Posts by Cassius

Quote from Rolf

I’m imagining someone laying down on a sun lounger, hands behind their head, saying “it doesn’t get better than this”.

I think that is *one* possible interpretation, certainly. But I'd push back on this example simply because it seems to be the default example that everyone jumps to suggest -- that the best experience in life is "taking it easy" and I don't think that is a healthy attitude. Aren't you in your 20's? At that age you have your whole life ahead of you, and would normally be making plans for what you want to "do" with your life, rather than the way you will "relax" during those times you are resting. I'm not trying to be too specific but I presume you know what I mean. "Resting" at the end of a journey is certainly a good thing, but so is the journey itself. Epicurean circles which perpetuate the notion that "rest" is the goal of life are playing right into the hands of CIcero and Plutarch and anyone else who for reasons of their own want to pigenohole Epicureans into a "wallflower" category.

Quote from Rolf

And this is why simply absence of thirst/hunger etc. isn’t enough to definitively say someone has reached the limit of pleasure. Am I on the right track?

That's the way I see it. Just like in Plutarch's examples it make no sense to eat or drink a little just to the point of getting rid of thirst and hunger, and then sit comatose until the desires for food and drink come back again. An Epicurean wouldn't live to eat (or drink) any more than to pursue any other "virtue" - the purpose of eating and drinking is to keep your body healthy so that you can then do more with it. Unless, that is, a particular person wants to admit, "Yes, I think the life of a cow would be lovely, and I'd be more than happy to graze in the fields all day staring at the ground."

Again, I am not knocking the pleasures of eating and drinking. I am knocking the idea that Epicurus held that these are more important to life than the other pleasures that we pursue after we eat and drink our fill. These "other pleasures" of mind and body are the real battleground in the argument.

Yes you "can" compete with gods for at last a time with only bread and water. But is that really the way you want to confine yourself to doing it?

Quote from Rolf

As for Chrysippus’ hand: How can it be said that the hand had reached the limit of pleasure if a hand massage would’ve been even more intensely pleasurable than the healthy resting state?

The answer is the contrast between "limit" and "intensity." Those are not the same thing. We're defining the limit of pleasure as 100% pleasure - pure pleasure - the state of experience when there is no pain mixed in. That observation tells you nothing about the duration, intensity, or parts of the body affected by the particular pleasures you are engaged in, and those are very different. Your question about the jar full of water and the jar full of chocolate milk is right on point. Both are pleasurable, but on occasion one of them can be much more pleasurable than the other. PDO3 refers to the limit of "quantity" of pleasure, not the limit of intensity, or duration, or part of the body affected. if you stretch the analogy beyond the point it was intended to make you cease making a valid point and start making a terrible one. All pleasures are pleasure, but all pleasures are not equally pleasurable. The very idea of stating a specific set of pleasures that should be the goal of every human being is an upside-down and perverse way of looking at the question, but that's exactly the way monotheists want to proceed in everything. They want to think that there is a central power, a divine god, that sets out "one way" that everyone should follow. And that's just hogwash. Nature and the feeling of pleasure are not so restrictive as to conform to and comply with Abrahamic theology.

Quote from Rolf

If you could take a look at this when you get a spare moment, it would be a big help!

The reason I haven't responded to that already is I am not sure how to pick out pieces of what you're written. If you'd like to ask specifics I could more easily address them. For the moment I'd say that any time there is an implication that one pleasure is absolutely "better" than another for everyone, you've got an abstraction that is going to bite you just like "virtue" bites the Stoics.

Quote from Rolf

One jar full of water, the other full of chocolate milk. Both jars are full of pleasure: Water is great, it quenches your thirst! But chocolate milk is sure a lot tastier

Yes, as above, I think that's an example that helps flesh out where the jar analogy stops being useful and starts being harmful, if and when it is presumed that everyone has the same jar and wants to fill it in the same way. That's just not correct and not a part of the philosophic issue.

Quote from Rolf

Another question: Would you say that absence of pain as the limit of pleasure is more of a theoretical goal? In the same way that the gods can be seen as mental ideal? Or is it something we’re expected to achieve on a day to day basis?

It is a theoretical goal but that is not to say it is a useless abstraction, as we've been discussing. A starting point here is that everyone wants the "best" life. But what is the meaning of "best?" Think about it for very long and if you're not a monotheist you'll realize there is no single best for everyone. But even then the question remains, what can you say about "best" other than that there is nothing better than best? Yes it's wordplay, but it's a logical question. There's can't be anything better than best. And if you're going to suggest that "pleasure" is the best life, then you've got to have an answer to the question of "what's the best life of pleasure? " And the answer to that question is that the best life of pleasure is one that is completely full of pleasure with no portion of that life being pain. I don't think we'd be discussing "absence of pain" at all were it not for this question and the need to construct a logical answer to it. And this is not speculation, it's spelled out by Plato in Philebus and in other places by other people, including clear statements to this effect by Seneca, and the references we've been discussing that Cicero has preserved through Torquatus that make no sense in any other way.

Quote from DaveT

and Alexa's voice at home.

Ah-HA! The virus is spreading from kochiekoch to you!

Quote from Rolf

I think what I’m struggling with is that to me, absence of pain sounds like a state in which I’m perfectly content and don’t feel like I need anything more. At the same time, my practical evaluation of Epicurean ethics is that of prudence and hedonic calculus. In my head, these two ideas don’t quite seem to align. It doesn’t feel so clear.

And I think it sounds that way to most people, and that's why Cicero and Plutarch use it like a sledgehammer against Epicurus, because understanding it as "being satisfied with the bare minimum of life" is deadly and no healthy person in their right might is going to accept that. (Of course there are many people who are not healthy or in their right mind who *do* accept that version, and that just makes the problem worse.)

All of these issues are very much a test like "the size of the sun is as it appears to be." If you are satisfied then of course you don't want any more -- that's the definition of being satisfied. The real question is knowing the difference between "when" you should be satisified, and when you shouldn't.

All of us have this baggage from being raised Christian (or religious in some way) with a mixture of Buddhism and Stoicism thrown in to emphasize that wanting pleasure or anything more than you currently have is a character flaw. That's as much the problem as anything else. If you were born on a desert island with nothing but nature teaching you through observation of how all other life lives, you'd never have a moment for thinking that you shouldn't sing, dance, fly, embrace, etc, just like all the other animals do when they satisfy their thirst and hunger.

But Epicurean philosophy can be twisted into justifying just such an outcome, and in that respect the result is worse than Stoicism or religion - at least those (or most of them) promise a life in heaven as a reward for asceticism now. The "Absence of Pain" Epicureans don't even get that -- they get asceticism for the sake of whatever it brings in this life, which is nothing.

As humans we live through using our minds properly, and Epicurus is pointing the way to proper thinking. Plato et al are wrong to say that life is neutral or suffering with a few intervals of pleasure. The right attitude is that life is enjoyable and needs to be enjoyed, and so we set our minds to enjoying every aspect of it that can possibly be enjoyed in mind and body, and that can include anything and everything that isn't explicitly painful.

I'd say the most helpful way of looking at things is to focus on how short life is, and how when it's over it's over. If you really focus on what that means, what kind of a human being are you if you don't want to use your time the very best way possible? If "pleasure" is everything that is desirable and "pain" is what is undesirable, then the right philosophic attitude is to pursue as much "pleasure" as possible.

All of these words have specific meanings that can be extremely helpful, or if misunderstood, extremely harmful. But this is the importance of philosophy. No one said this was easy - if it was easy there'd be hundreds of Epicuruses instead of essentially only one.

Looking back over your questions I'll go back to the best example I know of. You only have some much time in life to experience what you're going to experience. It is helpful to visualize your total lifetime as a jar, which you must decide how to use. The jar by definitional choice can contain only (1) pleasure or (2) pain. No part of it is ever empty. The palns and pleasures it can contain are all possible mental and bodily pleasures.

It's up to you to decide whether to act to control what will be in that jar. If you identify pleasure widely and understand that it's not just mental and physical stimulation but all kinds of mental and physical health, then it becomes possible for most everyone to see that it is a practical goal to work toward filling that jar with pleasures. If you DON"T view pleasure that way, then it will seem like and be a fruitless task to fill the jar with pleasure, and you'll never find a way to do it no matter how hard you chase stimulation.

That's the paradigm everyone is faced with, but they don't have to accept it. They can choose to drift through life and take no concern for what is in their jar, and as a result they will never be satisfied and their time will be spent on things that end up being more painful than pleasurable.

So in general I'd say that this is the big picture. Once you've got the big picture it's up to you to apply it - simply reading it or acknowledging that it exists doesn't accomplish anything. Time is always ticking, and the time that passes without working to maximize pleasure never comes back.

To me this isn't dark or discouraging, it's highly motivational, and it doesn't encourage me to spend all my time looking back and "feeling satisfied," it leads to a proper balance of appreciating past, present, and future, and acting appropriately toward them all.

Quote from Rolf

Would you say then Cassius that “the absence of pain being the limit of pleasure” is not something I have to hold in my everyday mind as something practical? It’s more just something for use in philosophical reasoning and debate

I think that having a mental image of the most desirable state is highly practical and even essential and is similar to projecting this as a "godlike life." For that reason I would say that it needs to be held in mind In the same way Epicurus tells Herodotus to keep an outline in mind and to be able to flip back and forth from high level to detail at a moments notice.

And I would also say that the expansive definition of pleasure to include appreciation of all nonpainful life, particularly mental appreciation of the benefits of a true philosophy, is also a daily or even hourly thing.

This isn't just for times of debate.

O2x Ohio - Again, welcome. It's good to have people from varied backgrounds and areas of interest. There are a number of academic articles on various aspects of Epicurean physics that might be of interest to you as well, so as you read let us know what you're looking for and we'll try to help.

From O2x Ohio:

Hello,

I am emailing to request activation of my account at Epicurean Friends - O2x Ohio. Specifically, I want to be able to post a thread asking for help on Epicurean teachings on light and matter. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Welcome O2x Ohio !

There is one last step to complete your registration:

All new registrants must post a response to this message here in this welcome thread (we do this in order to minimize spam registrations).

You must post your response within 24 hours, or your account will be subject to deletion.

Please say "Hello" by introducing yourself, tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, 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 and associated Terms of Use. Please be sure to read that document to understand our ground rules.

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 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 most other philosophies, 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 of truth and happy living through pleasure as explained in the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be assured of your time here will be productive is to tell us a little about yourself and 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 already have.

You can also check out our Getting Started page for ideas on how to use this website.

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.

"Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt

The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.

"On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"

"Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky

The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."

Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus

Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

"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!

Quote from Pacatus

just that faith, under any sensible definition, does not make it so.

Completely agree!

Quote from Pacatus

If empirical evidence is certain, one has no need of “faith” – one has certain knowledge. If the available empirical evidence is subject to revision via new observations, as it generally is (whether one acknowledges it or not), then it is not certain. Faith cannot make it so. But we can act on the best evidence we have.

Yes, we act on the best evidence we have. But I don't think the first sentence is obvious. No amount of empirical evidence is sufficient for certainty unless you have a working definition of certainty, and that's what the issue of trust / faith is all about -- or so I think at the moment.

I seem to remember that you Pacatus consider yourself to be either eclectic or skeptic or some combination rather than orthodox Epicurean, so I think we're getting here at some of the reason for that and lurkers reading this should be aware of that.

Epicurus appears to have had a working version of dogmatism in which he did consider certain things to be certain and beyond the expectation of need for revision. And of course that's highly controversial, and in the past and likely in the future will be a dividing line between those who consider themselves to be orthodox Epicurean vs those who don't. Of course calling yourself an orthodox Epicurean and a dollar might buy you a cup of coffee nowadays.

Quote from Pacatus

that they actually knew things by faith

I guess that's really the question of what we're talking about. Having confidence in something (the existence of atoms; life on other worlds, for examples) is pretty close to "knowing something by faith" depending on the precise meaning of those words.

Your confidence in your conclusion comes from your confidence in the analysis steps along the way even in the absence of "direct" observation, so I can see "knowing something by faith" to possibly be a correct use of those words, depending on the meaning of "faith." It all comes down to your starting point on what you accept as the facts on which to base the confident expectation.

Those look great! I really like the idea of combining the busts with the profiles and the mounting on a column.

Yes, Patikios, I think that is coming whether we like it or not. There will eventually be many competing models of Epicurus out there. I presume that means that the task will be not to simply provide the model with raw texts, but also to provide it with "instructions" on how to interpret them. There will eventually be Stoic-friendly Epicuruses, Buddhist-friendly Epicurus, etc just like there are no many different websites and takes on Epicurus.

Thanks for the offer of your experience so far. I'll message you on what you have done so far but if you and others will keep a watch out for other Epicurus AI engines that are already public and post about them here I will appreciate it.

This is definitely a tricky issue to navigate. I would think it really implicates issues of canonics and what Philodemus would be talking about in "On Signs/Methods of Inference." When is it appropriate to extrapolate from the known to reach conclusions about the unknown?

It's tempting to think of rationality as requiring direct evidence, but it's also common (in law for example) to reach conclusions based on "circumstantial evidence." We wouldn't normally refer to that as having "faith" or "trust" in something, but I suppose that's exactly what we're doing in trusting that the "circumstances" can indicate a reliable conclusion.

It really grates on the sensibilities to consider "Faith" to be an Epicurean virtue or a good thing at all, but I suppose it is and it's something to get used to discussing as part of the proper attitude toward Epicurean canonics.

"Trust" or "Faith" implies an object which we are trusting or having faith in. As general term in an Epicurean context, what would be that object? Here again maybe "Confidence" works just as well or better, and indicates where Cicero got that derogatory accusation in "On The Nature of the Gods":

Quote from On The Nature of The Gods Book One - VIII¶ (Yonge version)

After this, Velleius, with the confidence peculiar to his sect, dreading nothing so much as to seem to doubt of anything, began as if he had just then descended from the council of the Gods, and Epicurus’s intervals of worlds. Do not attend, says he, to these idle and imaginary tales; nor to the operator and builder of the World, the God of Plato’s Timæus; nor to the old prophetic dame, the Πρόνοια of the Stoics, which the Latins call Providence; nor to that round, that burning, revolving deity, the World, endowed with sense and understanding; the prodigies and wonders, not of inquisitive philosophers, but of dreamers!

Looks like the Latin is: "Tum Velleius fidenter sane, ut solent isti, hihil tam vereus quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur....."

Thanks Eikadistes. That's exactly the threshold question I was concerned about but didn't know enough Greek to be confident about. I feel sure we've discussed this in the past but it's hard to keep it in mind over time.

So it IS proper to see Epicurus as talking about "faith," and coming from him, he definitely isn't embracing any kind of "belief without any evidence at all" definition of the term.

Yep Dave it's amazing. It apparently had no problem understanding the audio, and then it found the major points and summarized them sometimes with more clarity than the original. It definitely didn't track 100%, and it also introduced some details that we did not talk about, but you'd have to think that this kind of summary would be better than many people could do even at college level and only then after many hours of work.

Lots of food for thought.

I don't recall that we've discussed in depth the word "faith" especially since it has a disreputable connotation of "belief without evidence." However we see "confidence" discussed regularly, and at least in the English/Latin the root of the word implies a use of a variation of "faith" that is indeed based on strong evidence. We don't say that we have "faith" when we get on an airplane, we say we have "confidence," and that would seem to be a fully legitimate use of such a term.

I want to build out a forum structure which addresses "Epicurean virtues" so this thread will start that discussion as to "Faith" (used appropriately) or "Confidence," and that will require looking for relevant texts. Here's part of what DeWitt has to say about this. I wonder if each of these cites he makes isn't better translated as "confidence," but on the other hand that doesn't make the issue go away that confidence means "with faith" - so as part of the answer to skepticism there must be legitimate uses of "faith" just as with "gods" and "virtue."

Quote

While this conjunction of faith in doctrine with faith in the leader introduces a dynamic emotional element, it still falls short of making a complete picture. The disciple cannot live to himself. Epicurus thought of his oracular teachings as "beneficial for all men," and he planned coherence for all the local brotherhoods in which his disciples were enrolled. All members depended upon one another for what St. Paul referred to as Peace and Safety. This means that the Epicurean must not only feel faith in doctrine and leader but also in friends and friendship. The authority for this is Vatican Saying 34, which exhibits a play upon words that is characteristic of the master's style: "We do not so much have need of help from friends in time of need as faith in help in time of need." ..... [omit gratuitous Christianity reference]

There is a difference, however; Epicurus was more restrained and stopped short of fanatical trust in his creed. Friendship was subject to planning and began with advantage even if developing into affection and faith. Authorized Doctrine 40: "All those who have best succeeded in building up the ability to feel secure from the attacks of those around them have lived the happiest lives with one another, as having the firmest faith." Thus even faith is in part the result of planning.

Epicurus was aware nevertheless of the saving function of faith. He assures his disciples that his account of the soul will result in "the firmest faith,"⁸³⁴and the sole objective of the study of celestial phenomena is to acquire "tranquility and a firm faith."⁸³⁵His account of the soul would result in emancipating the disciple from the fear of death, and his account of celestial phenomena on a physical basis would spare men the fear of Plato's astral divinities.⁸³⁶The supreme function of faith was to banish fears and uncertainties from life.

Thank you for all you do Eikadistes.

This past weekend I listened to a computer tech podcast (The "Ask Noah Show") which mentioned the use of Googles' "Notebookllm" for generation of AI summaries.

The podcast discussed many ethical issues surrounding AI, and I very much recommend their discussion. The podcaster who gave most of the discussion is an employee of "Red Hat" (a major linux/computer company owned by IBM). and their episode can be found here.

Those podcasters decided to see what AI would do with their own work, and based on their example, I did the same thing with two of our Lucretius Today podcasts.

Of course I think our own live podcasts are better, but if you compare the summary to original I think you'll find that the Ai summary is shockingly good. And this is not just a text summary -- this is a live dialogue between two very professional sounding AI voices.

While the result is far from perfect, the ease with which this was produced is very worrying.

Here are the links:

Both episodes revolve around the absence of pain issue, with 295 devoted to Plutarch and 294 devoted to Cicero. I am not making these videos publicly findable on the Youtube page, but the private links above are available for comparison.

These are great questions! Let me go through them and give you what I think is the answer. Not everyone is going to agree with me, but I think what I am about to say is the clear implication of what Torquatus was explaining to Cicero:

I think we better start here:

Quote from Rolf

1) There is only pleasure and pain.

This is not so simple that we can stop without explanation, and failure to clarify it is a source of much problem. Yes, Epicurus says that nature gives us only pleasure and pain as feelings by which to know what to choose and what to avoid.

But you are asking a series of questions about "Pleasure" and "Pain" with capital "p's" -- You are asking about the concept of pleasure and the concept of pain. As a concept which serves as a stand-in for the "goal of life," "Pleasure" is a conceptual term which encompasses all possible experiences of pleasure, from the longest and most intense to the shortest and least intense. All pleasures are conceptually part of "Pleasure," but all pleasures are not by any means identical. The same thing goes for pain.

A large part of the problem in general discussions of Epicurus is that people are talking about "Pleasure" as the conceptual goal of life without making clear that the goal of a real person's real life is not a "concept," but a set of real experiences that cannot be described completely in the term "Pleasure" any more than a map constitutes every detail of an area of land that is being mapped.

And not separating those two contexts leads to most of your questions:

Quote from Rolf

3) Let’s say my hunger and thirst are satiated, my body is healthy, I have good friends, and I fear neither gods nor death.

4) This being the case, I am experiencing the absence of pain/fullness of pleasure, am I not?

The answer to (3) is "not necessarily." We are philosophers, and you have not stated in 3 that you are not suffering any pain. Torquatus' examples, including the comparison of the host pouring wine and the guest drinking in, are stated in the context that the example includes as a premise that they are otherwise without pain. Anyone who is "without pain" is therefore definitionally and conceptually at the height of pleasure, because you are speaking in broad definitional terms. Pure pleasure - 100% pleasure - cannot be made more pleasurable by removing impurities, because "pure" means without impurity, and 100% means a mathematical limit for any given subject.

So I would say that your conclusion in (4) is not properly established by (3). you have listed a number of pleasurable conditions, but you have not by so doing confirmed that your "jar is full" and that there is not more room for more pleasure in your life.

Quote from Rolf

Do you agree that the conditions listed in point 3 are all that is necessary to experience the absence of pain? If so, and if that is the limit of pleasure, why do you also press that these things are not enough, and that Epicurus also encourages these “active pleasures” like playing and dancing?

So the answer here is that I do not agree that the points listed in 3 are "all that is necessary to experience the absence of pain" in total. They could be if you also stated that the person was without pain, but unless someone is affirmatively stating that the person is "without pain" then you don't know.

This would apply to the Chrysippus hand challenge. We know that the hand was at the "height of pleasure" only because the hypothetical was that the hand was "in its normal condition" and not in pain. Could any particular hand get more pleasure from a warm massage rather than in its normal condition? I think the answer is clearly yes, but that doesn't mean that the point made by Torquatus is incorrect. "Pure" pleasure does not necessarily equate to "most intense," or "longest duration" or "largest part of the body affected." Torquatus did not say that the hand was experiencing any of those -- not the most intense please, nor the longest, or the most extensive. The debate about the hand was in terms of the "height," or as in PD03, the "limit of quantity." These are technical terms suitable for philosophical debate, but they don't tell you the difference between good heath and a good massage.

Quote from Rolf

If some pleasures are more pleasurable than others, wouldn’t that make my jar “more full”?

Per PD09, pleasures differ from each other in at least the qualities of intensity, duration, and part of the body affected. Some particular pleasures ARE more intense, or last longer, or involve different parts of the body, and only an idiot would deny that. But all pleasures are unified in being feelings that we find desirable, and thus one of them is not more conceptually "pleasure" than is another.

This is Pleasure with a capital "P" - conceptual pleasure - all of which carries the same definition of a desirable feeling. The concept never changes, even though the particulars can and do change.

Quote from Rolf

If some pleasures are more pleasurable than others, wouldn’t that make my jar “more full”? How does this fit together with absence of pain being the limit of pleasure? And if the jar can be full while containing different levels of pleasure, then what is it even measuring?

A jar which can contain only "Pleasure" and "Pain" cannot be defined as full containing different levels of "Pleasure," for reasons that are obvious - we are defining the possibilities and there are no options outside our hypothetical. But different jars of "Pleasure" can and certainly will contain very different mixtures of difference types of pleasurable experiences.

We all know this to be true, but what you're asking is the right question. How can different jars be other than the same if they all are full of "Pleasure?" And the answer is that pleasures are not "just" concepts. Pleasurable experiences are what is real, while "Pleasure" is a concept that philosophers use in debate. The same goes for "Happiness." The wise man can by "Happy" even which tortured on the wrack or in the throws of dying from kidney disease, because "happiness" is a concept we can define as an overall assessment of more reason for joy than for vexation, while "a feeling of happiness" is not what is generated by torture machines or kidney stones.

Quote from Rolf

I’m playing devil’s advocate a little here in order to understand the logic. Again, I agree with the conclusions. But I’m having trouble seeing how it all fits together. It feels almost a little contradictory.

Everyone ought to be asking these questions, because unless you demand consistency and clear answers, no one ever gets anywhere. And far too many people outside this forum are ignoring these issues and thinking that they can wink and smile and fool others - and themselves - into thinking that Buddhist nothingness / Stoic apathy really is super pleasurable.

And that's in my view why Epicurean philosophy has been stuck in the mud ever since the last of the ancient Epicureans passed away.

No one except a confirmed Buddhist or Stoic or Sadist really believes that "absence of pain" understood as 99% of the world understands it is really worth being a goal in life. But the majority of Epicureans have fled from the idea that "absence of pain" really means "pleasure" because that would not be respectable, or virtuous, and to say so would earn them the disapproving frowns of the intelligentsia.

In my view, you can either demand consistency and clarity, in which case you come around to seeing that these are definitional and philosophical issues. Once you accept that, "absence of pain" becomes nothing more than technical terminology for exactly the same thing expressed by the word "pleasure."

The reason you've chosen technical terminology like that is because you are philosopher, and you're dealing with technical objections from the Platonists and others who demand to know "the limit" of pleasure. Absence of pain is highly useful for answering that question - for identifying the theoretical limit.

But "absence of pain" in this context is conceptual, and this conceptual answer does not tell you whether to stop when you're not thirsty or hungry. You have to apply also the rest of the conceptual framework, in which you're previously identified that all pleasure is desirable, and that there would never be any reason whatsoever ---but one -- not to seek to obtain all the pleasure you can. And that single reason not to pursue a particular pleasure is that you evaluate that pursuing that pleasure would result - in the end - with bringing you more pain than pleasure.

I suppose I should address too the related question of how long you wish to live, or how much pleasure you wish to experience while you are alive. To me, the answer Epicurus points to is that "satisfaction" comes from realizing the limit that you are human and mortal and that nature allows you to live and pursue pleasure for only a certain period of time in good heath. You don't need to be king or the most famous person in the world to consider your jar of life to be full of pleasure. But if you have consciously avoided, through fear or otherwise, stepping up to experience the pleasures that are possible to you, then the reasonable and thoughtful person is going to naturally feel regret at passing over pleasure for no good reason. And "regret" is a pain.

Edit: As always, I'm not Epicurus and can't speak for him. These answers are just the best I can do today given my state of analysis and reading from all the various materials.

Quote from DaveT

I am enjoying this discussion. I recently read that a distinction between the Stoics and the Epicureans was that the Stoics focused on a public, civic-minded orientation, and thus a belief in virtue as a goal to that end. And that the Epicureans’ belief in more private life promoted pleasure etc. and friendship for personal happiness. I know this may sound simplistic, but that comparison helps me understand why the two philosophies were so different in the view and uses of virtue.

I think that's definitely true - that they had a different orientation toward public life. That seems like an innocuous enough distinction, but then you get to the question of "why' they had a such a different attitude. And I'd say that stems directly from the physics as to the nature of the universe. If you think there's a "Providence" that has designed the universe and everything in it intelligently, then you're going to want to work to bring not only yourself but also your society into conformity with those views.

If you think that there is no central intelligent designer, and that nature works through practical experience in many different ways according to circumstances, then you're going to be much more willing to "live and let live" and let each person pursue their own personal view of what makes them happy.