Posts by Cassius

Man!! she cannot resist the politics can she? Argh again!!!

Quote

"Fame and wealth are zero-sum. For some to be wealthy, powerful and famous, others must be poor, obedient and disregarded. "

Thank you Hiram!!!

Lots to comment on but sadly this immediately jumps out at me:

Rather than aiming specifically to maximise pleasure, the Epicureans concentrated on minimising pains, the pains that arise from failures of ‘choice and avoidance’. "

Argh!!!!!

Thanks for taking the time to list that Charles -- I have heard of that book but never seen a copy. if you do see sections of particular interest please do post.

Yes Charles it looks like this book may become a regular point of discussion for years to come, like Greenblatt's "The Swerve"

Let's continue with general comments in this thread, but I have also opened a thread devoted specially to :

Responding To Catherine Wilson's Chart Comparing Epicurus To The Stoics

I have also set up "Catherine Wilson Books - Careful" as a subforum of its own, so over time people can start their own threads, and we may want to end up devoting a thread to each chapter.

This thread will be devoted to preparing a chart of responses to the Summary Table which Catherine Wilson included in both "The Pleasure Principle" and "How To Be An Epicurean." This chart renames Wilson's column on Epicurus as "Epicureans According to the Catherine Wilson / Academic View" and adds a column for "Epicureans According To the Norman Dewitt / Alternate View" which is intended to represent at least generally the view of the admins of this Epicureanfriends website.

This chart is a work in progress, especially as to the notes which are included on each item for clarification. Please comment in this thread on your thoughts about all aspects of this chart, especially as to how you think that the "Alternate View" column can be improved, either in the summary form included in the table, or as to the Notes which explain each item in detail. As the discussion evolves I will update the chart and notes in this opening post. This discussion should be interesting - thanks for your help with this!

Notes:

Note 1: (A) One definition of “Ontology” is “Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.” (B) It is important here to not leave the impression that because the universe is ultimately made up of atoms and void, which cannot be sensed directly, that the universe is unknowable. Unknowability is the implication and the direction to which most academic philosophers / skeptics seek to take us, and Epicurus rejected that.

Note 2: What is meant by “Causality?”

Note 3: Catherine Wilson calls this category “Purpose of Ethics” but it might be more clear to refer to it as “the goal of life” or “the highest good”

Note 4: What is meant by “Source of Moral Authority?” To the extent this refers to some supernatural standard, or universal ideal standard, such things do not exist in the Epicurean worldview.

Note 5: What is meant by “Orientation”? Here we presume what is meant is…….

Note 6:

Note 7:

Note 8:

Note 9:

Note 10:

Note 11: What is “happiness?” Here we are presuming that happiness is a mental attitude - a feeling - …..

Note 12: What is meant by “Education?” Here we are presuming that what is referred to is the proper goal of education, not the actual functioning of education to perpetuate the transmission of ideas that Epicureans would consider to be erroneous.

Note 13: What is meant by “Warfare?” Is Wilson suggesting that there is no distinction between offensive and defensive warfare?

Quote from Elayne

5) P 24, discusses what she sees as the 3 key claims of Epicurus-- material nature of reality, no divine oversight, and finality of death. Although I do think these are important, I do not know that I would consider them more important than the way he put subjective feelings of pleasure and pain into the Canon or that this can be derived from those 3 items without the experience of feelings.

I completely agree. I was talking with someone privately yesterday who made a statement to the effect that ETHICS is the most importan, and that epistemology and physics are subsidiary.

I said that I think the deemphasis of physics and epistemology is the pattern of "the Cambridge approach" and as a result they end up staying in the "rationalist / platonic / stoic" camp and they force-fit Epicurus into their pre-existing models. But if you thoroughly fix in your mind first in the physics - that the universe has NO supernatural or eternal ideal goals, then it's easier to dismiss those and follow "pleasure and pain" to their logical conclusions. And also with the epistemology the same thing - the role of reason/logic vs the senses anticipations and feelings is pretty much the whole ball game too, because "reason / logic" is how all these supernatural and/or ideal virtue ethics are supported --

The real issue here is FEELING vs the abstractions of logic

Which can be reconciled if we recognize Feeling as the king, and reason/logic as the tools for maximizing our best feelings, but NOT reconciled if reason/logic is allowed to be the ultimate judge of "proper feeling."

OMG another of Elayne's quotes:

This is going to go down as one of the most ridiculous statements in the book. As part of our review we ought to come up with a collection of "incorrect" statements, and I have to think this one would be near the top!

Great notes thank you!

She's very right about that! I hope she tells us explicitly what part of her book is "rethinking" and which is what Epicurus said!

Could you explain your questions? Why would duration be irrelevant to "unnecessary" desires?

As you may know I consider the whole natural/necessary evaluation to be subject to the same issues and limitations as these calculation models. Is it not true that what is "necessary" for some people in some situations is much different than for other people/ situations? An automobile might be a "necessity" for living and working in rural Texas, but totally unnecessary in downtown New York. Even in the sense of basics such as food and air and water, we can for a short time defer even those (hold our breath or fast or go without water) for a time in the pursuit of some other / greater pleasure, or avoidance of worse pain.

I certainly don't mean to criticize Epicurus for referencing them in the letter to Menoeceus, and I do think the structure is helpful for analysis, just like these calculation models can be. But I tend to think that the commentators (especially those looking to be friendly to Stoics and other rules-based philosophies) have overemphasized their benefit, and minimized their limitations, for just the reasons that we are discussing here.

Among people very knowledgeable about Epicurus, it would be a given and need no reinforcement that there are no absolute rules, and so the question is always asked in terms of what is "necessary" or "natural" FOR US. But outside that clear context, the implication that "natural" or "necessary" might be quantifiable as a universal list would end up, I think, being the REVERSE of the Epicurean perspective. And that seems to be a strong temptation that people looking for accommodation to Stoics and others simply cannot resist.

Compare this to the hedonist calculus equation posted by Charles: The Hedonistic Calculus - explained through an equation

Charles --Very interesting! This is similar to a discussion we had in regard to coming up with a " pleasure maximization spreadsheet." A Draft Epicurean Pleasure Maximization Worksheet

One of the first problems that makes this hard is in regard to "intensity." What does "intensity" really mean, and how do we judge it in comparison with duration / time and the other factors as well?

Given this statement in the letter to Menoeceus it seems clear that Epicurus would not say that "time" can alone be a determining factor, and that blasts away what is at first glance an attractive method of ranking:

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.

To me the issues all point back in the direction of the "calculation" of what is "most pleasant" being totally subjective. Parsing out the elements and describing them in terms of a spreadsheet or a formula can in fact be very helpful to a thought process, but I think it probably has to be stressed at the beginning, middle, and end that the decisionmaking is personal and not quantifiable through "reasoning."

And on that conclusion I think you will get strong affirmative support from Elayne !

In fact, maybe the number one helpful benefit from going through this exercise is to come to an understanding of why it is impossible! Efforts to reduce an individual personal goal into an equation or an abstraction must fail, in the same way a map, no matter how detailed, is never a fully accurate equivalent of reality.

Yes that reminds me that in my last few visits where I felt compelled to attend a church service (mostly funerals). found the time sitting in the pew was a welcome experience where I could just sit and think without distraction, because I was "forced" to do so. Kind of like sitting in the dental chair, which I also find kind of relaxing even though not totally pleasant!

Kyle - Prior to ten years ago I spent a lot of time reading Objectivist literature. However I never spent much time in the company of actual objectivists, as I found the more someone was "into" Rand, the more uncomfortable I became. At the moment I would start with two points:

1. Her "emotions are not tools of cognition" leads to rationalism and is very much opposite to Epicurus' canon, which includes "feeling" in a primary role, but not "reason."

2. In her epistemology, she focuses on measurement omission as the means for forming concepts. It seems to me that this is very similar to "sensation omission" and as you know, Epicurus holds sensation as the only way to reach reliable knowledge.

Both of these are just rough thoughts but indicate the depth of the divide. The real problem is not so much that these two statements may not have some technical merit, but that many of her followers seem to take statements like these very superficially and as a result tend toward being emotionless rationalists rather than actually pursuing pleasurable living. And of course that same can be applied to her "money speech" in AS and many other things.

In other venues, and over time perhaps even here, you will see some fans of Epicurus say dismissively that Rand is not worth discussing. However it is my view that much of the problem with Rand (not all) is useful for dealing with Aristotle and even Plato too. So this is a subject I think we should be happy to discuss, and in the future I might even set up a subforum dedicated to the subject. I personally think that a lot of good people go down a very wrong path by following Rand, but not for the reasons that the "Academic Epicureans" would have you believe. Discussing this cooly without undue hostility would be helpful to a lot of people who I think misdiagnose the problem with Rand, and even some who misdiagnose Epicurus.

Plus, as you say, *some* of her material is good, and I would even largely endorse it today, such as her "Philosophy - Who Needs It?" speech.

As you address in your post, Rand preaches happiness as the proper goal, but her version of it is much different than was Epicurus - although if you dig deep enough in her older essays you can find some decent discussion of pleasure and pain.

Please flesh out details you would like to discuss. Also, it would be helpful to know how much Rand you have read.

interesting.... i will check out Sisson.

Ethan i try to get as close to keto as i can. Currently i am reading a lot of Jason Fung's fasting advice and I am finding good success with that. If you pushed me hard enough you could probably get me on a rant that the standard American diet is about as upside down as the standard American philosophy but I better not go there.

Good points. It is hard to get one's mind wrapped around what the implications of "eternal universe" really are, but then it's hard ( and I think Epicurus would say much harder, since we see things happening in a continual progression all around us, but we never see things pop into existence from nothing) to wrap one's mind around a universe that springs into existence from nothing!

Yes it does sound like Elli and Peter are together. I look forward to hearing what Joshua has to say too!

Cassius started a new event:

Event

Skype - Part 3 of DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy" Chapter 14- The New Virtues

Starting with SUAVITY Discussion Plan For Chapter 14 "The New Virtues" (Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy")

Sun, Nov 10th 2019, 10:00 am – 11:00 am

Cassius

November 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM

Quote

Starting with SUAVITY Discussion Plan For Chapter 14 "The New Virtues" (Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus And His Philosophy")

In the Skype discussion of this date, Elli pointed out problems with the translations which render the second of the three terms (prudently, honorably, and Justly) as "honorably" or "honestly."

Elli believes that the better translation is something that conveys a sense of "esthetics" such as "beautifully" and that in no way does this doctrine mean that the virtue being described is what we in English would consider to be "honesty."

I am setting up this thread as a placeholder so we will remember to come back and extend this discussion in greater detail.

The translations we see include: