And PD17: "The just man is most free from trouble; the unjust most full of trouble." And so it is for the sake of pleasure that we act justly.
Also, taking it a step further...if I understand my own nature with regard to pleasure and pain, then it can give me pleasure when I know that I am helping someone else escape from pain...and thus also I don't intentionally cause pain to anyone.
fyi...this thread:
Thinking about this further, I believe Epicurus’ focus on understanding nature as the foundation for his belief system is parallel to the modern focus of science. And this includes physics, which wants to understand and apply natural laws. To paraphrase physicist Brian Greene’s statement: he is content to know that he is composed of particles of matter formed by natural processes from star formation. Since matter can only be converted to energy and vice versa, his atoms exist forever. Can’t be more Epicurean than that!
This seems to me to fit into the parallel concept I’m examining. Within the lifetime greatest goal of focusing on nurturing your life, there exists the means to that goal. The means are by increasing/decreasing pleasure and pain. The two are related to each other, like matter and energy; one can be converted to the other, but neither can be escaped from or done away with.
Life as the goal does not suffer from the truly rare exceptions of giving up one’s life for a friend or to avoid pain by suicide. Rather, it gains with the understanding of the means of nurturing life with pleasure that is totally within your personal control.
But back to explaining Epicureanism and focusing on a belief that life is the greatest good. That it can be a better conceptual declaration of what is the goal of life for the modern Western mind might bear out. (Again, only as a preliminary statement to anyone inquiring about it.)
Perhaps the above introduction should be accompanied with an explanation of the Epicurean awareness that when you are dead, you’re dead, which clarify the discussion to the goal of life is life while you have it.
And then, perhaps Epicurus’ observations in his Ethics might become less abstract, and clearer when expressed as: So enjoy your pleasurable thoughts and your well considered pleasurable activities. Your life deserves the best you can offer it.
the goal of life is life while you have it.
This seems to me to set up a tautology. One of my biggest problems with "Life is the Greatest Good" direction is that it sets up a problem right from the beginning: The Greatest Good of Life is Life; The Goal of Life is Life.
The telos/Greatest Good/goal is defined as "that to which every action points" or "the reason for which every action is done." It is the final answer to the question "Why do you do that?" That's why answers like Pleasure and Virtue are argued about. If we say Life is the reason we do everything, that isn't a satisfactory answer to me. "So I can go on living" doesn't provide any additional information. How can we answer "Life" or even "Living" is the end to which all actions point. That's not really a "why" in my mind. On the other hand, "because it gives me pleasure" seems to be a better answer. If you ask questions, even of someone who answers it is because of Virtue that they do everything, if you press hard enough, they should admit that they pursue Virtue because it gives them pleasure to do so.
I am still processing most of DaveT's post but I have to first comment on this part, because it may indicate a part of the reason I am still working on trying to know exactly where you are going DaveT.
Because when you say this ....
To paraphrase physicist Brian Greene’s statement: he is content to know that he is composed of particles of matter formed by natural processes from star formation. Since matter can only be converted to energy and vice versa, his atoms exist forever. Can’t be more Epicurean than that!
... I see an immediate warning flag. As far as "atoms existing forever" goes, both Democritus and Epicurus agreed on that, but you definitely CAN get "more Epicurean than that, because despite this common ground Epicurus diverged sharply from Democritus on skepticism and determinism and therefore presumably on many other ethical issues. I suspect that this observation plays into the problem we're confronting about terminology. I have no clue about any other aspects of Brian Greene's thinking or who he is, but I would not generally conclude say that anyone "can't be more Epicurean than that" simply because he thinks things are ultimately made of atoms and void. The role of pleasure and pain in the canonical test of "truth" still remains to be resolved.
And maybe the reason I point this out is that for all we know Brian Greene or any average atomist may be completely against the ethical conclusions that Epicurus reached. Epicurus factors in many additional canonical and physics-based conclusions that are not yet resolved simply by saying that everything is composed of atoms and void. So we have sort of a parallel here in terms of the need to be very clear in our definitions of pleasure, life, virtue, gods, etc.
Don Your comment is fair on the weakness of the statement "the goal of life is life while you have it" Perhaps a deeper dive like: The greatest good, is to live out your life as Nature intends. sits a little better? Not that anyone should interpret Epicurus in that fashion, but it does resonate better with me.
Cassius And perhaps clarifying my reference to Brian Greene: it was for his view that he doesn't worry about an afterlife, knowing that he is fulfilling Nature's laws that upon death, he will return to the stuff of the stars, the stuff he is made of while living. Not that he is an Epicurean, but that his sentiment on Nature is Epicurean.
Sorry to jump in late here--many insightful points have been made already. In reflecting on the topic during the week, I had another look at the essays by Annas ("Epicurus on Pleasure and Happiness") and Sedley ("Epicurean vs. Cyreniac Happiness"). I also spent some quality time with Gassendi's "Happiness," in which he set out to present Epicureanism hedonism to a 17th-century (Christian) audience.
All three of these writers relate Epicureanism to the broader philosophical topic of "eudaimonia." I like Annas's formulation:
“Epicurus is telling us that we will be happy, have the best overall life, by having pleasure as our final aim, and that we shall achieve this by living according to the Virtues.” [We could add some other elements here, such as the tetrapharmakon, understanding of nature, etc.]
Gassendi begins his essay by explaining the relationship between eudaimonia and the summum bonum:
"Although happiness is properly the same thing as the enjoyment of the chief good, and therefore the best experience which may be desired, nevertheless because this state of enjoyment includes the chief good, happiness itself was made to be called the chief good. It is called the “chief of goods,” “the ultimate good,” “the end of the ends,” and “the end par excellence,” because all other things are desired and sought after for its sake, while happiness itself is ultimately desired for its own sake."
He subsequently builds the argument that pleasure is a valid "chief good." In doing so, he draws on the idea of pleasure as a broad category, as Kalosyni has done earlier in the thread.
I'm wondering, then, if the "branding" issue might be addressed simply by contextualizing the term--as these authors have done--and also explaining its relationship to Epicurean materialism, and to nature. While DaveT rightly expresses concerns about over-complexity, we could look to examples like Annas's above in order to see how to express things more pithily. If there are only two sensations (pain/pleasure), and Epicurean philosophy is about lived experience (that is, experience characterized by sensation), then it seems to follow that any summum bonum would necessarily revert to pleasure.
I haven't had a chance to re-read DeWitt, but am wondering if "life itself" might be a somewhat loose way of referring g to eudaimonia. Since life happens regardless of philosophy, it might make sense to specify "the good life" or "the well-lived life" or even "the pursuit of happiness" as a more precise goal.
Looking forward to today's discussion!
You would advocate for using terms more in line with "Life Itself is the Greatest Good" and avoiding using "pleasure" until, maybe, much further down the road when it is encountered in the ancient texts.
All living beings by nature move toward pleasure and away from pain. The word pleasure, understood as a broad category rather than as any one specific object of feeling, is the telos that arises out of nature.
If Divine Nature gave us "pleasure" as the guide (the Good) for human beings to operate normally (within our "design" specifications) in order to live optimally (as "designed"/"built"), then pain (in body, mind or spirit) is Divine Nature's way of reminding us that our being (body, mind, soul) is not operating normally (as "built" to operate). So, the "Divine Physician of the Soul" (Epicurus) wrote out a framework for optimal living to achieve the "Greatest Good" of a life of wellbeing, each day we are alive.
So, yes, I do think that Epicurus was trying to teach a level of understanding of how the human body operates according to basic principles found in nature for all living beings, with our feelings (pain/pleasure) as the guide.
Relating to PD03
The Experience of living in the Complete Absence of Pain is the Highest Point or Limit...of Pleasure..
....For me, in my experience, when there is Aponia, Ataraxia, and Contemplative activity (of body, mind & spirit), whether philosophical or artistic, a person achieves a state of pleasure unknown to most humans, belabored by ceaseless work
and the constant anxiety to meet the expectations of this world. This pleasure is tantamount to the joy that the Gods relish, those Gods in bliss that Epicurus, I believe, metaphorically wrote of. ...Principal Doctrine 3 states: "The limit of pleasure is the removal of all that pains. Wherever this state is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress, and one is at the fullness of pleasure." ...I should also mention, Prudence, "practical wisdom", Phrónésis, the greatest good, which, when applied to the body, leads to health, Aponia. When applied to the mind, Ataraxia, which allows our spirit, that which animates the body and the mind, like electricity powers a car, to enjoy the pleasure of living. In my pastel illustration above, I have tried to convey Epicurus in this state of contemplative pleasure, writing his thoughts in his beautiful garden that his followers also enjoyed. As you can see, Epicurus writes with a slight smile, as Kalosyni once suggested he should have in an image she created....Yes, for me, a smile of satisfaction, of enjoyment, of Pleasure.
..So, for me, Prudence, Aponia, Ataraxia, and Contemplative Activity have been a guide to a pleasant and creative life.
...Enjoy!
Raphael Raul 's post above immediately brought to mind the mental state of flow described in positive psychology:
Every picture you care to share here makes me bigger and bigger admirer of your work. This one is my favourite so far. Please keep it going, Raphael Raul.
Thank you, Tau Phi, for your kind comments on my illustration of the Principle Doctrine #3.
The fact that this is your favorite is inspiring!...Yes, I will create more illustrations.
Thank you, Don, for the link to Flow.
...This is an experience I have often had in drawing and painting: when I start a piece, time passes to my astonishment afterwards. Also, my art students, after two and a half hours of learning and work, say "Already!" when I tell them to stop, and we will present what we have done through the session. Also, many of my art students have mentioned an increase in their ability to concentrate and focus after months of training the eye to see and the hand to render what is seen.
I found this quote below to be to the point.
But I have not experienced the phenomenon of not needing to eat, drink, or sleep.
...Mihaly Csikszentmihályi and others began researching flow after he became fascinated by artists who would essentially get lost in their work.[8] Artists, especially painters, got so immersed in their work that they would disregard their need for food, water, and even sleep. The theory of flow emerged when Csikszentmihályi sought to understand the phenomenon experienced by these artists.
