Posts by Cassius

I agree with your comments Elayne. There is a lot of thinking to be done on these issues, including an aspect you raise here: "I do not belong to a political party, because all of them contain heavy elements of idealism." I think that may be a completely appropriate decision for a particular Epicurean to reach - I personally do not associate with political parties either.

But I do not think we would go so far as to say that it would be un-Epicurean to associate with a political party in every context. Often it is necessary to engage in group activity in order to offset the activities of other groups, with an obvious example being that when Greece is being invaded by Persia, the Athenians and the Spartans had better put aside their differences and form a "group" in order to fight off the attack. There's probably a boundless sliding scale of when and what type of group political activities are appropriate.

So a part of reality and living in the world is that some things can be handled individually, while some things require group coordination. As you say the "process of decision-making," presumably based on agreements as discussed in the last ten PD's, are probably going to be a distinguishing feature of normal Epicurean activities. But even saying that, there are likely to be emergencies that don't allow for extended debate and universal consent.

The bottom line is that Cicero's "one size fits all" formulation of law and justice is exactly the opposite of what an Epicurean view of the universe would support. I am attaching a clip of the Yonge translation of this passage, which indicates that this text is really from Lactantius and Augustine, which taints it even further:

[ Post by Elayne]:

Although I'm fairly active on various specific political issues that affect my life, I do not belong to a political party, because all of them contain heavy elements of idealism.

A party or political system I would regard as Epicurean would be recognizable by the _process_ members went through to reach their individual positions, from which they would negotiate with others-- not by their specific positions on the issues.

I decide my positions on issues according to my assessment of effects on my pleasure, which includes the pleasure of those I care about. But when I discuss politics with non-Epicureans, this is not how they are going about it-- they are approaching it as a team sport, rather than negotiating within their team and explaining to each other how they are conducting their hedonic calculus.

For a specific perspective on issue X, we could say maybe there are perspectives A, B, and C. Different Epicureans could take the perspectives A, B, or C because their pleasures differ, because the issue affects their pleasures differently, or because they are predicting the outcomes of action differently. For the first two possibilities, they may be able to negotiate based on give and take on a range of additional issues, commonly called horse-trading. For the 3rd, it could be very useful for them to compare how they are making their predictions of net effects of action, because they may learn from each other and change their minds based on scientific analysis. This last type of discussion is only possible if participants are willing to put their own pleasure ahead of idealism.

In a group of Epicureans engaged in politics, at least we would have the process of decision-making in common, and discussions would make more sense. But the excerpts from Wilson's book show that she is not using an Epicurean process at all-- she is not talking about what would give her pleasure. She is a social utilitarian.

This is the thread for discussion of the article: Political Division In The Promotion of Epicurean Philosophy: A Prescription For Disaster

That's right! It only seems like yesterday that the almighty god and supreme ruler of the universe woke up, discovered his mistaken creation, and sent his son to be crucified in a painful death to straighten it all out!!

How time flies when you are having fun!

Good catch Joshua. Yes that way of printing it does make it look like a quote -- either a fragment from a papyrus or perhaps someone's poetic freestyle translation of something from Lucretius.

But in either case I've never seen that version.

Please use this thread to discuss: On Pleasure vs. Tranquility - A Dialog With Southhampton

I have never seen that quote or anything like it attributed to Epicurus anywhere. "Objective" is not a term generally associated with Epicurean epistemology, and presuming that term is being used in an ordinary sense is probably contradictory to Epicurean epistemology. Also "proper" as a modifier to "nature of events" sounds suspiciously non-Epicurean. Translations can vary widely, but my tentative expectation is that this is an incorrect attribution.

Do you have any other information about this?

Welcome Diamat ! I see you have already posted, but when you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us about your background in Epicurus.

Anything you can learn about the "suppression" of Epicurean thought would be of interest too. I think I keep reading that Octavian clamped down on "private associations" but i have never been clear about the evidence or relevance of that

sounds fascinating! Anything in writing you send we can try to run through Google translate.

I am not sure which "answers that we don't have" you are referring to. You raised the example of Somalia and if you are referring to answers about the details of the Somalians I agree that we don't have them (at least I personally don't).

But as to the overall analysis under Epicurean philosophy, PD30-40 make clear that there is NO absolute justice, so there is no one size fits all answers, only matters of agreement, where possible, or if there is no agreement, then there is no "justice" to refer to as a guide.

Now if in fact the Somalians wish to live in anarchy and feel they are happier that way, then that is their decision and so long as they do not adversely impact we or our friends, then i would see that as a matter of "excluding them from his life" as per PD39.

But even the decision to exclude is a morally "relative" decision, and in the absence of a universal concept of justice there is nothing higher than the calculation of the people involved (as individuals or as societies) as to how they relate to each other, if at all.

With the ultimate point being that we all may have our own individual views as to what arrangements would be most productive of happiness for the people involved, but that in the end there is no (1) god or (2) ideal justice / virtue by which to calculate the to answer that question.

Quote from Hiram

I think this type of doctrinal libertarianism is as naïve and dangerous as any of the traditional religions.

Hiram I am certainly not advocating libertarianism of any other form of government as suitable for everyone, or as something that everyone should submit to my judgment on.

Are you?

welcome @michaelallan ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and tell us about your background in Epicurus.

Yes there are many levels of things going on here. At one level, we're all here for what this adds to our own pleasure in the immediate experience, and in that respect we accept whoever and whatever comes into our circle, at least for the moment, in a friendly way. But not everyone is going to enter our circle of trusted friends.

So at another level, I think most of us (including me) want to do more than to just deal with whoever walks in the door. It would give me more/additional pleasure to see our efforts create something bigger than our own immediate circle, and potentially reach many more people who would be helped by it, thereby expanding our circle of friend and our own pleasure calculation. And in order to do that, we're going to need to be clear, as Elayne says, and also be firm about what we do and do not welcome in our circle of friends.

So we're not a hospital simply opening our doors to whatever sick person wanders in -- although we will generally do what we can to help them. Epicurean philosophy isn't just for "the sick" who happen to be in trouble, it's for "everyone" - at least those with the intelligence to understand it - as a base foundation for living and applying in their own circumstances.

So we're all going to have family/friends like Hiram who we treat in a way that is different from others who are more capable of applying the full message. But at the same time, and without any contradiction, we state clearly whenever possible what the full truth really is. That's where I see Nussbaum and her followers drawing back - they want to hide the truth from anyone they disagree with on "results" and frankly that causes a major immediate negative reaction in me.

It seems to me that there's no reason in the world all this can't be approached the way Torquatus was explaining, when he said "No one rejects, dislikes or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful." We aren't going to expect young children, or people who are mentally infirm, or the like to be able to be full-blown Epicureans. But as to how we decide to deal with them, the principles involved are the principles that Epicurus taught, and everyone has to apply those principles as best they can, realizing that everyone isn't going to do it the same way or get the same happy results.

I always catch myself wondering if I sound like a libertarian with those statements, but I don't think this is "libertarianism" as a political system. We aren't talking about a political system. We're talking about the fundamentals from which we analyse how to come up with a political system, but the details of every situation have to be considered, and in the end I don't see any conclusion other than that the general message is that there is no "one size fits all" arrangement. Maybe that ends up in a similar place with "libertarianism" - but it's not based on any kind of "first do no harm" or "no first use of force principle." In the end there are no overarching principles that override the actual on-the-ground feelings of the people involved.

Quote from Elayne

Psychopaths will act for their own pleasure anyway, but in some cases they can be persuaded that they are happier out of jail.

And if they cannot be persuaded that they are happier out of jail than in jail, then the issue is that others who ARE applying Epicurean philosophy will put them in jail (or worse) to prevent them from harming others (us or our friends).

It seems to me that what is being debated here is utilitarianism in practice, which is separate from Epicurus as a philosophy.

Hiram is no doubt correct that some people will not judge wisely, and will engage in activity that is self destructive and destructive to others.

But I see no justification in Epicurean philosophy to follow the Biblical "brother's keeper" analysis. In certain situations the erring person will be of such value to us that we would sacrifice our own happiness for them. But that is certainly not a general rule of Epicurean philosophy, and in fact the general rule established by the PD's on justice make clear that that is absolutely not the case. Some people for many reasons cannot and will not reach agreement with us not to harm us. Our Nature motivating us to secure our pleasure will lead us to restrain or otherwise prevent those people from harming us.

Of course we are talking in generalities but that is the point of the moral relativism issue. Surely we are not going to advocate a form of Epicurean philosophy that pleases us when we agree with it, and advocate utilitarianism when it does not. If we are going to study and promote and describe Epicurean philosophy to others we need to be honest about the implications of it. Certain people and groups are going to adopt practices that "we" don't find pleasurable. Neither gods nor ideal forms give them the "right" to engage in those practices from some absolute position of superiority. They want to be happy in way that impacts us in various ways negatively. We want to be happy in ways that, if those ways were enforced on people who disagree with us, would make them very unhappy. There is no "greatest good of the greatest number" justification for coming to some sort of master compromise, and the sooner we dispel that notion the better off we will be, just as we have dispelled notions of gods or absolute reason as the basis for determining how to live.

This is what Nussbaum refuses to accept, and why she will always ultimately be hostile to Epicurean philosophy. I am gathering that Wilson may be less hostile, and may be more open to the true implications, but only so far and then she herself draws the line. That's why these people are not Epicurean and not promoting Epicurean philosophy. They have their own ideas of what should be moral norms, and they seek justification through Epicurus to enforce them. And indeed Epicurus WILL tell them to pursue what they see as pleasure -- but Epicurus was always frank and honest and sincere enough to tell them the truth -- which is that THEIR version of pleasure is not the same version everyone else holds. We can try to enforce our version of pleasure if we like -- and I completely agree that there are times we should -- but we do so at our own peril, without justification from gods or any form of made-up absolute morality.

Once we embrace the truth only then are we able to use the truth to set up relationships that will be consistent with the facts of Nature that there are no absolute rules.

At this point the answer is no, Hiram, but within the subforum dedicated to the book it is divided into chapters and the "outlines" we have prepared so far are there. As far as notes highlighting the discussions that would be great but at this point we don't have anyone doing that.

You can learn a lot from a person's voice and so it was great to hear from you directly!

That's a great way to say it.

Quote from JJElbert

The pleasure principle is descriptive/observational before it is normative.

General Comment: Many of these issues overlap with the issues that Elayne raised in connection with the video which claimed "Office Space" was a good Epicurean model. I'm glad that Hiram found this article because what he is pointing out about Nussbaum is I think closely related.

The prevailing viewpoint from the Nussbaum perspective seems to me to be to emphasize the "denial/limits" side of Epicurean thought for exactly the reason stated here: She doesn't want other people pursuing pleasures that she doesn't agree with.

As for the Wilson perspective I think there are still problems, at least from what I gather from reading the British version of her book. I am gathering that this is referring to the American edition which has a different title and apparently different text. Wilson seems to be rejecting Nussbaum's ethical objections to Epicurus, but even Wilson isn't following Epicurus to his real conclusion. She too is fixated on the "denial/limits" side because she thinks that the result is acceptable to her.

The real nut of the case, however, is that the logical conclusion of Epicurus is that the reality of real people feeling real pleasure and pain, and making decisions based on their own feelings, is the way Nature works. We don't have to be pleased about the decisions other people make, and we can (and "should," given our own feelings of pleasure and pain) act to make sure that our own feelings are protected to the extent possible.

But ultimately the truth is that there is no God, no absolute right and wrong, and the way Nature has set up the "game" is that it's simply up to us to act to pursue / protect our own feelings. If we act successfully, we live long pleasurable lives. If we fail, we often find ourselves suffering short and painful lives, and early death.

Epicurus gives us ideas (such things as the natural and necessary analysis, pointing out friendship is the greatest tool, etc) but in the end Epicurus is not rebelling against Nature and asserting his own desires. He's simply telling us "The Way Things Are" and giving us the knowledge of how the game is played, so that we have the best chance to play it successfully.

OK this too is an important point and one we regularly discuss, but the answer that is clear, I think, is not given. The clear answer is that Epicurus said that LENGTH of life is not the only consideration, but whether it is the most pleasurable. And there's no ideal / absolute / mechanical ranking which tells us howr to value those cigarettes against the long life. No one outside us has the "moral right" or the "absolute right" any supernatural or other claim to being able to say that their calculation should be our calculation.

I'm not being a libertarian here; I am not saying that it is "naturally wrong" or even wrong at all for someone like Nussbaum to try to claim that right. I'm just saying that I think Epicurus would say that any such person who makes that claim does it at their own peril, and they better be able to back up their claim ultimately by force, because there is no God or absolute standard outside themselves that will support them in doing so.

So to get back to the original points raised by Hiram and addressed by Joshua, after reading the article I am confirmed that Joshua's take was correct. But let me state it wider. As individuals and societies we make the decision **all the time** to enforce our views on how to live on other people. Parents do it with children, lawgivers do it with society as a guard against criminals, nations do it doing wartime, etc.

I'm thinking that those are realities and that Epicurus would accept them as realities, but as a philosopher he would point out that there is nothing "Natural" or "Absolute" or "ideal" about their decisions on what to enforce -- and that all that Nature give each one of us is feeling -- pleasure and pain -- and it's up to us to work out our own lives doing our best to maximize net pleasure and reduce net pain as best we can.