Posts by Cassius

1-

Quote from Daniel Van Orman

"once the general happiness is recognised as the ethical standard

Yes this is exactly what is in contention and is not self- evident. Many people do not recognize "the general happiness" as the ethical standard, and if he is simply asserting it without some kind of proof then he is without foundation.

As to truth that applies to all places, times, and circumstances and it truly universal (throughout the infinite and eternal universe) I think we are far from being able to establish anything in those terms, especially in the field of ethics. The life of the "gods" is different from the life of "men" because of their circumstances, not because there is a universal force which makes it so. It is certainly possible to generalize within a certain set of facts, such as "all humans eventually die" and "death is nothing to us" but those general observations are based on experience rather than a force which would allow us to say that such and such "always must" be the case. That is the difference between reasoning by observation, while keeping in mind the limits of observation, vs attempting to call into existence "universal principles" which exist only in our minds and have no true existence outside our minds.

Diogenes Laertius: "They [Epicureans] affirm that .... there are two kinds of inquiry, the one concerned with things, the other with nothing but words."

Letter to Herodotus: "In the first place, Herodotus, you must understand what it is that words denote, in order that by reference to this we may be in a position to test opinions, inquiries, or problems, so that our proofs may not run on untested ad infinitum, nor the terms we use be empty of meaning. For the primary signification of every term employed must be clearly seen, and ought to need no proving; this being necessary, if we are to have something to which the point at issue or the problem or the opinion before us can be referred.

Someone wanting to research into this question could refer to Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" for a part of the Epicurean argument on this.

OK those are good quotes from Bentham on pleasure and pain. Do you know how he then reaches "greatest good for greatest number" from that, however? I am not aware of a way to do that other than reference to some Ideal which i think Epicurus would say does not exist, because strictly speaking there are many people whom we have no contact with, or are even our enemies, such that what is good for the "greatest number" would have no necessary relationship to us purely on the basis of number.

As to this:

Quote from Daniel Van Orman

"all truth is something that is 'true to us' or 'true to a normal human being in those same circumstances.'"

I absolutely agree. I believe this is called "universality"? The mormons call it "eternal truth" - a truth which is eternally true, no matter the circumstance, time, etc.

I do not think your conclusion there is correct, and in fact it would be quite the opposite. I think Epicurus' point is that there is NO "eternal truth" apart from the nature / properties of the atoms, so "universal truth" that is true for everyone at all times is an impossibility, especially in the field of ethics.

However I am not sure we are together. Do you agree with what I have said in this post about there being NO eternal truth (especially in ethics) or no?

Yes, welcome Clive to the discussion and to the forum!

Daniel:

As to "It talks about pleasures and pains, but I guess it never fully encapsulates hedonism." The issue is really "What is hedonism"? The word has no obvious clear meaning -- "Pleasurism," if that is the obvious meaning, and is ambiguous and unclear; Epicurus set out a full and detailed set of beliefs, but "hedonism" is a word to which there is no definite meaning -- that's the main issue.

"That's just my opinion, though." <<< That's really the issue. Epicurus and most Greeks start with the more basic question of "What is the good?" and they look for ways to logically prove that something is "the highest good" before they launch off in pursuit of it, You'll see that in the opening to "On Ends."

"I will start then in the manner approved by the author of the system himself, by settling what are the essence and qualities of the thing that is the object of our inquiry; not that I suppose you to be ignorant of it, but because this is the logical method of procedure. We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. This he sets out to prove as follows: Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict.

Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature. What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance?"

So in this kind of chain of reasoning the Epicureans first start off and ask: "We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else." They give the answer "pleasure" (which is a feeling) and as proof they say "that is what all animals do at birth before there is any possibility of corruption." They also point out as a second proof that absent feeling of some kind, the organism is dead. And they point out that we know these things by feeling alone -- in the same way we know that sugar is sweet, so there is no possibility of mistaken opinion corrupting our conclusion. (Thus "logic" is deprecated as subsidiary to the canonical faculties - 5 senses, anticipations, and feeling - which operate automatically and without opinion.)

Be sure to note here that in this "canon of truth," "truth" is not something give by god or as an ideal form -- all truth is something that is "true to us" or "true to a normal human being in those same circumstances." "Truth" is not something that floats in the air (Platonic ideal forms) or given by god (religious revelation) or existing as "essences" within the things around us (Aristotle). None of those alternative means of knowledge are true, according to Epicurus. The only "truth" is that which is real to us through our sensations/anticipations/feelings.

As to "hedonism" there is no accepted "author" or authority who can answer such questions or tell us what the "right answer according to Utilitarianism" is. Of course i might be fair to say that "Utilitarianism is what Jeremy Bentham said it is" but I doubt that you mean it that way; you are thinking there is an accepted definition and I don't think there is.

Now maybe Bentham defined "the greatest good of the greatest number" as the ultimate good of Utlitarianism. If so, we would need to look to see exactly how he stated that, but even if he said that, he's not advanced the ball at all because he has not defined "good." If we are asking "what is the ultimate good?" then to answer "the greatest good of the greatest number" is circular or even nonsensical. I am pretty sure that Bentham has not said "good = pleasure" but I am not an expert on Bentham or how he might have defined "good."

That's the kind of analysis Daniel that I am suggesting needs to be made. You'll find that Epicurus had a very clear set of principles which you can outline, and based on the answers you can line up basic positions on "What am I? (physics)" "What is the good?"(ethics) and "How do I know it with confidence?"(epistemology / canonics). You can basically do that with Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics as well, but the answers are much different.

Arete...eudaemonia... ataraxia... aponia and so on...well, IF you do not connect them with something pretty clear and a faculty given to you by Nature that are the feelings, just for the purpose to live a pleasant life... then bid all these words farewell as empty of meaning.

Since, Fg. 221. A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of the man. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul. Epicurus.

Ok the greek word arete (Virtue)... let's say the virtue of justice as an anticipation that created through your experiences and their consequences, and still are created in your life. What was your criterion of truth to judge RIGHTLY who was fair and who was unfair in your life? Who is lying and who is not ? And which of his actions are beneficial or not beneficial for you ? How you'll judge all the issues around you in accordance with Nature and you nature ? Please, do not say me of what makes me happy and what is not, because if you ask a donkey that is full loaded on his back climbing a hill, that donkey maybe would say to you that is extremely happy.

Frankly, I do not blame that donkey for that, since he does not examine who is saying lies and who is not. Donkeys do not study the Nature, do not fear death, do not know that one day will die. But if you load a donkey's back with a heavy load, yammering would say to you : Hey, mister you actions were against my nature : I'm not pleased....I pain (thrice I PAIN). and that poor creature will fall down in pains.

But what I say now ? Epictetus when he was a slave, as they say, he was tortured by his master Epaphroditus who twisted his leg. Enduring the pain with complete composure, Epictetus warned Epaphroditus that his leg would break, and when it did break, he said :"There, did I not tell you that it would break?"

Well, frankly THIS IS NOT the virtue of the pride and dignity of the Hellenes who fought for their natural and necessary, and for the purpose to live a pleasant life. This is not the self respect of a man who studies the Nature expressing his feelings of pleasure and pain. This is not Hellenic philosophy !!! This is an oriental cunning!!! This is a philosophy for SLAVES who are under the heavy load of Fate and Destiny are living in fully Apathy. These are not free and dignity men who want to live pleasantly their life. And who says that the genuine greek Epicurean Philosophy has any common thing with the stoicism is a total ignorant !

Welcome Clive ! Please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your background and interest in Epicurus. Thank you for joining us here!

Excellent excellent point Godfrey! for there to be "moral responsibility," philosophically speaking there has to be some source of that force --- either a creating god giving orders, or a realm of ideal forms such as Plato suggested.

That is core Epicureanism - NEITHER of those exist! But the question of their existence determines the answer to every question, because if they DO exist then they certainly would be controlling. The issue of whether they do or do not exist cannot be put aside - it must be answered FIRST (through Epicurean physics and epistemology)

Daniel I agree with Godfrey, and would add this as a summary point:

You wrote --
"Central to Utilitarianism:

- Principle of Maximal Utility: "the greatest happiness for the greatest number", love others as much as yourself

- Consequentialism: Actions are central to morality, morality of action = results of action and tendencies of results from action

- Impartiality: Don't use bias - value others' interests equally.

- Commensurability: Sum consequences of actions to determine whether its good or bad."

I think what I am reading is that you are very focused on the conclusions of the Utilitarian ethics. But to any Utilitarian who asserted these positions to me, I would ask this:

WHY?

WHY should the greatest happiness for the greatest number be considered a good goal?
WHY should I love others as much as yourself ? (Which in general I do fully reject )
WHY should I not be biased and value random people's interest as high as my own?
WHY should the SUM consequences determine whether something is good or bad? Why not just the consequences that effect me and my family and friends? Why should I care at all about someone who is neither a family nor a friend nor has any contact with me and them? By what standard is anything good or bad?

Also of those are deep philosophical questions that will vary depending on whether there is a heaven or hell, whether there is a god handing out rules, whether there is some ideal set of regulations somewhere to which I should conform, and on and on....with questions
of epistemology also (how do I know any of this is true? how do I know that there is a truth?)

I don't know that "Utilitarianism" answers any of those questions for us, does it?

I take that back - it appears Woltlab DOES have a user map option. Checking further now.

I need to find some kind of mapping / aggregation tool that hppefully allows people to create their own anonymous sign-in. I am pretty sure this forum itself does not offer it, but I will look.

Daniel that is a good start on an outline.

How do you perceive that Utilitarianism differs from Epicurus?

In my case, I know of no positions that are central to "Utilitarianism" other than the saw "the greatest good for the greatest number" that -- without a position on physics and epistemology, is hard to pin down as meaning anything in particular.

Yes definitely, if you think they are Ok with the publicity. I try to be very careful of the privacy of people so I try never to post anything without the permission of the people involved. But definitely it would be ideal to come up with a reference map with locations and points of contact.

No way we wait til 2030! It's been far too long a wait already. Surely by the end of 2020 at the very latest we can pull together something.

Talking to Michele today has reminded me that we need to pull together some kind of method for identifying where people are so we can work on finding mutually-workable locations.

Long ago I put together a section of the forum here to be divided geographically, but I bet we can do much better. Currently: Regional Epicurean Groups and Activities

I bet there this a way to do this graphically and make it into a feature of the forum. Presumably google maps or some other free service has a facility to pull allow people to mark themselves on a map and then provide a continuously-updated summary graphic. That we people could get an idea of how close they might be to pulling off a regional meeting. A sort of Epicurean Registry, but with good security and confidentiality to allow people to sign up without giving out their detailed person information.

If anyone knows such a thing, please let me know -- I will go looking myself in the meantime.

Your English seems very good -- very much more than adequate! And thanks for the link.

Yes I agree, but I this is an issue that I think it very important. I know that we all observe the emphasis on materialism in most people, and we see that they need to understand that it would be more efficient for their long-term happiness to put aside the materialism.

But among those of us who talk about Epicurus and understand at least the basics of the philosophy, I think we can also observe the reverse error, of thinking that living for simplicity is an end in itself. They take their eye off pleasure as the goal just as much as if they were pursuing pleasure in any other way incorrectly.

And I observe something else: that those people who seem to focus on simplicity also seem to combine simplicity with a passive attitude of resignation about what goes in in the rest of their lives and the world. Renunciation of materialism quickly seems to turn into renunciation of all social life and interaction with others. How else to explain the seeming passivity of people who like Epicurus but who seem to accept the idea that Stoicism is just another way to happiness?

We may agree with the stoics that living simply makes sense, but we do it so that we can remain independent of outside forces that would destroy our change to live as we like and pursue happiness as we like. We aren't running from emotion like the stoics - we are embracing emotions that make us happy and pursuing the joy of life while we are alive - which is our only chance.

Your general point is of course correct, Michele, but I think that Epicurus must have sensed the same concern I have for him to have come up with the statement VS63 "63. There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance."

That is a great idea. I know that there are two groups in Greece that hold regular live meetings. At the moment we really do not have any in the USA. Are you aware of any local groups in Italy or other areas?

Also Daniel, in regard to Godfrey's comment, have you sorted out in your mind whether you are primarily Epicurean or primarily "Utilitarian"? An outline of your thinking would help sort out the tension between the different labeling.

1- What kind of science major are you?

2 - " for the sake of accurate, precise language" << On this I am not so sure. Elli here likes to remind us that Epicurean philosophy doesn't fit neatly under an "ism" heading, and especially if what is meant by "hedonism" is "pleasure-ism." If we were looking for a larger umbrella term "Nature-ism" or something that is wider would probably be more appropriate, but I bet that is why the ancient followers of Epicurus were just called "Epicureans" since the philosophy has so many facets.

3 - i agree with all you wrote about formulating the categories in clear and appealing ways, but it goes through my mind a lot that there are profound implications of Epicurus demoting "reason" as not one of the elements of the canon, and talking so much instead about "Feeling." I think in the end we are persuaded of anything not so much by a dialectical reasoning exercise but by our personal "Feeling" that a thing is true. Of course that includes our observations through our senses, and also the "feelings" and the "Anticipations" that are part of the canonical faculties. The basic point I am making is that as we approach how best to introduce others to Epicurean thought, we ought to keep in mind that Epicurean thought is NOT a form of dialectical reasoning. Epicurus emphasized the importance of "feeling" (in a very broad sense) so I think we need to give at least as much thought to reaching people through a good "feeling" about the philosophy as we do chopping it up into logical parts. Remember how Lucretius talks about "rimming the cup with honey" as a means of getting across what is in some cases a bitter set of truths? I think that we ought to think about the implications of that perspective.

Also, good to talk to you right now, because as I type this Facebook is totally down!

More on the same topic as background, Daniel:

It's no simple coincidence that my icon is a Roman soldier putting on a helmet. I consider the rivalries and disputes between the philosophies and intellectual war, and I firmly believe that not everyone in the world has the best interests of Epicureans at heart. I think people like Cicero and Plutarch did everything they could, while maintaining their credibility, to place Epicurean philosophy in a bad light. I think the great majority of commentators since then have done the same, because they deeply disapprove of Epicurus.

That means that we have to take a fresh look at EVERYTHING, and accept none of the commentary (and even many of the translations) at face value. I don't think I would be here in the forum today, or even interested in Epicurus at all, if I had not come across the Norman DeWitt book that I promote so much, and seen how Epicurus stands apart and reacted against the earlier Greeks like Plato and Aristotle. There are so many modern presumptions about Epicurus (ie the interpretation of "absence of pain"!!!) that seem so wrong when viewed through the DeWitt perspective, that like I said it's necessary to start from scratch to really scrutinize what Epicurus really taught.

If you're read any of the DeWitt book you probably know what I mean, if you haven't yet, I urge you to take a look at it, because his perspective is truly different from OKeefe and Warren and most modern perspectives.