Posts by Cassius

This question has come up at least once or more in the past, but I cannot find the prior discussions. If I find them later I will add links to this post.

This came up tonight in our Wednesday Zoom, whether as a general rule all "desire" should be viewed as painful.

We had a close split of opinion on this, so no matter whether the answer is "Yes" or "No," we have some discussion that needs to take place. From an Epicurean perspective, I feel sure that this question has a firm answer, though at present I think I could argue either side equally. So that tells me there's work to be done on this.

The "Yes" camp argument can be summarized for now as something like: All desire indicates a wish that is unmet, and an unmet wish is painful, therefore all desire is painful.

The "No" camp argument is something like "desires can in fact be enjoyable, as on Christmas Eve for presents the next day, and it is only when I desire is in fact unmet and unmeetable that a desire is generally painful."

Also in considering the answer I would ask, "In Epicurean theory, is ANYTHING in life (even desire) always pleasurable except pleasure, or is anything always painful except pain?"

Yes Don it's time to reinforce that and confirm that we count to three rather than four. I seem to remember Cicero questioning this in On Ends, and perhapes Aulus Gellius defends Epicurus, on the same point:

1 - Natural and Necessary

2 - Natural but not Necessary

3 - Necessary but not Natural ???????

4 - Neither Natural Nor Necessary

Quote from Rolf

The classifications are like priorities.

Quote from Rolf

We should probably rarely, if ever, sacrifice natural necessary desires for unnatural necessary ones, when keeping long term pleasure in mind.

I started to just click "like" and move on, but on second thought I am not sure this - even with the rarely caveat - does not just restate the problem. *Are* these classifications priorities, or are they just predictions of the relative cost in pain?

I wanted to make an exception for "those things necessary to remain alive," but even that isn't absolute -- Don't we sometimes give our lives for a friend?

The "rarely, if ever" helps, but isn't that the question you are asking? What is the rule that allows you to know when those exceptions would apply, other than that this is a personal decision involving the way you personal estimate the final outcome in terms of net pleasure of all kinds over net pain of all kinds?

As a generalization I think we all can see that the classification makes sense. However you're asking the right question -- when do the exceptions apply, to to know that you have to know what *really* is the overriding analysis. I don't think we find the ultimate analysis here in this classification alone. The ultimate question is always going to be the external consideration of expected result that isn't stated in full just by stating the classes, or by stating that those desires which don't bring pain - if unfulfilled - are "empty."

Maybe another way of stating this is that the Epicureans never stated that the ultimate goal of life is "the pleasures achieved through natural and necessary desires." The goal is "pleasure," and the reason there can be no qualification is that everyone's situation is going to be different. Is it possible to generalize? Yes, definitely. But generalizing is not the same as a hard and fast rule, even of "priorities." I think Don and maybe others have given good examples of the exceptions (such as "holding your breath to dive to get out of the cave" or whatever.)

Quote from Don

Think of empty space, no ground. Beliefs or desires that are kenos have nothing valid underpinning them or supporting them. They're a house built on sand to bring in a biblical metaphor.)

If this is the same word used in regard to atoms, then let me ask this question:

Does "empty space" necessarily have a completely negative connotation in the way we are often interpreting it? Were it not for empty space, the universe could not exist as it is - the atoms would have no place through which to move.

I'm not yet suggesting it - though I might - that being "empty" might not be a 100% negative concept in Epicurus' thinking. It's not like the atoms are "at war" against the void - they are both needed to make the world work, and without void the atoms would be able to do nothing. And if empty were looked at as a concept that has some positive benefit, then maybe that observation would need to be extended to the ethical side as well.

Quote

MIT physicists have captured the first images of individual atoms freely interacting in space. The pictures reveal correlations among the "free-range" particles that until now were predicted but never directly observed. Their findings, appearing in the journal Physical Review Letters, will help scientists visualize never-before-seen quantum phenomena in real space.

The images were taken using a technique developed by the team that first allows a cloud of atoms to move and interact freely. The researchers then turn on a lattice of light that briefly freezes the atoms in their tracks, and apply finely tuned lasers to quickly illuminate the suspended atoms, creating a picture of their positions before the atoms naturally dissipate.

MIT physicists snap the first images of

www.spacedaily.com

DaveT thank you for joining us in our First Monday Zoom last night. As it appears that you have an interest in fiction writing, I thought I would point out the little-known piece of fiction writing by Thomas Jefferson's friend Frances Wright, which we have posted at:

A Few Days In Athens

We have much discussion of it here at the forum which you can look up if interested. Some caution is needed because there are definitely some questions as to whether Ms. Wright was orthodox Epicurean in her treatment of "gods" and perhaps of some aspects of skepticism. And I also usually warn people that the first chapter introducing Epicurus is a little too "flowery" for some people, so be sure to read a couple of chapters before you give up if that's the case for you.

But in general I think it's an extremely well done book which deserves to be a lot better known.

Hopefully at some point A Few Days In Athens will help inspire other fiction writers to try their hand at something similar.

Happy Birthday to Nikos K! Learn more about Nikos K and say happy birthday on Nikos K's timeline: Nikos K

Don that has me thinking too about another comment that was made tonight, I think by Tau Phi to Kalosyni, that in her example of thinking about a "jacket," that -- even for the same person - a "jacket" might one day be natural, might another day be necessary, and another day (possibly) be unnatural or unnecessary.

In other words, that virtually any single concrete desire we could name (excepting only extreme examples like "world dictator" or the like) might migrate between the categories based on circumstances.

If so (and i think it's yes) what does that do to the attempt to make the categories into a hard and fast list?

i put together this chart to assist in conversation in our Monday zoom discussion about this topic. My summary of each answer is brief and no doubt grossly inadequate to what the speaker had to say, but I think the variation in answers might be good food for thought as the discussion continues. No doubt each person was thinking something different, especially as I explained the question, but the fact that the result of the Yes/No question was almost evenly split indicates that the answer does not seem to be obvious to everyone..

As Tau Phi asked me, my own answer to the first two columns would be "Pleasure / No," but like everyone else I would have explanation for each answer (and that's what we are discussing in this thread.).

One thing I will say about it is that it strikes me that there is a connection between thinking it is a good idea to (1) categorize all feelings into two categories and (2) categorize all desires into four categories. There's no necessity that we do either, and we could have chosen to come up with many categories, but it makes good sense to reduce them as far as reasonably possible, and it provides a useful framework for analysis.

I would see this as Epicurus being both practical and philosophical at the same time.

Following up on Don's last comment, there seems to me to be an important issue in how we approach:

PD29. Among desires, some are natural (and necessary, some natural) but not necessary, and others neither natural nor necessary, but due to idle imagination.

as against -

PD03. The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once.

As I see it, Torquatus was able to take a dogmatic and literalist position on the argument that when you're not in pain you're in pleasure, because it's definitional - virtually mathematical - that when one is absent the other is present.

But when referring to PD29 he talks in terms of profitability or suitableness or usefulness (depending on the translator) which seems to me a more "practical" basis for the analysis.

[45] I ask what classification is either more profitable or more suited to the life of happiness than that adopted by Epicurus? He affirmed that there is one class of passions which are both natural and needful; another class which are natural without being needful ; a third class which are neither natural nor needful; and such are the conditions of these passions that the needful class are satisfied without much trouble or expenditure ; nor is it much that the natural passions crave, since nature herself makes such wealth as will satisfy her both easy of access and moderate in amount; and it is not possible to discover any boundary or limit to false passions.

Nothing could be more useful or more conducive to well-being than Epicurus's doctrine as to the different classes of the desires. 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.

Now I certainly think that both doctrines ( "pleasure is the absence of pain" and the "classification of the desires" ) are both practical and useful, it seems to me that the first is more clearly a definitional choice that derives from logic (it's clearly possible to break pain and pleasure into subcategories, so it's by intelligent choice that we reduce them to two). The classifications of desires are are also matters of choice, but it's harder to see because in the case of the terms "pleasure" and "pain" we all know that there are many different types of pleasures and pains. In the case of "necessary desires" however, we jump more readily to the idea that there's only a short and definable list of what is "natural" and "necessary."

Actually as I am writing this I am talking myself into a somewhat different view from where I started...... I am now liking the natural and necessary classification more, if we can link it to the same kind of broad analysis as pain and pleasure, and resist the temptation to think that there's a strict absolute list. Maybe the necessity to analyze and understand the two separate classification systems in the two different doctrines complements each other!

I want to add this: The only way it would make sense to conclude that you would never pursue anything other than natural and necessary desires would be to believe that as a matter of natural law or some other necessity or flat guarantee, that pursuing anything other than natural and necessary desires is guaranteed to lead to more pain than pleasure.

It does not appear to me that there are any grounds of necessity on which that can be argued to be the case, or that there are any such that statements in Epicurean philosophy. In contrast, the starting point is the statement that all pleasures are desirable, but some will bring more pain than pleasure. It seems to me a stretch to say that there is any flat list that always must be followed to the exclusion of the general rule, even if there are generalizations, such as excessive pursuit of sex or romantic love, that can be made as a warning against that course.

The only way there could be such a flat list would be if there were supernatural gods, or ideal forms, or some other mechanism that guaranteed such a result. Otherwise it's up to us to analyze our own circumstances to determine what is likely to result for us.

Kalosyni's search for an explicit definition is a good way of looking at the problem, but I think part of the answer will be that while all sorts of explanations can be given, a major part of any correct explanation is that no explicit flat list that applies to everyone can be given.

Note: Just in case I am not being clear with the term "flat list," I mean "flat" in the sense of evenly and explicitly applying to everyone at all times in all places and in all circumstances. So a "flat list" would be an explicit list of do's or "don'ts" that always applies without any exception whatsoever.

So Epicurus would tell everyone to buy a single black jacket when they reach 18 or full height, and never buy another one until that one falls into rags? As a matter of principle, why would anyone using the NNUU formula do more than that?

Because you like different colors? That's unnecessary.

Because you like different styles? That's unnecessary.

Because you don't like to look at worn threadbare clothing? That's unnecessary.

And on and on...

How does the classification itself lead to any other result?

My point is that the classification itself standing alone is useless or even harmful, just like "pleasure is the absence of pain" can be destructive, without other overriding information.

In one case, the additional information that is needed is that there are only two feelings, which means that the absence of one is the presence of the other. In this case, the additional information is that all pleasure is desirable and worthy of choice if it brings more pleasure than pain, therefore you will never think of limiting yourself only to desires that are "necessary and natural," especially since you also know that there are no supernatural gods or ideal forms that require everyone to follow a prescribed list of what is "natural" or "necessary" for them.

New jackets in many (but not all) cases are going to bring more pleasure than pain. Thus the "principle of the classification" (as Torquatus says) explains that "unnatural and unnecessary" can be expected to cost more in pain.

I'd say the classification system was not intended to be a hard and fast rule philosophical rule, but a tool, almost like a price predictor or cost estimator - a way of predicting how much pain to expect from an action so that you can then decide if the pleasure will be worth it. The future isn't certain and we disdain fortune-telling, but that doesn't mean we don't need a practical way of predicting what will happen from pursuing alternative choices.

And as a rule of prediction, it works very well - "nothing could be more useful...." per Torquatus. So it's very productive to use the classification system to predict the costs of your pleasures. But the overriding rule is to seek out more pleasure than pain using the cost estimator, not to use the cost estimator as an end in itself.

So I would also analogize this classification system to "virtue," which is necessary to consider in order to obtain happiness, but which is not the end in itself. Both "virtue" and this classification system can be very destructive if taken out of context and put into the place of the end rather than of the means.

As a tangential comment Eikadistes, I also perceive a tendency in the "fourth leg" argument to conclude that the assignment of a word to a particular thing (the grasping part, i gather) involves a little more steering by nature than I think is consistent with Epicurus.

As I read the discussion of language and civil society in Lucretius, it seems to me that the real stress is on "these developed naturally rather than being given by supernatural gods," rather than "nature leads us to associate certain words with certain things" or "nature leads us to a proper word choice" or "nature leads us to a proper system of government." I see both those as a "trial and error" process in which there are lots of different languages, and lots of different systems of government, that can all be equally consistent with "nature."

I have a lot of respect for some who argue that there's a fourth leg, and clearly Diogenes Laertius says that "the Epicureans generally" (I think is the phrase) embraced the fourth leg. But to the extent that these other Epicureans deviated from Epicurus I think they were mistaken in doing so. The whole thing sounds to me like an improper attempt to reconcile with Stoicism.

I look forward to Don and Bryan and anyone else fluent in Greek commenting on this. But your conclusion Eikadistes I continue to share: There are three legs of the canon, and they can be counted on because they do not involve opinion - i.e., they are never true or false, they just are.

An operation of the mind which involves an opinion that is true or false (as would appear from your cite) cannot properly be thought of as a test of truth. That would be testing one opinion against another opinion.

I suspect that the "fourth leg" position comes about from people knowing that comparing opinion against opinion is an important part of reasoning, and that's absolutely true. But that isn't the way you get back to and test opinions against raw data - you have to have a starting point which is not itself an opinion - you have to have a "yardstick." And opinions are not given to us by nature such that we can consider them to be a baseline yardstick.

Quote

I always have trouble with DeWitt's footnotes since they are in such small text, but it's on page 30 of his book:

For this ambitious program of expansion the school was prepared as no Greek school had ever been or ever would be. Not only was every convert obligated to become a missionary; he was also a colporteur who had available a pamphlet for every need. "Are you bloated with love of praise? There are infallible rites," wrote Horace, "which can restore your health if only you will read a pamphlet three times with open mind," "Send him a pamphlet," cried Cicero in the senate-house, taunting the Epicurean Piso about the ambition of his son·in·law Julius Caesar. Could better evidence be cited to prove that Epicureans were pamphleteers?

Good post Don.

Quote from Don

Maybe Epicureans would be on the street corner handing out leaflets? But where do we point them?

I wonder what the pamphlets that Cicero referred to in his day said at the end to address "Do You Want To Know More?"

No problem Don I figured you were preoccupied. Rolf has raised some good questions so credit to him for helping us look at this with fresh eyes.

Kalosyni's post is a good summary of the practical reasons why you would pursue the course advised by Epicurus.

I also want to add another consideration to my posts above. I would argue that people who focus on understanding the philosophy are naturally going to want to proceed to understand and apply the practice, but people who focus on "practice" are far more likely to never proceed any further, and rather quickly drift away, if they do not put equal or greater focus on the philosophy. I would wager that's the largest explanation for the percentage of those who come through the forum and don't hang around very long.

Also, I see the natural and necessary question as very similar to the "pleasure = absence of pain" question. Both are on their face very easy for someone to think they understand, but if you do not know the philosophic background of both then you're going to apply them superficially and never understand the deeper meaning. I'll never accept that anyone can make sense of "pleasure = absence of pain" without the context of knowing that there are only two feelings, and so the equation is a mathematical equivalency. There's absolutely no way to grasp a definite meaning for "absence of pain" without that background, and that's why the Stoics and Buddhists who pay visits to Epicurus love to talk about the formula superficially but never explain it further.

In the case of "pleasure = absence of pain" there is therefore a pretty quick and direct context which can be explained, and someone set on the right path, pretty easily. You tell them that they are equivalent because there are only two possibilities when you are alive, and that means absence of one means the presence of the other.

In the case of the "natural and necessary desire" formula, I don't think most of us (including me) can easily give a short pithy logical explanation of why - just as "pleasure = absence of pain" doesn't lead to general asceticism and minimalism - the "natural and necessary desire" formula doesn't also lead to general asceticism and minimalism. What Kalosyni and others have give above is a "clinical" reason for the conclusion, but a philosopher is never going to abandon the field of philosophy, and we need the "logical" side too.

Think about PD10 - Epicurus has already said that if the life of a profligate - which presumably embraces all sorts of unnatural and necessary desires - actually brought happiness, we would have no complaint with it. That's an example of embracing the logical conclusions of one's philosophy. Is part of the background that Epicurus has already said that success is the measure of the theory, not any particular tool, so we would never interpret "natural" and "necessary" in an absolute way? Because surely if we were to pursue nothing but unnatural and unnecessary desires, and we were one of those rare success stories, Epicurus would say "I have no complaint with you - you have reached the goal."

So it seems to me we need to think about "What is/are the background premises that explain this saying?" so we can give people the full picture early in their reading.

The best I've come up with is the Torquatus explanation that the whole natural/necessary thing is simply pointing out that exotic pleasures (just as is over-devotion to romance/sex) are difficult or impossible to get without excess pain, while the more ordinary and indeed natural and necessary are generally (not always) easy to get without excess pain.

It's very possible there are other and better ways of explaining it, such as Kalosyni's but for purposes of clarity it needs to be short and hard-hitting, just as is the observation that there are only two feelings.

Remember what Frances Wright has Epicurus say in his debate with Zeno:

‘Tell us not that that is right which admits of evil construction; that that is virtue which leaves an open gate to vice.’ This is the thrust which Zeno now makes at Epicurus; and did it hit, I grant it were a mortal one."

I would say that we should not through lack of logical diligence present the natural and necessary desires formula in a way that leaves an open gate to vice. And I would call excessive frugality/asceticism/minimalism a "vice" - so we shouldn't leave an open door to it.

I think these two statements are important, and I could probably find one from Godfrey and Kalosyni and others to the same effect. There are legitimately several approaches to Epicurus - including at least (1) clinician and another (2) as a "philosopher."

Quote from Don

At the risk of muddying waters, I'm not sure looking for the "logical" reasons behind Epicurus' categorization of desires is as fruitful as it may sound. My perspective veers more toward seeing Epicurus as an observational researcher of the natural world and synthesizing those observations into workable practical applications for real people.

Quote from Titus

I would like to say yes, but this is just a theoretical yes as I consider the classification of desires as a guidance tool for choosing priorities. In this sense, the category of natural and necessary desires is something that has to be of number one priority to us.

Again I think both are valid approaches and they are a large part of what we need to continue to do here at the forum. At the moment I'm thinking that it's important to emphasize both and not leave either unappreciated, similar to how both Menoeceus AND Herodotus are important.

Clearly Epicurus thought enough of the natural and necessary distinction to refer to it in both the letter to Menoeceus and the Principle Doctrines. If one wanted to debate priorities, one side could note that this formula comes before even the detailed discussion of pleasure in the letter to Menoeceus, but on the other hand it comes rather late (29) in the Principal Doctrines.

One could also argue that he who focuses only on the logic misses some of the practical usage, while he who focuses only on the practical uses is powerless against the forces of the world which deny him the practice of pleasure.

I think everyone here at the forum does a good job of keeping both in perspective, but I am equally confident that outside the forum, the elevation of the practical application to the preeminent role is a major problem that needs to be tackled. So I'll admit much of what I write tends to be aimed at preparing arguments for external audiences, or those who aren't familiar with Epicurus and who need to know what to prioritize in their initial reading. But in the end, both the focus on practice and the focus on theory are needed as they depend on each other.