Neither "ataraxia" nor "not ataraxia", but "Joy as the goal"

There is no mandate by gods that Epicurean philosophical thought should be promoted for the sake of progeny or for the future benefit of humanity (unlike various world religions) and there is no mandate to convert people to Epicureanism. Given that this is so, what likelihood is there on the continuation on into the future? Shall we then just relax and "enjoy the ride"? Or for any of us, is our main driving force for promotion so that we have "like-minded friends" to discuss Epicurean philosophy?

There is no judge in the afterlife to declare that an Epicurean did not do what they were required to do. And indeed there are no requirements for doing things.

As Epicureans, we do seem to fall into two "philosophical camps"...those that hold to the importance of ataraxia and aponia (free from physical and mental pain) and those that hold to the importance of a life filled up with prudent pleasures (both active and static, and more pleasures than pains).

I would like to argue that we should not fall into either of these two camps, but first here is a comparison of this either/or dichotomy (fyi...made exclusively by me, and not AI):

I would like to propose a third way..."Joy as the goal" as I think that this puts a better spin on what is meant by "pleasure" in Epicurean philosophy...and I think it also leads to greater motivation to "get off one's bum" and make effort toward a good life. I do seem to remember that there is at least one reference to joy in the extant texts, but will need to track that down.

I welcome any thoughts

Quote from Kalosyni

As Epicureans, we do seem to fall into two "philosophical camps"...those that hold to the importance of ataraxia and aponia (free from physical and mental pain) and those that hold to the importance of a life filled up with prudent pleasures (both active and static, and more pleasures than pains).

I would like to argue that we should not fall into either of these two camps...

I wanted to mention that at the last Wednesday night Zoom (for Level 03 and above members), we did have a very good discussion on pleasure/happiness/ataraxia. And in the meeting it was said that it isn't an "either/or" because both sides of this are included in the goal of pleasure...and I agree. I still hold that there is a subtle "either/or" for individuals studying Epicurean philosophy in that they hold either a goal of removing pain (relief from pain) as being more important than "sensory pleasures / mind pleasures" or they hold that "sensory pleasures / mind pleasures" are more important than removing pain (relief from pain). I have heard it said that there is a label for those who place "sensory/mind pleasure" as being of higher importance as "maximalists". For those who put ataraxia as being of higher importance, they are called the "minimalists".

What got me thinking about this again, is my curiousity about what the Garden of Athens Epicurean philosophy group is doing, and I found this post about an introductory book that was published:

Post

RE: "Epicurean Philosophy: An Introduction from the 'Garden of Athens'" edited by Christos Yapijakis

I have just recently received an email from Christos Yapijakis indicating that he has read through this thread. His comments that I am pasting below were drafted as a private communication to me, rather than as an exhaustive commentary on the various points raised above, so please understand that they are written in that context. I asked him for permission (which he granted) to repost these so as to include them in the discussion.

It has been some time since this thread started and I have not…

Cassius

January 27, 2023 at 6:54 PM

I've copied over from that thread (linked in the above post) on Christos' introductory book, which was shared by Christos.

The following is by Christos Yapijakis:

Quote

Regarding pleasure and happiness, just see Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus that explicitly says that:

-We aim to happiness (eustatheia of katastematic pleasure/pleasurable state)

-We do not need pleasure unless our body is in pain lacking it

"He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquility of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a happy life. For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained lacking pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure".

4. Regarding useful and harmful pleasures, again see Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus that explicitly says that:

-Although pleasure is naturally akin to us, some pleasures lead to greater annoyance than pleasure

-Useful pleasures=those that appease pain or vary our enjoyment of life (the second ones we don't need necessarily)

-Harmful pleasures=those that result in more pain than pleasure

"...we do not choose every pleasure whatever, but often pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure. While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is worthy of choice, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned. It is, however, by measuring one against another, and by looking at the conveniences and inconveniences, that all these matters must be judged. ".

All three papers I authored in that special issue of Conatus-Journal of Philosophy on "Philosophical Management of Stress" (the first ever such issue of an international philosophical journal and I was invited to be the Editor) promote Epicurean philosophy, although they do that in a more subtle, "politically correct" and objective way discussing other philosophical approaches too, which by comparison are barely useful for a very short period of time until reality prevails.

...

...Always remember that the pursuit of pleasure is the path to eustatheia and happiness (katastematic pleasure or pleasurable state) for Epicurus and not a goal by itself as Aristippus or 'prodigals' think (see letter to Menoeceus DL 131-132).

Display More

Quote from Cassius

I should also point out that this quotation in post 7 is a long distance from the point where this thread started out, when your advocated "Joy" as the goal ("Neither "ataraxia" nor "not ataraxia", but "Joy as the goal").

I presented several ideas in the first post of this thread (the first point should have been addressed in a separate thread):

Point 1) There is no mandate to spread Epicurean philosophy to the masses

Point 2) There are some who study Epicurean philosophy and put more emphasis on one or the other...either pleasure (moving pleasures) or ataraxia.

Point 3) An alternate way to word "the goal" is by using the word "joy" (and I now see that joy is a subset of pleasure and so this would not correlate with the Epicurean texts).

We can continue to see that the words we use can be unclear or confusing, if they are too abstract (for both "camps" of Epicureans - both maximalists or minimalists).

This goes to show that both "camps" still need to consider "the ladder of abstraction" which illustrates the difference between abstract and specific words (developed by linguist S.I. Hayakawa in 1939, and introduced in his book "Language of Action". This tool illustrates how language moves from concrete, sensory details at the bottom (e.g."my speckled apple") to high-level, abstract concepts at the top (e.g."fruit" or "nutrition"). The bottom rungs consist of specific, tangible details, while the higher rungs represent increasingly broad, conceptual, or categorical terms - and it helps make communication more clear.

The following website has an illustration of the full ladder of abstraction:

Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction – Choosing the appropriate abstraction level – jtoy

I believe that it is possible for something to sound correct (or even "wise") while being presented using highly abstract words, however those words end up not "working" in reality for two reasons:

1) differing understandings (cognition) of highly abstract words depending on the individual.

2) when you attempt to pin things down with specific and tangible human experiences, the "wise sounding" but abstract ideas don't work - are not helpful because they are too vague.

So that is what I want to shed some light on...and hopefully find some clarity and also continue to find language and words that actually work!

Here is a better article:

Quote

...psychologists call “the curse of knowledge.” The curse is actually a cognitive bias, or a systematic error in our thinking. In this case, a communicator mistakenly, and often unconsciously, believes that everyone in the conversation shares the same knowledge, understandings, and experiences they do. The result is that they skip over the vital information others will need to comprehend their message.

The curse of knowledge is why laypeople find scientific studies tangled, students find geometric proofs baffling, and everyone finds instruction manuals tortuously frustrating. The researchers, teachers, and technical writers had difficulty imagining what it was like to not know what they knew and so communicated their ideas ineffectually.

Nor does the idea have to be complicated to fall prey to the curse. Everyone is susceptible. Thankfully, there is a mental tool that can help us break the curse: the “ladder of abstraction”

The link:

Boost your communication skills with the “ladder of abstraction”

The “ladder of abstraction” reveals why people communicating about the same thing may be doing so at different levels — and how to fix that.

bigthink.com

And another quote:

Quote

Hayakawa’s point is that words often contain more ambiguity than we typically account for. Their effect extends beyond their dictionary definition. They also evoke feelings, imply meanings, and suggest nuances that shift based on the identities, histories, expertise, and personalities of the user and recipient alike.

Consider, for instance, the abstract phrases we bandy about in political discussions — things like liberty, free enterprise, and social justice. Each sounds agreeable when viewed from the ladder’s tippy-top rungs. But as Hayakawa points out, scuttle down to the bottom rungs, and you’ll find that people can have wildly different opinions on the concrete details. The words they use may be the same, but their meanings are not.

“Definitions, contrary to popular opinions, tell us nothing about things. They only describe people’s linguistic habits,” Hayakawa argues.

And a third quote:

Quote

According to Hayakawa clear communication, “as well as clear thinking,” involves a “constant interplay of higher and lower level abstractions.” In other words, by traveling up and down the ladder, we reveal the meaning behind the details and vice versa.

A brilliant example of such rhetorical balance comes from Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel: “We all know that history has proceeded very differently for peoples from different parts of the globe. In the 13,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age, some parts of the world developed literate industrial societies with metal tools, other parts developed only nonliterate farming societies, and still others retained societies of hunter-gatherers with stone tools.”

Notice how Diamond starts with abstract concepts like history and different peoples. These concepts seem simple enough, but to clarify his meaning, he takes a few steps down the ladder. To history, he adds the characterization of “the 13,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age.” Different peoples is elaborated on to include “literate industrial societies,” “nonliterate farming societies,” and “hunter-gatherers.”

The rest of Diamond’s introduction to his book continues in this vein. He uses concrete details to show how more abstract concepts connect to the real world; meanwhile, the abstract gives meaning to the facts and details.

Here is a diagram that I just made which has the telos at the top and then "climbs down the ladder of abstraction"...and it is still a work in progress ... open to thoughts and suggestions.