New Religious Landscape Study from Pew Research

At this point it's probably good to remember how this thread started (emphasis added):

Has the idea that everyone pursues pleasure whether they admit it or not resulted in progress toward possible solutions to the problems listed in the bullet points?

If so, how?

Quote from Cassius

Has the idea that everyone pursues pleasure whether they admit it or not resulted in progress toward possible solutions to the problems listed in the bullet points?

The problem with religion is when people insist or force others into it (such as back in history when rulers insisted on forcing an official religion that everyone had to adhere to). So the idea that there is only one "right" way, the idea that God dictates "right and wrong", and the idea that everything in the world exists to please God, and the idea that there are the religious leaders (or priests) who alone know what God wants and how to please God -- these ideas (and behaviors that come out of them) are the problem.

Quote from Don

One may say virtue is their ultimate motivating factor, but why? Keep asking why? And it is going to be that it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they're doing what's right. And what is a sense of satisfaction? It is pleasure. One can dress up their motivation and their rationalizations and their justifications. They move toward the supreme good which is pleasure.

People lie all the time to themselves to get through the day and through their life. People can convince themselves of almost anything!

I am not saying we MUST convince everyone we come in contact with that "Pleasure is the supreme good and why you do what you." We pick our battles. But the more I look at the world and how people act, I can see them trying to comfort themselves, to mask their insecurities, to belittle others to aggrandize their own self-image. They are in pain and are trying to move toward pleasure.

The problem here is that people need to look at the big picture and the longterm consequences of their actions. Both Epicureans (those who seek pleasant living) and those that put virtue (or religion) as the deciding factor --- both sides can develop mistaken ideas and then take actions based on those mistaken ideas which result in bad consequences.

There are two areas of influence that our choices affect:

1) Our own sphere - your own body, your own household, and anything that only affects yourself

2) Our surrounding sphere affecting other people - family and friends, neighbors, community members, and the country in which we live.

The religious people may end up believing that "the end justifies the means" and so they do things such as hurt people physically, or take away or destroy resources or property, or change laws to remove freedoms, the safety, or the security of others --- all in the name of "religion" and because "God has laws" (or that there are "correct" or "virtuous" ways that must be adhered to).

But after a time, when people are hurt or trampled on, eventually they will rise up, are able to resist --- maybe it takes several generations but it is innate in humans to seek justice and to crave freedom and well-being.

This is why we need to understand that justice is a compact that must be agreed upon not to harm or be harmed. Because humanity is caught in an endless loop --- and until we understand this, then it will repeat forever. Endless war, endless suffering of oppression.

Unfortunately religion (and it's leaders) often interfere with the compacts that are made in order to live in peace with others.

Quote from Don

From my perspective, Epicurus was not positing a philosophical position in that "pleasure is the telos." He was identifying a universal trait of human beings - in fact, a trait of all living beings.

Quote from Don

As I stated and from my perspective, "Pleasure is the telos" a fact of the natural world - like gravity or evolution - that Epicurus discovered and articulated through his philosophy. It's the way living beings work and how they interact with the world and each other.

I keep coming back to this in my mind, and it cements a lot of stuff for me. Thank you.

Quote from Don

I sincerely don't care if Epicureanism is defined as "psychological hedonism" or Axiological hedonism or Ethical hedonism or whatever-ical hedonism or hedonism at all. Epicurus had an insight into the motivation of all living beings that they move toward pleasure and move away from pain, and he used this starting point to shed light on how living beings interact with their world and ultimately what is the goal of life of living beings, with humans being able to take that information and to move toward eudaimonia.

The meaning of the telos or the "supreme good" is that thing which is the telos or the "supreme good" is that for which ALL actions are ultimately motivated by. One may say virtue is their ultimate motivating factor, but why? Keep asking why? And it is going to be that it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they're doing what's right. And what is a sense of satisfaction? It is pleasure. One can dress up their motivation and their rationalizations and their justifications. They move toward the supreme good which is pleasure.

People lie all the time to themselves to get through the day and through their life. People can convince themselves of almost anything!

I am not saying we MUST convince everyone we come in contact with that "Pleasure is the supreme good and why you do what you." We pick our battles. But the more I look at the world and how people act, I can see them trying to comfort themselves, to mask their insecurities, to belittle others to aggrandize their own self-image. They are in pain and are trying to move toward pleasure. The feelings are only two after all. BUT Epicurus calls us to make prudent choices, to live nobly, well, and prudently, to try to fill our lives with more pleasure than pain. That's what I believe ALL living beings are doing. And Epicurus was brilliant in his attempt to explain this. Not everyone is going to listen. Not everyone is going to be convinced. Not everyone is going to accept that universal truth. But that is exactly what I believe is going on in the psyche of every living being.

To me, this is a near perfect recitation of what I look for in Epicureanism. I look at every living thing as seeking to maximize their potential (for humans--happiness). This is the beauty of the teaching. Indeed, one might say everything down to the smallest particle of matter or energy is following its nature to maximize its potential to be what it is. That looks a bit weird as I write it, but nothing needs to be sentient to naturally seek its potential, its highest potential as declared by Epicurus.

Quote from Don

From my perspective, Epicurus was not positing a philosophical position in that "pleasure is the telos." He was identifying a universal trait of human beings - in fact, a trait of all living beings.

Once again, I come back to this.

I came across the following while reading Tim O’Keefe’s treatise on Epicureanism. I’m not sure that O’Keefe takes it all the way to the logical conclusion that you do (so well) here, but it did remind me –

“So we do not need to discern our inherent telos in order to discover the purpose of life. Instead, in order to find the highest good we simply have to observe what, as a matter of fact, people desire and pursue for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else.”

– Timothy O’Keefe, Epicureanism

In other words, it’s an empirical question – not some “second order” philosophical one, as in, say, Plato.

Another “interesting take” on Don ‘s position above (which was a game-changer for me), that I came across in my reading. The quote is about the Aristippian Cyrenaics, but seemed to me to be relevant here: some pleasures may not be contingently choiceworthy because they would lead to greater pains – but pleasure itself, in se, is intrinsically choiceworthy.

“In [the example cases, a particular] pleasure is not choiceworthy given the circumstances, since its acquisition involves more than countervailing pains. But it remains choiceworthy for itself and in itself. In other words, its intrinsic ability to motivate choosing is a matter of its self-evident phenomenal character, which is not altered by prudential circumstances.”

– Kurt Lampe, The Birth of Hedonism: the Cyrenaic Philosophers and Pleasure as a Way of Life. [My generalizing edits in brackets.]

~ ~ ~

Note: Lampe seems generally to think that some of the differences between the Cyrenaics and the Epicureans (while real and worthy of note) have been perhaps overstated – to the detriment of the Cyrenaics as philosophers. [At least in terms of what Lampe calls “mainstream Cyrenaicism” – e.g. of Aristippus and Aristippus the Younger (the “Metrodidact”), and presumably Arete, the Younger’s mother who inherited the role of teacher from her father, Aristippus the Elder (and who might be one of the unsung women philosophers of antiquity)].

Quote from Pacatus

Another “interesting take” on Don ‘s position above (which was a game-changer for me), that I came across in my reading. The quote is about the Aristippian Cyrenaics, but seemed to me to be relevant here: some pleasures may not be contingently choiceworthy because they would lead to greater pains – but pleasure itself, in se, is intrinsically choiceworthy.

“In [the example cases, a particular] pleasure is not choiceworthy given the circumstances, since its acquisition involves more than countervailing pains. But it remains choiceworthy for itself and in itself. In other words, its intrinsic ability to motivate choosing is a matter of its self-evident phenomenal character, which is not altered by prudential circumstances.”

– Kurt Lampe, The Birth of Hedonism: the Cyrenaic Philosophers and Pleasure as a Way of Life. [My generalizing edits in brackets.]

Pacatus, I'm not familiar with the Cyreniacs, though I have to say your post brought back a memory and concrete example of this to me. Many years ago, I attended a McKenzie clinic for certain lower back issues. Part of his treatment method involved prescribed body stretches to alleviate physical pain. I was taught to never put up with pain for one minute, but rather do the stretches that were prescribed. We were not to just suffer and wait for the pain to ease.