Should References to "Natural" Be Understood As Contrasting "Given By Nature" to "Given By Convention"?

This is a discussion that originated in the recent Zoom in which we were discussing the relationship between "hedonic calculus analysis" and "natural/necessary analysis." It's really a part of that discussion, but the question is of such significance that it deserves a thread of its own.

Thread

What Is The Relationship Between "Hedonic Calculus" Analysis" and "Natural and Necessary Desire" Analysis?

In tonight's Zoom we went at length into the question posed in the title to this thread, but I need to explain the background. First, it appears that there is a division of opinion about whether "Hedonic Calculus" analysis is more fundamental and primary, or whether "Natural and Necessary Desire" analysis is more fundamental and primary. In other words,

1. Does one analysis come before, or override, or overrule the other?
2. Do you start with one analysis and then bring the other into play only if

…

Cassius

January 21, 2026 at 9:25 PM

In that discussion, Bryan mentioned that he thought it was significant to observe that it is possible to be more specific as to what Epicurus and/or other Greeks meant when they were discussing whether a desire is "natural" or not. At least in my own mind I tend to have a hard time getting any specificity out of "natural" because I presume that the other position is "unnatural" or "not natural." If that's all we can say, that doesn't help much, as that simply uses the same term "natural" on both sides of the equation without bringing any explanation to the picture.

Bryan says that he believes it is clear from numbers of texts (I gathered included outside the Epicurean context) that what the Greeks were really saying is that they were contrasting "what is established by nature" with "what is established by CONVENTION." In other words, they were saying that the opposite of natural is not just "unnatural" but "conventional." This would lead us to focus on understanding the things to be avoided as unnatural as those which originate "by agreement with others" or "in consensus among human minds" or other descriptions that emphasize that the issue is a product of reasoning rather than being directly given to us by nature, such as through the five senses (and presumably the feelings and the anticipations as well).

I said to Bryan during the meeting that if this could be established through citations that it would probably be very helpful to our American/modern understanding to do so. For that reason I am posting this thread to set up a place to see if we can do that.

Thanks go to Bryan as the real impetus behind this conversation.

Thanks for those quotes Bryan!

Those lead me to ask: In this context does "convention" focus on "agreement between multiple people"? I could almost seeing these quotes referring to "the conclusions of reason" or even something indicated by prolepsis / anticipation, with the focus on the difference between "the reasoning process" and "the direct perceptions of the senses.'

So when we hear convention should we hear "determined by agreement among people" or "determined through reason" or some combination of both?

I am still looking for further sources on CONVENTION but in looking at history of discussion of natural and necessary I see this (of immediate interest is the part on the CYNICS and the use of CONVENTION in this context). But this isn't a direct citation....

Plato (c. 429-347 BCE)

In the Republic (Book 8), Plato distinguished between necessary and unnecessary desires, defining necessary desires as "those we cannot desist from and those whose satisfaction benefits us" This distinction appears in his discussion of different types of political regimes and character types, particularly when contrasting the oligarchic and democratic personalities.

However, Plato conflated naturalness with necessity treating natural desires as essentially the same as necessary ones. The distinction is evident when he discusses how the "rustic city" satisfies only necessary appetites, while the "luxurious city" arises when citizens "overstep the limit of their necessities."

The Cynics (5th-4th century BCE)

The Cynics, particularly Antisthenes and Diogenes of Sinope, emphasized living according to nature and rejecting conventional desires. They advocated that a life lived according to nature requires only the bare necessities for existence, and one can become free by rejecting needs that result from convention. Diogenes taught that happiness comes from being in accord with nature and living simply and self-sufficiently, while unnatural things like power, fame, and luxuries cause discord with nature and unhappiness. However, the Cynics focused more on practical demonstration than systematic philosophical categorization—their approach was to live out their philosophy rather than develop formal taxonomies.