how much money should you should pursue, or exactly how much food should you should eat? There are no universal rules to answer these questions, so you always go back to the first and foremost point, that nature gives you only pleasure and pain by which to decide what to choose and what to avoid. You then do your very best to guide your actions by estimating -- in the long run and from the widest possible perspective - what the results of your actions are going to be in terms of net pleasure and pain. And to be clear - net pleasure and pain *that effects you.* It makes no sense to be concerned about pleasure and pain in the abstract, if they don't affect you, but it does make sense to consider the pleasure or pain of those around you to the extent that their reaction to your actions will have an impact on your own pleasure and pain (just as we evaluate in regard to our friends).

Drives for survival, health, and happiness do not require wealth, power, or fame.

---------------------------------------------------------------

* Edit note:

Cassius I apologize for the cross-post

Quote from Kalosyni

Drives for survival, health, and happiness do not require wealth, power, or fame.

I would say the correctness of that statement depends entirely on how you define "wealth," "power," and "fame." Words like this have very flexible meanings with no bright lines that can be determined philosophically and out of context of the person involved. The question of "how much is enough" for those things - and any "thing" - is going to be contextual and not reducible to high-level specific rules. The only uitimate consideration is "pleasure" and "pain."

I am going to need to ponder upon post number 14, Cassius...and will reply later.

Quote from Cassius

I perceive that in some minds, this statement of only two criteria sounds like Epicurus was referring to "the pleasures of the moment" and "the pains of the moment." ... etc...

Fully agree with all this in your number 2 paragraph. Well stated, Cassius. My understanding is that the "pleasures/pains of the moment" considerations are more inline with the Cyrenaic position.

Quote from Cassius

All the discussion of "natural" and "necessary" is *contextual*, and cannot be reduced to universals that apply to all people at all times and all places. Even breathing can be postponed if by holding your breath to swim out of a cave you save your life. As Torquatus said, the classification has a principle, that things which are most natural and most necessary are generally going to be the easiest to obtain, and therefore can generally be obtained with the least resulting pain, but that is **not** a general statement that nature universally demands that you eat bread and drink water and live in a cave. It is only a general consideration that can serve as a guide when you don't have enough information to be confident that what you can do will be achievable, but over time you learn to know what is and is not possible, so you move out of the cave and you start eating more than bread and drinking more than water, unless circumstances demand it.

I don't think "natural" and "necessary" are as contextual as you're trying to make out. The literal translation of the pertinent Menoikeus section (127-128) is:

Quote from Epicurus - Letter to Menoikeus, 127-8

Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself. [128] The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life.

The 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones' uses ΚΕΝΑΙ which is a form of the same exact word Epicurus uses for the void in "atoms & void."

My reading is:

1. Natural Desires

A. Natural *and* Necessary Desires

i. Necessary for Eudaimonia

ii. Necessary for "Freedom from Disturbance in the Body" (πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν)

iii. Necessary for Living Itself (πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν)

B. Only Natural Desires (αἱ φυσικαὶ μόνον)

2. Empty, Fruitless "Void" Desires

I find that "the ones which are only natural" interesting. I'm not sure how to interpret that, honestly.

To get back to Cassius' commentary, specifically: "All the discussion of "natural" and "necessary" is *contextual*, and cannot be reduced to universals that apply to all people at all times and all places. Even breathing can be postponed if by holding your breath to swim out of a cave you save your life."

A distinction has to be made between natural/necessary behaviors and "desires." It is a universal that we mammals find breathing, eating, sleeping, and shelter necessary to continue living. Of course, we'll postpone breathing when swimming out of a cave because we can't breathe water and we desire to continue living if at all possible. I don't see that as an example of a contextual desire.

"things which are most natural and most necessary are generally going to be the easiest to obtain, and therefore can generally be obtained with the least resulting pain, but that is **not** a general statement that nature universally demands that you eat bread and drink water and live in a cave."

Your water/cave metaphor seems to be a bit of a non sequitur here. If you're living in a cave, it is going to require quite a bit of effort to obtain bread and make sure you have sufficient water stored away... unless you're living directly beside a spring and have bread delivered to you... in which case you'll need a baker who's willing to trek up the mountain... but then you'll need... and so on.

My understanding is that nature provides sufficient amounts of what we need to live - if we were to be in dire straits - which is why Epicurus, from time to time, limited his food and drink to see how much he could live on and still be satisfied. Then, after his fasting experiment, went back to living "normally" until his next experiment.

I didn't address Godfrey 's original thesis!

I would argue that Epicurus expects his students to apply his philosophical methods in both good times and bad, in times of upheaval and in times of jubilation.

The questions you pose are intriguing and would serve as a good starting point for planning ahead in those times of upheaval that inevitably arise in our lives. They also seem to get at those aspects of our lives over which we have control and those which are subject to chance. Making the most of those parts of our lives that we do have control over - that we have agency over - seems to me a big part of Epicurus's philosophy.

Quote from Don

πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν

VS79 has a form of this word:

He who is as peace within himself also causes no trouble for others. ὁ ἀτάραχος ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἑτέρῳ ἀόχλητος. (Ho atarakhos heautō kai heterō aokhlētos)