Was Epicurus a Psychological Hedonist, an Ethical Hedonist, Both, or Neither?

Quote from Cassius

That last post as to competing definitions crystallizes why I see no benefit, and much harm, in talking too much about "psychological hedonism" or "ethical hedonism" or even "hedonism."

I agree, but this doesn't address the question that has arisen from this thread:

Does "Pleasure is the End (insert whatever word you want here: telos, summum bonum, goal, The Good/ταγαθον/tagathon, etc) mean Epicurus stated a law of nature and The Way Things Are - or - does Epicurus mean we should use Pleasure as a guide toward which to aim?

Those seem to be two very different questions.

My perspective is he meant the former: the telos of pleasure is a law of nature. We can then choose to work with the laws of nature or against them. It's a Wile E. Coyote trying to run off the cliff. He's eventually going to fall because that's the way things work.

So, as far as I'm concerned, I feel no need to add to the new thread about hedonism, but I think the larger issue is still very much in play.

This is the pertinent section of the Menoikeus from my own translation. I don't have time right now to dig into it, but this is definitely a significant text from which I'm getting my interpretation of the Pleasure is the Telos:

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. For the sake of this, we do everything in order to neither be in bodily or mental pain nor to be in fear or dread; and so, when once this has come into being around us, it sets free all of the calamity, distress, and suffering of the mind, seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking for the good of our mental and physical existence. For it is then that we need pleasure, if we were to be in pain from the pleasure not being present; but if we were to not be in pain, we no longer desire or beg for pleasure. And this is why we say pleasure is the foundation and fulfillment of the blessed life. [129] Because we perceived pleasure as a fundamental good and common to our nature, and so, as a result of this, we begin every choice and rejection against this, judging every good thing by the standard of how that pleasure affects us or how we react to considering experiencing that pleasure. And because pleasure is the fundamental and inborn good, this is why not every pleasure is seized and we pass by many pleasures when greater unpleasant things were to result for us as a result: and we think many pains better than pleasures whenever greater pleasure were to follow for a longer time by patiently abiding the pain. [130] So, all pleasure, through its nature, belongs to us as a good; however, not all are elected; and just as all pains are entirely evil by their nature, so not all are always to be shunned.It is proper when judging these things to consider what is advantageous and what is not advantageous for you; in other words, what the consequences will be. We consult the consequences of our actions; because, on the one hand, pleasure over time can lead to pain; and on the other hand, pain can lead to pleasure.

I also need to say explicitly that I'm NOT suggesting Pleasure is some kind of Platonic Ideal "out there" somewhere. Maybe a better way to state the law of nature that Epicurus "discovered" is that "All living beings pursue pleasure and flee from pain." That's the "law" we can either choose to follow or fight against.

We can work within the way things are or we can try to build perpetual motion machines or believe the earth is flat. Humans are complex creatures.

Quote from Don

Does "Pleasure is the End (insert whatever word you want here: telos, summum bonum, goal, The Good/ταγαθον/tagathon, etc) mean Epicurus stated a law of nature and The Way Things Are - or - does Epicurus mean we should use Pleasure as a guide toward which to aim?

I think both are true, and that is the real problem with forcing him into one or the other boxes of psychological or ethical humanism. The entire labeling scheme forces a choice between two positions that are both essentially true. Nature does prompt us to pursue pleasure, but it does not command us to at all times and in every instance. Epicurus does say that we should use pleasure as a guide and a goal toward which to aim, but he does so by observing how nature originally programs us before we are corrupted by false ideas as we grow older.

Forcing people to choose between those may make for a good debate within utilitarianism, but it makes us spin our wheels on a false choice that adds virtually nothing to regular people who want practical advice and understanding about Epicurus.

The whole thing has a very Dialectical/Stoic/Aristotelian/Platonic ring to it and I don't think that Epicurus would approve of the categorization. What comes to my mind now is the saying about the escape from some terrible harm being the meaning meaning of good if people will stop walking around and talking endlessly about the meaning of good.

I'm not saying that the conversation should be stopped, but once the conversation dies down i will probably move this into one of our non-public forums to avoid confusing the general public. Most people come here looking for the big picture, and it will be very confusing to find us debating a topic that didn't even exist until the 1850's and didn't become a topic of conversation in the Epicurean community until the last 30 years at most.

Ha - As it is now, this thread, and a related thread on PD25, come up as two of the most active threads for the last YEAR. That is not a good thing -- this is very academic stuff and not helpful to our generalist readers, but the activity among those of us who find it interesting makes it percolate to the top of the rankings. That's not something we want to see go on for very long. This is not the best topic for new readers to start with if they want to truly understand Epicurus.

So eventually I'll move this to a place where the people interested in it can continue to discuss it but it won't distract new people.

Quote from Cassius

I think both are true, and that is the real problem with forcing him into one or the other boxes of psychological or ethical humanism. The entire labeling scheme forces a choice between two positions that are both essentially true

No argument. I don't want to rehash the categories of hedonism BUT I do think it's important to get straight what Epicurus is saying.

Quote from Cassius

So eventually I'll move this to a place where the people interested in it can continue to discuss it but it won't distract new people.

Hmmm ... Is the reason it's active just us, or is it active because it's showing up in Google searches and leading people to the forum. I don't think I have an issue with people seeing the sausage making process of it leads to the forum. But that's your call.

It's showing up on our front page as most active because we are posting to the threads, so anyone coming to the forum just casually looking up "Epicurus," if they scroll down to the list of active topics these are at the top due to our posting.

It's a constant balancing process because I agree I want the discussions to be generally open.

And I am happy for anyone at any point to express what they think is important for new readers of Epicurus to know about the question. So far I am not seeing anything so basic or newly insightful that explains why it wasn't a topic of conversation until relatively recently.

We've had only a few people wade into this so far so I'd be happy to see others who have not commented previously give their impression of what's being discussed and why there is disagreement (not just here by but the commentators).

Glancing over the thread I don't see that we have previously quoted this from Emily Austin's Chapter 4, where she favors Woolf's position but says this in footnote 6:

Quote

I here follow Woolf (2004), who convincingly defends the view that Epicurus is a psychological hedonism against Cooper (1999), who denies that Epicurus is a psychological hedonist. However, I am philosophically sympathetic to both positions. I think Epicurus believes we cannot act contrary to what we consider most pleasant, but even if we could, I think he would advise against it. In other words, he thinks we either must or should pursue our own pleasure. His philosophy remains relevant either way because he thinks our life will improve if we use our reason to assess and change what we consider most pleasant.

I am sure there are lots of ways to interpret this but one of them is that even Dr. Austin isn't entirely sure which position is correct, and if after all her study of the subject she still sees merit in both positions, I wouldn't insist that taking a dogmatic position on this is a good idea for new readers.

I would suggest that the reason she is philosophically sympathetic to both positions is that there is an obvious deterministic aspect to saying that "we cannot act contrary to what we consider most pleasant," and Epicurus' opposition to determinism is so important that terminology debates should not be allowed to get in the way of people whose primary need is to understand the big picture.

This is my general response to everything since my last post. I'm too lazy to go back and individually quote everything I want to reply to.

Henry Sidgwick

I don't give a fig about Henry Sidgwick or the history of the terms. I think he was mentioned in the very beginning as context, but since I have joined this discussion you (Cassius) are the only one who has mentioned him.

Labels

I agree that it's anachronistic to assume Epicurus fits neatly into either category. Although it still seems reasonable to investigate if he actually does or does not.

OTOH, labels are useful as short hand, as long as everyone understands the label to mean the same thing and sticks to that meaning.

Definitions

In the course of this discussion, and especially after reading the Waggle paper, it has become apparent to me that the definition of psychological hedonism is subject to multiple interpretations.

The standard definition:

Quote from Waggle

...a descriptive theory that holds that human beings are always motivated by pleasure.

1. The Waggle working interpretation: immediately motivated by pleasure

2. The reasonable interpreation: ultimately motivated by pleasure - as the telos

3. The "strong" interpretation: must be motivated by pleasure- we have no choice

4. The "weak" interpretation: are in fact motivated by pleasure - but leaves some scope for choice

The strong/weak and reasonable/unreasonable are of course not mutually exclusive. In fact I think it is necessary to choose one from each category to have a precise definition.

The real issues

I think there are real and important issues here that have nothing to do with labels.

Did Epicurus say:

1. We must pursue pleasure?

2. We do pursue pleasure?

3. We should pursue pleasure?

And I would ask the same questions regarding reality, aside from whatever Epicurus taught.

IMO, that should be an even more important question for someone who is trying to practice Epicurean philosophy.

Quote from Cassius

I would suggest that the reason she is philosophically sympathetic to both positions is that there is an obvious deterministic aspect to saying that "we cannot act contrary to what we consider most pleasant," and Epicurus' opposition to determinism is so important that terminology debates should not be allowed to get in the way of people whose primary need is to understand the big picture.

I wouldn't interpret her that way. We cannot act contrary to what we consider most pleasant because that's baked into us as living beings. That's not a tendency or determinism. That's what we do if we - writ large as living beings - want to go on existing. Living beings pursue pleasure and flee pain. It's just humans can rationalize and talk themselves into what they want to believe is most pleasant.