Against using the word "corrosive" for the "unnatural/unnecessary" category

We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email.  Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.

Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
    • New

    In the book "Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life" there is the usage of the word "corrosive" for the "unnatural/unnecessary" category of desires. We have likely discussed this before, but it is worth bringing up again.

    I would recommend against using the word "corrosive" for several reasons:

    1) It gives a situation a kind of static state that sounds difficult to remedy (once something is corroded it is difficult to restore it back to its original nature), where as the truth is that the human mind can shift rather quickly out of the "unnatural/unnecessary" when realizing the truth of something.

    2) It sounds overly "dramatic" (envisioning leaking battery acid that corrodes metal). And it attributes an aweful lot of power to desires, making them sound dangerous or "evil" (it almost has a "Christian puritanical" sound to it). But if you dig down to see what is going on then you will see that there are basic needs hiding deep below the surface (below the "unnatural" desire), but it is actually the strategy for meeting those needs isn't the best strategy. (Needs for safety, security, reassurance, or knowledge could be the deeper needs).

    3) It doesn't accurately describe the biggest problem for things that are "unnatural" -- the main problem is that they are "empty" of happiness and pleasure (and that they cause more pain than pleasure).

    ----I think most people here on the forum would understand that "natural" is something that nature gives to animals or occurs naturally for animals. Where as, "unnatural" is something which is only an opinion with no basis in nature. Once we are clear about what these categories are, then we can decide how best to label them.

    My own current take on the three categories of desires:

    1) natural and necessary for well-being

    2) nice to have but optional

    3) empty, painful, or leading to unwanted consequences

    • New

    Isn't there also a related question about her choice of the word "extravagant" - i think she brought that up herself in her podcast interview.

    My own take at the moment is that the key thing that distinguishes this category is that the desire in question cannot be satisfied - it has no limit. Yes we might consider them to be extravagant, yes we might consider their result to be corrosive. But it seems to me that the crucial first step is to focus on how to identify them in the first place. And there it seems to me that the various texts are pointing to their commonality being that they "have no limit" - they cannot be satisfied - and so as a result pursuit of them is doomed to failure from the very start.

    What is to one person and in one situation "extravagant" is very different for another person in another situation, for whom it might be necessary. Drawing the distinction at "simply cannot be satisfied" such as for eternal life would appear to me both more practical and philosophical and consistent with the texts.

    In the letter to Menoeceus Epicurus does not explain the principal of the classification:

    We must consider that of desires some are natural, others vain, and of the natural some are necessary and others merely natural; and of the necessary some are necessary for happiness, others for the repose of the body, and others for very life.

    But Torquatus does in On Ends 1:45, and what he focuses on is not describing it with a negative adjective but pointing out the fact that it has no limit:

    Rackham:

    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.


    Reid translation;
    ...and it is not possible to discover any boundary or limit to false passions.

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

What's the best strategy for finding things on EpicureanFriends.com? Here's a suggested search strategy:

  • First, familiarize yourself with the list of forums. The best way to find threads related to a particular topic is to look in the relevant forum. Over the years most people have tried to start threads according to forum topic, and we regularly move threads from our "general discussion" area over to forums with more descriptive titles.
  • Use the "Search" facility at the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere." Also check the "Search Assistance" page.
  • Use the "Tag" facility, starting with the "Key Tags By Topic" in the right hand navigation pane, or using the "Search By Tag" page, or the "Tag Overview" page which contains a list of all tags alphabetically. We curate the available tags to keep them to a manageable number that is descriptive of frequently-searched topics.