Posts by Cassius

Welcome @Rubac1985 !

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 further and join one or more of our conversations.

This 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.

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.

Welcome to the forum!

In organizing my Epicurean and other material, I am wondering if people here (especially the professional research librarians ) have any suggestions for computer technology.

My specific question arises today in saving a PDF that covers several important topics. I'd like to "Tag" that PDF with key words so that at a later date in another program I can search by keyword and file all files everywhere related to that topic.

Also, I don't want to get tied into a specific computer operating system that would keep me from moving to another computer and having access to the tags indefinitely.

Anyone know such product?

Does anyone have experience with using Zotero or Mendeley other research assistant software do this?

Quote from Kalosyni

Sometime you might choose to suffer some small harm in the short term if it led to a better long-term outcome.

Yes that's another good cite. Sometimes we might choose to suffer a harm, sometimes we might choose to inflict harm, based on circumstances and our prediction of the total eventual outcome of the action.

The real issue here is whether there is an "absolute rule" of conduct that says "never cause harm" and I think just about every absolute rule suggestion gets answered with "it depends."

And the reason for that is the Epicurean worldview that there is no supernatural god, no absolute good and bad, no ideal forms of conduct, etc.... that apply to all situations at all times. It is definitely possible to generalize and it's good to do so ("Don't walk up to people who resemble Muhammed Ali and hit in the face") but if you forget that it's just a general rule then you're committing the 'virtue' error of thinking that there are absolute rules of conduct that never change.

This question (or the evaluation of the "is it better to suffer harm than to harm?" question) came up in our 20th discussion last night.

Before going further I need to say that I intuitively think that Epicurus would NOT agree with the question/statement. With the usual caveats as to circumstances controlling, it is overbroad and therefore incorrect to think that as a general principle or rule of thumb it is better to suffer harm than to harm. However like many questions in justice (again apart from contextual issues) it's an interesting question to think about. Surely Epicurus would first say that it is better to do neither, but what happens when we find ourselves in a harm situation that we believe to be beyond our control, or "justified"? When we are harmed by someone, is it a safe general rule to say that it is better that we not reply or respond with force or harm of any kind?

We were talking about this in context of whether Epicurus would differ from Buddhism in this regard, and as usual we ran into the issue that Buddhism is hard to pin down on much of anything.

However I should have remembered to bring to the discussion this better-known statement of the issue:

Quote

1 Corinthians 6:7 Context

⁴If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. ⁵I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? ⁶But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. ⁷Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? ⁸Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. ⁹Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ¹⁰Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

With this commentary by Wesley:

Wesley's Notes for 1 Corinthians 6:7

6:7 Indeed there is a fault, that ye quarrel with each other at all, whether ye go to law or no. Why do ye not rather suffer wrong - All men cannot or will not receive this saying. Many aim only at this, I will neither do wrong, nor suffer it. These are honest heathens, but no Christians.

Putting this issue in context of "turning the other cheek" and similar statements in the "New Testament" (this doesn't necessarily track at all with the "Old Testament") I would say it is pretty clear that a CHRISTIAN would answer the question "Is it better to suffer harm than to harm" with a "YES" -- and thus we have passivism etc of the pre-war "Sergeant York" model. Maybe in fact that is really the dominant / orthodox Christian position.

But I don't think it is the Epicurean position, and I would site such things as:

PD06. Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.

PD14. The most unalloyed source of protection from men, which is secured to some extent by a certain force of expulsion, is in fact the immunity which results from a quiet life, and retirement from the world.

PD39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus.

PD40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbors, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and, after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.

Torquatus XVI, Cicero's On Ends Book One: "Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation."

Of course the big issue that arises in taking action that would end in harm to someone else is "justification." But that is where I would see "It is better to suffer harm than to harm" is overbroad -- I think Epicurus would look to the circumstances and evaluate whether "harming" the other person is (burglar, murderer, etc) is "justified" and consider that as part of evaluating whether to take pre-emptive or retributory action or not.

So I think Wesley is actually correct -- there is a significant distinction between a Christian and an Epicurean in this regard.

Thoughts?

Gosh I forgot to mention the Torquatus podcast episodes, which reminds me that if I can forget about them myself I really need to get these organized and repackaged on YouTube. If I were recommending the real "best place to start" that might be the place.

We will cancel this week's Wednesday gathering since we are meeting tonight (Tuesday the 20th). See you next week on September 28!

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-One of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.

At this point in our podcast we have now examined both Lucretius and the major letters of Epicurus, and we will now turn our atttention to one of the other leading advocates of Epicurus in the ancient world: Diogenes of Oinanda. We won't make any effort to go through all the fragments, but we will look at what Diogenes chose to highlight as the key aspects of the philosophy that both he - and the ancient Epicureans as a whole - thought it most important for the world to know. We will use both the translation by Martin Ferguson Smith, as well as the translation by C. W. Chilton, and we highly recommend that you start your review of the inscription at the excellent site devoted to it from Catalonia which you will find linked in the show notes (Enoanda.cat)

Now let's join Martin reading today's text:

Fr. 1 Diogenes the Oinoandian and friend of Athens. Epitome on nature.

Fr. 3 [And I wanted to refute those who accuse natural science of being unable to be of any benefit to us.] In this way, [citizens], even though I am not engaging in public affairs, I say these things through the inscription just as if I were taking action, and in an endeavour to prove that what benefits our nature, namely freedom from disturbance, is identical for one and all. And so, having described the second reason for the inscription, I now go on to mention my mission and to explain its character and nature. Having already reached the sunset of my life (being almost on the verge of departure from the world on account of old age), I wanted, before being overtaken by death, to compose a [fine] anthem [to celebrate the] fullness [of pleasure] and so to help now those who are well-constituted. Now, if only one person or two or three or four or five or six or any larger number you choose, sir, provided that it is not very large, were in a bad predicament, I should address them individually and do all in my power to give them the best advice. But, as I have said before, the majority of people suffer from a common disease, as in a plague, with their false notions about things, and their number is increasing (for in mutual emulation they catch the disease from one another, like sheep) moreover, [it is] right to help [also] generations to come (for they too belong to us, though they are still unborn) and, besides, love of humanity prompts us to aid also the foreigners who come here. Now, since the remedies of the inscription reach a larger number of people, I wished to use this stoa to advertise publicly the [medicines] that bring salvation. These medicines we have put [fully] to the test; for we have dispelled the fears [that grip] us without justification, and, as for pains, those that are groundless we have completely excised, while those that are natural we have reduced to an absolute minimum, making their magnitude minute.

Fr. 2 ... [observing that most people suffer from false notions about things and do not listen to the body] when it brings important and just [accusations] against the soul, alleging that it is unwarrantably mauled and maltreated by the soul and dragged to things which are not necessary (in fact, the wants of the body are small and easy to obtain — and the soul too can live well by sharing in their enjoyment — while those of the soul are both great and difficult to obtain and, besides being of no benefit to our nature, actually involve dangers). So (to reiterate what I was saying) observing that these people are in this predicament, I bewailed their behaviour and wept over the wasting of their lives, and I considered it the responsibility of a good man to give [benevolent] assistance, to the utmost of one's ability, to those of them who are well-constituted. [This] is the first reason [for the inscription]. I declare that the [vain] fear of [death and that] of the [gods grip many] of us, [and that] joy [of real value is generated not by theatres] and [...and] baths [and perfumes] and ointments, [which we] have left to the masses, [but by natural science...]

Episode 141 - The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda (Part One) is now available!

I am biased but I am convinced th podcasts are getting better and better, and the last series on Menoeceus have been the best yet.

In fact all of them since we finished Lucretius are among the best we have done, and if we live long enough I am going to see that we go back through Lucretius a second time.

At this point I would encourage new listeners to start with the episodes for the letters from Epicurus if they have to pick a place to start.

I am going to work on packaging these for YouTube, and I am going to start that process in that order, with either the letter to Herodotus or Menoeceus first.

Quote from Kalosyni

I think that it might be good to consider that happiness depends on a certain level of fulfillment of basic necessities. If you don't have the basics (food, shelter, clothing) then you will have a high level of discomfort in life.

This is absolutely correct. Reading it stated in this way, however, reminds me to say things like "What alternative to Epicurean philosophy would be better for someone who doesn't have the basic necessities of life?" Would it be better for a poor person to start praying to supernatural gods? Would it be better for a poor person to start hoping for a better life in heaven after death? Would it be better for a poor person to start believing that there is an ideal statement of what it means to be "a good man" written in the sky somewhere? Or would it be better for a poor person, just like a rich person, to understand that no matter how far they might be from luxury or even the basics at a particular moment, that it is better to understand how the universe does work, and learn to work within the system of nature, rather than trying to avoid the facts of reality?

I would say that even when he was suffering the most at the end of his life, Epicurus was still providing us the best example of the way to live as an Epicurean in the way he faced his last days.

I think it is important to consider that not ever person who is "happy" and surrounded by pleasures is by any means an Epicurean, nor is a poor person in the midst of great distress prevented from being an extremely proficient Epicurean. I hate to draw on the old biblical analogies but it is similar to the verse about how everyone who calls on the name of Christ is not necessarily a Christian. There are many political and religous opportunists who succeed in surrounding themselves by pleasure and avoiding pain, at least for a while, but that does not in any proper sense make them an Epicurean. That's one reason the name of the philosophy is best known as "Epicureanism" and not "hedonism."

So I would say that it's not actual success in pursing pleasure and avoiding pain that makes one a good Epicurean, but understanding the way the world works and doing our best regardless of our circumstances and regardless of results to pursue life in the right way, consistent with what we believe to be the truth about our place in the universe.

Epicurus was in the middle of intense pain when he died, but that intensity of pain in no way made him less of an Epicurean.

Welcome @Malc !

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 further and join one or more of our conversations.

This 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.

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.

Welcome to the forum!

A lot of effort from many people has gone into producing the Lucetius Today podcast over the years, and we don't want the availability of the show to be tied to one podcasting platform (currently spreaker.com). For that reason we will try to keep them all available at Archive.org, where they can be listened to our downloaded, singly or as a group, at the following page:

The Lucretius Today Podcast : EpicureanFriends.com : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Lucretius Today Podcast, sponsored by EpicureanFriends.com

archive.org

I don't want to monopolize this conversation so I hope some others will comment soon. Having said that however I want to say:

Quote from waterholic

How do I suggest to those significantly less fortunate to be satisfied with whatever is within their reach?

I think that is exactly the right wording to say "reach.". The standard way of saying " be satisfied with what you 'have' does not address those situations where people can and should seek more than they have. That also has been covered in some recent discussions on "desire." Epicurus clearly contemplates some desires for things we do not currently have to be "good" to pursue, so part of the trick is knowing which are reasonable and which are "beyond our reach" (such as immortality) or which will clearly bring more pain to us than pleasure.

We need to grapple more directly with your question in terms of people who are in fact severely disadvantaged, but it's good to get the general picture clear first.

And certainly even those in the worst physical circumstances are not well served by myths about rewards in heaven or ideals with no basis in reality.

Certainly part of the conversation will involve VS63 as a reminder that undershooting ones potential is as much of an error as overshooting, so one step is evaluating what is possible, and other steps will involve the observations from various sources including Lucretius that money does not and cannot buy eternal life or happiness that is essentially higher or different than what is available on a more modest budget.

In the end there are no magic answers, but connecting with reality rather than with dreams seems the most likely way to do our best in dealing with these problems.

Sorry if my message seemed to imply that you need to catch up first -- I just wanted to point out how much attention we pay to the issue because I agree it is very basic.

Part two of my response would be to say that I don't think that there is a single answer that will apply to everyone to the basic question of how much material success to pursue. I think most of us here have real jobs in the real world and/or have some other responsible means of support that allows us to tune our standard of living to something that we find sustainable. I think most of us see that kind of goal as the right target - a standard of living that allows us to pursue what we want to pursue, without tying us down with "golden handcuffs" - a phrase I used in the most recent podcast.

So there 's a lot more to say but it seemed first and foremost a good idea to respond to the standard perception of the problem - which is that Epicurus was really an ascetic living always on bread and water and essentially spending his life in a cave.

There are indeed some people who advocate that position, but that is not the position you will find that most of us here believe to be accurate to Epicurus or desirable.

My first comment Waterholic is that you are in tune with what I think the majority of us on this forum see as the best interpretation of Epicurus. I'll refer several times to "us" collectively, and I don't want that to be taken too literally, but you should see the same tone written clearly in our documentation setting out the nature and purpose of the website and the views of Epicurus that are behind it.

The call to not live beyond one's means is not a call to asceticism, and I agree completely that working with and assisting our close friends is a significant part of the equation for living happily. I am not as conversant with the details of some of the Philodemus material (on property management) as I would like to be, but what I know about it is consistent with as you describe it "reconciling" the philosophy to the real world.

But I would say that the issue is not really "reconciling" Epicurus with the demands of the real world. I think Epicurus has always been in exactly the right place on these issues, and it is rather the ascetic interpreters of Epicurus who have had him wrong from the beginning.

Once again we're needing to take sides on whether the Romans were "bad Epicureans" (I strongly believe they were NOT bad Epicureans) but you can see in the lifestyles of the known Epicureans of that period that they lived normal and even well-to-do lives when circumstances allowed it. It's not the Romans who misinterpreted Epicurus, it is those who argue that Epicurus said we must only pursue what is absolutely necessary in life.

This has been a theme of many of our recent discussion and also recent episodes of the Lucretius Today podcast. Since you are new to the group I bet you will find reading and listening to some of these recent discussions helpful in showing that "we" are (I think) largely in agreement with you concern. But the concern is not a contradiction in Epicurean philosophy, it's rather in 2000 years of non-Epicurean and anti-Epicurean propaganda. The crowning refutation of which, I think you are perceptive in observing, was Epicurus' own will and the information it gives us about his property at death. Either Epicurus was a supreme hypocrite, preaching minimalism while living large, or SOMEONE is feeding the world the wrong interpretation of Epicurean philosophy. And as you read more on the website it should soon become clear that "we" don't consider Epicurus to have been a supreme hypocrite.

Episode 140 - The Letter to Menoeceus 07 - Completion of the Letter - is now available!

Editing is coming along but I need to post this before I forget. In the episode Joshua brings up several references to Cassius and Brutus discussing "fate" in "Julius Caesar." I note in editing that when we dsicussed the second quote, about tides in the affairs of men, I don't think we quite read all that is relevant. Here's the full quote (which was from Brutus and wouldn't be understood the same way by Epicurus. The full quote really hits hard on the "fate" aspect:

Brutus:

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

Which contrasts with Cassius saying:

Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

No apologies at all needed! I was very glad to see you took the initiative to post first. Usually I find many people hold back until we specifically tag them in a welcome post before they comment, so your post showed very welcome initiative!

I think I speak for most here in saying that there is nothing to basic or too complicated in the philosophy of Epicurus that we don't find interesting to discuss, so please do not hesitate on whatever topics are of interest to you

Quote from Don

When it comes to this topic of discussion of "ethical" behavior, it's more about justice than pleasure/pain.

Yes I agree. What Kalosyni is raising is at least about justice as described in the last ten PDs as anything else

Quote from Kalosyni

Now we can go a step further and apply a kind of heuristic which is that we will more quickly guess (or sense) whether or not we are causing pain to someone, and then be sure to avoid any behavior that might cause pain.

Quote from Kalosyni

I just think that this ethical understanding needs to be clear. Any thoughts Cassius?

Yes I do have a thought. In general I think your formulation goes in the right direction, but "be sure to avoid any behavior which might cause pain" can probably be more accurately worded. That's because:

Quote from Letter to Menoeceus

and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.

It's a constant temptation to reduce the theory down to "pursue pleasure and avoid pain" but that's too simplistic. Yes it is true but mainly in the "ultimate outcome" rather than the immediate moment, and sometimes we will choose pain (for ourselves or for others) if prudence tells us that is the course most likely to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in the end.

And as a second point, I think we have to remember that we aren't just talking about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain in the abstract, like there is some kind of flow of pleasure units and pain units in the universe as a whole. The pain and pleasure we are talking about is what we feel ourselves, which includes what we feel through our friends or anyone else we choose to empathize with, not the whole universe of living beings at large.

Quote from Torquatus from Cicero's On Ends Book One

Yet nevertheless some men indulge without limit their avarice, ambition and love of power, lust, gluttony and those other desires, which ill-gotten gains can never diminish but rather must inflame the more; inasmuch that they appear proper subjects for restraint rather than for reformation.

Of course when we do inflict pain on someone to restrain them, we can expect them to react back against us, so we have to always consider whether we are prepared for that before we act.

So I think the larger point is that just like we have to be on guard and not pursue every choice that we think will lead to pleasure, we have to be on guard and not avoid every choice that we think will lead to pain. It's the ultimate outcomes that we are looking to steer by, and even when we say it like that, it is still a very subjective thing - there's no absolute way to measure feelings that applies to all situations.

That's the way it seems to me.

Yes this is the right forum Waterholic but I did move you into a thread of your own just like we greet all other registrants. This welcome point should be first in the thread rather than second, but that's one of those frustrations of the modern world -- we do the best we can and the software doesn't allow rearranging the posting times

Thanks for dropping by and we look forward to hearing more from you!