Posts by Cassius

This eternal return from Nietzsche is very deep and we'd have to go into it pretty far to do it justice. I don't profess to understand it all myself. But two points to consider is that there is an aspect of the atoms coming back together into the same form listed in Lucretius, and rather than being dark Nietzsche was advocating the view as an antidote to nihilism, which is far darker. Maybe we already have a thread on this, or need one, but I don't know that we currently have any Nietzsche aficionados competent to deal with it.

Quote from reneliza

I wonder if the “unnatural” desires are meant to be things that don’t bring you pleasure even when they are satisfied, or those that can never be met, but instead expand further and further as you get closer (like desire for wealth or fame that only grows as you reach the previous goals you’d set)

That leads me back to this point:

Quote from Don

The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life.

To some extent the observations that food water shelter etc are needed for life is so obvious that it doesn't seem to me to be useful for much more than what Epicurus says -- touchstones for contemplation of the issues. Those minimal levels stand at one end of the spectrum, while "master of the world" is at the other. No one should seriously suggest that either of those extremes is appropriate, but they serve the purpose of helping organize the presentation. To that extent they are useful, but to the extent that "minimalism" has assumed a life of its own in the modern world, we have to be careful that neither extreme is held up to be the ultimate goal in itself. Very few people that I am aware of seriously attempt to implement either extreme, but from reading some commentaries one would get the idea everyone who drinks anything but water is a "bad Epicurean."

Quote from Godfrey

Then, when our basic needs are met and we are free from unnatural desires, we can embrace the natural and unnecessary desires as we like, and experience all variety of pleasures.

Godfrey from this formulation I infer you are eliminating all "unnatural" desires completely. How did you define or give examples for that category?

Pacatus I took the liberty of putting a subtitle in the Thread title to make it more explanatory of the topic. Feel free to adjust that as you think appropriate, but it's a good thread so I wanted to make it more findable for the future.

I understand and agree how that applies to you yourself.

But in the interest of generalizing this to a philosophical level that gives a guideline to express to others generally, how does that work at a general level?

I would distill all of what you wrote down to "In my case, building a rocket to fly to the moon would not lead to a favorable pleasure/pain balance, so that's not something I would choose to do."

But if we are looking for general statements to discuss philosophically, the unstated next sentence would be: "But if that's something that appeals to you and you believe after strong consideration that it would be worth it to you, then a philosophy based on Nature tells you to go ahead."

Which of course harks back to the general rule is that everyone is given by nature pleasure and pain to use to judge what to choose and what to avoid.

Now what I am reading between the lines is that in addition to that, you are suggesting that choices / desires can be considered as to whether they are natural or necessary. As Torquatus explains in On Ends, the principle of the classification is that the natural and necessary are easy to get, the others are not so easy. That observation does not serve as a limit but as a caution based on experience that if you choose the "unnecessary and unnatural" you can expect the cost in pain to be higher. However we often choose pain in order to produce a greater pleasure, so that's just a caution to be aware of, not a general limit or a general bar to the activity at all unless you choose to make it so.

I think that's a fairly complete overview of Epicurus' analysis, which sweepingly includes all kinds of pleasures and all kinds of pains into the calculation.

How would you introduce a "limitation of desires" analysis into that? I do think it can be done, but I don't think we've been clear about "how" yet at the generalized level.

The first suggestion I would make is something that I try to do myself and sometimes can't avoid even when I forget - remembering that death is going to come all too soon and that will be my last chance for pleasure.

Now I can see that some people would say that would add to anxiety, but I think this is one of the parts of Epcurus (of course he always does this) embraces truth so as to make the most out of life.

I take more comfort in knowing that my time is limited, and that I know I better make the best of it, than I do in thinking I would love longer under an illusion.

Plus that keeps the day to day politics in perspective. Whatever we are facing right now pales in comparison to what most of humanity has had to face in the past, especially when we keep in mind there is no fate and whatever game we are following is not really over for good at least til the world ends.

Of course iny case too I choose to do us my energies on the longer game of what I think is at or near the root cause of most problem - false religions and philosophies. If we are really convinced that Epicurus was right then I think that produces a worldview that makes day to day politics more livable. Most of the people caught up in it don't know or care about the background issues, and they are just pawns in the larger game. Kind of like the opening of book two in Lucretius we can take comfort that for all our troubles we at least have a significant part of the bigger problem figured out.

For example, in generally considering that question under a pleasure pain framework, I would simply ask: What is your best estimate of all the expected pleasures and pains to come from that project? Will it be worth it to you in the form of pleasure over pain? If so, go ahead!

How would your suggestion as to separating out the "desire" part of it apply?

Godfrey as a means of furthering the discussion, can we take the analysis and direction so far and apply it to a specific - such as:

How would you apply what you have so far to the question

"Should I (or anyone else) want to build a rocket and fly to the moon?"

Pacatus I think it is a completely appropriate post, and it sounds like you and I are quite alike.

I work in a field that requires me to stay up on the latest news and developments in society, and I too spend a lot of time monitoring (but not necessarily engaging with) people talking about current events.

And I don't have any problem reconciling that with Epicurus -- he too was very aware of what was going on in the world.

Now in this post I am not making many good suggestions, but I will come back. I just want to first stake out the position that I am convinced that an Epicurean does want to know what is going on around him, at the very least to be able to meet the threats that naturally come our way.

Yes Reneliza what is the use of philosophy unless it bring happiness? Some guidelines can be reached that apply in many situations, but it is the exceptions that prove the rule and there is no absolute rule that applies to everyone. I think that's the ultimate power of Epicurean philosophy and it is what "scares" some people away from it. We have conducted a very useful discussion here of this topic because I think we all share that same framework, but step far outside of the confines of this friendly garden and the condemnation will be quick and the punishment severe.

That's why we need to be sure to keep our eyes on the ultimate ball - that while we clarify deeper issues for ourselves we don't lose sight of the challenges that confront most all of us long before we get to the discussion of "types" of pleasure.

We each have to play the cards we are given.

Charles happy birthday and I hope you will soon have more time to spend with us!

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

Thank you for joining this discussion Pacatus and in case it isn't obvious we welcome all others here to comment as well.

Godfrey I can't get rid yet of a nagging concern that evaluating desire on its own separate from pleasure is going to lead to problems of its own, but I am more than happy to suspend that concern while this path is developing. With that caveat I would say yes you are right in this last point.

Henry VI, Part 2 Act 4:

DICK. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

JACK CADE. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment, that parchment, being scribbl'd o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings; but I say 't is the bee's wax, for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.

Quote from Don

So, katastematic pleasure is mentioned but the distinction itself between katastematic and kinetic was not important enough to mention.

When one fills a glass with water, the glass is full of water without any air, and we no longer leave room for the people of sour disposition to say that it is "half-empty." If we want to squash the people of sour disposition fully (which we may need to do if their name is Plato) then we might usefully call the quality of being full "the state of zero-emptiness."

But I doubt if there is much call in life, short of dealing with obstinate manipulators like Plato, to dwell on terms like "zero-emptiness." Nonstandard terms tend to confuse regular common-sense people. And for good reason - why would people of good faith talk in riddles? The answer to that is that people like Plato are not acting in good faith, and they love word games as a way to deceive the man-on-the-street.

Sometimes we have to fence with Platonists and it is necessary to use nonstandard words to show how pleasure can be continuous.

But the price of playing footsie with Plato is you get quoted talking abstractly, and that can be taken out of context and used against you by tricky lawyers like Cicero.

Maybe Shakespeare had the best advice for how to deal with lawyers!

At any rate, part of our legacy now for those who are students of Epicurus is to become familiar with the terms of this debate. From 50 BC on to today it has become necessary to learn to see Cicero's challenge can not only be defused, but turned around and used as a method of explaining how Epicurus meant what he said and said what he meant when he identified "Pleasure" as the guide and goal of life.

I keep forgetting to mention this, but I think the same answer here is the proper framework by which to understand the otherwise perplexing hypothetical of the statue of Chryssipus mentioned by Torquatus. We've got to be quick footed enough to know that something that can be both an excellent answer to Chryssipus but also a deadly mistake if mishandled in responding to Cicero. I place no blame on Torquatus but entirely on Cicero - had Cicero let him, Torquatus could have explained all this probably much along the lines we are doing now, and saved the world 2000 years of misunderstanding.

But that misunderstanding was exactly what Cicero was trying to accomplish.

Well so as not to leave this question up in the air for too long without giving my answer, I personally think the answer lies in the obvious as to pleasure and pain. The goal of life is to live as nearly as possible along the pattern described by Torquatus (which is so close to the letter to Menoeceus that I see no reason to doubt it's reliability):

"Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement."

Advanced beings higher than ourselves may be able to actualize a life such as this combined with complete freedom from pain, but we as humans cannot. Therefore it is up to us to as best we can approach the goal at the cost of experiencing some pains. The precise mix of pleasures and pains open go us is contextual, and our appetites for pleasure and tolerance for pain are individual. In a universe without fate or supernatural gods or absolute perspectives or right and wrong, we each are left by Nature to pursue pleasure and avoid pain on such terms as we ourselves decide to be appropriate. At the end of the road our lives are over, and if we have a chance to reflect on our past before we die, we are going to want to think that we did the best we could under our own circumstances to have exerted all our mental and physical energies to have lived as well as possible.

It's interesting to note that in that summary there is no distinction between kinetic and katastematic - just the positive presence of numerous and vivid pleasures of every type of both body and mind. Nor is there any drawing out in detail of a description of absence of pain or absence of disturbance - other than the obvious role that these can be used to describe a life that is full of experiencing normal pleasures of all kinds without interruption. Nor is there any discussion of natural and necessary or limitations of desires - these are practical tools that we as humans must come up with and apply intelligently to our circumstances, but they aren't part of the philosophic definition of the ultimate goal. They are contextual and will differ in application from person to person and place to place and time to time.

Right, we do limit desires, even the desire for life to accommodate us to our mortality.

The issue I think is how to articulate how much of anything to pursue.

The answer cannot be "no more than causes any pain" because we sometimes do chose pain as Epicurus said, for greater pleasure, and we seek not that which is longest but the most pleasant.

The great problem is that much Epicurean discussion makes it sound like Epicurus was a modern minimalist, whereas "the least in every aspect" is not necessarily or even likely to result in the greatest pleasure (UNLESS you get tripped up on the "go live in a cave" outlook on the things we have been discussing).

The trick is to give full effect to VS63 in a way that applies generally as a philosophic guide.

Thank you for starting this thread Godfrey! I think there's a lot of useful thought there and I agree with your direction.

Quote from Godfrey

But what about the limit of desires? Reading the PDs and the Letter to Menoikeus, it becomes clear that desires can be unlimited, which differentiates them from both pleasure and pain. This is why the categories of desires are important to understand. These categories are a tool to help us to impose our own limits on our desires, which have no natural limit other than the "natural and necessary" desires. This then becomes one of the key methods to increase pleasure and reduce pain.

As Joshua might say, however, having identified that at least some desires can be unlimited, and that a limit has to be imposed upon them, we are, "only at the beginning" of the analysis.

Always referencing VS63 that a life that is too frugal can be just as mistaken as a life that is too extravagant, the knowledge that we need to impose a limit on some desires only gets us started. Where is that limit? How do we determine where it is? Is it possible that there are any absolute rules on limiting desires, or is it all contextual? There are probably many other questions about the application of the question.

So once we all agree, as I presume we do, that at least some desires are limitless and it will produce a more pleasurable life if we self-impose our own limit, how do we go about doing that without falling into the trap of thinking that the answer as to how much to limit is simply "limit all desires as much as possible?"

Because that "limit all desires as much as possible, and don't even think about pursuing anything that is not absolutely natural and necessary" is the clear message I get from modern writers. I don't get that from the full body of Epicurus' work at all, but focusing on "limit all desires as much as possible, and don't even think about pursuing anything that is not absolutely natural and necessary" is an excellent way to limit enthusiasm for Epicurus to Buddhists and Stoics, two groups that I would maintain are polar opposites of Epicurus.

Quote from Don

On perceived errors in Wikipedia: We can all be Wikipedia editors and contribute content, External links, and references to all relevant articles. Nothing stopping us but time and inertia (two powerful forces btw)

I realize that I refer to the Wikipedia situation regularly, but that's really a proxy for "the great majority of the acadermic and non-academic world that has written about Epicurus in the 20th/21st century," with few exceptions, notably including DeWitt, which DeWitt himself complained about in his intro to his book.

I am in pretty much agreement with everything Don wrote, as I expected I would be. The elephant in the room remains the "perspective" issue in which the commentators on Epicurus have elevated "ataraxia" (not so much aponia) as the goal of life, and they have either explicitly or implicitly equated that which a state of contemplative satisfaction which could equally be attained in essentially a very similar way by an oyster or by a healthy adult in his or her prime - i.e.: by reducing desires to an absolute minimum to sustain life, and to cultivate pleasures only as they are absolutely natural and necessary and require zero or an absolute minimum of pain to achieve.

It seems to me that Cicero's major criticism of Epicurean philosophy as not acceptable for the camp or the senate involved the presumption that Epicureans would pursue sensual pleasure and shun the required activities that are necessary to maintain a healthy and safe community.

Cicero brought out the apparent problems with holding "absence of pain" to be the highest goal, but presumably because he did not see many Epicureans of his time withdrawing from society to live in caves on bread and water, he didn't consider the logical conclusion of "absence of pain" to be worth spending much time combatting.

Once the Epicureans faded (or were driven) completely from the world stage, it hasn't been so necessary in recent centuries for the Academic majority to contend with people using Epicurean philosophy to justify actions about which the (the Academic majority) disapproved. In the modern world very few people take Epicurus seriously on his full "worldview" and the only point of interest for the majority is making sure that Epicurean views are held down into the mainstream of "humanist" philosophers, all of whom agree that there is a single "good" to which we need to aspire. And that has proven very easy to do by elevating "ataraxia" rather than "pleasure" to the central focus of Epicurean discussion. If you demote pleasure to an inconvenient sideline, and hold up an untranslated word of uncertain meaning as a proxy for the same kind of detachment and apathy which Stoicism and other philosophies praise, then Epicurus remains a footnote to history forever.

The art of taking things out of context and elevating them to a role that they were never intended to assume is really at the heart of a lot of tactical "lawyerly" argument, so it isn't a surprise that Cicero would use the tactic to skewer Epicurus in the same way he was skewering corrupt Senators who plundered their assigned provinces or who aspired to take over the Roman republic.

And it's not surprising that the Academic world is comfortable making Epicurean "absence of pain" into a twin sister of Stoic apathy and detachment.

These issues aren't going to be solved by editing Wikipedia entries, even though that effort would be worthwhile. I personally doubt its success in doing anything more than getting a footnote that the controversy exists, since the "modern consensus" is probably 90% plus of the people who write about Epicurus. And I am not sure the number is not more like 99%.

And of course there are lots of quotes from Epicurus that we shouldn't measure our success by whether "the crowd" agrees with us or not. The best we can do is be sure we study the points and articulate them clearly when we have the chance, like we're doing in this thread, and then follow the implications of our research to put them into presentation form so we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time these issues come up.