Posts by Cassius

EXCELLENT Point Elayne. That "might" be the same as intensity, but probably not.

I think the "vessel" analogy is always useful so we're talking about something that indicates "how much of the vessel is occupied" by the activity.

The trick will be somehow creating enough columns and labelling them sufficiently to accommodate all of the factors that you want someone to think about.

Thanks Godek. Are you good with Google docs and spreadsheets? Why don't we go ahead and actually setup a spreadsheet format as Hiram initially suggested? Your list of considerations is certainly a good start, but probably in terms of visualizing the final result setting up an actual spreadsheet divided into columns would be better.

Maybe Hiram pictures it differently but I am picturing a spreadsheet generally divided into two columns. And it's important to decide whether we are making a spreadsheet to analyze a single activity, or a list of activities that would then be ranked according to score. I am thinking the obvious choice is a LIST of activities, ranked by score.

Down the left in the margin would be column for the description of the activity. Then the left side would be taken up with a series of entries for ranking the elements. Sort of like this:

Godek could you also set up a "view only" link? I tried to view it but it is wanting me to sign in. I may be able to do that but not sure. If you set a view only link that should allow anyone in.

For example, in listing any pleasure, such as for example 'dinner on the town' I would thinks someone would need to consider --

- the duration of the pleasurable experience while it is ongoing

- the expected future physical pleasure (or pain) from the experience

- the expected future mental pleasure (or pain) from remembering the experience or from other longer-term ramifications of the dinner

- the "intensity" of the pleasurable experience (some kind of personal ranking system of intensity)?

- the repeatability of the experience (can it be done again in the future? how often?)

but those are just general categories and each one breaks down much further. It's probably also not possible even to come up with firm categories. But by listing the possibilities it opens up the issue to visualization.

in the end the entire exercise is necessarily subjective, but it would stimulate thought for the possible favors in "priority" to be listed.

What are some possibilities besides "duration" and "intensity" to describe the feeling?

Yes it would be interesting to think about how to rank the pleasures and pain. Each line on a spreadsheet could represent a particular pleasure or pain, but there would need to be multiple columns (or other method) to rank each one according to important factors such as duration, intensity, and ______???

Exploring what those factors (what columns to include and how to quantify them) would be and thinking about how to quantify them would be helpful, even if in the end it's ultimately *impossible* to quantify them symbolically.

I even wonder if in the end it is detrimental to try to quantify them. But working through the exercise of showing the *difficulty* of quantifying them would itself be useful, just to establish that point. (IE, If it is difficult of impossible for a single individual to quantify their own rankings, then it is certainly impossible for one person or group to prescribe the rankings for another person or group.)

to link, just click on the #3 (as in your preceding post, at the top right of the post) and you get a permalink that you can copy and paste anywhere. The forum software translates forum links into the name of the post, but it's still just a normal link. If you have any trouble with it let me know.

I see this works on desktop or phone.

Thanks Joshua!

Joshua I think all my life I too have been particularly struck by mortality and the knowledge that life is short. As I have gotten older and had a succession of pets come into my life and pass away, parents, friends, etc., that awareness has just sharpened.

Very nice!

Given that definitions are so important in many of these issues (such as atheism),

maybe we in fact need to plan a preface that addresses the "definitions" issue that runs through so many of these questions.

In fact that may be a good way to start it regardless - to point out that because many of the important words are so ambiguous, we want to define exactly what we mean in as clear terms as possible.

It has been called to my attention that in many circles the term "free will" carries some kind of supernatural or religious implications, and that in those circles the terms generally used are "hard determinism" or "soft determinism" to indicate that no choices are entirely without preceding influences. I agree that it is important to be clear about what we mean in any context.

For comparative reference, I pulled out four translations of Lucretius Book 2 where this wording generally becomes an issue:

1. Daniel Browne edition of 1743:

2. Hugh Munro translation, late 1800's:

3. Cyril Bailey translation, 1930's

4. Martin Ferguson Smith translation, Hackett publishing (current edition):

Here is an excellent post by Elli with which I completely agree. I post it here to call attention to the part that I have underlined:

Quote

The term of determinism denotes humans' unresistible desire to have something stable to feel secure, but it is the same issue that hides behind the fate, necessity, god, and the absolutes. The term of indeterminism denotes the instability and leads to chance, randomness and chaos that makes us, the humans, to not feel secure at all. It is an issue how we feel and judge the first causes of the phenomena that caused them in the materialistic reality. The idea by Protagoras that "Man is the measure of all things" it is in consistency with the field of existensial psychology. It leads to the responsibility that we the humans are capable enough to do such actions to eliminate the obstacles that are against to our goal of pleasure, because we know for sure that the only we have is a unique life to live it in eudaemonia.

Imo Epicurus neither is a determinist nor an indeterminist, he is a probabilist. He measures the things in consistency with Physics, Canon and Ethics to eliminate as much as he can those probabilities that are obstacles to our goal of pleasure. The only obvious stability for Epicurus is pleasure that is a faculty to us by Nature, as he also declares when we do not have in our life eudeamonia we do everything to win it. For doing everything to win eudaemonia springs from the inner self that has the ability to visionalize and his future without to be afraid of it, because he knows what is happened to the past and what is happening to the present. For this reason the children the most important that are offering to us is the joy of present that is connected mostly with the future. For a society to loose its children it is like to loose its future. Something that happens to my country in the financial crisis as we abandon all of our hopes of the future by abandoning our children for leaving away from our society and welcoming children from other societies. This does not lead to the coherence and the future of a society. This does not lead to social contracts with fair laws that can be accepted by the like. Sorry, but I know what is happening around me. The immigration issue leads to chaos as it is an issue without control and without ending. As well as, the issue of banking financial system leads to chaos as the monetary system became a gambling, and has nothing to do with the past that there was a kind of a control and stability as it was connected with the gold.

So, the only solution that comes in our sight again and again is elimination of the desires and the absence of pain (feelings) to lead people of our societies to apathy and misery for accepting an inexorable determinism of our fate. No, this is a miserable slavery.

However, the inner self for Epicurus measures according to the past, the present and an expectation of future experiences and how many trusted friends has around for not feeling lonely and insecure, and for the present and for the future. To have real friends, means you have allies in life for feeling strong enough to fight against all the obstacles and these probabilities that are against to the survival of your common society. But for having friends it is an issue how to realize what friendship is, Epicurus said that is an immortal good. Today this great value has a value of a dime.

For the issue on future here is how Epicurus points out it in his letter to Meneoceus : We must then bear in mind that the future is neither ours, nor yet wholly not ours, so that we may not altogether expect it as sure to come, nor abandon hope of it, as if it will certainly not come.

I agree with everything Elli wrote there but I want to comment on the phrasing of this part:

Display More

In the underlined section, note the switch from referring to pleasure to referrring to eudaemonia.

Compare that to this part of Diogenes of Oinoanda:

Quote

"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...."

Yes I know that eudaimonia / happiness were terms used by Epicurus himself in addition to "pleasure" but the point I would make is that without clearly tying happiness to pleasure, the implication creeps in (and is fully entrenched in modern society) that "happiness" is not necessarily related to pleasure at all, and that indeed pleasure gets in the way of happiness.

I think this is a huge communication issue that we constantly need to address. If we don't, all our discussions fall on ears that are worse than deaf -- ears that are programmed by opposing philosophies and religions to disparage pleasure. And maybe even worse, our words are used against us to infer that what we mean is that our goal is something other than / different than pleasure!

It appears Diogenes of Oinoanda saw the same issue.

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?

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."