Posts by Cassius

I agree with all the comments and think that the basic thrust is a problem with definitions. We know what pleasure is because we feel it, but we don't know what "good" means because it is an abstraction. That means our definitions of "good" have to be very careful, and it may not be going too far to say that that was what Epicurus was warning against, and that "good" really has no "intrinsic" meaning at all. Does any abstraction have meaning other than what we say it means? But pleasure is not an abstraction - pleasure is a feeling which we don't require abstractions to perceive.

Today the following has been added to the community standards:

Quote

5) Do not create posts composed of nothing other than links. Any links to locations outside the forum must contain comment on whether they are endorsed or criticized which explain how they relate to the forum. (Added 09/15/19)

This change in policy is implemented to prevent the forum from being flooded with academic posts which argue positions hostile to an activist and positive interpretation of Epicurean philosophy. This rule has not been enforced in the past but as the forum grows in size and there are more posts from newer people, it is not going to be possible to stay on top of every post and read the link to provide immediate commentary. This rule has been adopted over at the Facebook forum with good effect, and it is time to adopt it here.

Very few people are creating posts with nothing but links, and the ones who are doing so currently are doing it with good intent. However we need to look to the future and to apply rules evenhandedly, so that's the reason for this rule.

It's by Tim O'keefe so you know what's coming, and it doesn't take long - in the very first paragraph, he starts talking about types of desires as if they can be ranked as ideal forms -- with NO MENTION of the issue made plain by Torquatus - which is that the division arises from the difficulty involved in attaining them, not from some intrinsic "natural" or "unnatural" quality.

Here he is reversing the sequence. Epicurus taught that we do not pursue pleasure because it is good, but because it is pleasurable, as there is no "good" other than pleasure. Okeefe is implying that there is something else besides pleasure which is entitled to the name "good" which we can then apply to pleasure:

Next: this observation would not be surprising to O'Keefe if he were not intent on looking for "intrinsic" goods other than pleasure. But of course O'keefe is surpised, because O'keefe is not following Epicurus' train of thought:

And here is the conclusion:

The reason O'Keefe finds the relationship between nature and goodness "far from straightforward" is because O'Keefe refuses to follow Epicurus to his conclusions. Nature gives us only pleasure as the guide to what is desirable, and there is nothing "good" other than pleasure.

Note to self: I like memes/graphics with astronauts in them. I think it should be very hard to reconcile "astronaut" with the idea that Epicurus preached quietism, passivism, minimalism, and seclusion.

If I read this article correctly (admittedly I am skimming, because I refuse to devote more time to this) it ends with an endorsement of SKEPITISM. Wow. So the article appears to the another brick in the academic wall of shutting off all hope of pleasurable living by redefining pleasure as nothingness.

All moving toward the same negative goal, as if Epicurus were an angst-ridden snowflake whose only concern was to quell his own fears:

The typical modern call to passivism:

Great -- hope you are doing well!

I see we are back to normal avatar, with dog. Excellent! Dogs are always welcome too - instinctive Epicureans!!

Does that mean that you didn't do well? That would be surprising!

I have only started working on that "feature" of the forum so I hope to put up some more (and harder!) ones!

Caution to readers of this book as to Strodach's personal attitude toward Epicurus:

George Strodach: “Though based on the pleasure-pain principle, it [the life of the sectarian Epicurean] was not what we would ordinarily call a pleasant life. In Nietzche’s terms, it did not say YEA to life but NAY. It was largely negative, escapist, self-protective, and therapeutic. By withdrawing from the active concerns and responsibilities of the citizen, it remained socially and politically immature. These are the traits summed up by Gilbert Murray in his brilliant phrase “the failure of nerve.”” Introduction to “The Philosophy of Epicurus” / “The Art of Happiness.”

Thanks for the info! Last question for now: Are you based in the USA, or what country? (or at least hemisphere ) That's something i also like to keep track of for purposes of planning online "meetings" so as to pick reasonable times of day.

I am learning that the forum software we use is very complicated. If it appears to get confused, the best way to try to reset things is to clear your browser cache for the page and log in again. Unfortunately this process varies by browser so it's probably not much you use try to detail the process, but if you get strange responses or unexpected logouts, try the cache-clearing method. I have found it helps me.

Glad to have you Ataraxia and thank you for posting!

On the user name I probably should have put that on some kind of list to prevent it from being taken (hey I better do that for Epicurus!!!!) but since you claimed Ataraxia first then you get the gold star!

Do you mind saying how you came across the forum? Reddit/Facebook/Twitter or some other way? That would help in our outreach efforts.

Thank you again for posting and I look forward to getting to know you better.

Pretty much a waste of time - classic Okeefe-like analysis - "one need not pursue pleasure if one is not suffering from bodily pain and mental anguish."

Although I am not sure I have seen even Okeefe go this far: "how it can be taken to convey the necessity of ataraxia in attaining the heights of pleasure."

And in the same misguided line by all means let's be sure to cite "the rational Soul" as the key to tempering pleasure and achieving happiness: "one must use their rational soul to temper and moderate their desires. And that through doing this, one attains ataraxia, which then allows one to embark on the unimpeded pursuit of pleasure."

I would say in regard to the final conclusion that the essay is effective in one thing: showing the dead end that Epicurean philosophy would be if the standard academic interpretation of it were correct - which is presumably exactly the result that Cicero wanted when he help launch this line of argument in the first place.

Quote

Conclusion

This essay set out with the intention to critically discuss the notion of ataraxia in Epicureanism on two fronts. Firstly, that ataraxia is an instrumental virtue and, secondly, that it is part of a unique type of synergy which reflects a dualism in Epicurus’ thought. This was achieved by discussing through three sections, the notion that pleasure is a two-fold phenomenon, and what this entailed for the Epicurean conception of virtue qua pleasure as a good in itself.

The first section began with a brief discussion positioning Epicurus’ ethics within his atomism. Following this, I introduced ataraxia in its common conception in Epicurean ethics, making the important point that one need not pursue pleasure if one is not suffering from bodily pain and mental anguish. Hypothetically positing ataraxia, in this sense, as an end, the discussion then ventured into examining how ataraxia is tied to virtue by first exploring the third fragment of Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines, and how it can be taken to convey the necessity of ataraxia in attaining the heights of pleasure. Subsequently, this section critically considered the placement of ataraxia and pleasure, both as distinct phenomena and as a synergised phenomenon, in the Epicurean categories of desire. This hinted at the possibility that pleasure needs to be considered as a synergy as an end of Epicurean ethics. A brief discussion on the hedonistic elements of Epicureanism concluded the section, tentatively establishing the ataraxia is necessary to attaining pleasure for the Epicurean.

The second section opened with a discussion aiming to establish ataraxia as an instrumental virtue. This was by distinguishing pleasure into kinetic pleasure, and static pleasure, with reference to fragments 5 and 17 of the Principal Doctrines. These fragments were revealed to provide evidence to support the argument that ataraxia is an instrumental virtue by claiming that the fragments revealed that one must use their rational soul to temper and moderate their desires. And that through doing this, one attains ataraxia, which then allows one to embark on the unimpeded pursuit of pleasure. Kinetic and static pleasure were further unpacked demonstrating their strong synergistic relationship. By considering pleasure in this way, two problems arose and were then overcome

by critically considering the role of belief as a means of overcoming the problems.

The third section critiqued Epicurean ethics against itself, revealing two dilemmas. The dilemmas contested were respectively; a problem arguing that Epicureanism does not motivate someone to go above-and-beyond the attainment of pleasure and the absence of pain, and the problem that, although one “ought” to pursue pleasure as the ultimate good of a moral life, not everyone does so.

In summary, I believe that this essay effectively argued that pleasure and ataraxia can, indeed, be considered virtues, albeit in different ways, and that pleasure as the telos only makes sense within Epicurean ethics if understood as a synergy between kinetic and static pleasure, which, I argue, reveals a dualistic element to Epicurus’ thought.

Display More

Even to make the suggestion that "ataraxia [is] a necessary condition to allow for the pursuit of pleasure" indicates to me that the article is way off base:

Quote

However, if we look to Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines, the third fragment seems to indicate that ataraxia is more than just a means. The fragment reads –

“3. The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of the body or of the mind or of both together.”

One may interpret the fragment as clearly supporting ataraxia as a necessary condition to allow for the pursuit of pleasure. The fragment also seems to indicate that when pleasure is present and uninterrupted, one is free of physical pain and mental disturbance: one is in a state of ataraxia. Furthermore, the heights of pleasure can only be attained in absence of all pain, making ataraxia more than a mere state from which one can freely pursue pleasure. This creates an ambiguity around what the roles of both pleasure and ataraxia are in respect to virtue, both as distinct experiences, and, arguably, as a synergistic experience. What does this entail for the Epicurean?

At least on first glance I am not seeing much that advances the ball - this seems to be the standard academic analysis that separates ataraxia as some kind of "fancy pleasure" in Elayne 's term, or something distinct from ordinary pleasure:

Quote

Epicureanism takes pleasure as inextricably tied to the attainment of virtue. Yet, it can be argued that pleasure is not the sole motivation of his ethical theory. One may argue that the real motivation and desirable end for the Epicurean is achieving ataraxia. Ataraxia is the state absent of physical pain and mental disturbance. This introduces a notable distinction from common interpretations of Epicurean ethics, insofar as one may argue that Epicurus’ theory advances the notion that one need not actively seek out pleasure if one is not suffering physical pain or mental anguish. But, if ataraxia is the desired end for the Epicurean, what role, then, does pleasure play in this framework? Furthermore, we must now ask if ataraxia is at all tied to virtue.

Explanation from host provider:

Quote

Hello,

This morning we encountered a weird issue with LiteSpeed on server XXXXXXXX where it stopped and would not restart properly and continued to failed immediately after restart.

After much diagnosing, we have resolved the issue and LiteSpeed is now operating normally.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused.

If you have any additional issues or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Is your issue not resolved? Simply reply to this ticket at any time to reopen it.

Thank you,

Display More