Posts by Cassius

(1) Thanks Godfrey! This is a subject that I'd like to correlate with the surviving material from Philodemus in his "Property Management" material.

(2) "Epicureanism nudges people toward the idea that the greatest happiness is found in pleasures that have a minimal cost associated with them." This is an excellent pithy sentence that I think distills the problem, and I think is not correct to all. First of all, is "happiness" something that has levels? Is one "happiness" greater than another "happiness," or is all "happiness" equal. Comparisons are usually reserved for "pleasures" in that some are more or less intense, or more or less long-lasting. I don't think Epicurus ever talks in terms of "the greatest happiness.

(3) But to go further, when Epicurus talks of greater or lesser pleasures, he rarely if ever gives a description of the feeling itself- he says that we know pleasure and pain by feeling, not by explaining or justifying. And in that sense (which I think DeWitt discusses under the topic of "fullness of pleasure" -- pleasure is pretty much pleasure, differing mainly in intensity or length. And Epicurus rarely if ever gives a list of "pleasures" and says that A is better than B is better than C. Epicurus measures the hedonic calculus in pleasure vs pain, and all types of mental and physical pains are included within them. So the entire picture comes down to the issue of not that some pleasures are better than others, but simply that some pleasures bring with them more or less cost in terms of pain.

(4) If we were rewriting that sentence more accurately according to Epicurus, it would be something like "Epicurus nudges people toward the idea that the best way to fill our experience with pleasure is to choose pleasurable activities in light of the amount of pain that they bring with them." And in some cases it makes sense to sit on your sofa and drink water and eat bread, and in some cases it makes sense to build a house, make a generator, build a computer, and sign onto the internet to discuss philosophy with friends. There's nothing "simplest" or "minimal cost" to the latter choice, but if your anxieties come from fear of death or fear of gods or from a myriad of other problems, then your best result will come from the exertion involved in joining modern civilization, rather than live in a cave on bread and water.

And so there I've made my standard reservation. Having said that I certainly agree with, and try to practice many, of the observations he has made. And surely there are people who need those observations. But still.... why do I have this sense that so much is lost when we reduce Epicurus to "simplicity"

Is this the Epicurean theme song? Appealing, but I don't think so --

Pivot -- I apologize if you have answered this already, but can you tell me how much of Lucretius you have read? Today I was listening to the Partially Examined Life podcast on Lucretius, and I find it interesting to correlate a person's views on Epicurean ethics with their views of Lucretius. Can you let me know how deeply into Lucretius you have read, and your reaction to it? Thanks!

Almost all of our difference of opinion stems from this:

How else ought they be interpreted? The problem I see is that it is written is very explicitly. "Whatever is natural is easily procured and only the vain and worthless hard to win." And also, as we discussed a while back, PD3: "The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. [...]" It is very difficult for me to interpret this quote in any other way than what is explicitly stated. That is, when all pain is removed, that state of ataraxia and aponia are the LIMIT with respect to pleasure. I can't conceive of this in a way somehow allowing this to NOT be the limit, unless something is to be said about mistranslation, or a hole in the principle doctrines. Or even that certain modification is necessary.

I will not say you are wrong, but I will say that I interpret things very differently because while the sentences you quote taken separately are quite clear, they do not stand alone, and they occur within a definite context which in my view prohibits the conclusions you think are clear.

The context in my view is that long before these positions would have been stated, Epicurus had previously stated that there are only two feelings, pleasure and pain. He had also previously stated, in PD3, that the limit in QUANTITY of pleasure is the absence of pain. Everything must be interpreted in that context, and within that context, whatever is not pain is by definition pleasure, and whatever is not pleasure is by definition pain, and the quantity of absence of one is ALWAYS the quantity of presence of the other, by definition. And that means that when one goes to zero quantity, the other goes to its limit of quantity, by definition. However this is only a definition of QUANTITY, which Epicurus is careful to state in the beginning.

So yes, zero pain is the "limit" of pleasure, but only in quantity, and not in any other respect. If it were not necessary for us to take other aspects of pleasure into account, we could by definition live the best life possible by killing ourselves, or drugging ourselves comatose, because in both cases that results in zero pain. That would be a perverse result, but that is exactly the result that is produced by reading these texts in isolation and not seeing them as part of the whole. A whole in which "Wherefore we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a blessed life. Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing" and "I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form.”

The same thing goes for the sentence that when we have no pain, we have no need of pleasure. Taken alone that seems clear, but it does not mean that suicide or being comatose is the best life. Viewed from the perspective of quantity, any Epicurean who sees that pain has been reduced to zero also knows that it has been reduced to zero by filling the human experience completely with pleasure, so as to drive out all pain. In Cicero's phrase, "Nothing is preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures."

Or, in the words of Torquatus: "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?"

And in this context, natural and necessary also is seen not to be a call to the "zero life" but simply the observation that some things in life require a lot of effort, and some things don't, and that in general those things that require a lot of effort entail at least the possibility of a lot of pain. But if you keep in mind that the goal is pleasure, and not the zero state of absence of pain, then this observation is nothing more than a part of the analysis that before you choose to do something that entails a lot of effort, you better be sure that you will in fact get a lot of pleasure, and you better be sure that you do it in such a way as to minimize pain. Flying to the moon requires a lot of effort but can be done safely with a huge investment in modern technology, and therefore can be viewed as a tradeoff that is very worthwhile. But flying to the moon without proper preparation is going to lead to great physical pain and perhaps death, and so is not to be undertaken lightly.

So in sum each of the quotations that appear in isolation to call for a minimal life can be seen to not call for a minimal life at all. Did Epicurus live a minimal life by surrounding himself with a philosophical school of people, churning out books, running a household with many slaves and, and leading a philosophical revolution? Did Lucretius pursue minimal living with the Herculean effort of his poem? Of course not - they saw their lives as short and precious, and needing to be filled with the activities that would bring them the most pleasure while at the same time pursuing that pleasure in a way that would cause as little pain as possible. But they certainly knew and welcomed the pain that would be required in their effort, because they knew that the pleasure that would be produced was well worth it.

I will have to come back later to respond to the main material but no worries as to the "intent" - deep discussion like this is how we make progress in reconstructing.

Jasper, further on the club comment -- there are key differences in how some people interpret Epicurean Philosophy from others. One way that I think helps flesh out those issues is the "Outlining" strategy discussed in the home page. If you get a chance to take a look at that I would be interested to see your choices.

Thanks for that introduction!

"I mention this because I wonder whether the Friends of Epicurus might evolve into something like a Rotary Club or Lions Club in future."

Certainly that is one goal to which we ought to aspire if we can gather the numbers. We've discussed such things in the past but there are a lot of considerations as to exactly how to state the core beliefs, etc. If you'll scan through posts here as you have time, and reply with your thoughts, that would be a great help in assisting the thought process to come together.

If you use Facebook, please check out the Epicurean Philosophy group if you have not already, as that may be the best place to make contacts in Germany. Of course our friend Martin is from Germany, but currently living in the far east.

While the Facebook group may be good for contacts, you're probably aware of its limitations for accomplishing anything serious. That's why this group is here, and I hope you'll have the time to participate here as much as you can. There's a great need for concentrated effort to make the things we want to see come into being, and this forum allows us to work together and build in a way that Facebook does not.

So thanks for joining!

Welcome Jasper Sky ! When you get a chance please tell us a little about yourself and your background and interest in Epicurus.

I have spent more time looking at their page and i do have significant respect for their work. But what we've got here is the classic issue - almost that which is discussed in Lucian's Hermotimus. What they are doing is diving into "philosophy" like diving into a pool of water, and their just examining whatever they run into, and talking about their feelings about it, and moving on -- never coming to any real conclusions that they have confidence in advocating or applying. Or, if they do come to conclusions implicitly (which everyone does, and they do too) they are standard Plato/Aristototle/Stoic conclusions that are not at all Epicurean.

I come at this from the perspective that Epicurus is essentially correct in every major conclusion about human life in the universe. Minor points of physics that can be made more precise with new data are not important because the conclusions are not contradicted. And I think everyone in every walk of life would profit from knowing the basic approach.

But the path of just plowing through everything is just something that most people do not have the time to do. They need a distilled, clear, and firm presentation of the Epicurean perspective without all this weaving back and forth and attempts to "improve" it by combing it with other views that are ultimately incompatible. And the real pity of that approach is that most people wear out from the exercise long before they gain anything productive.

I think what I am saying here is pretty much exactly the "Epicurean criticism of Socrates" and that criticism is still 100% applicable to mainstream philosophy today. For those who have the time and resources to spend their time this way, I say "more power to them." But for most normal people, their approach leads to no answers that real people can live by, it only confuses them further and turns them off to identifying a philosophy with which they can identify and live by.

I think the direction at which you are looking at this is probably unproductive. The goal is to live pleasurably under your particular circumstances, so you must analyze those circumstances to see what is of most immediate relevance to you. If there were a set list that applied to everyone in the same way at all times, then that would imply a fate or guiding hand that does not exist. Check DeWitt's chapter on "The New Virtues" chapter 14 where he discusses them this way:

Godek I am not sure it is even a valid idea to list them by importance without defining your criteria for what is important. Since there is no Fate there is no single set of challenges that everyone will face in any set order. No doubt you could list "virtues" in order of number of times that they are referenced, or you could look for references to things which are stressed such as "prudence" in Cicero's "On Ends."

As I think of that reference, that might qualify as your "most important" but aside from a few references like that I am not aware of any list.

Of your list, I would question whether "moderation" is valid to include, or a virtue at all in Epicurean terms, since moderation itself is understandable only in relation to other ambigous terms (too much, too little, but is it not outside factors that determine all three?)

Here are my preliminary comments on major points made in the podcast. At this point I don't have time for lengthy analysis but I did want to point out the points that I think are largely or partly wrong and should be scrutinized against the work of DeWitt and others. At the very list, this provides a good list of points that are controversial within Epicurean philosophy about which people need to study and reach their own conclusions:

3:00 They say their discussion is based on Nussbaum and Okeefe, {And they are critics, not supporters, of Epicurus.}

3:20 The say "only one of the letters is about ethics so we will ignore the other two" {But they do comment later that the ethics are closerly related to the physics and epistemology}

4:30 They say that Epicurus falls within the tradition of virtue ethics. {strongly disagree}

4:40 They say that both Aristotle and the Stoics make happiness the highest good! {strongly disagree}

6:27 They say that Epicurus is a version of hedonism that ends up as a kind of asceticism. {strongly disagree}

11:00 They say that animals/infants are used by Epicurus as an example because they do not overreach and thus they know their own limits,and this is an example of Epicurean limits. {This is probably not correct, so it is unfair to criticize Epicurus for something he did not say.}

14:13 They say that Epicurus advocated minimizing our desires. {strongly disagree.}

15:36 They say that the highest pleasure being tranquility, the state of not being bothered by desires, and that is weird. {Yes it would be weird if it were true.}

16:30 They say both the Stoics and Epicurus aim at tranquility, and only issue between them is whether we call that pleasure or not. {Strongly disagree}

17:36 They say that looking at the differences between Epicurus and the Stoics is the difference between a glass half full and glass half empty. {Strongly disagree}

18:03 They say Epicurus advocated both minimizing attachment and minimizing desire. {Strongly disagree}

18:33 They say both Epicurus and the Stoics accepted Fate's role in affecting us negatively, Epicurus just tells us that if we are sick we will be dead soon. {And of course they ridicule this superficial view}.

19:49 They say that Epicurus was in ataraxia even as he was dying in pain. {Strongly disagree.}

21:00 They think that defining the highest good as not being perturbed is very weird. {So they struggle with this again, but this is not what Epicurus said.}

21:45 They say that for Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy is to obtain a happy tranquil life characterized by ataraxia (peace and freedom from fear) and aponia (absence of pain), and that the root of all neurosis is death-denial. {strongly disagree}

24:50 They attempt to make sense of the definition fo the best life by discussing the alleged distinction between kinetic and katastematic pleasure. {totally off track}

25:43 They repeat OKeefe's criticism of Epicurus: OKeefe says that if we are in katastematic pleasure, and that is the highest good, what if we are offered a bon-bon? Would that not add to our pleasure? Then it is wrong to consider katastematic pleasure as the best state!! {So they struggle with that, and try to reconcile it by discussing "variation," but they are far off base from what Epicurus taught.}

26:00 They say that according to Epicurus the desire for variety is an unnecessary pleasure. {strongly disagree}

26:30 They say that according to Epicurus curiosity is natural, but not necessary {Strongly disagree}

28:24 They talk about Lucretius differing from Epicurus. {strongly disagree}

29:00 They say that since the Epicurean gods don't lack anything, they don't DO anything. {Strongly disagree}

29:25 They struggle with the idea that Epicurus could endorse anything ambitious as part of natural human functioning. {Strongly disagree - it is clear ambition is healthy}

30:30 They cite O'Keefe as rejecting the "realist" view of Epicurean gods - the view that Epicurus was serious that "gods" really exist. {Strongly disagree with Okeefe}

30:42 They cite O'Keefe as arguing that gods are thought constructs and laugh that this is really a stretch on OKeefe's part. {Here I fully agree with them.}

32:00 They argue over whether ataraxia is "tranquility full stop" or "tranquility in the natural functioning of the human animal" (which they attribute to Nussbaum). {This should be clear - the best Epicurean life is not "tranquility full stop."

34:30 They say that commentators argue about what ataraxia means, and say it is a paradox and it's hard to say what Epicurus meant. {It's true what they say about the commentators, but it is not hard to figure out what Epicurus meant.)

35:45 They say it is really hard to say what to make of Epicurus {strongly disagree}

37:54 They say that the quote "when we have no pain we have no need of pleasure" is in tension with other parts of Epicurus. {This is the heart of the problem in that they and most commentators do not reconcile the apparent contradiction correctly - we have no need of MORE pleasure because our experience is full of pleasure at that point.)

38:40 They say that Epicurean philosophy is weak because "pain" and "pleasure" are too abstract to perform what Epicurus wants them to perform. {Strongly disagree}

41:10 They ridicule PD 20 "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." {Strongly disagree with their interpretation, but they are making the same mistake over and over of defining the highest good as tranquility}

41:30 They say that according to Epicurus mental pleasures of philosophy, mathematics, and music are vain and empty pleasures because such pleasures do not belong to those who are naive and uncorrupted. {Strongly disagree}

42:00 They say that Epicurus held that any sort of higher, socially-dependent pleasures are vain and empty!! They say as evidence that cats and babies do not enjoy music!! {Strongly disagree}

42:40 They say that this is an example of how Epicurus was so different from Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, because those others taught the desirability of pursuit of knowledge and reaching out to others, but Epicurus did not. {strongly disagree}

43:45 They say that there is no reason Epicurus could not have been more sophisticated than he chose to be! {Strongly disagree - he was and they do not acknowledge it!}

47:00 They say that you can't reduce the psychological benefits of friendship to physical pleasure. {Strongly disagree}

48:46 They say that the Garden was in part a mutual defense and aid society. {This is probably in part true.}

Next session they will discuss their analysis and criticisms -- this first session was just supposed to be the facts!

For people who come across this who are new to Epicurus We just welcomed a group of new members today, and so I'd like to repeat a warning to them about podcasts like this. What you'll get here is the standard viewpoint of Epicurus, not the viewpoint of people who agree with Epicurus and work to interpret his philosophy sympathetically. If you want that, please consult Norman DeWitt's "Epicurus and His Philosophy."

In contrast, what you have here is primarily just a beer-drinking bull session, which is what they describe themselves as their goal on their website:

What are you guys trying to do here?

The Partially Examined Life podcast is our attempt to recreate the good old days when we'd meet up after a seminar to drink beer and talk shop or get some teaching yas out where students couldn't talk back. We're recording it to share our joy in "doing" philosophy with all who care to listen (and occasionally ranting bitterly about the profession that we so long ago escaped).

Here is the link to the Episode: https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2019/01/28/ep2…X_6jub2BLEENxX4

And here are my preliminary comments:

I haven't had time to listen but I have read the summary. Among the areas to dispute would include:

(1) "Epicurus was even more down on sex than his follower Lucretius; this obvious pleasure brings with it too many difficulties to make it worth pursuing." <<< Epicurus observed generally that things that can bring great pleasure can also entail great risk of pain - sex being just another example. Only an ascetic is going to automatically conclude that all sex is to be avoided, and Epicurus was not only not an ascetic, he said he did not even know how he would recognize "the good" were it not for the pleasures of things such as sex.

(2) "Epicurus thought that physical pleasures and pains are the basic, and that mental pleasures and pains are always referential to physical ones. Worries about death and loss are ultimately, on this view, worries about a physically painful experience. But does this view capture his support for friendship as a key good? First and foremost, he says, we need friends as a mutual support network; they can help us when times are bad. But we also simply enjoy their conversation, i.e.. the content of their ideas, and that doesn't sound very physical." << This is very superficial criticism. The starting point of all analysis is that nothing exists except matter and void, and the material is the physical. Everything in human experience stems from matter of one kind or another, including friendship.

(3) "Again, Epicurus prescribes a strict regimen whereby things like the love of philosophy and artistic endeavors shouldn't be pursued for their own sake, but only insofar as they help us achieve peace of mind" << "Peace of mind" is not the goal. If you prefer that, then drug yourself comatose. The goal is pleasurable living, and Epicurus says that over and over.

(4) "But Epicurus thought that our wants are fundamentally distorted by social values, so serious interventions are needed to help us rediscover our "natural" selves, to see the wisdom of a quiet life free from vain exertions." As above, Epicurus defined the goal as pleasurable living, not "a quiet life free from vain exertions." The writer is advocating asceticism which Epicurus did not advocate.

(5) "so he started The Garden, which was basically a cult to totally immerse people in his teachings and overcome any "irrational" attachments that members might have to their "vain" desires" <<< Insulting and purely ridiculous.

(6) "Despite the supposed connection between this way of life and a proper scientific understanding of the physical world, they were not known as good scientists (as the Aristotelians were)," < More insults. What's a good scientist, someone who lives better due to his discoveries, or someone who can count 576 varietes of mosquitos?

(7) "Likewise, they learned philosophy solely to defend Epicureanism against conflicting views, not to really understand those other views and try to objectively weigh their merits." Geez, what garbage.

(8) "Epicurus picture by Genevieve Arnold." I am sure G. Arnold is a wonderful person, but that is an atrociously ugly picture and a lot of time was wasted coming up with that.

Cassius started a new event based on info from Takis Panagiotopolis

Event

9th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy - Athens, Greece

9th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy

February 9-10, 2019, Cultural Center of Pallini, Athens

Free entrance

The Symposium is annually organized, with free entrance, by the Friends of Epicurean Philosophy Garden of Athens and Garden of Thessaloniki under the auspices of the Municipality of Pallini. The Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy takes place every year in February, because Epicurus was born in that month, and always in Pallini, because that particular municipality of…

Sat, Feb 9th 2019, 8:00 am – Sun, Feb 10th 2019, 8:00 pm

Cassius

January 28, 2019 at 4:01 PM

Quote

9th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy

February 9-10, 2019, Cultural Center of Pallini, Athens

Free entrance

The Symposium is annually organized, with free entrance, by the Friends of Epicurean Philosophy Garden of Athens and Garden of Thessaloniki under the auspices of the Municipality of Pallini. The Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy takes place every year in February, because Epicurus was born in that month, and always in Pallini, because that particular municipality of modern Athens metropolitan area includes the ancient Athenian demos of Gargettus, from which Epicurus originated.

In regard to what it says about the social contract, I think it says at least in part that Jefferson saw that where a society has too great an extreme of wealth from top to bottom, with the majority of people at the bottom, that those who are at the bottom can be expected to revolt at some point, so that the society had better take steps to address that inequality if the society is going to survive. No matter what kind of "contract" the plutocracy thought it had, the majority who were barely surviving are not not naturally inclined to honor it in the long run given their own desire for pleasure and feelings of pain.

HIram has brought the "Real Hedonism" website to my attention, and I am posting this link, but not with an endorsement. In my view, their approach is a total dead end. Am I happy to see websites or individuals embrace "pleasure" as the goal of life? Yes. Do I think it will do them any good without first studying the nature of life and religion and the universe and clear thinking, as Epicurus taught? No I don't. There's a good reason why the ancient Epicureans referred to themselves as "Epicureans," and not as "hedonists." The "pleasure is good enough" approach will meet the same end as all others who don't take the time to study the full picture. And indeed, by that kind of reasoning, converting to Islam and pursuing eternal pleasure would be a perfectly valid approach.

Rather than dish up empty assertions, contrast what you read there to what the Epicureans saw in Epicurus:

"Indeed mankind, in wretched bondage held, lay groveling on the ground, galled with the yoke of what is called Religion; from the sky this tyrant shewed her head, and with grim looks hung over us poor mortals here below; until a man of Greece with steady eyes dared look her in the face, and first opposed her power. Him not the fame of Gods nor thunder’s roar kept back, nor threatening tumults of the sky; but still the more they roused the active virtue of his aspiring soul, as he pressed forward first to break thro’ Nature's scanty bounds. His mind’s quick force prevailed; and so he passed by far the flaming limits of this world, and wander’d with his comprehensive soul o’er all the mighty space; from thence returned triumphant; told us what things may have a being, and what cannot; and how a finite power is fixed to each; a bound it cannot break; and so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn; his conquest makes us equal to the Gods."

https://epicureanfriends.com/wiki/doku.php?id=browne_1

The "Real Hedonism" website: https://realhedonism.squarespace.com/

Looks like an interesting page and I am going to try to go through it. Will be interesting to see if he gives me any pause in my firm commitment not to use the word "hedonism" to describe myself or Epicurus. There are so many aspects to Epicurean philosophy other than "pleasure" that it's probably always going to strike me as too dangerous, and not worth the effort to try to change the definition of the word.

Great post Florius, and I also agree with Martin's point. "Common sense" gets thrown around to easily, but it does indeed seem to me to be "common sense" that "moderation" as an inflexible rule is as obviously subject to exceptions as any other inflexible rule.

Every time I think about this issues I can't get out of my mind the Barry Goldwater line:

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in pursuit of justice no virtue."

That line sounds (sounded) so smooth, and in some circumstances probably does ring true, and yet there are so many issues with it!

Thanks Hiram!

Wow a detailed discussion. TWO of us living in Thailand of all places? First Martin now Florius?