Posts by Cassius

Quote from Godfrey

That's pretty much the definition of what happens to one's feelings when one tries to dull the pain in one's life, isn't it? When you minimize your pain, over time, your pleasure goes with it.

Gosh -- how many times have I heard people who are under treatment for various disorders complain that seeking relief through medication that dulls the mind or the senses is not worth it to them? I feel sure they don't mind the dulling of the pain, but when the dullness also makes it impossible to experience joy, that's the rub. I feel the same way many times when I take too many antihistamines!

This exchange points out how important it is to emphasize that Epicurus was not about dulling the senses or emotions in general (sort of like the Stoics get accused of, whether rightly or wrongly) but instead increasing the one while decreasing the other.

So that's an important point in regard to dulling the senses from an overall perspective.

For purposes of debating the finer point, though, I suspect a different set of people, who would not themselves endorse dulling *all* the senses, would nevertheless be attracted by the idea of trading "joy" for "tranquility" because they have a definition of tranquility that to them does not imply dullness. So that's a somewhat different point. I'd like *both,* but if forced to choose between the two as part of some logic game, I would be more inclined to choose "joy" at the expense of "tranqulity."

So articulating how joy and tranquility fit together is an important part of articulating the Epicurean perspective, which of course reminds me of that passage from Torquatus:

[40] XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance. [41] When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better?

or from Cicero:

Cicero, In Defense of Publius Sestius 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures. But those who said that men should aim at an honorable position, should consult the public interest, should think of duty throughout life not of self-interest, should face danger for their country, receive wounds, welcome death – these he called visionaries and madmen.” Note: Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.

Almost FOUR years later and I still haven't read this article in detail (that I can recall). However today I see (as Academia sends it to me for the 100th time) that it does have a very interesting first page showing divisions of philosophers and commenting how Democritus an Epicurus are not at all always in the same camp, and how Sextus apparently places Epicurus in the same camp as the Stoics and Plato on this point.

Quote from Nate

Symmetresis" is the word I prefer to use in the place of "hedonic calculus."

That post cries out for explanation, Nate!

I am sympathetic too that neither word is one I like to use - Hedonism is too foreign-sounding to me, and "calculus" is especially a problem - it rings of just the kind of logic or mathematics that Epicurus warned against. It also implies a Benthamite-sounding view that pleasure and pain are easily measured and quantified and can be evaluated by logical units.

I know not everyone agrees, but to me "Hedonic calculus" is a label that rings of just the same kind of stoic-perspective reinterpretation of Epicurus that can be such a misleading problem. I use it sometimes in certain settings but I don't think it is the best way to approach non specialists.

Yes I think what Pacatus is emphasizing and is in the back of my mind is that we have to consider that there are many kinds of pleasures and pains, and the substitution of (1) certain types of pleasures that are less significant to us but that bring no pain, in place of (2) other pleasures that are greater but that also entail pain, would not be a good bargain.

This is a very good conversation for focusing on how the many types of pleasures and pains are not interchangeable. You could ask something similar: Would a pill that brings you "tranquility" at the cost of never experiencing "joy" be worth it?

I would certainly answer that "No."

Given that this passage is in Homer we can be almost certain that Epicurus was asked and addressed exactly this question you are asking.

I read from the beginning of the chapter and it reminds me how little I know of Homer. But I can see that perhaps the drug in that case must be evaluated in full as one of forgetfulness of past events that bring sorrow in remembering them, and from that perspective I think it is a very difficult and hazardous question as to whether forgetfulness of things past would be a wise choice for present or future happiness.

Possibly this points up the hazard of the unmentioned details that are inherent in all pleasure-machine hypotheticals. We are human and through experiments in which we are essentially not human are not likely to be productive.

That's my first impression.

looks like it is here:

HOMER, ODYSSEY BOOK 4 - Theoi Classical Texts Library

I had never heard of that passage. Is there any more context or discussion about it?

March 29, 2023

So, the one who exhorts, on the one hand, for the one who is young to live nobly; and, on the other hand, the one who is old to come to an end nobly is a good-hearted simpleton not only because life is to be welcomed but also because the practice of living well, nobly, and beautifully and the practice of dying well, nobly, and beautifully are the same. But far worse is the one who says, on the one hand, it is well not to be born; or, on the other hand, "failing this, to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible." On the one hand, if what they say is persuasive, how does one not depart from life? For this is readily at hand, if indeed one was to resolve oneself steadfastly to this. If, on the other hand, this is in jest, one is foolish for making fun of things which do not admit of this. Epicurus to Menoeceus Translation by Don Boozer.

Seems to me you're right. In the distant past I read some into the Essenes in regard to the Dead Sea scrolls and so forth. I don't recall whether the Essenes were into life after death or against it (was that the Sadducees?) but that would seem to be another potential point of crossover influence.

And of course I personally really don't buy into the argument that the Epicureans were significantly into "monastic" style living, so I don't agree with DeWitt's point for that reason too. I certainly don't see evidence of that in the Romans, in part because I don't see libraries as necessarily associated with monastic lifestyle, and I think if the Roman Epicureans were into that we'd see more evidence of it from Cicero or Atticus or Lucretius or any number of sources. I like to surround myself to the extent possible with friends, but that's just common sense, and doesn't make me dedicated to a monastic lifestyle.

Good point. Sometimes I think what is going on is clearly manipulation from the outside, and that has to be seen through to get past it and defeat it.

But other times we do it to ourselves based on "mood" or "frame of mind" or "attitude" or something like that.

And concern about attitude reminds me of this point:

And in regard to habit, this Vatican Saying:

VS46. Let us utterly drive from us our bad habits, as if they were evil men who have long done us great harm.

Wecome @Sheldon !

Note: In order to minimize spam registrations, all new registrants must respond in this thread to this welcome message within 72 hours of its posting, or their account is subject to deletion. All that is required is a "Hello!" but of course we hope you will introduce yourself -- tell us a little about yourself and what prompted your interest in Epicureanism -- and/or post a question.

This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
3. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
4. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
5. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
6. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
7. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
8. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
9. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
10. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
11. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)
12. "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially the section on katastematic and kinetic pleasure which explains why ultimately this distinction was not of great significance to Epicurus.

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read. Feel free to join in on one or more of our conversation threads under various topics found throughout the forum, where you can to ask questions or to add in any of your insights as you study the Epicurean philosophy.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

(If you have any questions regarding the usage of the forum or finding info, please post any questions in this thread).

Welcome to the forum!

Episode 167 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we complete Chapter 9 of the DeWitt Book with a discussion of issues involving motion.

Quote from Joshua

what we emphasize in life colors our perception of what life amounts to while we live it.

That's a good one joshua, and reminds me of the "glass half full or half empty' analogy, but I can't think of a good dramatization of that one.

Quote from Don

For the record, I agree.

And that's a huge point. For the record also, I would like to think that David Sedley agrees too, but I am sorry that he and a significant number of other commentators seem to think that Epicurus would not and may statements implying or stating otherwise.

That's probably a litmus test by which I would personally evaluate whether I wanted someone as my life coach. If the advisor ultimately sees life as worth living due to the pleasure we can gain from it, then all the details about how to proceed are reconcilable. If they ultimately equivocate (or even state explicitly that escape from pain is their number one goal), then I would at least say that they aren't a very good teacher of Epicurus.

Quote from Don

Epicurus could say each person chooses their own pleasure, but he was not above saying that this or that choice would not end well and guiding someone to make a "better" choice.

I agree with that - it's kind of like the comments Emily Austin makes about the differences in being a philosopher vs a "life coach." Life coaches better have a philosophy or they won't be making much sense with their advice. But even the best life coaches are dependent on what their students really want to do. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink." No matter how much we think that the choice for the other person is "better," it's ultimately up to them what they choose to do.

And it's also interesting to think that this relates to the other issue that Epicurus was so strong on - determinism. There would be nothing so dispiriting and discouraging than to give in to the idea that we *don't* have the choice about what to do with our lives.

But even as we debate this practical angle, the ultimate philosophical point remains and I think we all agree on it -- that in the end life is a balance between pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, but while we sometimes choose pain in order to pursue pleasure, we never set "avoiding pain" as the primary overriding purpose of life.

So that's the reason that this thread is important: as a philosophic matter the starting point is the overall focus of life, and what gives it whatever enjoyment and meaning it has, is "pleasure" and not "avoiding pain."

Yep we will have to disagree on that. I would say that Epicurus as a philosopher gives us the analysis and the formula but not a mandate for the application. It's all a matter of what happens to us if we choose one course versus another, and there is no magic formula by which we can say that one persons view of pleasure is absolutely preferable over another person's view of pleasure. We're all entitled to our own choices, and we reap the rewards or pay the price accordingly.

Edit: The real issue to me would revolve around the details of Evel Knievel which takes us into the issue of how hard it is (and how without standing we are) to judge the decisions of other people. We can put ourselves in their position mentally, and we can talk about general rules of how to analyze things, but to me it is a bright line that I think we should hesitate to cross to pass sweeping judgments since we are not in the shoes of the people involved. If it were easy, or if there were any "absolute" standard, by which we could do that, then we'd have another situation, but I don't think life works like that, and I suspect that is why Epicurus himself did not generally (or ever?) make sweeping statements about precise things to do and not to do.

We can conceptually say "Follow Pleasure" and "Avoid Pain" but it seems to me that the precise steps to attain that are going to be contextual, and I don't see how it can be any other way in a universe structured without central authority or absolute moral rules.

I did not realize that Evel Knievelsurvived all his jumps and lived to die of diabetes and pulmonary fibrosis at age 69. So he apparently was prudently planning his jumps and thought it to be worthwhile and did not have a death wish at all.

Now I wouldn't hold him up as a paragon of philosophy because his statements apparently tend toward a view that people will interpret as Stoic:

But just as many people observe, including I think Emily Austin in her articles on Stoicism, someone who thinks that "keeping your word" is a prime value is virtually indistinguishable in reality from "I get great pleasure from knowing that I keep my word."

So I could see Evel Knievel as entirely Epicurean.

Especially since he apparently started framing things in terms of Christianity only at the end of his life:

Not all of us are going to rank the pleasures of risk and danger as highly as Knievel did, but since there is no absolute standard of how you *should* rank your pleasures, I would say Epicurus would have no issue with Knievel's choices, at least on an abstract level.

Quote from Kalosyni

And that means that Epicureans are not going to be daredevils like Evel Knievel. So the sensory pleasure of flying through the air and the "vain" desire to be able to say you successfully jumped a wide ravine will be set aside, and we would choose to pursue wiser pleasures.

I think the example of Evel Knievel is a good one but the conclusion that "Epicureans are not going to be daredevils like Evel Knievel is much too broad. We'd have to drill down into Evel Knievel and see if he had a death wish, or whether he rationally thought that he could make his jumps and succeed, because if he did, then he calculated that the pleasure he gained from the experience was worth the risk, and in my view that is *exactly* the correct calculus under the Epicurean scheme.

We also have the example of our departed friend whose picture we feature on the front page of the forum, who died in an ultralight crash. No doubt he thought that the pleasure he gained from ultralight flying was worth the risk, and so that would similarly be a choice very compatible with Epicureanism.

It's in fact the "I'll never take any risk that might bring pain" attitude that I think is so damaging and in fact UN-Epicurean.

More on the story of Amrinder Singh: