Episode 333 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week our episode is entitled: "Epicurus Disputes The Stoic View Of The Sensations and the Anticipations."
Happy Birthday to ernesto.sun! Learn more about ernesto.sun and say happy birthday on ernesto.sun's timeline: ernesto.sun
I don't think that's overly harsh. Of course when the Terminators take over they may not agree 
This is like living through the industrial revolution and radio and tv and internet all in one - or more.
The points it picked up from you are good for it to pick up so the world is better that you wrote them.
I have no idea where all this leads. In the meantime I guess we do the best we can.
Great points. I certainly can't speak definitively but I gather some people think that Epicurus was frequently talking about "sages" in the sense of dedicated lifelong philosophers. There's a book out there "Epicurus The Sage" and i have never liked that title or term. I personally don't think Epicurus applied his teachings only to a very small category of super-high-achieving people.
it sounds to me like this notion that the sage is some superhuman specimen has some Stoic connections. In recent reading of On Ends for the podcast, I've come across the contention that Chrysippus held wise men/sages to be as rare as a phoenix, which presumably means extremely rare.
I think Epicurus was describing a philosophy for ordinary people of ordinary intelligence, so I feel sure that his general advice was the same on marriage as on anything else: Ask yourself what will happen if you pursue a particular course, and if can reasonably be anticipated to lead to more pleasure than pain, then it makes sense to pursue it. Of course marriage (depending on society) has more long-term and deep consequences than most any other relationship, so you should be particularly careful. But "be particularly careful to examine your circumstances" does not change the general rule, which is to do your best to anticipate the consequences and act accordingly to pursue the happiest life possible to you.
As I've said ad nauseum in the past, the Principal Doctrines were not originally verified.
Far be it for me to question anyone's typing but perhaps you meant a word other than "verified"?
Happy Birthday to Keith! Learn more about Keith and say happy birthday on Keith's timeline: Keith
So removal of pain does remain a goal even if we can be "happy" without it, since we want to be even happier and have more pleasures to achieve complete happiness where nothing torments us and we can enjoy pleasures undiluted.
I agree firmly with the idea that getting completely rid of bodily and mental pain constitutes the goal, and that having such a goal serves a very real purpose as identifying an organizing principal, and as I think that you mentioned earlier this is part of the "gods" analysis - the gods serve as a way of thinking about shooting for the highest possible goal.
All of these concepts have details about them that help us use them as targets that we'd like to approximate as closely as possible.
Probably the real practical problem is that as humans we can't practically speaking avoid all pain (and I know you are very young wbernys so speaking as someone whose a lot closer to his end than to his beginning the pains really begin to stack up the older you get!).
I think the struggle occurs because many people would like to have a firm set of Do's and Don'ts -- Ten commandments so to speak - that would prioritize for us exactly when some pleasure is going to cost more than its worth. The natural/necessary categories help with that, but even there we don't have a rigid set of rules like the religions tend to offer.
And in the absence of set rules, people struggle with whether they should "avoid pain at all cost." I think the friendship example, or lesser questions such as "Should I get a dog even though he'll only live maximum ten years and then I'll be heartbroken when he dies." helps crystalize that yes, we DO choose things that we know will cause us pain when the pleasure we get outweighs the cost in pain.
Just brainstorming here but it would be very helpful to come up with other illustrations of the same principle (examples of discretionary actions where we clearly choose to accept some pain). We often use the examples of "going to the dentist" or "getting surgery" and those are useful, but to really dramatize the point it would be good to point to examples where we could walk away from the situation without pain, but we choose to go forward anyway (friendship, pets, etc......)
Thanks for that clarification. Presuming that it is possible for one day to be happier than another, and that "happy" here doesn't imply a superlative state, then I sure would be happier without kidney disease than with it!
But back to the more basic and at the same time more urgent point to be clear about: Happiness, which is what Epicurus says we do everything to obtain, does not require complete absence of pain.
Are we agreed on that?
What challenges me, and perhaps all of us is the short term and the long term of living one's life.
I think I know what you mean and i agree. However i personally try to avoid focusing the greater than / lesser than analysis purely in terms of "time," even in comparing the short term to the long term. It's probable that it's better to find a way to juxtapose "some of the consequences" against "all of the consequences" so that we don't run afoul of the idea that "longer" is always "better." Sometimes a pleasure that lasts for a shorter period of time can be more important to us than a longer period of time. And for that I would cite the letter to Menoeceus:
[126] But the many at one moment shun death as the greatest of evils, at another (yearn for it) as a respite from the (evils) in life. (But the wise man neither seeks to escape life) nor fears the cessation of life, for neither does life offend him nor does the absence of life seem to be any evil. And just as with food he does not seek simply the larger share and nothing else, but rather the most pleasant, so he seeks to enjoy not the longest period of time, but the most pleasant.
I constantly have to remind myself of this because it is very easy to fall into the idea of taking things in isolation and thinking longer is always better, but even in terms of lifespan that isn't necessarily so. There are many factors to consider, and Godfrey has planted in my mind that PDO9 points us not only to "duration" but also to "intensity" and "part of the body(presumably including mind) affected."
That second paragraph there from Frances Wright is in my view a good argument for why treating "Absence of pain" as the prime directive has to be explained very carefully.
I know from the moment I first shake hands with a new friend that he may well die before I do, and the closer we get the more the mental pain of his loss will hurt. The only way to avoid that will be for me to die first, which is hardly a more attractive alternative.
BUT I PURSUE THAT FRIENDSHIP ANYWAY because my goal in life is the greatest happiness through pleasure possible for me, not the avoidance of each and every and all pain.
I gladly and willingly accept the cost in pain that will be exacted in exchange for that pleasure, which greatly outweighs the pain.
I agree that the distinction between bodily and mental pain is very important.
Bodily pain can often be mitigated by a prudent lifestyle -- but only mental pain can be fully eliminated through a prudent application of philosophy.
But I am not sure we have discussed this before: Can even mental pain be totally eliminated / extinguished? What texts might you cite for that position that the mental pain of loss for a loved one (for instance) can be fully extinguished. I think of that example in part because I see wbernys earlier quoted Frances Wright (which I just now saw) and this always reminds me of her paragraph here from chapter 10:
But there is yet a pain, which the wisest and the best of men cannot escape; that all of us, my sons, have felt, or have to feel. Do not your hearts whisper it? Do you not tell me, that in death there is yet a sting? That ere he aim at us, he may level the beloved of our soul? The father, whose tender care hath reared our infant minds — the brother, whom the same breast hath nourished, and the same roof sheltered, with whom, side by side, we have grown like two plants by a river, sucking life from the same fountain and strength from the same sun — the child whose gay prattle delights our ears, or whose opening understanding fixes our hopes — the friend of our choice, with whom we have exchanged hearts, and shared all our pains and pleasures, whose eye hath reflected the tear of sympathy, whose hand hath smoothed the couch of sickness. Ah! my sons, here indeed is a pain — a pain that cuts into the soul. There are masters that will tell you otherwise; who will tell you that it is unworthy of a man to mourn even here. But such, my sons, speak not the truth of experience or philosophy, but the subtleties of sophistry and pride. He who feels not the loss, hath never felt the possession. He who knows not the grief, hath never known the joy. See the price of a friend in the duties we render him, and the sacrifices we make to him, and which, in making, we count not sacrifices, but pleasures. We sorrow for his sorrow; we supply his wants, or, if we cannot, we share them. We follow him to exile. We close ourselves in his prison; we soothe him in sickness; we strengthen him in death: nay, if it be possible, we throw down our life for his. Oh! What a treasure is that for which we do so much! And is it forbidden to us to mourn its loss? If it be, the power is not with us to obey.
Should we, then, to avoid the evil, forego the good? Shall we shut love from our hearts, that we may not feel the pain of his departure? No; happiness forbids it. Experience forbids it. Let him who hath laid on the pyre the dearest of his soul, who hath washed the urn with the bitterest tears of grief — let him say if his heart hath ever formed the wish that it had never shrined within it him whom he now deplores. Let him say if the pleasures of the sweet communion of his former days doth not still live in his remembrance. If he love not to recall the image of the departed, the tones of his voice, the words of his discourse, the deeds of his kindness, the amiable virtues of his life. If, while he weeps the loss of his friend, he smiles not to think that he once possessed him. He who knows not friendship, knows not the purest pleasure of earth. Yet if fate deprive us of it, though we grieve, we do not sink; Philosophy is still at hand, and she upholds us with fortitude. And think, my sons, perhaps in the very evil we dread, there is a good; perhaps the very uncertainty of the tenure gives it value in our eyes; perhaps all our pleasures take their zest from the known possibility of their interruption. What were the glories of the sun, if we knew not the gloom of darkness? What the refreshing breezes of morning and evening, if we felt not the fervors of noon? Should we value the lovely-flower, if it bloomed eternally; or the luscious fruit, if it hung always on the bough? Are not the smiles of the heavens more beautiful in contrast with their frowns, and the delights of the seasons more grateful from their vicissitudes? Let us then be slow to blame nature, for perhaps in her apparent errors there is hidden a wisdom. Let us not quarrel with fate, for perhaps in our evils lie the seeds of our good. Were our body never subject to sickness, we might be insensible to the joy of health. Were our life eternal, our tranquillity might sink into inaction. Were our friendship not threatened with interruption, it might want much of its tenderness. This, then, my sons, is our duty, for this is our interest and our happiness; to seek our pleasures from the hands of the virtues, and for the pain which may befall us, to submit to it with patience, or bear up against it with fortitude. To walk, in short, through life innocently and tranquilly; and to look on death as its gentle termination, which it becomes us to meet with ready minds, neither regretting the past, nor anxious for the future.”
Please do Don as I don't want Wbernys to think I am singling him out! 
This is one of my most long-running issues with how Epicurean philosophy is presented. Saying that "the goal is absence of pain" can be explained in a perfectly logical way. However taken in isolation the slogan is apt to be misinterpreted by people who do not understand that there are only two feelings, that if you are not experiencing the one then you are experiencing the other, and that saying you want "absence of pain" means you want pleasure in the full sense of the word, including the active pleasures of joy and delight, rather than just a feeling of "nothingness."
But til my dying day I will remain convinced that a very large number of people in today's world are not interpreting the full meaning in that way. The don't read Torquatus arguing with Cicero about it, and they don't read David Sedley's "Inferential basis of Epicurean Ethics" explaining how Epicurus can apply the same logic he applies to atoms and void to pleasure and pain, and as a result they are apt to say "Epicurus is saying the same thing as the Buddhists! Epicurus is saying get rid of all ups and downs of life just like the Stoics! We're all just one big happy family trying to rise above the siren calls of the body to achieve a blessed state of absolute spirit contemplating absolute wisdom! (Or some variation of the above.)
So I am all in favor of saying "the sun is the size it appears to be" and "pleasure is the absence of pain" and "death is nothing to us." But I want to be sure that my audience has a full explanation of why I say that, and if I'm pretty sure they don't understand it, then explanation is necessary or else you can cause more harm than good. I don't want anyone thinking I am flat-earth idiot who thinks that the sun is the size of a basketball, i don't want anyone thinking I am advocating the life of a hermit in a cave on bread and water, and I don't want anyone to think I am advocating suicide because I don't care about life.
My understanding is Epicurus thought removal of pain was important since it didn't allow height of pleasure, BUT even if you didn't reach the height of pleasure (no pain in mind or body) you could still have predominance of pleasure over pain thanks to mental pleasures understanding limits of pain and gratitude for past goods, etc. Especially as mental pleasures are more important than physical ones
I agree with everything in that paragraph. The extra twist I would say rather than "important" I would say "the theoretical goal."
And that gets to the issue - for humans we are not going to be able to eliminate all pain if we want the most happiness possible to us. So to stress "absence of pain" as if the prime directive is to always avoid all pain is going to result in a far less happy life than if one understands that we sometimes choose pain in order to obtain greater pleasure in full.
Yep you are right as usual my typing is awful! Missed the NOT there!
Well he's certainly not in the best condition he could possibly be, as no one would voluntarily choose kidney disease. But the general point is the happiness and predominance of pleasure do require total absence of pain, so it is perilous to summarize the philosophy as the removal of all pain rather than focusing on the value of Pleasure as allowing happiness even when some pains are present.
And I do see our conversation as being about "the best ways of explaining Epicurus to normal people" rather than that we are trying to nitpick against particular people or expressions.
Edit - thanks to Wbernys for pointing out that my second sentence should be do NOT require...!
because we can't experience the height of pleasure while in pain, and oftentimes pain doesn't allow pleasure as the two are opposites, so I don't mind commentators emphasizing that with caveats.
And yet on the last day of his life Epicurus considered himself happy / and/or considered it to be among his happiest days despite his excruciating pain.
How would you reconcile that with what you just wrote as quoted there?
I see this discussion as extremely helpful as well on the question of how best to convey Epicurean philosophy to others.
Here's another example of a similar issue, this from the blurb on "Martin the Epicurean" at Amazon:
I would draw attention to the last phrase of the last sentence. I don't mean to be criticizing anyone in particular here, and I haven't traced back to see if that is a quotation from the book itself or an addition by an Amazon or other book representative. I see the blurb is written as if it were not written by MFS himself.
But regardless of who wrote it, when I see that I can't help but think that 95% of people are going to take that as meaning either one of two things -- (1) Pleasure doesn't include sex drugs and rock-n-roll, it ONLY includes "absence of pain in the body and absence of trouble in the mind" or (2) Sex drugs and rock-n-roll may be pleasures, but the ULTIMATE pleasures are "absence of pain in the body and absence of trouble in the mind."
I am here of course using "sex drugs and rock-n-roll" as a stand-in for all of the normal and ordinary active pleasures of body and mind, specifically including "joy and delight."
And I don't think it's true, or helpful to imply even if it sounds good to some people, that either (1) or (2) are what Epicurus taught.
Edit: I'm also not entirely comfortable with the statement that Epicurus "regarded scientific knowledge as subservient to the moral end." Not as much of a problem there as in the explanation of pleasure, but I'd be concerned about confusion there as well. Epicurus didn't start out complaining that his teachers didn't tell him how to live happily, he started out questioning their scientific rigor as to chaos.
Psychological hedonism helps to dispel this vanity, there is no rising above pleasure or pain, there are only correct and incorrect views on how to achieve it. So it helps to both "knock down our opponents who say they are mighty and rise above pleasure, generally removes stigma around hedonism, and offers a therapy that we all pursue the same goal, so let's find out how to achieve it.
Ok yes then this is just where we have a disagreement as to the best and most accurate way of describing what Epicurus is doing.
It's the same problem I have with this sentence from Brittanica:
psychological hedonism, in philosophical psychology, the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It has been espoused by a variety of distinguished thinkers, including Epicurus, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, and important discussions of it can also be found in works by Plato, Aristotle, Joseph Butler, G.E. Moore, and Henry Sidgwick.
In my view, nothing was added of value to the world or to the human race by those two sentences, ESPECIALLY as to the result them being to imply that Epicurus held the same views as Bentham or Mill, or even similar views to Plato, Aristotle, Butler, Moore, or Sidgwick.
Our friend Elli here I think makes a similar point when she refuses to discuss Epicurean philosophy as "Epicureanism." Grouping things together overbroadly creates major problems in the understanding of ordinary people. No doubt specialists in psychology and psychiatry may find such groupings helpful, in the same way that the term "American" can apply to someone who lives in Portland Oregon or San Francisco CA or New York NY or Mobile Alabama. They all live in the same continent, but to suggest for very long that we can generalize much about their psychology from that fact would be to make a major mistake.
This conversation really solidifies why I find it unhelpful to talk not only about "pscyhological hedonism" but to "hedonism" in general. There are so many ways of looking at these issues that to imply that there are other commonalities beyond the term "pleasure" being centrally involved is to create more confusion than clarity.
So probably as this conversation dies down we'll all go back to our separate observations as to when and where it is appropriate to talk about "hedonism" or "psychological hedonism," and this will be a "to each his own" issue of applying whatever terminology works best for a particular situation. And I can see the merits in that approach, even if I have to grit my teeth when the term comes up and think to myself "that person*** is trying to apologize for pleasure."
*** Not a reference to Webernys or anyone here!
I see this and I can see where it supports where you are coming from wbernys. What I am not convinced of is that talking in terms of "psychology" is helpful to a philosophical discussion, as I see much potential damage in it for the reasons we are discussing. Is focusing on "psychological hedonism" not just a method of "apologizing for" hedonism?
I would say that Epicurus is not advocating the pursuit of pleasure because we "have to" pursue pleasure, he is advocating for it because Nature prescribes it, we have the ability to ignore Nature's prescription, and we will live better if we follow Nature rather than substituting our own goals. Do you see that part differently?
psychological hedonism, in philosophical psychology, the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It has been espoused by a variety of distinguished thinkers, including Epicurus, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, and important discussions of it can also be found in works by Plato, Aristotle, Joseph Butler, G.E. Moore, and Henry Sidgwick.
Because its defenders generally assume that agents are motivated only by the prospect of their own pleasures and pains, psychological hedonism is a form of psychological egoism. Psychological egoism is a broader notion, however, since one can hold that human actions are exclusively self-interested without insisting that self-interest always reduces to matters of pleasure and pain. As an empirical thesis about human motivation, psychological hedonism is logically distinct from claims about the value of desires. It is thus distinct from axiological or normative hedonism, the view that only pleasure has intrinsic value, and from ethical hedonism, the view that pleasure-producing actions are morally right.
Secondly, If this is Epicurus' position (which i believe it is) than it is important to know how to defend it from others like the Stoics and Religious who will say that this an evil doctrine, taught by a nihilistic and crude man, and both he and we are just projecting our own vile natures onto good people (something I've seen a few times).
OK here in this sentence, it is the "this" I am questioning (I added the underline).
I would say that Epicurus would hold that "pleasure" is nature's guide and that happiness is a life of pleasure and that is what we should pursue, and that we see that this is nature's goal by observing the young of all species.
Are you suggesting that instead of saying it that way, it is more persuasive to say "Epicurus was a psychological hedonist, meaning that we all pursue what we believe we will find pleasureable whether we do so consciously or not."
If you are suggesting that saying "Epicurus was a pyschological hedonist ...." is more persuasive, I don't understand why that would be the case, because then going on to defend the position that "everyone is doing it whether they do so concsiously or not" in my view just then shifts the playing field over onto the question of whether people are conscious of their actions and reasoning or not. I don't personally find arguing that position particularly productive of anything because it sounds like the topic of debate has become some form of determinism.
Apparently there's some disconnect in what you're seeing and what I am seeing. I am by no means saying you are wrong (as I think Don agrees with you) but I sam still missing the point of shifting the discussion of the pursuit of pleasure over to the field of "whether you are conscious of it or not."
Help me understand why it seems attractive to talk about "psychological hedonism" rather than just "hedonism."
Is it because "psychological hedonism" implies you can't help it so you are defending hedonism on the grounds that "you can't help it"?
Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com
Here is a list of suggested search strategies:
- Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
- Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
- Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
- Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
- Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.