Posts by Cassius

I definitely agree that there is no absolute way to rank them "objectively" - meaning between people.

But each individual can and does rank them moment by moment, and the particular experiences involved are readily evaluatable in terms of greater or lesser pleasure -- at least that is how I see it.

We agree there is no "absolute ranking" but we are apparently disagreeing on whether it is possible for any individual or group of individuals to perceive the experience of pleasure as greater or lesser, and to that I would say "surely so."

Quote from Don

What does "more pleasurable" mean to you?

For example, I occasionally eat candy.

All candy to me, to the extent it is sweet, involves some degree of pleasure. However I can and do easily rank which candies I like most (find to be the most pleasant).

For example I have in front of me a bag of "Soft Caramel Candies" from "Lidl" (the grocery store). The bag says ("Caramel, Banana, Coffee, Vanilla, Mint, and Chocolate."

After I open the bag I can easily rank them in order of the pleasure they will give me, so I place them in line in this order (the most pleasant first): Chocolate, Caramel, Vanilla, Banana, Mint, Coffee

And I eat them in order, with clearly diminishing pleasure, til I get to the last of the coffee.

So I have no problem considering the flavor, intensity, texture (some are softer than others), staying power (some dissolve faster than others) all of which let me easily categorize them as greater or lesser pleasures.

Quote from Don

You seem to be trying to make a value judgment among "good things" as well as "things that bring pleasure".

Not a value judgement, but a judgment that I prefer some pleasures to others.

Quote from Don

some pleasures are more pleasing (greater) than others."

No. All things which bring pleasure are good, a priori (I think I'm using that right).

All I can say there is that for myself, some things are more pleasant than others. I think that's where we are going to have to agree to disagree until we can break this impasse.

Quote from Don

. That doesn't mean the pleasure of intoxication doesn't feel pleasurable in the moment. It's just maybe not a good choice. That doesn't mean the pleasure is greater or lesser.

We're at an impasse for the moment due to the flat way you make this observation (that there is no greater or lesser pleaure), but I am confident that we will break through it over time.

My position at the moment remains that philosophically "all pleasure is good" and "all goods are good," but that from the "perspective of real life," "some things that are good are better than others" and therefore "some pleasures are more pleasing (greater) than others."

And when I refer to "from the perspective of real life" this is one of those areas where I think there is no satisfactory way for words to capture the full depth of "better" or "more pleasing" other than to broadly indicate that there are degrees. In an analogy to mathematics I would say that words can model real life just like math can model real life, but they are not equivalent and cannot capture the complete issue. I cannot measure or fully understand the difference in pleasure that, for example, Martin may get from vanilla ice cream than I do.

Therefore also I would say that "pleasure is the (highest) good" is a perfectly appropriate way to respond to "holiness is the (highest) good" or "rationality is the (highest) good."

But as another example, I would also so that "pleasure is the good" is not what Torquatus (and we can assume he as an Epicurean par excellance for this analogy) would say to his army as he was directing his son to be executed for disobeying orders.

Torquatus might later deliver a philosophy lesson in which he explained that what he was doing was for the sake of pleasure, yes, but he would not likely choose to describe his analysis in that way at the moment that he was requiring his orders be carried out. He would more likely remind his men and his son of the relative differences in the various pleasures and pains of life and rank them (with the safety of his country as a higher pleasure than the safety of his son) as explanation for what he was doing.

Welcome @Lupercus !

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!

Yes that is definitely key material!

How do you interpret the "this" in "And because this is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every pleasure...?

If we substitute "pleasure" there we get "And because pleasure is the primary and inborn good we do not choose every pleasure...."

Are we not left with the same question as to how to distinguish between which pleasures to choose, and is not "pleasure" as used here a very high-level term encompassing many particulars? I don't see how that conclusion can be avoided unless we take the position that "the feeling of pleasure" is exactly the same in every respect in every experience that we find pleasing. And in case the answer to that question doesn't seem immediately clear, don't pleasures vary at least in how long they last? (And I would assert that it is clear that pleasures vary in many other ways as well.)

And in fact even in this passage it's clear that we are sometimes even selecting a temporary pain when a "greater pleasure" comes from having endured that pain.

So aren't we left with the clear conclusion that some pleasures are greater (and some are lesser) than others? And if so, the question to "what is the highest pleasure?" is not answered simply by saying "pleasure"? Is it?

Quote

"And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: 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. Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good. And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest pleasure in luxury who least need it, and that all that is natural is easy to be obtained, but that which is superfluous is hard."

I am pretty sure the bent stick is in the form of a bent oar in the discussion of illusions that just precedes the longer discussion of images. I always forget whether that is book four or five....

This is one of those "passing thought" posts and not intended to be particularly profound:

In opening the EpicureanFriends home page today and once again rereading the summary of the life that "will not admit of future improvement," it occurs to me that (in addition to serving other purposes) this might be thought of as the "No Need For Nihilism Proof":

Quote

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.

When the worst that can happen to us is seen to not to really be so bad at all, isn't that good reason to reject nihilism (and fears of all kinds) and get on with the business of enjoying living?

Considering this along with some of our other recent discussions, maybe this passage could be thought of as an "observation-based" rejection of nihilism that doesn't rely on elaborate "logical" argument.

For example, Epicurus' proof that pleasure is the good was not based on elaborate argument but amounts to: "Look over there at the young of all species and how they act before anyone has had the chance to corrupt them. They pursue pleasure!"

In this case, the proof that there is no need for nihilism and fear amounts to something like: "Look over there, the worst that can happen to you really isn't so bad at all. No unbearably severe pain lasts for very long, so don't give up on life or be afraid, you can handle anything bad that happens to you!."

I have not had time to watch this. The brief glimpse I took of it indicates it may be too basic for most of us here (or may not).

One thing I noticed immediately is that the lecturer has a strong British accent and the sound is not optimum, so I found him somewhat difficult to understand.

However all in all this one may be worth linking here, so if someone watches this and has a comment please let us know.

The following from Shakespeare was brought to my attention today:

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.

Source:

Julius Caesar

Act 4 Scene 3 Line 249

I presume that this is a fictional line made up by Shakespeare, but it has that seductive quality of much of Stoicism's appeal to virtue and glory.

I decided to post this because I realized that it may essentially be an appeal to "fate" ("tide in the affairs of men" "take the current when it serves or lose our ventures")

I don't have time to do more research on this right now, but I would like to:

(1) see what else is contained in this war council between Cassius and Brutus,

(2) See how much of it is actually believed to be true, tracing presumably back to Plutarch or other ancient sources, and

(3) See if there is enough historical information to come to any informed conclusions as to whether Brutus' position can be evaluated more "objectively" to assess how much he might in fact have been influenced by his Stoicism, or whether this was mainly lip service to support a plan he favored for other reasons.

Apparently Cassius gave in to the plan and "the rest is history" as to their defeat at Phillipi (though the outcome was very close and in fact it sounds like miscommunication may have been the ultimate cause of defeat).

Probably this is not a thread of wide interest but the "tide in the affairs of men" line is pretty well known, and it does seem to me that it rings of Stoicism - even though there clearly are going to be facts and times (literal tides) that need to be acted upon. That's part of what we can discuss here: Is this in fact a Stoic-influenced appeal to "fate"?

Does every child whirling a slingshot around his head carry in his mind a past memory of geometry or trigonometry from before his birth?

Does our ability to see these geometric relationships and calculate them mean that Nature's clerk sat down somewhere and calculated them originally at the foundation of the world?

Does the slingshot whirling around our head whirl the way it does because it is governed by laws which are portrayed in this diagram?

Is knowledge of sines and cosines and geometry a good in and of itself, putting us in touch with a world beyond our senses?

Note: I really just wanted to know if an animated gif would work here - it appears that it does!

It is this one - Cicero's "Torquatus" Presentation of Epicurean Ethics - from "On Ends"

Another thing I want to add is that although I am very proud of the panel and know that we are doing the best that we can, there's no doubt that some of what is said in the podcast (especially by me!) may need to be revised and extended later. But the issue is that the only way to get past these confusing issues is to go headlong through them, so I hope everyone will listen and participate on that basis. None of us are claiming to be doing anything more than "the best we can" under our own circumstances. It's the effort, and not the current result, that will move us forward.

It's going to take some effort to listen to this one - it is an hour and a half long - but I think you'll see that the panel put a lot of effort into this one, as we are now covering some of the most important material that we're ever going to cover.

We gave some thought to splitting this into two episodes, but one of the main reasons I did not is that I wanted to get the full material out to the world as soon as possible, so that those of us here at the forum who take the most interest in the topic can listen to what is said and then pose questions and comments here in the thread that we can consider as we record the next episode.

So if you have time, please listen, and let us know anything you'd like us to comment on or cover in the upcoming discussions!

Episode Ninety-Three of Lucretius Today is now available! This episode marks both an end and a new beginning for the podcast. We have now completed the entire poem of Lucretius, so it is time to apply what we have learned to the issue of how to live. To carry us forward, we are going to turn from the most complete statement left to us from the ancient world of Epicurean physics to the most complete statement left to us of Epicurean Ethics: the narrative by Torquatus in Cicero's "On Ends." This episode is considerably longer than in the past, but we take the time to introduce the text and discuss carefully the vitally important opening paragraphs. In this episode we frame the question of what it is we are about to discuss: the nature of the "highest good." We will also discuss how Epicurus answered that question - by pointing to the young of all living things, who newly-born have not yet been corrupted by false philosophies and false religions. We hope you will enjoy this episode as much as we did in bringing it to you, and we hope you will stay with the podcast as we continue to explore Epicurean philosophy in the spirit of Lucretius.

Before we get too far past the material that we covered in Episode one, on the issue of the "highest good" we need to make reference to this cite:

Plutarch, That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible, 7, p. 1091A: Not only is the basis that they assume for the pleasurable life untrustworthy and insecure, it is quite trivial and paltry as well, inasmuch as their “thing delighted” – their good – is an escape from ills, and they say that they can conceive of no other, and indeed that our nature has no place at all in which to put its good except the place left when its evil is expelled. … Epicurus too makes a similar statement to the effect that the good is a thing that arises out of your very escape from evil and from your memory and reflection and gratitude that this has happened to you. His words are these: “That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about {a jibe at the Peripatetics}, prating meaninglessly about the good.”

As with the episode we recorded today - these are really deep issues but actually fun to dig into - in that sense Socrates was probably right about how we get excited enough to talk to our dogs about it!

But that's an example of where Epicurus was right too - philosophy is enjoyable in the pursuit of it, and that's another example of how we don't need glory and power and riches.

Of course I'm strongly in favor of division of labor.

Not everyone need focus on the war part.

However I strongly suspect that a lot of the reason that the war seems less important at times is that we do not realize the depth to which all of us have been corrupted without our suspecting it.

If we were truly free of the corruption I suspect that we would be outraged at the pain it has already and continues to cost us - both us and our friends.

For a first answer, the same considerations are "stopping us" as led to the writing by the Founders of:

Against the Physicians

Against Timocrates

Against the Dialecticians

In Criticism of Democritus

Against Empedocles

Against Plato

Against Aristotle

Summary of Objections to the Physicists

Against the Megarians

That's a "ha ha I wish we could" rather than a "ha ha you're funny"