PD 25 meaning? by Woolf (2004)

Quote from wbernys

Secondly, If this is Epicurus' position (which i believe it is) than it is important to know how to defend it from others like the Stoics and Religious who will say that this an evil doctrine, taught by a nihilistic and crude man, and both he and we are just projecting our own vile natures onto good people (something I've seen a few times).

OK here in this sentence, it is the "this" I am questioning (I added the underline).

I would say that Epicurus would hold that "pleasure" is nature's guide and that happiness is a life of pleasure and that is what we should pursue, and that we see that this is nature's goal by observing the young of all species.

Are you suggesting that instead of saying it that way, it is more persuasive to say "Epicurus was a psychological hedonist, meaning that we all pursue what we believe we will find pleasureable whether we do so consciously or not."

If you are suggesting that saying "Epicurus was a pyschological hedonist ...." is more persuasive, I don't understand why that would be the case, because then going on to defend the position that "everyone is doing it whether they do so concsiously or not" in my view just then shifts the playing field over onto the question of whether people are conscious of their actions and reasoning or not. I don't personally find arguing that position particularly productive of anything because it sounds like the topic of debate has become some form of determinism.

Apparently there's some disconnect in what you're seeing and what I am seeing. I am by no means saying you are wrong (as I think Don agrees with you) but I sam still missing the point of shifting the discussion of the pursuit of pleasure over to the field of "whether you are conscious of it or not."

Help me understand why it seems attractive to talk about "psychological hedonism" rather than just "hedonism."

Is it because "psychological hedonism" implies you can't help it so you are defending hedonism on the grounds that "you can't help it"?

I see this and I can see where it supports where you are coming from wbernys. What I am not convinced of is that talking in terms of "psychology" is helpful to a philosophical discussion, as I see much potential damage in it for the reasons we are discussing. Is focusing on "psychological hedonism" not just a method of "apologizing for" hedonism?

I would say that Epicurus is not advocating the pursuit of pleasure because we "have to" pursue pleasure, he is advocating for it because Nature prescribes it, we have the ability to ignore Nature's prescription, and we will live better if we follow Nature rather than substituting our own goals. Do you see that part differently?

Quote

psychological hedonism, in philosophical psychology, the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It has been espoused by a variety of distinguished thinkers, including Epicurus, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, and important discussions of it can also be found in works by Plato, Aristotle, Joseph Butler, G.E. Moore, and Henry Sidgwick.

Because its defenders generally assume that agents are motivated only by the prospect of their own pleasures and pains, psychological hedonism is a form of psychological egoism. Psychological egoism is a broader notion, however, since one can hold that human actions are exclusively self-interested without insisting that self-interest always reduces to matters of pleasure and pain. As an empirical thesis about human motivation, psychological hedonism is logically distinct from claims about the value of desires. It is thus distinct from axiological or normative hedonism, the view that only pleasure has intrinsic value, and from ethical hedonism, the view that pleasure-producing actions are morally right.

Psychological hedonism | Pleasure, Pain & Motivation | Britannica

Psychological hedonism, in philosophical psychology, the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.…

www.britannica.com

Quote from wbernys

Psychological hedonism helps to dispel this vanity, there is no rising above pleasure or pain, there are only correct and incorrect views on how to achieve it. So it helps to both "knock down our opponents who say they are mighty and rise above pleasure, generally removes stigma around hedonism, and offers a therapy that we all pursue the same goal, so let's find out how to achieve it.

Ok yes then this is just where we have a disagreement as to the best and most accurate way of describing what Epicurus is doing.

It's the same problem I have with this sentence from Brittanica:

psychological hedonism, in philosophical psychology, the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It has been espoused by a variety of distinguished thinkers, including Epicurus, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, and important discussions of it can also be found in works by Plato, Aristotle, Joseph Butler, G.E. Moore, and Henry Sidgwick.

In my view, nothing was added of value to the world or to the human race by those two sentences, ESPECIALLY as to the result them being to imply that Epicurus held the same views as Bentham or Mill, or even similar views to Plato, Aristotle, Butler, Moore, or Sidgwick.

Our friend Elli here I think makes a similar point when she refuses to discuss Epicurean philosophy as "Epicureanism." Grouping things together overbroadly creates major problems in the understanding of ordinary people. No doubt specialists in psychology and psychiatry may find such groupings helpful, in the same way that the term "American" can apply to someone who lives in Portland Oregon or San Francisco CA or New York NY or Mobile Alabama. They all live in the same continent, but to suggest for very long that we can generalize much about their psychology from that fact would be to make a major mistake.

This conversation really solidifies why I find it unhelpful to talk not only about "pscyhological hedonism" but to "hedonism" in general. There are so many ways of looking at these issues that to imply that there are other commonalities beyond the term "pleasure" being centrally involved is to create more confusion than clarity.

So probably as this conversation dies down we'll all go back to our separate observations as to when and where it is appropriate to talk about "hedonism" or "psychological hedonism," and this will be a "to each his own" issue of applying whatever terminology works best for a particular situation. And I can see the merits in that approach, even if I have to grit my teeth when the term comes up and think to myself "that person*** is trying to apologize for pleasure."

*** Not a reference to Webernys or anyone here!

I see this discussion as extremely helpful as well on the question of how best to convey Epicurean philosophy to others.

Here's another example of a similar issue, this from the blurb on "Martin the Epicurean" at Amazon:

I would draw attention to the last phrase of the last sentence. I don't mean to be criticizing anyone in particular here, and I haven't traced back to see if that is a quotation from the book itself or an addition by an Amazon or other book representative. I see the blurb is written as if it were not written by MFS himself.

But regardless of who wrote it, when I see that I can't help but think that 95% of people are going to take that as meaning either one of two things -- (1) Pleasure doesn't include sex drugs and rock-n-roll, it ONLY includes "absence of pain in the body and absence of trouble in the mind" or (2) Sex drugs and rock-n-roll may be pleasures, but the ULTIMATE pleasures are "absence of pain in the body and absence of trouble in the mind."

I am here of course using "sex drugs and rock-n-roll" as a stand-in for all of the normal and ordinary active pleasures of body and mind, specifically including "joy and delight."

And I don't think it's true, or helpful to imply even if it sounds good to some people, that either (1) or (2) are what Epicurus taught.

Edit: I'm also not entirely comfortable with the statement that Epicurus "regarded scientific knowledge as subservient to the moral end." Not as much of a problem there as in the explanation of pleasure, but I'd be concerned about confusion there as well. Epicurus didn't start out complaining that his teachers didn't tell him how to live happily, he started out questioning their scientific rigor as to chaos.

Quote from wbernys

because we can't experience the height of pleasure while in pain, and oftentimes pain doesn't allow pleasure as the two are opposites, so I don't mind commentators emphasizing that with caveats.

And yet on the last day of his life Epicurus considered himself happy / and/or considered it to be among his happiest days despite his excruciating pain.

How would you reconcile that with what you just wrote as quoted there?

Well he's certainly not in the best condition he could possibly be, as no one would voluntarily choose kidney disease. But the general point is the happiness and predominance of pleasure do require total absence of pain, so it is perilous to summarize the philosophy as the removal of all pain rather than focusing on the value of Pleasure as allowing happiness even when some pains are present.

And I do see our conversation as being about "the best ways of explaining Epicurus to normal people" rather than that we are trying to nitpick against particular people or expressions.

Edit - thanks to Wbernys for pointing out that my second sentence should be do NOT require...!

Yep you are right as usual my typing is awful! Missed the NOT there!

Quote from wbernys

My understanding is Epicurus thought removal of pain was important since it didn't allow height of pleasure, BUT even if you didn't reach the height of pleasure (no pain in mind or body) you could still have predominance of pleasure over pain thanks to mental pleasures understanding limits of pain and gratitude for past goods, etc. Especially as mental pleasures are more important than physical ones

I agree with everything in that paragraph. The extra twist I would say rather than "important" I would say "the theoretical goal."

And that gets to the issue - for humans we are not going to be able to eliminate all pain if we want the most happiness possible to us. So to stress "absence of pain" as if the prime directive is to always avoid all pain is going to result in a far less happy life than if one understands that we sometimes choose pain in order to obtain greater pleasure in full.