Posts by Cassius

Here is the argument against "essences" made by Frances Wright in A Few Days in Athens, Chapter 15. I would apply it to Epicurus' view of pleasure -- pleasure does not exist apart from the normal experiences of human life:

“What is in a substance cannot be separate from it. And is not all matter a compound of qualities? Hardness, extension, form, color, motion, rest — take away all these, and where is matter? To conceive of mind independent of matter, is as if we should conceive of color independent of a substance colored: What is form, if not a body of a particular shape? What is thought, if not something which thinks? Destroy the substance, and you destroy its properties; and so equally — destroy the properties, and you destroy the substance. To suppose the possibility of retaining the one, without the other, is an evident absurdity.”

I would say that the error OKeefe and others are committing is that they are attempting to conceive of a pleasure apart from experience, just as if color could be separated from things that are colored. And this is a huge error, because if Epicurus' intent in describing "absence of pain" is just to describe the experience of ordinary pleasures without any mixture of pain, then their whole argument toward asceticism is out the window - because the experience of living without pain means the normal day to life mixture of pleasures, with no mixture of pain.

Or, as Cicero described it: "a life of tranquility crammed full of pleaures"

Cicero, In Defense of Publius Sestius 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures. But those who said that men should aim at an honorable position, should consult the public interest, should think of duty throughout life not of self-interest, should face danger for their country, receive wounds, welcome death – these he called visionaries and madmen.” Note: Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.

Or as Torquatus described it in On Ends: "living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain"

"The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement."

This is another passage: "Peace of mind" is what really makes life pleasant." I think I would go so far to say that "peace of mind" is probably not itself a pleasure at all. A mind is always doing something and is never truly at rest. If you're lying down thinking about, or simply "realizing" what a wonderful life you have, your'e experiencing memories and actively thinking about certain things. You are calmly experiencing normal mental pleasures, not doing something in another category entirely.

And I think this may be related to the criticism of "essences" in Aristotle. There is no "essence" of yellow, there are only "things that are yellow." There is no such thing in the abstract as "peace of mind" - there are only minds that are calmly at peace because they are experiencing normal mental and bodily pleasures, undisturbed by pains of any kind.

What I am stating here is the "all pleasure comes through experience" argument made in the Wentham article here in the filebase.

The only way Okeefe can logically reach this result is to carefully emphasize the Tranquility /Absence of Pain argument as a link in his chain to conclude that some types of pleasure are better than others. That's why this issue is so important. If you don't deal with that argument clearly you end up with Tim Okeefe and the stoics.

If the focus is kept on "pleasure" as a feeling and "all pleasures are desirable" and that the main way to rule out choosing as particular pleasure is that you can reasonably predict you are going to experience more pain from the choice than pleasure, then you can stay locked on the "what will happen to me if I make this choice." If you stay locked on the practical result of the choice in YOUR situation then you don't worry about an artificial rule that the simplest choice is ALWAYS the best.

And that's why I think they hit the limit of pleasure is the absence of pain so hard. They want to read into that phrase that "absence of pain" is special kind of particularly valuable pleasure which is worth attaining at any price. Otherwise there is no way a sane person would sacrifice a lifetime of enjoyment in order to hunker down in a cave thinking that "being calm" is a substitute for that lifetime of pleasurable experiences.

This is where he heads into the weeds of saying that for Epicurus pleasure was not pleasure, and that he had his own "idiosyncratic analysis:

And here is the darned "kinetic" vs "static" analysis that I think Nikolsky demolishes as not Epicurean at all:

Good find, Hiram!

This clip shows the conclusion to that article, and I find it is a good summary of what he wrote. This is consistent with what I have generally read from Okeefe - he focuses on the advice which tends toward minimalism, and the way he writes ends up with his thumb on the scale toward asceticism, rather than emphasizing that the goal is pleasure and the circumstances determine the way to get there. "We can be content with the little we need" is his final phrase, and it says it all. But why SHOULD be content with little, when more pleasure is possible at a price that we ourselves judge to be worthwhile?

If I thought this advice "reduce your desires and live a moderately ascetic life" were truly the message of Epicurus I would have nothing to do with it. O'Keefe's version is a total miscarriage. He is taking Epicurus' true "reduce your desires for things that cause more pain than they are worth" message and overgeneralizing it iinto a Stoic call to "reduce ALL your desires" message, which leads directly directly down the rathole to asceticism.

As a help in clarifying key issues, I remember that DeWitt talks about how Epicurus used the rhetorical technique of contrasting false opinion vs true opinions. For example, I am convinced that one of the worst "false opinions" that we are up against in differentiating Epicurus from common viewpoints is "the greatest good for the greatest number" as a method for evaluating pleasure.

The final PDs make clear that our goal is not the pleasure of everyone, or the world in general, but of ourselves and our friends. For those who are unfriendly, or our enemies, we separate ourselves from them, and we know from other doctrines that this would include by any means necessary.

PD6. In order to obtain protection from other men, any means for attaining this end is a natural good.

PD39. The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.

PD40. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another; and their enjoyment of the fullest intimacy is such that if one of them dies prematurely, the others do not lament his death as though it called for pity.

So is there a phrase or summary that serves as a good contrast for that, in forms such as: (1) In evaluating pleasure, not "the greatest good for the greatest number" but _________ or (2) " _____XXXXX_______," not "the greatest good for the greatest number."

I'd like to explore expanding this discussion to consider a whole series of opposing viewpoints, such as in this following list:

1. Not "the greatest good for the greatest number," but _____

2. Not "humanism" but ____________

3. Not "hard determinism" but ______________

4. Not "hedonism" but ____________________

5. Not "absence of pain" as a full statement of the goal of life, but ______________

6. Not "living unknown" as best way to organize one's life, but "________ (shorter version of this text following text: "makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another")

7. Not "creation" but "materialism" ????

8. Not "faith" but "knowledge based on our natural faculties" (needs major rewording)

9. Not "individualism" or "collectivism" but __________________

10. Not "egoism" or "altruism" but _____________________

11. Not "idealism" but _____________________
12. Not "atheism" but ______________________

If you have suggestions, please make them in the comments below. If particular items gets lots of comments, we can split off that discussion into a separate threads.

___________

Note: To hopefully make this easier to follow, I will keep the original list unchanged above for reference, but as time goes by, make interim edits in the list below:

1. Not "the greatest good for the greatest number," but _____

2. Not "humanism" but ____________

3. Not "hard determinism" but ______________

4. Not "hedonism" but ____________________

5. Not "absence of pain" as a full statement of the goal of life, but ______________

6. Not "living unknown" as best way to organize one's life, but "________ (shorter version of this text following text: "makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life. Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another")

7. Not "creation" but "materialism" ????

8. Not "faith" but "knowledge based on our natural faculties" (needs major rewording)

9. Not "individualism" or "collectivism" but __________________

10. Not "egoism" or "altruism" but _____________________

11. Not "idealism" but _____________________

12. Not "atheism" but ______________________

Daniel: If someone were looking to research what you mean by "Contractualism" where would you suggest they look?

I don't have time for a long post but I wanted to start a discussion. First and foremost however let's repeat the reliable major text references as to the general desirability of life, and the general undesirability of death:

Life Is Desirable - From The Letter to Menoeceus:

But in the world, at one time men shun death as the greatest of all evils, and at another time choose it as a respite from the evils in life. The wise man does not deprecate life nor does he fear the cessation of life. The thought of life is no offense to him, nor is the cessation of life regarded as an evil. And even as men choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest. And he who admonishes the young to live well and the old to make a good end speaks foolishly, not merely because of the desirability of life, but because the same exercise at once teaches to live well and to die well. Much worse is he who says that it were good not to be born, but when once one is born to pass quickly through the gates of Hades. For if he truly believes this, why does he not depart from life? It would be easy for him to do so once he were firmly convinced. If he speaks only in jest, his words are foolishness as those who hear him do not believe.

Vatican Saying 38:

"He is of very small account for whom there are many good reasons for ending his life."

And We Know That Epicurus Enjoyed His Life Until He Died Naturally (From the Letter to Idomeneus):

"On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could increase them; but I set above them all the gladness of mind at the memory of our past conversations. But I would have you, as becomes your lifelong attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."

On The Other Hand, We Know This From Torquatus in On Ends:

"So on the other hand a strong and lofty spirit is entirely free from anxiety and sorrow. It makes light of death, for the dead are only as they were before they were born. It is schooled to encounter pain by recollecting that pains of great severity are ended by death, and slight ones have frequent intervals of respite; while those of medium intensity lie within our own control: we can bear them if they are endurable, or if they are not, we may serenely quit life's theater, when the play has ceased to please us." (Emphasis Added)

With that as background:

Let's discuss end of life issues, specifically including under what circumstances an Epicurean would choose suicide. Is it safe to say that those times when we are diagnosed with a painful and inevitably fatal disease that Epicurus would advise that we explore the option of terminating our own lives rather than endure prolonged pain from which no relief is reasonably to be expected and which overwhelms any available pleasure? Should we remain alive so long as any pleasure remains available, no matter the cost in pain?

Cassius started a new event:

Event

Skype Conference Call

Several of the group leaders are planning to coordinate a group discussion Skype session, July 28, at 10 am Eastern Time (Sunday).

We are in the process of choosing a main topic in Epicurean Philosophy.

What would you be interested in discussing together?

There's a limit on how much we can do in one, but please post your suggestions and we will work on a format.

Thanks!

Please post about this in this thread: Open Group Conference Call for Sunday, July 28, 10 AM Eastern Time

Sun, Jul 28th 2019, 10:00 am – 11:00 am

Cassius

July 7, 2019 at 11:53 AM

Quote

Several of the group leaders are planning to coordinate a group discussion Skype session, July 28, at 10 am Eastern Time (Sunday).

We are in the process of choosing a main topic in Epicurean Philosophy.

What would you be interested in discussing together?

There's a limit on how much we can do in one, but please post your suggestions and we will work on a format.

Thanks!

Please post about this in this thread: Open Group Conference Call for Sunday, July 28, 10 AM Eastern Time

JAWS: I very much agree with your comments. Let me explain on each point:

1) Yes I agree that the sentence you quote stands on its on, as part of a list, and doesn't gain any context from the surrounding sentences (see clip below). And I agree with your interpretation, and I think Wilson is wrong. From the discussion of friendship we know that Epicurus asserted that the foundation of friendship is in the utility it has for us in bringing pleasure, and even when we get to the point that we value our friends' happiness as much or more than our own, we are still working within the same principle that we see our own happiness tied up in our friends, and so we never depart from the original standard of our own pleasure motivating our choices. This clipped sentence in context seems intended to appeal to a certain type of reader who wants to find "altruism" in Epicurus, and it seems to me it undermine's Wilson's credibility to make this argument.

2) Once again I agree with your criticism of the sentence you quote, and I interpret this as having much the same problem as the sentence you criticize in point one. Wilson is using broad language to appear to be making sort of an "egalitarian" argument to make Epicurus seem more appealing to those of that persuasion, and I think she is intending to convey the meaning to which you object, even though her sentence can be parsed to mean something less assertive. As I see it part of the ambiguity comes from the "deserve automatic priority" part, where it is not clear what that means. If she means "deserves automatic priority from Nature," or "deserve automatic priority from society" or "deserve automatic priority from the state" then she is probably correct. But that's not what I think she intends the reader to get. She intends (in my humble opinion) to imply that she herself (or anyone else, looking at themselves) should not put her own (or their own) preferences ahead of those of other people (or animals!) and that is pretty close to a ridiculous assertion. None of us asked the chicken we ate for dinner tonight whether the chicken preferred to be eaten or not. Maybe we should have - that's another issue - but talking in terms of "automatic priorities" is a vague way of implying that we're all just going to love one another and agree on everything, when that patently is not the case.

(3) Of your three criticisms I think this one hits her the hardest. First, to point out a couple of verses in the Bible that talk about mirth and pleasure and imply that there is a basic affinity between Epicurean philosophy and Judeo-Christian theology is absurd. Second, you're right I think to attack the use of "meaningful." Yes Epicurus appears to have talked in terms of the "good" life, but where is there any reference in any text to something akin to "meaningful"? "Meaningful" to whom, and how, and for what? What does "meaningful" even mean if not as a reflection of some kind of justification from an outside source? Probably there are ways to save this part as well by playing with the definitions of the words, but I think you're right to question this JAWS because she is once again making claims for the sake of gaining the reader's sympathy that just aren't justified by the texts.

In summary, and with all due respect to the author's credentials and education, I just don't think she is correct. Is she consistent with the Academic orthodoxy on Epicurus and will they unite in praising her acuity on these issues? Oh heck yes -- but that doesn't make her right, and we have the right to read the texts ourselves and see if her conclusions make sense as consistent with the texts. And these don't. I also don't doubt that there will be many more in the book that are open to the same criticism.

I can see that exact issue being a major reason why Epicurus seems to have rejected "argument or discussion" on the nature of pleasure or its desirability. Pleasure and pain are givens of Nature and we can't adequately summarize it in words. Pleasure and pain are things that we feel, and Nature is the judge of pleasure and pain, not our logical abstractions.

(from On Ends)

I am sure that I have made comments to the effect that Epicurus seemed to be saying that we should not pursue the pleasure of the moment, but pleasure measured over a lifetime.

I do not think that is exactly the right perspective either. Pleasure is not to be measured by time alone, as we clearly know from the letter to Menoeceus: "And even as men choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest."

This issue calls to mind why the wording of PD3 is so interesting. As translated by Bailey and most others, PD3 refers to "the limit of quantity in pleasures...." This is not a statement of "the best" pleasures or "the highest" pleasures or pleasures measured in any way other than "quantity." What is the meaning of "quantity" and how should we measure pleasure. if not by time?

Should we measure pleasure by "intensity"?

Is PD9's reference to "accumulation" a reference to "intensity"? PD 9. "If every pleasure had been capable of accumulation, not only over time but also over the entire body or at least over the principal parts of our nature, then pleasures would never differ from one another."

Should we measure pleasure by "purity" or "homogeneity" rather than by diverse composition?

18. Bodily pleasure does not increase when the pain of want has been removed; after that it only admits of variation. The limit of mental pleasure, however, is reached when we reflect on these bodily pleasures and their related emotions, which used to cause the mind the greatest alarms.

Should we measure pleasure by "reason"?  

19. Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason.

Should we measure pleasure by whether it is physical or mental, giving one a greater weight than the other?

PD20 The flesh receives as unlimited the limits of pleasure; and to provide it requires unlimited time. But the mind, intellectually grasping what the end and limit of the flesh is, and banishing the terrors of the future, procures a complete and perfect life, and we have no longer any need of unlimited time. Nevertheless the mind does not shun pleasure, and even when circumstances make death imminent, the mind does not lack enjoyment of the best life.

Should we measure pleasure by whether it is natural or necessary?

29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.

30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not got rid of but because of man's groundless opinions.

Here is at least one takeaway point that I think has to be concluded: ALL of the perspectives above are valid and are to be considered, but none of them standing alone answer the question of which choices and avoidances that everyone in every situation should make. Only the individual can make the determination of how he wants to evaluate his goal of pleasure in his own life. Whether he should choose a low-intensity pleasure over a long period, or high-intensity pleasure over a short period, is not a matter for which Nature lays out for everyone the same answer. Circumstances are going to differ by individual and by situation, and what course we should choose cannot be decided apart from the situations in which we find ourselves.

While we are certainly not going to choose only "the pleasures of the moment" it is equally unjustified by Nature to say that we should definitely choose "the total of pleasures over 75 years."

These are excellent answers and I don't see any that I significantly disagree with. Joshua's list of short summary terms would be a good direct one-on-one comparison with Rand's. Here are my comments on that list (Joshua in bold; my comments italicized):

1. Metaphysics: Atomic Materialism (one kind of philosophical naturalism) << I think "atomic materialism" probably is a good summary term. "Materialism" is helpful for denying "supernaturalism" and "atomic" is helpful for stressing that reality is made up of innumerable separate components and not some kind of mystical single substance.

2. Epistemology: the Canon: Sensations, Feelings, and Anticipations. << Yes this too seems like a good summary, and indicates the proper place of reason by omission.

3. Ethics: Hedonism* << Since Epicurus did not use this term, and since it doesn't have an agreed-upon definite meaning, and since what is agreed upon may not be Epicurean, I would probably look for another word or term. I would say that Epicurean ethics involves maximizing the pleasure and minimizing the pain of the person under consideration, rather than measured by some larger group of people. Pleasure and pain are feelings and need no further definition. while "maximization" is not a matter of time, and does not reference either the immediate moment or "over the long run" (

"And even as men choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest." - Letter to Menoeceus) Presumably the "most pleasant" involves "purity" and "intensity" rather than "duration." I do not see how this can be measured outside by a third party, so presumably this is a matter for individual determination. This boils down to "maximize pleasure and minimize pain both mental and physical.

4 Politics: [theory or practice?]

4a: theory of politics: Arises by human convention.

4b: practice of politics: N/A (unrelated to the questions that concern the Epicurean.) <<< Yes I agree that the important points here have to refer to the "justice" doctrines, indicating that there is no absolute best system.. Period - full stop. These PD's indicate that convention / agreement can be involved, but NOT necessarily, as those who refuse to participate are outside of justice. Thus the bottom line is that politics is determined by the people involved whether arrived at by agreement or by force or by any other method.

There is almost no way to fail with that project. Even if you only get started and then stop, you will have learned a lot for the next try.

From Elayne:

This is a thread to discuss practical application of EP in the small, daily habits of our lives. It is easier to realize we are making decisions when it comes to the big things like education, career/ job choices, whether to marry or have children, where to live, etc. But most of our days are spent doing habitual actions. Neurologically, our brains create habits to conserve effort-- if we had to think about every single action all day long, we would have decision fatigue before lunch and maybe even before breakfast.

If you have been practicing EP for a long time, you have probably already developed daily habits that are pleasurable. However, if you are newer, it is worth your time to examine what you do habitually during a typical day and try out new habits if your old ones are not pleasurable. And even if you have been practicing for a long time, sometimes your old pleasures may grow stale and you will want to change them rather than stick with a habit.

Typical habits include things like sleeping times/ places, diet, amount/ type and timing of physical movement, activities that engage your senses, hobbies, friendships and social activities you participate in as a routine (such as, for me, Thursday night Chorus practice). I would also include how you arrange your daily surroundings-- your home and outdoor settings, and even your clothes. These are all potential avenues for pleasure, and none of them are trivial-- because we have no absolute scale to rate pleasures by importance and triviality. Those are labels people put on your pleasures to try and influence you.

How we make decisions about these small daily habits is the exact same process as for all decisions: we ask ourselves "Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?" (VS 71).

In addition, because our culture inundates us with Stoicism, Platonism, and other idealisms, maybe it will help beginners to ask themselves a few more questions. If you skip this part, you are at risk of inserting these ideologies into your daily schedule and missing out on your pleasure.

1) Is there any other goal I am inadvertently putting above pleasure, such as minimalism, social utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number), etc? If this is the case, remind yourself that the universe is material. There is no supernatural world, and you will live only until death. This means there are no absolute standards of virtue, and there is no ideal or "perfect" world to achieve. Remember that we include our subjective feelings of pain and pleasure as valid information about reality, and that pleasure is our goal. There are times when having less stuff will increase your pleasure, and times when having more stuff will do it. Use pleasure as your guide rather than an arbitrary concept someone else is giving you. You can feel your pleasure directly.

2) Are you aiming for pleasure or trying to avoid pain? Although increasing pleasure in life does mean decreasing pain, because it is an either-or situation, practically speaking you will get more pleasure by aiming at it. Just thinking of pleasure brings more pleasure. It is necessary to keep pain in mind if you are continuously trying to avoid it, and this is a pain you don't need to have. I like the pothole/ motorcycle metaphor. If a biker gazes at potholes, they will often drive right into them. Gazing at the pothole-free road is a more successful strategy. Sometimes your road of pleasure has a pothole you have to go through to get to the good part-- if so, rather than stopping cold to avoid the scary pothole, focus on your pleasure goal and get right on through the pothole. Avoidance as your primary strategy can lead to a fearful, constricted life.

3) Are you trying to limit/"balance" your pleasure with anything else, out of fear that you can have "too much pleasure"? If so, the good news is that there is no such thing as too much pleasure. If it is "too much", that means it is not pleasure at all but pain! Some specific activities that bring pleasure also bring more pain than pleasure. In that case, find a way to modify the activity so it is more pleasurable/ less painful, or choose a different activity entirely. Stopping eating when you are full, for example, is maximizing your pleasure, not limiting it. A common error is thinking you need to "balance" your own pleasure with the pleasure of others. But an Epicurean knows that the pleasure of our loved ones and even sometimes the pleasure of strangers is not separate from our own pleasure-- we are entangled closely with friends and often have empathy for strangers. This is a _feeling_ process, more than a cognitive assessment. There will be times when you have an opponent, someone who directly presents a threat to your pleasure-- and in these cases, it certainly won't make you enjoy life more to please them.

4) If you are developing habits that you hope will lead to future pleasures, ask yourself if your goal is concrete or idealistic. An idealistic, imaginary goal is one that can't actually be achieved, like "perfect health" or "perfect freedom"-- with an imaginary goal you will never be satisfied. For concrete goals, is it likely you can achieve the result you desire? Can you do anything to make your actions towards the goal pleasurable, so that even if you don't "get there", you will still enjoy the process? Is the end goal something you really want, or is it someone else's idealistic goal?

Once you have chosen your new daily habits, be sure to savor the pleasures of each activity. That way you will get the most pleasure out of them, and you can also create memories to rely on for later pleasures.

At least sometimes, at the end of the day, look back and evaluate how pleasurable your activities were. Think about changing them if your experiments were not enjoyable.

In practice, here is what this could look like (your day will likely be different):

I have experimented with waking at different times, and I prefer an early morning, around 5:30-6 am. I can wake then without an alarm-- I am a "lark". So I try to go to bed in time to make my mornings enjoyable.

I enjoy coffee, only 1-2 cups a morning-- very much. I have learned to roast my own coffee, in my garage, and I make myself a delicious cup every morning using my Chemex/ pour-over with fresh ground coffee. This is an easy habit. I sit and savor my delicious coffee-- weather permitting-- on my deck under the trees. I take my time to wake up fully, think about things, read, and sometimes do some writing, before starting work.

After coffee, I exercise. I have experimented with different types of physical exercise, and the two things I like the most are hiking and dancing around free-style. I mix in free weights with the dancing around-- I have an Olympic bar in my garage with plates-- and I have a yoga swing with handles which functions like a trx. I have taken time to make playlists of my favorite exercise music. I go hiking as many times a week as I have time, depending on work and the weather. During the day, if I am sitting a lot, I set my phone alarm for every 20-30 minutes and jump up to do some dancing around for a few minutes.

I am in a more pleasant mood if I get outdoors often, so I make a habit of daily walks even if not hiking. At night, I go out and look at the stars if it is clear.

I love singing, so I belong to a women's Chorus-- this mixes the pleasures of singing in with the pleasures of friendship! I sing in the shower, in the kitchen... sometimes on the hiking trail.

I enjoy bright colors, so I have taken time to decorate my condo in my favorite colors-- turquoise, bright orange, green, pink. I found a condo which was more affordable than the apartments locally, and I bought it mainly for the deck with a view of the mountains and trees. The virtue of the lower cost living is not in minimalism or frugality-- it is in the absence of worry that I won't be able to pay my mortgage and in the daily enjoyment.

I love listening to music, so I have good quality headphones. A Sunday afternoon of reading a well-written book while sipping spiced hot tea and listening to Chopin is sublime, for me.

I enjoy reading for pleasure, so I make sure to always have a queue of things I want to read, and I have a habit of reading in the evenings.

I invite family and friends over some evenings, and I enjoy cooking for them and watching them smile when they taste my cooking.

What do your daily pleasures look like?

Some people try to draw parallels between Epicurean philosophy and Ayn Rand's objectivism. I would argue that they are very wrong to do so, but as an exercise in discussing how, I would pose this question: Rand was recorded to have said that she could present the essence of her philosophy while standing on one foot. Her summary was:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

Let's presume you are a stand-in for Epicurus or Metrodorus or Lucretius, and you were asked to give your statement of those four categories in one word or a very short phrase that conveys the essence of each.

Rand went on to elaborate slightly further at the link I am going to paste below. Her answers there might help you fine-tune your reply.

Note: I left the photo of Spock in the photo because I took it from a post that is several years old. In this instance Spock can serve as a reminder that Epicurus was not a Stoic/Vulcan, and Epicurus' answer would not be those of a Stoic or a Randian.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas…bjectivism.html

Yes please do, Joshua, and good luck!

Joshua I too consume a lot of audio podcasts, in my case (mostly in the past) listening in areas of two particular interests: keto/dietary advice podcasts, as well as linux for computers.

I have uniformly found the philosophy podcasts I have tried to listen to to be unhelpful. And I think a major reason is something you allude to as "esoteric arguments." Many of the philosophy podcasts I have listened to turn into "XX said this, YY said this, and that was a good point but MM had a better point....." and it all just goes round and round and round with no target ever reached. That may be a perfectly good format for a philosophy student learning to recite facts about different positions, but it's not a formula for putting out a positive program that actually helps somebody. It's necessary to take a position (which is really what the "dogmatism" charge is all about, rather than dance around every issue.

So I do think taking a position is important, but it's also true that even among students of Epicurus there are very different opinions on some fairly significant issues. I don't think we can ignore that those issues exist, but I think it is possible to state that they exist, give the arguments for each, and then put them aside in deference to the greater importance of the core points.

Issues about free will are a pretty good example, and probably issues about things like the canon and anticipations are of secondary importance. Quite a few podcasts could be done on the Epicurean view of gods, and the Epicurean view of death, without hitting too many divergences. (Of course there are issues as to interpretation of Epicurean gods, but everyone is agreed that there are no supernatural gods.)

But when we then come to PD3 and PD4, especially if someone wants to refer to the "tetrapharmakon" we almost immediately hit what is probably the most important issue. Absence of gods and absence of life-after-death are relatively straightforward, but we also need to be clear on the positive side -- in the absence of gods and threat/punishment of afterlife, how does PLEASURE step into that role and provide us the guidance to live life. That is something where it will also be important to state the varying opinions, but it will also be the minefield that - if not navigated correctly - will blow up the whole endeavor.

You DO have an excellent voice for a podcast!! Reflective and serious without being over-the-top philosophically useless, if you know what I mean.

That is an excellent introduction too Joshua!

Many of us have been batting this around for months and even years without making any real progress. The real hurdle seems to be what you're referring to a the "mission statement." While we are all pretty much of the same mind when it comes to absence of supernatural gods and absence of life after death, the "positive" side -- (the meaning of pleasure as the guide) is something on which there is so much variety of opinion that I've found that to be a major obstacle.

One the one side you have those who stress simplicity/minimalism/absence of pain as the meaning of the philosophy, and on the others you have those (like me) who think that that approach cuts off the more important part of the philosophy, the part that stresses "“I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form.” and which Cicero described disparagingly a " to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures" which I also think is emphatically stated this way in On Ends:

The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

In fact, I was recently circulating this clip from DeWitt's book on this very point:

Not every question has to be resolved before a project like a podcast or other outreach program can be started, but this one is so basic, and so divisive, that clarity on it at the beginning is probably required in order to avoid lots of problems dead ahead.

I completely agree with the suggestion and also Joshua's comments. We don't spend as much time on the nothingness of death as we should. We are surrounded by either fundamentalist Christianity or new-age spiritualism to the point where it seems most everyone lives their life as if this were only the opening act of an eternal life.

I know in my own case that the knowledge of my own mortality is a key motivator for me to get things done rather than procrastinate, and I bet many people are like that.

So yes it's a great idea to use this thread to create links to relevant material, and at the end of the process come up with a position statement.

Position statements in general I think are very good idea, even if we don't designate them for any particular purpose. The process of forming them helps us articulate them in our own minds, and having them available makes it much easier to introduce to new people what "we" are all about.

Excellent! Josh do you mean "fail to grief" or "fail to grieve" in line 7?