REMINDER: SUNDAY WEEKLY ZOOM - May 17, 2026 -12:30 PM EDT - Ancient text study and discussion: De Rerum Natura - - Level 03 members and above (and Level 02 by Admin. approval) - read more info on it here.
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
What about those who would argue til they are blue in the face that that do what they do "Because they believe it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it gives me pleasure or not, and I know that often it won't.
Q: Why do you want to do the right thing?
A1: For it's own sake (translation: believing that I did "the right thing" will give me more pleasure than believing I did the wrong thing).
A2: Heaven/hell (obvious)
What about those who would argue til they are blue in the face...
Also, I wouldn't argue with people about this, especially if they are prone to getting blue in the face. Questioning someone's self-image or motivations is unlikely to go well.
Mainly I see it as a useful tool for understanding other people's actions. If someone wants to have a reasonable discussion, fine. But that seems increasingly rare.
Please clarify what it is when you said this is where you lose the trail of "why this is a productive theory or productive position to take."
Mainly I see it as a useful tool for understanding other people's actions
If someone is willing to lie to themselves, what purpose does it serve to engage with them?
Is this not just a kind of pointless "psychologizing" that leads nowhere?
People can be mistaken. People can lie to themselves. Is it not enough simply to acknowledge that these are possibilities and then deal with individual people and circumstances as they occur?
Does it accomplish or help something or someone to say "These people are really pursuing pleasure even though they deny it will all their mind and spirit?"
Why not just say: "At birth before there is any possibility of corruption all living things pursue pleasure and avoid pain."
I would say they're lying to themselves because they despise the idea of pleasure.
I see your logic in that, but this is where I lose the trail of why this is a productive theory to pursue or position to take.
This is the bedrock foundation of what it means for "Pleasure is the Goal." Pleasure is THE motivating factor behind all decisions, choices, actions. The goal of Epicurean philosophy is to follow the Goal of Nature wisely and not haphazardly or to leave life to chance.
Why not just say: "At birth before there is any possibility of corruption all living things pursue pleasure and avoid pain."
That seems a little milquetoast. It's true, but Pleasure Is The Goal/End/Telos seems to be fundamental truth in how nature works.
I'm not advocating for arguing with blue-faced people about their motivations. If they desire to live in anger, fear, and delusion, so be it. We can offer a way out, but we shouldn't go out of our way to antagonize the lost.
Epicurus looked from Nature's flaming ramparts and saw the cosmos as it is. Pleasure is the Goal was a declaration of The Way Things Are.
Does it accomplish or help something or someone to say "These people are really pursuing pleasure even though they deny it will all their mind and spirit?"
We are coming at this from different perspectives.
You seem to be looking at this (psychological hedonism) as an argument for pursuing pleasure consciously. I agree that it is not a great tool for that because it tends to make people dig in their heels and deny that they are pursuing pleasure.
I am looking at it as an accurate description of reality, in which sense I think it is very helpful.
For example, if someone tells me they are doing something for an altruistic reason, it leads me to ask, "OK, how are they really getting pleasure out of this?"
Maybe they really are a good person, and it makes them feel good to do the right thing. Or maybe there is a more nefarious motivation.
Why not just say: "At birth before there is any possibility of corruption all living things pursue pleasure and avoid pain.
I've never thought this was a very strong argument.
An infant may be free from the influences of society, but an infant is also not yet a fully developed human.
I see no reason to take for granted that we should emulate the unconscious or semi-conscious behaviors of a newborn.
(I'm not saying the argument is wrong, just that it seems open to this objection, and I have not seen a convincing response.)
We are coming at this from different perspectives.
You seem to be looking at this (psychological hedonism) as an argument for pursuing pleasure consciously. I agree that it is not a great tool for that because it tends to make people dig in their heels and deny that they are pursuing pleasure.
I am looking at it as an accurate description of reality, in which sense I think it is very helpful.
For example, if someone tells me they are doing something for an altruistic reason, it leads me to ask, "OK, how are they really getting pleasure out of this?"
Maybe they really are a good person, and it makes them feel good to do the right thing. Or maybe there is a more nefarious motivation.
I would concur with this analysis, with emphasis added.
I've never thought this was a very strong argument.
That's very interesting. Don do you agree with that too?
I can see the arguments on both sides and don't have a lot more to add at the moment, but I am adding a summary of what I understand the positions to be into the FAQ at the following entry:
I can see the arguments on both sides and don't have a lot more to add at the moment, but I am adding a summary of what I understand the positions to be into the FAQ at the following entry:
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/faq-questi…oth-or-neither/
My response to the arguments against psychological hedonism there would be as follows:
Psychological hedonism only claims that people pursue pleasure, not that they succeed in obtaining it.
The individual is still faced with the problem of predicting which future state is likely to afford the most pleasure, and choosing the most effective means for achieving that state. These are not trivial problems. Psychological hedonism does not at all make philosophy irrelevant. (It is not determinism.)
I've never thought this was a very strong argument.
That's very interesting. Don do you agree with that too?
I'm more receptive to the argument from infants and animals.
An infant may be free from the influences of society, but an infant is also not yet a fully developed human.
I see no reason to take for granted that we should emulate the unconscious or semi-conscious behaviors of a newborn.
An infant is fully human, just not a fully formed adult. Same with animals, they are also living beings. Epicurus' argument is that all living beings pursue pleasure and flee pain. Animals and infants have no cultural or social filter.
I also don't think we should emulate infants or children in behavior, and I don't think Epicurus was saying that. He was looking for the foundational, bedrock telos before culture corrupted that telos. Why do we do what we do? Living beings pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Once Epicurus identified the telos, he emphasized the use of reason and prudence to wisely and purposefully follow the pursuit of pleasure.
Psychological hedonism does not at all make philosophy irrelevant.
That's part of my unease with the entire discussion - I am not aware that there is a single authoritative statement of what psychological hedonism really means, or what should be taken to be its implications. I don't have any problem with the idea that everyone pursues their own self-interest or what they thing benefits them most. I have a big problem with the idea that some people have about what really benefits them. It's the implications of the idea beyond just the bare statement that people pursue what they think benefits them that cause me the most concern. But I don't see this as a bridge to wage too big a battle on, at least until people start getting very specific about implications and applications.
Honestly, I don't care what phrase is used. I've seen Epicurus described as a psychological hedonist, an ethical hedonist, a hedonist. Whatever. Eventually it comes down to hammering an ancient peg into a modern hole, so it only has limited value as a description of the philosophy.
The hill I will plant my flag on is what I've laid out in my perspective:
Honestly, I don't care what phrase is used
That would cover my view as well on most everything anyone has ever said about this here on the forum that I am aware of, and I would say for the reason that you state in the next line I quote from you below.
Epicurus clearly states, and is quoted by multiple sources, that Pleasure is The Telos/Goal/Ultimate Good
Clearly true. The more I read from the Cooper and other articles, the only issue is the question of whether this "is the good" is interpreted to mean also "ought to be the good." I would say that Epicurus holds that everyone "ought" to regard pleasure as the good, on the grounds that Nature tells us that pleasure "is" what we are programmed to pursue. Some people apparently want to drop the common meaning of "ethics" or "morality" from the discussion and say that it's impossible to say what "should" be pursued or what is "ethical" or "moral." I've never seen anyone here do that (or at least I haven't realized it).
It can't be avoided.
I've pulled that sentence out of context of surrounding sentences so the usefulness of what I am about to say is limited, but the full bullet point is ""Living beings pursue pleasure and flee from pain" is built into the universe. Epicurus identified this. It can't be avoided."
I would be careful about the "it":
What can't be avoided is that "pain and pleasure are built into the universe."
What "can" be avoided is "pursuit of pleasure" as illustrated by the fact that living beings do sometimes pursue pain instead of pleasure." And in fact Epicurus tells us that sometimes we should do exactly that (pursue pain), and if Epicurus had thought that it was impossible to do anything other than pursue pleasure I don't think he would have made that remark.
Torquatus defends psychological hedonism
Nobody holds the Torquatus material in higher esteem than I do, so I don't have any problem considering that material to be of extremely high authority. However factually (by the fact that Cooper and others seem to do it) the argument can be made that nothing Torquatus says demands the acceptance of the view that we have no choice but pursue pleasure, and the same Torquatus can be used to argue the opposite position (his entire narrative presumes that can choose between pleasure and pain and defends the proposition that we should choose pleasure).
So at this point my only concern going forward would be as stated above that some people apparently are motivated to discuss "psychological hedonism" as if adoption of the term allows us to drop the common meaning of "ethics" or "morality" from the discussion, and that it's impossible to say what "should" be pursued or what is "ethical" or "moral."
I don't particularly like to use the term hedonism and I like the terms "psychological hedonism" and "ethical hedonism" even less. But at the end of the day I am confident that Epicurus teaches us both (1)nature programs all healthy and uncorrupted living things to pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and (2) as a result living things "should" work to constantly identify what actions are going to lead to pleasure and avoidance of pain. That "should" is what the entire program of the philosophy is all about, identifying how to do that and "why" it is important. The "should" and the "why" are essential parts of Epicurean philosophy, because it is very clearly possible "not" to follow pleasure and Epicurean philosophy as your guide.
Maybe best summarized by saying that from my point of view, "Everyone is NOT an Epicurean." In real life we don't treat everyone as being Epicureans, and it doesn't advance the ball in any beneficial respect to say that they are.
And in fact Epicurus tells us that sometimes we should do exactly that (pursue pain), and if Epicurus had thought that it was impossible to do anything other than pursue pleasure I don't think he would have made that remark.
Yes, humans can choose to undergo pain of they feel a preponderance of pleasure will ensue. That's still pursuing pleasure.
Exactly, humans can choose to undergo pain in the pursuit of pleasure. I've cited several run of the mill examples in this thread and included the quote above as a rebuttal to other points.
I am confident that Epicurus teaches us both (1)nature programs all healthy and uncorrupted living things to pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and (2) as a result living things "should" work to constantly identify what actions are going to lead to pleasure and avoidance of pain. That "should" is what the entire program of the philosophy is all about, identifying how to do that and "why" it is important. The "should" and the "why" are essential parts of Epicurean philosophy, because it is very clearly possible "not" to follow pleasure and Epicurean philosophy as your guide.
Maybe best summarized by saying that from my point of view, "Everyone is NOT an Epicurean." In real life we don't treat everyone as being Epicureans, and it doesn't advance the ball in any beneficial respect to say that they are.
Quite right. All living beings are not Epicureans. But every living being pursues pleasure and avoids pain.
Of course, not everyone is an Epicurean. What makes someone an Epicurean is viscerally knowing this and putting into practice the wise, prudent, conscious effort to follow the telos that Epicurus has identified. Pleasure is the telos holds. The "Is/Ought" debates wrankle me and seems needlessly "angels dancing on a pin". I haven't read deeply into that debate, but maybe I ought (pun intended).
The "Is/Ought" debates wrankle me and seems needlessly "angels dancing on a pin". I haven't read deeply into that debate, but maybe I ought (pun intended).
Yes I need to as well. I am concerned that what we are going to find is that certain people reach conclusions from this debate that you and I would consider absurd, and therefore we don't imagine that it's necessary to kick back against.
There's only so many things you can pursue at one time... If that raises its head we can deal with it then.
I'm rethinking that, I don't see an is/ought problem here.
Living beings pursue pleasure and avoid pain.
Epicurus does, to my perspective, state this as an observation of the way things are. A fact of nature.
He is not saying we ought to follow pleasure. To my mind, he's saying we do. Living beings do. What he is doing is calling us to do this deliberately, to understand how to do what naturally comes to us in a deliberate, thoughtful, rational way instead of second-guessing or obfuscating or rationalizing (in a negative sense). If the natural goal of life is ultimately seeking pleasure, do it, lean into it, don't fight against the current, don't shake your fist at the sky, don't blame the gods, and so on. He sees no need to "prove" pleasure is the goal anymore than snow is white and fire is hot. Those analogies are important. Pleasure is the telos is akin to fire is hot. You can stick your hand in the fire and maintain it's not hot, but you're still getting burned. Likewise, you can claim to be following the path of virtue but you're still doing it because it gives you positive feelings to be doing it.
He is not saying we ought to follow pleasure.
Ok we are at least temporily on different sides of that phrasing. I think he is saying that because nature does tell us to follow pleasure, we should follow pleasure if we want to be happy. Other people can choose other gioals and other paths but nature's go signal is pleasure and we can choose to follow that signal, or some other. It is a key statement that we have free agency to choose our paths, and that is why we praise some actions and people and blame others. Otherwise why would be concerned about determinism and say that it is better to believe supernatural religion than to be a determinist?
He is not saying we ought to follow pleasure.
Ok we are at least temporily on different sides of that phrasing. I think he is saying that because nature does tell us to follow pleasure, we should follow pleasure if we want to be happy.
That quote of mine out of context doesn't really convey what I said.
He is not saying we ought to follow pleasure. To my mind, he's saying we do. Living beings do. What he is doing is calling us to do this deliberately, to understand how to do what naturally comes to us in a deliberate, thoughtful, rational way instead of second-guessing or obfuscating or rationalizing (in a negative sense).
Nature doesn't "tell us." The pursuit of pleasure and fleeing from pain is baked into the survival of living beings. It can be identified or "discovered" like evolution but it's not like nature is telling living beings that "you should do this." They do. Humans have the unique option among living beings of swimming with that tide or against it.
PS. Cassius I fully realize I keep saying the same things and you keep raising the same objections. I don't know whether we're talking past each other or if we actually disagree. I think it's the latter but I'm not sure how deep that disagreement goes.
