It applies to EVERY area! 
Posts by Cassius
Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
-
-
This is getting to be very elaborate!
-
That makes good sense to me.
Part of what we always dance around in coming up with formulas is the issue of whether the goal of avoiding pain is somehow entirely separate or more important than that of pursuing pleasure.That's where I think the perspective has to focus on that there really is not a conflict here. Yes there are times when a train is coming at you and your immediate attention is focused on getting out of the way, but in reality since the feelings are only two, then every choice, and not only when you are standing in the path of the train, but always, is basically that of avoiding a pain by choosing a pleasure, or choosing a temporary/smaller pain in order to experience a longer/larger pleasure.
Once your perspective opens up to including EVERYTHING that you experience/feel as either a pain or a pleasure, then there really is no issue of worrying that you are at any point "shifting into neutral" and doing something that is neither a pain nor a pleasure. Each and every action is geared toward the same ultimate result.
And that's why I also think that Epicurus seems to have tended to collapse the wording into saying that PLEASURE is the guide of life. Each time he could have said "pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain" but I think when the overall goal is seen as pleasure, which is really the same thing as avoiding pain, then it makes sense to talk in terms of the one word "pleasure" (even using the "accursed" term "hedonism") rather than always saying "pursue pleasure and avoid pain."Because it seems to me that really both terms are encompassed in "feeling" and so ultimately what we are discussing is the competition between ultimate goals: Are the ultimate goals set by "feeling" or by "gods" or by "Ideal forms / virtue." And of course Epicurus comes down for "feeling."
-
i almost never use the word "hedonism" myself exactly for the reason you state.
-
Garden Dweller I agree your concern about hedonism, and i agree with Godfrey's comment re "rational". I think we are seeing the implications of Epicurus' deemphasis of " logic" . there is indeed a limit to which logic and reason can take us. We are really in the realm of "feeling" although even that word is surrounded with negative stereotypes.
-
except that "mindfulness" is almost trademarked by the Stoics
-
Yes those would be categories, but just as we can list specific aspects of bodily pains being replaced by pleasures, we ought also to be able to do the same with mental -- and since mental pains and pleasures are specifically mentioned by Torquatus as being capable of being more intense than physical/bodily ones, they are probably from many perspectives as important or more important than bodily.
I hedge by saying "from many perspectives" mainly because I know that sustaining bodily life is a requirement for any other kind of pleasures, but for most of us, sustaining bodily life really doesn't require all that much effort nowadays - or, at least, we generally have a lot of time to devote to mental issues in addition to bodily ones.
-
Is there a companion "Present Moment Mental Comfort Enhancement" to go with this one? I scanned back but apologize if I missed it.
-
One more thing I would add in addition to this is that it is useful, when thinking about quantity, to think about the analogy of a filling a vessel, as stated in the opening of Lucretius book 6 in the quote below. The point being made is that it is desirable to fill the vessel with pleasure, but in order to do so you must plug the holes that prevent it (the vessel / your mind / your life) from being filled to the top with pleasure. Primary among those holes in Epicurean doctrine are fear of the gods, fear of death, fear of pain, and confusion caused by the allegation that something besides pleasure has value in itself. An important corollary to all this is that once you have filled the vessel to the top, then adding more pleasure simply causes the vessel to overflow, which means it cannot be handled/experienced and therefore does not produce a situation that is any better than the vessel sitting calmly while filled to the brim with pleasures:
"For when he [Epicurus] saw how little would suffice for necessary use, and by what small provisions life might be preserved; that Nature had prepared every thing ready to support mankind; that men abounded with wealth, and were loaded with honor and applause, and happy in their private concerns, in the good character of their children, and yet their minds were restless at home, complaining and lamenting the misery of their condition; ***he perceived the vessel itself (the mind) was the cause of the calamity, and by the corruption of that, every thing, though ever so good, that was poured into it was tainted: it was full of holes, and run out, and so could never by any means by filled; and whatever it received within, it infected with a stinking smell.***"
-
Post by Elayne , answering this question:
This morning we have had a question about "how much pleasure is ideal for a happy life"-- instead of posting the question as is, I am posting it along with the answer for the ease of casual readers who may not go through the comments.
The good news is that Epicurus certainly did address this, but to answer it we need to look at the wording of the question itself, because there are false assumptions built in. Once those false assumptions are removed, I think you will all know the answer Epicurus gave, even before you see it-- because it is the only possible answer!
I am writing it in my own words, because these are things I have found to be true about my own life. In the comments I will link to a document that has his writing cited.
First, the word "ideal" is a key that Platonism has become a habit, possibly unconscious. There is no such thing. Ideals, ideal outcomes, ideal conditions-- these are all imaginary concepts. The universe is material, and there are no absolute standards/ways to measure or select for what would be considered the best, the good, the perfect, the ideal. So you never have to answer any question for yourself that contains ideals. Those questions lead you on wild goose chases, away from your pleasure.
Our guide for life is the same one all living creatures have-- choosing pleasure instead of pain. Humans will have many pleasures in common but some individual differences. So let's reword the question-- "how much pleasure will I find pleasurable, for a happy life?"
Now let's address "happy"-- since there are no external/ideal standards, that word also has no meaning outside of pleasure. Most ordinary people mean pleasure when they say happy, joyful, etc.
Now the question is "how much pleasure will I find pleasurable, for a pleasurable life?" And the answer is obvious now-- as much as possible! Because if there is a quantity of pleasure that isn't pleasurable-- it's not pleasure! That wouldn't make sense. Whatever is not pleasurable is pain.
All pleasures are "good" in themselves because we have no other standard to rate them by. But if a specific _activity_ causes us more pain than pleasure, we will have more pleasure if we choose a different action instead. And sometimes you will see that some pain stands between you and greater pleasure, so you will decide to go through the pain for your reward.
It really is that simple.
For every action, consider the full effect of what will happen in terms of pleasure and pain, and keep choosing for pleasure. Do not make up reasons to limit your pleasures-- there are none. If you have chosen so much pleasure that all pain is pushed out, that is the limit of the pleasure you can possibly feel at any given moment-- you won't want more, because you will be entirely blissfully pleasure-filled. In normal life pain will happen, but if you keep persistently choosing wisely, you can indeed have a very pleasurable (happy) life! This is our hope for you. ❤️
-
Here is a link to the same poll and responses on FB - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…83562795025999/
-
Cassius started a new event:
Quote -
Garden Dweller that opens up an interesting discussion from a lot of directions but you do seem to be able to fit each of those more details word descriptions into one or the other category (pain or pleasure).
That's why I think that the real issue is not that there should be a more precise definition of pleasure and pain, but that in the end we are really talking about "feeling" in the sense of "feeling" vs divine revelation or ideal forms or abstract logic. Feelings are essentially "sensations" that we don't need words to describe, and it's only when we have to start communicating with others and putting things into more complication constructions that the issues begin.
But in the end, despite whatever difficulties there may be in talking about feelings, we have a firm point of reference because we FEEL them rather than having to have them explained to us by someone or something outside ourselves.
-
Both of those last comments by Elayne are more reasons why I think it would be very productive to spend more time on unpacking exactly what is meant by the term "pleasure." Just like "happiness" we throw the word around as if it is obvious but it has many subtleties that need to be explicitly understood.
-
Charles:
Thank you for posting this. I agree with you that this one is better than most. It is, alas, as you say, infected with the standard problems, but to a slightly lesser extent than others. I suppose this is to be expected based on this clip about the author of the video:
I also made these preliminary notes:
- The general error here is that his focus on this version of Natural and Necessary, plus this version of Static/Moving, makes Epicurus sound like an ascetic, which he was not.
4:30 -- says Epicurus was celibate!!? Absolutely no evidence of that !
The video says happy life = absence of anxiety and suffering -- which is the same old problem.
8:00 - References the Epicurus "riddle" -- Includes a section about god being omnipotent, but does not explain that is not how the Greeks viewed gods, so this would not have been an argument Epicurus would have made himself.
9:40 Comes right out and alleges that Epicurus taught "Rational philosophy of pleasure that is strikingly ascetic!" Yes, the Stoic view all right. Compounds the misrepresentation by saying this over a picture of the cherub figure (rather than Epicurus himself) from the "School of Athens" fresco.
9:56 Alleges that Epicurus lived on water bread and olives most of the time. how ridiculous! I suppose that's why Epicurus needed a household staffed amply with slaves, to be sure he got served his "bread and water" on time every day.
It is sad to say that even with these and other issues we could list, that you are right Charles -- in relative terms this is one of the "better" videos.
I could not recommend this to someone who doesn't have access to the full picture of Epicurus, but it's good to have this for comparison towards the time when someone with video skills puts together a better version.
-
This self-preservation assessment is equally important or superior to the question of whether the behavior will result in pleasure.
I wonder if this is sufficiently generalized to reflect that sometimes we will choose to die for a friend?
-
Ah Godfrey that reminds me that we miss you (and others) who have not been able to attend the Skype Book Reviews.
This past week JAWS raised the excellent point that DeWitt's list seems to be more of his personal list of how to fit Epicurean positions into a "virtue framework," rather than there really being a list of "Epicurean virtues" documentable in the texts.
Did they in fact have a list of "virtues" different from the standard list? Did they consider it useful to have their own list of characteristics that constituted a "special" list that they considered "virtues."
I am not sure that they did, but maybe / probably they just used the existing terminology, like they used the existing term for "gods."
So this is an area that DeWitt is helpful but we probably need to be careful to interpret HIM sympathetically, just like he interprets Epicurus favorably.
We have in Torquatus a list where he goes through the standard virtues, so we definitely have that as a point of reference, but whether he too was considering them as especially Epicurean, or just referring to the non-Epicurean list, is probably the same question as before.
So I am not sure if "Epicurean virtue" really conveys something that is a one-to-one equivalent with the term "virtue" as it is normally used. I wonder if "Epicurean virtue" means much more than "any tool which is practically successful in the attainment of pleasure." (And I continue here to not attach "and avoidance of pain" because are they not the same thing when looked at through Epicurean glasses?)
-
Keep us posted Charles. I will drop in as frequently as I can, especially if you try to schedule a special "event."
-
Right -- while there may be characters who focus on "Absence of pain" (I feel sure that they are, at least in a generic sense of shrinking from any effort or danger) are any of them held up to be worthy of emulation?
Now I suspect that there may well be characters who are both (clearly pursuing pleasure plus worthy of admiration) possibly including Petronius, but I mean to be specific: are any of them affirmatively and specifically pursuing "absence of pain" as their stated goal, rather than "pleasure" as we ordinarily understand the term. I am thinking that all of the characters pursuing pleasure are defining their goal in the normal way, never as "absence of pain" unless they are clearly slothful such as Oblomov apparently is.
-
So I would say self preservation isn't an Epicurean virtue,
Stated that way, Godfrey, what *would* you say is "an Epicurean virtue"?
