Posts by Cassius

Thank you for posting not only the thoughtful post but because it exposes that the cites supposedly listed in the first post have somehow disappeared! I will work to fix that - thanks!

I think this question has come to my mind in this way because of the quote from Seneca we discussed in the last episode of the podcast as to the definition of "friend" and to the word-splitting game of "mice" and "syllables" and "cheese."

Taking this completely out of context of all our past discussions, it's tempting to equate happiness = pleasure, because both words can be considered to be concepts, and they are concepts that are certainly related. But they can also be considered to be feelings, although the -ness on happiness implies more of a "state" than a discrete sensation.

If this were not a question of some relevance, we probably would not see all the arguments we see which some insisting that one or the other is the real definition of the goal, which the other is a subsidiary concept. We see Epicurus using different words, so we see him use both "happiness" and "pleasure" in varying contexts. But we also see important texts which seem to make a point of considering "pleasure" as the goal, which other texts can be read to point to "happiness."

Seneca is clearly right to be concerned about logical hair-splitting, and it is easy to drop back and say that logical hair-splitting is what the debate between "happiness" (or ataraxia or eudaemonia or whatever) vs pleasure is all about.

But nevertheless there seems to continue to be a sharp debate as to which word is appropriate.

Is the answer to "Happiness? or Pleasure? Why?" simply:

"It doesn't matter - you're just wasting time splitting hairs."

Or for the sake of clarity in talking with people about these issues do we need a concise and clear statement of why two words are being used instead of one?

If so, what is that concise and clear statement?

Yep that is one direction Charles. I think the point of the exercise would be to differentiate between the terms and to be able to articulate when each term is applicable. I doubt that saying "they are the same" is sufficient; something else is needed to explain their relationship.

Don any thoughts as to why you would put the "I am" first? I have to think back to the purpose of the construction in the first place. Is the purpose to establish to our own satisfaction that we really "exist"? Or are we primarily defining what it means to exist?

Also near the end I read a quote that I think supports the idea how nature, rather than logic, is the place to look for ultimate guidance.

From a website I put up some years ago to make Jackson Barwis' work more accessible, here is the quote from "Dialogues on Innate Principles" -

Quote from Jackson Barwis

When we are told that benevolence is pleasing; that malevolence is painful; we are not convinced of these truths by reasoning, nor by forming them into propositions: but by an appeal to the innate internal affections of our souls: and if on such an appeal, we could not feel within the sentiment of benevolence, and the peculiar pleasure attending it; and that of malevolence and its concomitant pain, not all the reasoning in the world could ever make us sensible of them, or enable us to understand their nature.

Dialogue One - Jackson Barwis

Two additional show notes. Here's the first:

1 - Near the end of the episode Joshua closes strong against the misuse of "natural law" by the Stoics and others. Whenever we get to that argument it's always good to hear brother Nietzsche preach to us on that topic:

Beyond Good And Evil

(Gutenberg edition, translated by Helen Zimmern ) Chapter 1, section 9

You desire to LIVE “according to Nature”? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, “living according to Nature,” means actually the same as “living according to life”—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature “according to the Stoa,” and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?… But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to “creation of the world,” the will to the causa prima.

Episode 159 is now available. This week we complete Chapter Seven on the Canon, Reason, and Nature!

This is a joking warning for anyone who attends our zoom sessions in the future. At no fixed time, and no fixed place, someone may ask you without warning:

"Happiness? Or Pleasure? - Why?

Maybe we could reduce it to three words: Happiness? Pleasure? Why? But if so, the tone of voice would need to imply the -or - that would be missing, because the "or" is an important part of making the person think about the answer.

I think those of us who have been here a while will understand why the question arises, what are the implications, and why the answer calls for explanation beyond just "both."

Shall we see if we have any volunteers to help us all formulate the "best" answers? I am sure that there will be many options to choose from depending on the larger context of any conversation where that would come up. But taking it totally alone and out of any context will be stimulating too.

The number one goal ought to be clarity rather than worrying about how many words are needed, but in the end, the most pithy answers will no doubt win the prize of emulation as we go forward. And the reward of hearing your answer used in the future by others ought tobe well worth the entry fee.

So: Happiness or pleasure? - Why? What would Epicurus say?

Quote from Godfrey

"Sum, sentio, cognosco", or something along those lines? The idea here is that we exist, and we work from that basis. No ergo involved. Maybe add "I act" to the end: sum, sentio, cognosco, ago.

Yes I an thinking too possibly Godfrey that Epicurus might not like the "ergo." But I presume at times (lots of them) Epicurus did use the equivalent of "ergo" so the issue is more subtle than I can process right now.

Quote from Don

Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo

Good point that we know that one. So I definitely think "sum" is correct and the issue is what short Latin makes sense to precede it as evidence, plus what "connector" makes sense ( ergo?)

For some reason it occurs to me today that it might lead to some useful observations to consider whether any disagreements among Epicurus and Aristippus arise from physics or epistemology, or from something else. I consider starting at physics and epistemology, on which Epicurus is pretty clear, to be the gold standard for resolving questions about Epicurus's likely meaning when there is any doubt, so I went looking today back at Diogenes Laertius on Aristippus which is here:

Lives of the Eminent Philosophers/Book II - Wikisource, the free online library

Aside from an incredibly interesting collection of quips, the section is largely devoid of anything approaching epistemology or physics. In fact I don't see anything there at all on first glance. Maybe there are other sources that would clarify whether Aristipus believed in gods or life after death.

But passages like this seem to me to be disagreements as to the prudent way to pursue pleasure, not anything that would derive from physics or epistemology:

Quote

88. Particular pleasure is desirable for its own sake, whereas happiness is desirable not for its own sake but for the sake of particular pleasures. That pleasure is the end is proved by the fact that from our youth up we are instinctively attracted to it, and, when we obtain it, seek for nothing more, and shun nothing so much as its opposite, pain. Pleasure is good even if it proceed from the most unseemly conduct, as Hippobotus says in his work On the Sects. For even if the action be irregular, still, at any rate, the resultant pleasure is desirable for its own sake and is good. 89. The removal of pain, however, which is put forward in Epicurus, seems to them not to be pleasure at all, any more than the absence of pleasure is pain. For both pleasure and pain they hold to consist in motion, whereas absence of pleasure like absence of pain is not motion, since painlessness is the condition of one who is, as it were, asleep. They assert that some people may fail to choose pleasure because their minds are perverted; not all mental pleasures and pains, however, are derived from bodily counterparts. For instance, we take disinterested delight in the prosperity of our country which is as real as our delight in our own prosperity. Nor again do they admit that pleasure is derived from the memory or expectation of good, which was a doctrine of Epicurus. 90. For they assert that the movement affecting the mind is exhausted in course of time. Again they hold that pleasure is not derived from sight or from hearing alone. At all events, we listen with pleasure to imitation of mourning, while the reality causes pain. They gave the names of absence of pleasure and absence of pain to the intermediate conditions. However, they insist that bodily pleasures are far better than mental pleasures, and bodily pains far worse than mental pains, and that this is the reason why offenders are punished with the former. For they assumed pain to be more repellent, pleasure more congenial. For these reasons they paid more attention to the body than to the mind. Hence, although pleasure is in itself desirable, yet they hold that the things which are productive of certain pleasures are often of a painful nature, the very opposite of pleasure; so that to accumulate the pleasures which are productive of happiness appears to them a most irksome business.

So the question I am asking would be something like: If there is nothing in Epicurean physics or epistemology that would lead to the conclusion that Aristippus was wrong in general about the pleasure being the ultimate good, then might Epicurus not say to Epicurus "It's up to you in your personal preference to decide which pleasures to value most"?

In other words is the difference between Aristippus and Epicurus on the relative value of bodily vs mental pleasure and short-term vs long-term pleasure merely a difference of personal preference?

If it is an physics or epistemological difference, where is the difference found?

Thinking about this would help I think focus on how much of Epicurus' advice on how to pursue pleasure is generalized "rule of thumb" advice and personal preference, and how much is something deeper that the physics or epistemology would establish on a wider scale.

And in turn that would help us in understanding to what extent minimalism and asceticism is (as some allege) truly an inseparable part of the philosophy as opposed to contextual depending on the person and circumstances.

Nate how close do you think that is to something Epicurus would say? Not knowing the details of what Gassendi was complaining about, I don't really think the issue if any would be "is there an 'I'?" If there is an issue, there might be something along the lines of some logical objection, analogous to not admitting that Metrodorus must be alive or dead tomorrow. Maybe he would have a concern about the "ergo" or maybe the whole basis of the discussion would be questionable (does our thinking or our feeling really answer the question? Don't we still exist even when asleep or unconscious?

But in general I think I could see Epicurus endorsing "sentio, ergo sum" especially in the context of a debate with Descartes.

Quote

Descartes's statement became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to provide a certain foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.

One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking".^[5]

It's interesting that Gassendi, notable fan of Epicurus, is listed there as having an objection. Would be interesting to know what else Gassendi thought about Descartes

You know, even in a shared community (monks in a monastery) there are no doubt degrees of "friendship." You can have all the shared values in the world and still in the end not "click" with someone. So I would think that aspect of friendship would have to be considered in these discussions too.

Just a passing thought this morning. We've discussed several times on the podcast the famous statement by Descartes, and I see that in 2017 I set up a primitive graphic:

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3460/

It hasn't occurred to me to ask:

(1) How closely do we think Epicurus would endorse Jefferson's formulation? and

(2) If we were looking for an Epicurean Latin response to cogito ergo sum, what would be the best formulation of Jefferson's first sentence? (maybe it should be considered whether to use ______ ergo sum vs _______ ergo ___(exist)____

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

Thanks - it is good to know the issues involved with the phrase.

I can see the possibility of "elegance in simplicity" being stretched to have a similar meaning as "limit of frugality" but I do not see Epicurus praising "elegance" elsewhere .

In fact if we were sure the word were elegance I would be inclined to see a negative implication, such as a variation of Lucretius' embroidered blanket, which we have no need of because it does not keep us any warmer than the rough one.

Without context or another example of it I guess we will always have to keep this limit in mind on the translation.

Concerns have been expressed to me that the posts since RE: Welcome ResponsiblyFree! may violate more than just the 'No-politics" rule.

Also implicated are our rules against promoting non-Epicurean philosophies, as well as the possibility that the term "Creative Withdrawal" violates the general position of the forum that Epicurus did not advocate asceticism or "living in a cave."

I think best for the time being that it's best to leave the thread but close it except for admin edits while we take further review steps. This is a good opportunity for us to review forum rules and try to be sure that we apply them evenhandedly.

Those are linked in the statement sent to all new members:

Quote

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.

EDIT 030123: For the same reasons mentioned above I have moved several posts on my wall from RF to this location, where they will all be together. Please remember that the following statements and links are those of Responsibly Free and are not endorsed by me or this forum.

Cassius, I just read your last comment in our thread on my posts inviting all to attend our Tutorial Session 13.Epicurus and Ethics (Creative Withdrawal), to quote:

“The possibility that the term “creative withdrawal” violates the general position of the form that Epicurious did not advocate asceticism or “living in a cave”.”

You are misunderstanding Chapter one “The Refuge Of Philosophy— Epicurus And Friends” from the book “A Harmony Within-Five Who Took Refuge” by William A. Reinsmith, if you interpret this to mean “asceticism or living in a cave”. Reinsmith clearly does not mean anything like that when writing on Epicurus. Please go read it and you will correct this misunderstanding. Hope to see some of you on Fri, Sat, or Sun.

Oh, forgot. Here are the 3 videos we will watch, part or all of, so you can view them ahead to see if they are acceptable:

Here are our videos in the order we will view them:

1.PHILOSOPHY – Epicurus The School of Life. 5:24

2.The Philosopher of Pleasure | EPICURUS Einzelganger 11:11

3.Epicurus and the Good Life The Academy of Ideas. 8:07

ALSO:

Hello Cassius and all Friends of Epicurus, this is Jack Carney in New Zealand, a member of your community who does not visit often and who is a friend of an active member, Martin Huehne.

I present a free, and hopefully, freeing Tutorial, The Philosophy of Responsible Freedom on an online, ongoing basis weekly (Fridays and Saturdays 9PM; and Sundays, 9AM—New Zealand time), which Martin attends. I use videos from the Academy of Ideas and our Session 14 is Epicurus and Ethics

I extend an invitation to all here to join us on any or all of the 3 offerings as I would value having the comments of your community.

Go here for Zoom joining URLs and details:

My email: responsiblyfree@protonmail.com

You do not have to email me to join.

Please pass this invitation on to all members as the more the merrier.

I look forward to your contributions as we enter the Tumbler Of Great Ideas.

“It is good to rub and polish our brain against that of others.” Montaigne

Jack

I see copying this post to a new thread did not indicate that it is new today. Here's a part from the "Court Canons" that seems particularly on point (and it will bump the date of the thread). It seems to me that some or a lot of this makes good sense in construing the works of any philosopher who claims to promote reason and clarity and consistency:

Quote from ResponsiblyFree

I am hoping you can trust your community to maturely self-control to the extent of being able to discuss what writings of Epicurus would support

Yes I think we are able to handle it -- and just to be clear, I personally think that everyone should take a personal interest in and even to a degree engage in contemporary politics, given how much it affects our daily lives. The issue for the forum is mainly practical -- we have a huge job to do to help reconstruct and resurrect the key points about our place in the universe, and issues of politics are so divisive that we set up the forum with the idea - and have continued it over time - that the bigger issues have to come first, and if we get individually divided on modern politics we'll never succeed in dealing with the more "transcendent" issues. There are too few of us as it is to risk division on subjects that aren't absolutely necessary to the understanding of the key doctrines. Understanding them is hard enough -- applying them to politics needs to be more individual if we are to achieve our mission.

I am not sure I can promise to be able to attend these specific meetings but if I can I will and I would encourage anyone here on the forum who is interested to do the same. I had better state the caveat that I have read enough to be comfortable with how you would present Epicurus yourself, but the part of the presentation from a "conservative, christian" viewpoint I couldn't recommend unless someone were specifically interested in pursuing debates about that. But I don't mean that too negatively - it's just a matter of budgeting time. Some of my best thoughts about Epicurus come when I am hearing someone with whom I disagree.

This issue of checking the meaning of a passage, even where text des not appear corrupt, against the wider scope of the philosophy is huge:

For example if someone reads this passage from Menoeceus without any reference to the rest of what Epicurus said, then the entire philosophy is pure minimalism and asceticism:

Quote from Letter to Menoeceus

[128] The right understanding of these facts enables us to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and (the soul’s) freedom from disturbance, since this is the aim of the life of blessedness. For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfill the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure.

Because standing alone this would appear to mean at least these two things:

1. Escape from pain is the prime and overriding directive. You would never choose any course of action that produces any pain at all. ("For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. ")
2. You don't need pleasure at all for its own sake, just to escape pain.

But if someone were to reach those conclusions then they would not only miss the heart of the philosophy, they would in fact stand it on its head.

Epicurus said that words should be clear, but words mean something only in context, and have to use reasonable rules of construction in everything we interpret.

This is a difficulty of language that is just unavoidable, just as waterholic is talking about in a nearby thread as to "friendship." The work can't stop with our choice of the most common usage of a word in a dictionary. I wish it could!

Yep I was just remarking in another thread that we can't hold ourselves to a standard of omniscience, and we just have to do the best we can with what is available.