Posts by Cassius

Hi Pivot - You addressed Hiram but I will go ahead with my own comments to your post.

As to each of your analogies - ( the husband leaving the family; the wallet in the dark alley; the sociopath who escapes detection) all of those are difficult cases, but still not exceptions to the rule.

Let's up the ante - a sociopath develops a method of spending his entire life killing innocent babies for fun, but due to his method is never caught.

Does that change the fact of nature that there is no supernatural god? Does that change the fact of nature that there is no evidence to support any kind of "ideal form" or "essences" or "virtue in the air" to which to look for a standard, those remain invalid reference points.

What Epicurus was saying was that in the absence of valid "absolute" reference points we must look to whatever Nature gives us as a guide, and ultimately she gives us nothing more than pleasure and pain by which to judge the desirability of all things.

So in each of your examples it is entirely possible that results that we consider "bad" may take place, but that doesn't mean that there are gods or absolutes of any kind that tell us that we are right and the "bad actor" in any of those cases are wrong. If we think that some mechanism ought to be in place to discourage those results, then we organize communities and nations and police forces and armies, to enforce those rules, but in the absence of our doing so, there are no absolute forces anywhere which will enforce our preferences for us.

So that is one major aspect of what is going on here, about which Epicurus was realistic.

And so when you reach points such as "It just seems like this sort of valuation, as a means to an end, is the wrong kind." The key issue there is "wrong kind" - and the question is "Wrong by what standard?" Epicurus rejects false standards that do not really exist except in our minds, and Epicurus suggests that if we wish to look for "justification" for our own view of right and wrong, we can look nowhere else but to Nature if we
want some kind of sanction outside ourselves. And the only guidance Nature has provided - to all living things - is the faculty of pleasure and pain.

Pivot I agree with Hiram's post but would add this. If indeed your calculation of how to pursue happiness ends up not achieving happiness, then you have by definition miscalculated your means. And by concluding that there are a certain set of tools that should be pursued in themselves, rather than with your eye on the goal, then you are again making the classic mistake of putting means before the end, guaranteeing that you will in fact miss the mark (since the mark is not your goal).

It sounds like you have probably read the extended discussion of this topic under the name of Torquatus in "On Ends" or at Epicurus.net but if you have not that is one of the best explanations of this issue.

The essential point is that there is really no contradiction in the Epicurean procedure. Happy living is pleasurable living - the dominance of pleasure over pain over the course of a lifetime. And that includes all kinds of pleasure, both physical and mental -- every kind you can think of, including the pleasures of the relationships you are talking about. If you walk away from your relationships to pursue short-term hedonism, then you will be plagued with the regrets and emotional pains of the consequences of your action for the rest of your life. Epicurus also indicates that for example if you betray a friend your life will be thrown into such disarray at times you should give up your own life for that of a friend.

So I think an Epicurean would respond to your analysis by affirming two points: (1) that Epicurus was very clear that we are talking about long term net pain over time - not the pleasures of the moment, and (2) that Epicurus was also very clear that pleasure means ALL KINDS of pleasure, including mental/emotional pleasures of all kinds, and that indeed mental / emotional pleasures can often be more intense and of greater concern that physical pleasures.

So your conclusion that "virtue ethics" are of use to you in attaining happiness does not contradict Epicurus at all, as you would already suspect due to PD5 "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life."

But if you ever make the mistake of forgetting that virtue ethics are a means to the greater end of pleasure, and not an end in themselves, then you are setting yourself up for disappointment by "freezing in" intermediate tools that may work at one moment, but be disastrous at the next moment. And it is inevitable that no tool is ALWAYS going to work, because there is no "fate," no "god-given laws" that apply at all times and places and to all people.

And all this is why we quote Diogenes Laertius' formulation so often:

"If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end. Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point."

Please follow up with us on your thoughts in response to these points because this is one of the most important aspects of Epicurean philosophy.

Definitely the much more mature garden at the end adds to the allegory that this is a sort of "stages of life" illustration.

I am very pleased with the way it is going.

We probably need to prepare a list of the people who are portrayed, so at the moment it is (by panel)

1

2 - Zeno the Stoic

3 - Plato (?)

4 - Unclear to me - (the face in the mirage)

5 - Marcus Aurelius

6 - Christoper Hitchens

7 - Diogenes Laertius and Thomas Jefferson

8 - Lucretius

9 - Epicurus

10

Maybe time for a new FB thread to highlight the project as is now?

Excellent Nate!

Actually I realize that I don't recognize the faces on either side of Jefferson? If you need verified busts of Hermarchus or Metrodorus or a couple of other definite Epicureans those are readily available

Nate I really think that the transition from the baby animals to animals with adult Epicurean heads adds a lot! In the analogy we gain all the benefits of our adult mental powers while never leaving behind the part of us that remains strictly physical / animal. It's really an illusion to think that birth to death is the same as growing from physical to pure mind.

It is as if the allegory of the oasis in animal terms has a reverse negative allegory - -- the allegory of the illusions that we can or should turn into pure mental beings devoid of physics / action.

To some extent that is what Plato's cave stands for -- Plato wants to persuade us that we can leave our senses behind and become purely mental beings in touch with some illusional mental world.

Also: I probably shouldn't say this because I don't want to be negative about him, but I like the placement of Hitchens as the first of the mature correct heads -- as Hitchens did make some Epicurean statements but probably wasn't nearly as far along as Jefferson or certainly Lucretius or Metrodorus or Hermarchus. In that way he serves as a sort of transitional figure.

Here, I wonder if it is not the ILLUSIONS that have made our journey unpleasant ---- ? In fact perhaps the transition from the prior slide is that once we reach the summit of the mountain we found nothing but another illusion ??

" I do think the baby animals without adult heads might reinforce the point" ... without heads being the logical precursor to eventually developing heads like Jefferson, Hitchens, Lucretius etc

Following that last thought, it is possible that when we are young and strong that we particularly fall prey to climbing mountains for the challenge, then we fall back to religion as we fall off the heights.

i guess part of the answer is whether you prefer to go with the analogy that we leave the garden voluntarily (to climb the mountain) or whether we are deceived to leave it.

i think you are correct nate that any order will work, but it did occur to me to say that Skepticism might logically be the LAST one, because I think it is a common problem that people bounce to skepticism AFTER they see how the various schools totally disagree with each other - and they give up thinking that any one could be correct.

But i didn't suggest that earlier because I was thinking that the 'winds of skepticism" made a good link to why one would lead the garden in the first place. But if you came up with something else to explain leaving the birth garden, then yes skepticism might actually fit best right before the hero "comes back to his senses"

Ok only very minor edits at this point.

Panel 2 - "We may come doubt" should be "We may come to doubt..." [[[ Sorry - now I see you commented on that already]]]

Panel 3 - this is not a correction but a thought -- might "groundless conceptions" be better as "groundless abstractions"?

Ok, now back to panels one and two for conceptual questions:

- If I were explaining this diagram to someone, I would emphasize that when we say "we begin" we are referring to "at birth" / "as children" etc. I might still look for more in the diagram to emphasize this connection to explain why this is our starting point.

- OK, and this might be more important, the next panel introduces the fact that we are leaving / have left the initial garden of pleasure in our childhood. But what is it that causes us to do that? Is it because we are frustrated that "our perceptions do not always comport with the atomic reality with which we interact"? Someone might argue that an Epicurean might say the opposite, that indeed our PERCEPTIONS will NEVER contradict the reality with which we interact. Isn't it not so much that our perceptions contradict reality but that our IDEAS of what life "should be" conflict with the reality. Is it in fact not often true that the reason our ideas / ideals conflict with reality is that they are perverted/corrupted by the outside influences in the next several panels.

Might it be better to indicate that the winds of skepticism are what blow us as children out of the garden? Probably, but we are also blown out of our original peacefulness by the storms of dialectic, the mirages of religion, and the false heights of virtue.

In other words, I am addressing here - Should we make more clear what it is that causes us to leave the garden in the first place?

I think this is coming along VERY well! Let me check your other posts.

I hope others will comment! One minor thought going through my mind is that our stoic friends might quibble with the wording of the mountain of virtue description - they probably see their mountain not as much of a "dismissal of anguish" or a "sanctuary from the storm" as much as glorious height to be scaled or a "better" or "more worthy" way....

Nate I'm still wondering if things would be more clear if there was a character in the picture representing the "We" who is referenced in first bubble of panel one. On panel two, you have animals moving toward the oasis, but not one thing representing the "we." Would it be more clear if the "we" were represented by a uniform someone/something moving through the diagram and encountering those people? To some extent that's the way the cave analogy worked, with the main character moving from place to place in the landscape.

You know, the second panel has the Epicureans lined up facing toward the oasis with Epicurus at the end, and that works well I think. The first panel, however-- I'm not sure that it has the same kind of "theme" that pulls it together in the same way or shows that it is a progression (still thinking)

I think what you're going back and forth on is part of the issue. Somebody looking at panel one at first glance might think the entire theme is "Stormy Dialectic" due to the placement of that term in the center.

Maybe we're so close to the details that we need some fresh eyes to ask some fresh questions like "What is this all about?" or whatever. Maybe it might be a good idea to start a new post at FB with some kind of general question like "Give me your general thoughts on seeing this for the first time?" (not good phrasing) or something that would help us get an idea of what a new person would ask in order to get oriented.

And maybe that plays into the issue of how to fit the two panels together. One above the other with some kind of huge arrows pointing out the pathway? Or side by side?

I think somehow we're missing an in-your-face method of telling people what this is.

Nate I see the title "Allegory of the Oasis" is still there.... which is fine....I wonder if some other general label or box might still serve to tie the whole thing together and explain the scenario --- for example box 1 starts with "We" -- who is "we" and how might it be conveyed to the viewer what role the viewer should assume in reading through the progression?

Ok I guess to be rigorous i have to say I disagree with LD's post because of the "entirely due to" clause!

Definitely the denial of providence was huge, but I think the denial of an afterlife probably was at least as practical a reason for Epicurus to be condemned by religion, at least by the "priestly caste" part of religion, which uses punishment/reward in the afterlife as stick / carrot.

I've always wanted to read Dante but never found the time. I remember DeWitt referring to the punishment as more than just being in the sixth circle, but also including something about souls being confined in their coffins with their dead bodies (?)

Quote from Godfrey

It seems like many things in EP are not absolutes but are subject to each person's contemplation with respect to the Canon and the types of desire

I have come to think that that is one of the most important aspects of understanding Epicurean philosophy. In the absence of gods or of central points of reference within the universe or of "fate" which would serve as a guarantee that the same action in human affairs would always produce the same result, it doesn't seem possible that it is even possible that there could be a set of absolute rules that applies in all situations. That's a pretty disconcerting realization for those of us who (like me) were raised on absolute rules, but given the Epicurean view of the nature of the universe it really couldn't be any other way. PD10 is pretty stark in throwing this in our face, but all of the final 10 PD's essentially make the same point - that there aren't absolute rules. And that leaves as the thing that is absolute for us our sense of pleasure and pain and the "programming" which nature gives us at birth.

That's an excellent next step Nate! I am going to think on it tonight to see if I have anything else. Were you going to use a particular animal to dramatize the movement along the path?

Just a few comments ---

2 - "When your anticipations do not complement reality..." Possibly "comport with reality" or "agree with reality" or "conform to reality" ??