Posts by Cassius

Quote from Godfrey

All pleasure is pleasure, full stop. The way to differentiate between various pleasures is not by attempting to rank the pleasures but by looking closely at their intensity, location and duration.

I always "like" it when you call our attention to PD09 on this topic. In this case I have a comment in regard to "All pleasure is pleasure, full stop." That very simple sentence stands at the top of a mountain of specific questions. Yes, I agree, all pleasure is pleasure - but what does that mean? I think the answer is that this is a clear instance in which Epicurus (when he says things like this) is talking conceptually, and saying that the common element in all pleasures is that we find them desirable. That leaves a universe of various ways in which mental and bodily pleasures differ from each other, all while remaining desirable.

PD09 gives us firm evidence that Epicurus was not a dunderhead and that the fully understood that all pleasures are not the same in every respect. The concept of pleasure is extremely broad, and that is why it is broad enough to contain "tranquilty" within it. But the reverse is not true - there are many pleasures that are not 'tranquil". That's in large part why the category term to describe what is desirable in life is "Pleasure," not "tranquility" or "true pleasure" or "worthy pleasure" or "fancy pleasure" or "simple pleasure" or "abiding pleasure" or any other term that places a qualifier on pleasure.

Welcome to Episode 341 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.

This week we start are continuing our series reviewing Cicero's "Academic Questions" from an Epicurean perspective, which gives us an overview of the issues that split Plato's Academy and helps us understand Epicurus' position on the same issues.

We are now in Section 9 of Book 2

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackham translation here:

• Cicero On Nature Of Gods Academica Loeb Rackham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

As we move into section ten, Lucullus (from the Stoic perspective) attacks those who imply that the mind - a creation of nature - is useless for obtaining knowledge, which has the result of overturning the whole of life.

He then moves to address those who argue that there is a difference between saying everything is uncertain and that nothing can be perceived, and this takes him toward the discussion of Cicero's own position - that it makes sense to say that some things are probable and some are not.

Then as we move into eleven the talk turns more and more to discussing "signs" - and that is the beginning of the point we are looking for - so that we can eventually tackle Philodemus' "On Signs"

Quote from wbernys

I would slightly disagree, caviar and a beautiful view do feel great in the same way as tranquility, afterall pleasure reach it's limit in removing pain,

I have the same reaction, Wbernys, and I would be alert to the direction that some writers seem to take that tranquility does not only not "feel great" -- but that tranquility is not a "feeling" at all. That's how "they" (not referring here to Max) argue that tranquility is not a feeling at all.

This is no doubt a complex subject, so I think one of the ways to help sort it out is to play out the logic ruthlessly, and see if the logic results in an absurd conclusion. The Epicurean texts are replete with references to not even being able to know what good is without reference to the normal sensory pleasures of life, so if we hold fast to that and rule out any construction that the Epicureans didn't really care about normal pleasures because all they wanted is "tranquility," that should be a good way of avoiding an absurd result.

The common sense "pleasure means all types of pleasure" perspective can easily accomodate the value of tranquility as one among many important pleasures, but the "tranquility above all" perspective cannot coexist with the great weight of the authoritative records. Had "tranqulity above all" really been Epicurus' teaching, the Ciceros and Plutarchs and Epictetuses of the world would never had raised a finger to oppose him.

Quote from Max DuBoff

It is very clear that the good is pleasure and vice versa, but it is not at all clear waht pleasure(s) actually determine a blessed life. Only the absence of pain does that; but he expects that lots of other pleasures will be present in a blessed life.

As to what plesaures actually determine a blessed life, I think I recall Gosling & Taylor examining that at length in "The Greeks On Pleasure" in their chapter on the katastematic/kinetic issue, and concluding that there is nothing mysterious at all about these pleasures, as they include all the normal and ordinary pleasures of regular human life.

As to how "absence of pain" plays into that, it clearly can't mean "total absence of pain in every aspect of life," if we are to accept (as we should) that Epicurus considered himself to be happy even during his last days of extreme physical pain. On the other hand, if "absence of pain" simply means "pleasure" as Torquatus insists to Cicero repeatedly that it does, then there's no issue, as Epicurus tells us that his mental pleasures from friends and philosophy outweighed the physical pains.

On Ends Book Two, 9 : Cicero: “…[B]ut unless you are extraordinarily obstinate you are bound to admit that 'freedom from pain' does not mean the same thing as 'pleasure.'” Torquatus: “Well but on this point you will find me obstinate, for it is as true as any proposition can be.”

Quote from Max DuBoff

Two of my more complicated views (can say more later

You certainly can! No time limits are ticking, and your patience and attention to detail is appreciated! I presume I can speak for most everyone that we appreciate your being here and engaging.

Quote from Don

So, tranquility, peace of mind, freedom from anxiety IS foundational.

I never said it was not foundational or fundamental and I agree with you that it is. But foundational and fundamental are very different from "the goal." Those who push something other than pleasure as "the goal" know this very well. Food is foundational and fundamental. Water is foundational and fundamental. Air is foundational and fundamental. But neither food, water, or air are the goals of life. We do not live to eat, drink, or breathe, we eat, drink, and breathe in order to live.

The arguments I am targeting are those by people who are affirmatively taking the time to aswsert to others that Epicurus clearly held tranquility to overrideall other concerns. It certainly does not. As Max's own topics point out, we will sometimes die for friends, even though that does not bring us tranquility. We sometimes have sex, and pursue marriage and children, even though those are far from tranquil activities.

Add to the common sense the clear statements in the texts, to which we could add many more than these, including other sections of the letter to Menoeceus - but these are among the most clear:

As Torquatus said,

The problem before us then is, what is the climax and standard of things good, and this in the opinion of all philosophers must needs be such that we are bound to test all things by it, but the standard itself by nothing. Epicurus places this standard in pleasure, which he lays down to be the supreme good, while pain is the supreme evil; and he founds his proof of this on the following considerations.

As Diogenes of Oinonada said in Fragment 32

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end.

And as Torquatus stated in the quote that is currently on the top page of the site:

If then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on Pleasure, whereas Pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that Pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of Pleasure."

So to be clear I am not accusing any particular individuals of bad faith. But I am accusing these arguments of being absurd and malicious when made in the philosophical context by professionals who should know better. Advocating this position as if they could divine Epicurus' true intent from one short letter better than than Cicero and Diogenes Laertius and Lucretius and even Epicurus himself in other quotations available to us is absurd. DeWitt doesn't come to this conclusion, Gosling and Taylor don't come to this conclusion in their extensive analysis of the katastematic and kinetic pleasure debate (which Emily Austin endorses, even aside from her choice of naming her book) and neither else who is trying to be fair to Epicurus and look at all the evidence.

If this debate had no consequences we could easily put it aside and go along to get along. But it is not only slanderous but offensive to think that Epicurus devoted his life to achieving "tranquility'' or "absence of pain" in the way that these words are understood today. In the end that's my real beef. The road is open foradvocates of something other than pleasure to go further and explain how there are only two feelings, and that Epicurus used words (like "gods") very precisely and in unconventional ways. The could explain in detail that "tranqulity" is but one of many pleasures, and that "absence of pain" means something much different than "nothingness." But in almost every case they fail to do any of that, even while knowing -- as anyone of reasonable intelligence would -- that these words are far more associated wiith resignation, withdrawal, acceptance and asceticism than they are with how Epicurus taught and lived his life

The implication that Epicurean philosophy teaches resignation, withdrawal, acceptance and asceticism is not only wrong but its also insulting, offensive, and slanderous. People who respect Epicurus as a real person for his real contributions ought to come to his defense, as Cosma Raimondi did , or Torquatus or Diogenes of Oinoanda or Lucian did. In Lucian's words, they should be happy to 'strike a blow for Epicurus" in defending him when he is attacked and his life's work is transformed into the opposite of what he taught.

Transcript of this episode:

There are many ways at getting at some of these issues, some more mundane than others. Here's a more real-world question:

Did Emily Austin make a mistake in entitling her book "Living For Pleasure?" Should she have titled it "Living For Ataraxia/Tranquility"?

Quote from Max DuBoff

.But the relevant point is that the absence of pain is the important part, rather than any kind of quantity of pleasure or something like that.

If taken literally, this would be a statement that "absence of pain" is a totally separate thing from "any kind or quantity of pleasure" -- in other words - absence of pain is not pleasure at all. Is that your view?

It would probably also be helpful to know more about what you mean in your words as the "additive concept of pleasure." It would seem clear that Epicurus is saying that it is not necessary to add ever-increasing quantities of pleasure ad infinitum to have a happy life. But on the other hand he is also saying that pleasure alpha / omega / goal of life - that a life of happiness is a life of pleasure - so obviously some measure of pleasure is involved.

How would you renconcile those perspectives?

William do you mind breaking apart the quotes and putting a separate thread under each of the names? That will make them easier to find in the future -- if you have enough to make that worthwhile

Quote from Don

PD3 doesn't say The limit of "tranquility" is the removal of all pains. It says the limit of pleasure is the removal all pain. I won't belabor this, but if there are only two feelings - pleasure and pain - if all of one is removed, you're left with the other.

This is a key observation and very well stated.

Of course, the advocates of "tranquility/ataraxia" as the ultimate goal, rather than happiness based on pleasure as Diogenes of Oinoanda shouted about and Torquatus explains at length, have plenty of arguments up their sleeves. One of the arguments to watch out for amounts to: "It doesn't matter that PD3 refers to the limit of quantity of pleasure. Tranquility/ataraxia is not pleasure at all - it's higher than and better than pleasure, and that's why it is the true goal of Epicurean philosophy. After all, Epicurus says when all pain is gone we have no need of pleasure -- so what else could he mean other than that tranquility / ataraxia is not a pleasure at all?"

The key answer to that is to point out how the tranquility argument begins to expose itself as a death cult argument. PD2 and Epicurus's foundational statements on death say that "Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us."

Now you can quibble as well (certain people have no problem quibbling til the cows come home) and say - well "pleasure" is not a "sensation" so that view doesn't count. Ataraxia / Tranquility is not a sensation, but you can experience it while you are alive, and Epicurus is really just channeling the Buddhists and Stoics and assorted ascetics by saying what a wonderful thing it is to be numb.

That argument is nonsense, but if you're the type who reads the sweep of Epicurean texts talking about pleasure, pleasure, pleasure, and there are only two feelings, but you can still come back and say "Epicurus said the goal is ataraxia / tranquility" then your'e the type that just likes to argue and not worry about reaching any productive conclusions. For some people, the argument IS the goal. They could care less that there is absolutely no evidence of ancient Epicureans living the kind of hermitic ascetic lifestyle that they are advocating.

"But Epicurus said all he needed was bread and water and a pot of cheese!" That's a nonsense argument, and Don too has pointed out. It would be more persuasive to argue that Epicurus needed that bread and water to feed his slaves and the accountants he would have needed to manage his properties and handle the schools income and support of others.

The Tranquility/Ataraxia/Ascetic construction of Epicurus is not credible, and no one in the ancient world believed it or argued it. The ancient world understood him to be advocating pleasure, in all its forms, and the best evidence is how the Epicureans lived their own lives. There's not a documentable case anywhere of a single Epicurean setting out with a goal of living as a celibate or in sackcloth and ashes or a hovel or a cave or in isolation or on bread and water.

That entire approach is nonsense, even if it is the consensus of Academia.

Quote from Matteng

Today podcast episodes revolve around these questions too; I’m going to listen to them again, starting to rehear from episode 280

Good luck because that's at least 40 hours of listening!

Quote from Matteng

Donald Robertson once wrote me, that avoiding all Pain leads to experiental avoidance what causes mental health problems and is boring.

That's a case in which i would agree with Donald Robertson and would simply repeat that while an Epicurean god might theoretically be ableto do that, Epicurus was dealing with humans so he said that we regularly choose pain when a pleasure that is greater results.

A lot ofthe problem is that the stoics, like cicero, refuse to allow anything as pleasure other than physical stimulation. if they were right, then their argument would be sound, but they refuse to accept Epicurus' division of pleasure and pain in ethics and canonics, just as they refuse to accept his division of atoms and void in physics.

Episode 340 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "The Fatal Flaw In Socratic Skepticism"

One last comment for now - as to "flourishing" -- what does that word even mean? It's a weasel word that avoids the real question of what is good and what is bad, how to live and how not to live. Nature gives us only the feelings of pleasure and pain as inputs and we must reason based on those, rather than on vague notions of "virtue" or "worth" or "nobility" which are implied to exist under analysis like Aristotle is proposing. And he never establishes an ultimate basis for any such concepts other than looking at what great men of the past have done, and that proves nothing. "Flourishing" means nothing that can be grounded in nature rather than in pure opinion - just like the word "virtue" itself.

Quote from Matteng

4. Pleasure is only an temporary End but in life there is no end but is everlasting activity. Evolution gives no everlasting happiness based on pleasure. Eudaimonia was defined by Aristotles as an activity not an end state. Does a happy person or god do nothing when reached everlasting Absence of Pain ?

Most of this probably does not need an answer except as to the last -- the idea that people would "do nothing" when they achieve "absence of pain" is the real atrocity of the "tranqulity is king" perspective. That attitude achieves what it sets out to do - it reduces Epicureanism to a philosophy of doing nothing, experiencing anothing, achieving nothing.

Ant that's exactly what the historical record shows is the OPPOSITE of the lives that Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans actually lived.

The goal is pleasure, which includes everything in life that is desirable. When there is only two of anything, and one is desirable and the other is undesirable, thenyou want all of the desirable and none of the undesirable. This is not rocket science and the ancient Epicureans understood it so thoroughly that Epicurus thought he had no need to include it in the letter to Menoeceus. He did not have any way of knowing how decadent the world would become 300 years later and how the lack of including it would be twisted to make a philosophy of pleasure into the equivalent of a philosophy of death-worship - the very thing that Hegesius had advocated and the Epicureans rejected.

Quote from Matteng

3. Following human flourishing means social activities, following Pleasure could lead to unsocial immorality actions, when that (unjust activities) give Pleasure, an Epicurean could not have Objections.

This is one of the most disreputable of all the objections. Who gets to define and ordain that "social activities" are good and "unsocial / immoral activities" are bad? We are supposed to just accept THEIR decrees as to what is good and what is bad?

Nature gives individuals only pleasure and pain by which to decide what to pursue and what to avoid. Nature does not write in the sky what all men at all times and all places are required to do as "moral." Epicurus totally objects abstract and absolute standards of virtue and morality because there is no true and real basis for such absolute standards in nature. There are only parficular people living at particular places and particular times, and their feelings of pleasure and pain. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The earth belongs to the living..."

Epicurus states his denial of absolute justice explicitly in the principal doctrines, and Torquatus explains this at great length as to all of the virtues.

Quote from Matteng

2. Following Pleasure directly, leads not always to happiness but sometimes to misery (sugar, drugs, anti-social behaviour). Following to aim at the good life has not that problem (Virtue).

This one is the kind of objection raised by someone who just refuses to read what Epicurus had to say and to think things through categorically and logically, Here's the sequence:

Pleasure and Pain are the only two feelings. Every experience falls in one of those two categories, just like all of the universe is divided into bodies and space.

Epicurus says the goal is Pleasure, because that includes all that is desirable, given that the feeling of pleasure is the only measure of desirability. However there are times that in order to achieve what is desirable (pleasure), we must endure pain in order to obtain greater pleasure. The ONLY reason we are enduring that pain is to achieve pleasure, so the logic of the goal being pleasure is not violated. The amount of pain we choose to endure is less than the pleasure we expect to receive. The logic of pleasure as the goal is not violated by sometimes choosing pain.

And again since the feeling of pleasure is the only measure of what is desirable, there is no "good life" (happiness) other than a life of pleasure. Virtue in Epicurean terms is whatever course of conduct leads to pleasure. Virtue has no absolute abstract meaning as these other people are asserting. Asserting something to be "the good life" without defining the good life as pleasure (which they refuse to do) is absurd.

I see I really only addressed part of those questions, and at the very least 2 and 3 are separate. I will come back when I have more time but i welcome others to chime in as these are common questions.

First, you have to understand that Pleasure to Epicurus was extremely broad, encompassing all that is desirable in life (because it is not painful).

But you're really talking about a time frame issue.

Pleasure is the guide and one of only two feelings, but Epicurus says at the opening of the letter to Menoecus that the goal of life is happiness. When you dril down into the sources you find that a life of happiness means a life in which pleasure is predominating over pain. It is not necessary to eliminate all pain in order to be happy, as Epicurus himself was happy even in pain in his last days.

As Diogenes of Oinoanda said:

Quote

Fr. 32

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.

Torquatus also says something very similar, that a life of happiness is a life of pleasure.

"If then even the glory of the Virtues, on which all the other philosophers love to expatiate so eloquently, has in the last resort no meaning unless it be based on Pleasure, whereas Pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically attractive and alluring, it cannot be doubted that Pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of Pleasure."

There is also a David Sedley issue on this:

"Epicurean vs Cyreniac Happiness" which discusses this time frame issue. Pleasure is the ultimate way to describe anything that is desirable. Happiness is a pleasure, but "happiness" as in "a happy life" refers to an assessment as in discussing a "happy life" which is an abstract concept, and this distinguishes the Epicureans from the Cyreniacs as Sedley explains.

DJRazorback tells us:

I'm a retired business executive who has studied Stoicism in great detail, but now in retirement my philosophies on life seem more aligned with Epicurean beliefs, and I am interested in learning more and being part of the Epicurean community.

Thank you,